Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
Charlie,
So, details of mechanics aside, here’s my more fundamental reaction.
The group you’ve move contains many audio clips that start before and continue after picture.
The example as you’ve illustrated it seems to imply that once the group is moved (and picture gaps collapsed), the move (let’s call it the “editing decision”) is finished. But in fact this editing decision isn’t finished by just moving the group. (Well, unless it really was, which I consider to be a minority case.)
Looking at your timeline, it seems to me that much of your audio probably has to be reconsidered. Does the audio that precedes the group picture still work (as it did before)? Does the audio that follows the group picture still work (as it did before)? Broadly, these clips are more often than not (more likely “almost always”) going to need to be adjusted, in order to finish this particular “editing decision”.
A comparison in execution between two systems should probably execute the full editing decision in both systems.
Franz.
-
[Charlie Austin] “And yeah, you’re right about that last clip breaking sync. Didn’t even notice. I put it down to my trim tool carelessness. :-)”
Charlie,
I’m more alarmed by the fact that you can slip clips within a group so easily – I thought they were more reliable. Grouping is one feature of PPro that I find attractive, but I haven’t experimented enough to discover that shortcoming …
Franz.
-
[Charlie Austin] “it won’t screw up sync”
Charlie,
Yes, I understand; this wasn’t really why I was asking.
I’m sort of fascinated (astonished?) that “video priority, always” as a design choice wasn’t more apparent before (and hasn’t been discussed anywhere).
(If I’m understanding you correctly, then compounding sort of constructs an implied slug video track, even if there is no video track in the compound.)
Fascinating.
Franz.
-
Charlie,
I’m also interested why you chose to use the trim tools to place the clip groups (rather than clicking and dragging).
Also, if I’m reading it correctly, your last trimming action actually breaks the group (or slips sync) (… can’t read it but it might be labelled “Bug xxxx 12” clip). Is that true? If so, not good.
Franz.
-
Charlie et al,
… also, now that I review this, there’s this question:
I am assuming from this demonstration (and others) that X always prioritizes picture when “collapsing” the timeline – ie it will shuffle sound in order to abut picture elements (and never the other way round, prioritizing audio). Is this true?
Franz.
-
Charlie,
Were any of the other clips grouped?
Franz.
-
Charlie,
One might ask why there is no discussion (or video example) of clip groups in PPro …
Franz.
-
[Chris Kenny] “This comes from an Apple briefing; it’s not clear it’s from SCRI. Apple would presumably have independent methods of determining something like this. Where are you getting the information that it includes free trials and doesn’t include upgrades?”
Chris,
What’s your source?
If you’re referencing the Phillip Hodgetts / Larry Jordan discussion, then you should spend some time reading their blogs (and comments, including those from Craig Seeman) as well as the discussions here after.
But if I recall it was some Apple spokesperson, in a Las Vegas hotel room “pointing to” SCRI figures. So it wasn’t a claim from Apple.
It’s a good marketing strategy – because if you can get some “sciencey” sounding numbers in there, people will repeat them …
Franz.
-
[Chris Kenny] “FCP is still, according to the SCRI survey over 50% of the NLE market, despite being Mac-only. And most of the Avid deployments I come into contact with are Mac-based as well. It doesn’t seem that implausible that the Mac is 75% or more of the video editing market.”
Chris,
As you’ve insisted (more than once) on this “report” of “data” I’ll provide the necessary references – this has been covered here before, as you well know – I’m surprised to see you treating these guesses as if they are real numbers.
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/32115I’m amazed how people will just repeat numbers as if they are data, regardless of their meaning or value.
Some highlights:
– The 54% figure you’re quoting is FCP7 + FCPX.
– The comparison of “more FCPX seats” included free trials and was to FCP7 seats – significantly not including upgrades (surely the lion’s share of FCP installs)
– The sample size is unknown – either 1874 or 2500 depending on which quote you want to pull, but that’s the total for 6 different market segments of post (it’s unknown if all segments report purchases of NLEs.)
– They extrapolate from their samples to represent “the market”, but …
– Their statistical methods are unstated and unknown.
– These fuzzy guesses are almost a year old.If this is the source of your claim that they have “more seats of X installed than FCP” then you’re reading the “data” incorrectly. If you have another source, please publish.
If you’re just looking for pretend numbers to use – then use Tim’s 10 million. It sounds more impressive.
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/36504Who is SCRI? I did a bit of a search (one name rounded back to the Cow, can’t remember which) – are they a good source? I know they solicit participation in their surveys with iPad giveaways, …
What are the FCPX numbers? Apple isn’t telling. No one knows.
But really, I thought it was all about good tools for good work? Who cares how many are using it?
Franz.
-
David,
I’m not so surprised, as this lines up with my own anecdotal observations.
I would be very interested to hear more about your observations and interactions around this very interesting “transitional” phase.
Franz.