[Franz Bieberkopf]

Bill,

Since we’re talking about how technological innovations open up fields to more people, it’s probably worth including this article on Jonas Mekas (as he approaches his 90th birthday), looking back on his work (including his 8mm and 16mm pieces from the 60s).

https://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/dec/01/jonas-mekas-avant-garde-film-interview?INTCMP=SRCH

“Mekas prefers to document what he calls “the small, intimate moments that describe daily reality without being poetic””

” … when my eyes were opened to what others were doing, it was only a small step to start filming.”

and

“We simply wanted to do something else that could exist alongside Hollywood, but they did not want to let us in. They had built walls around traditional cinema that could not be broken so we had to operate outside those walls in whatever way we could.”

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Bret Williams] “But other than having a mixer, (the only way to do live audio in legacy), X is immensely a more powerful device.”

Bret,

Yes, this was the nature of the other thread too – if you ignore or denigrate features outside of your preference, and focus on strengths and features within your preference, I have no doubt you can come to the conclusion you have.

[Bret Williams] “For me, being able to actually SEE the waveform adjust up and down while I make changes to the tracks live and on the fly by adjusting them directly in the timeline is more powerful”

I’m starting to think there is a fundamental divide between those who mix visually and those who mix aurally.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Bret Williams] ” It’s definitely more powerful than 7 in the audio Keyframe arena.”

Bret,

You obviously missed the audio discussion last week.

FCP7 has a mixer which you can control with a mouse or a control surface (and thus, multiple tracks simultaneously and real-time); the mixer adds key frames to volume and pan parameters.

Great feature, and serviceable implementation. I think it’s been there since 3 or 4.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Richard Herd] ” I always look forward to your posts, even if I don’t always comment.”

Richard,

Thanks. If you like them now, just wait until I sort out homonyms and spelling.

[Richard Herd] “The Optical Flow slow motion is better than 7”

Thanks – that’s something I may check out. The thing is with Apple software though, I find they develop a feature and then never touch it again. Adobe seems a bit more likely to revisit and improve features over time. (Lightroom features are a recent example of this).

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Michael Sanders] “The point is, the customer doesn’t know what they want because the don’t know what’s possible.”

Michael,

It seems to me in the examples you’ve cited that some clever people managed to apply some new technological knowledge to well articulated needs. Obfuscating those two things may lead to a pithy quote that feeds a hero narrative, but doesn’t do much else.

Not everyone is articulate or insightful about needs, but if you trace back through this forum there’s lots of good examples of people who are. (In less politicized times, they may have been called “professionals” – I think their referred to as “niche specialists” now.)

If you haven’t already, read the linked material.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Previously:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/23810

“The myth that customers cannot articulate their needs is perpetuated by innovation success stories such as the microwave, the Sony Walkman and (more recently) the Apple iPod and iPhone. The story goes something like this: “If you had asked customers, they couldn’t have told you they needed the iPhone. Therefore, it must be true that customers cannot articulate what they need.” But there’s the rub: However brilliant it may be, the iPhone is not a customer need. The iPhone – like the microwave and Walkman before it – is a solution to a customer need. When companies get solutions and customer needs confused, it confuses the role of the customer and the company in the innovation process. Customers articulate their needs; it is up to the company to create a solution. … When customer needs are defined in a manner that distinguishes them from solutions, not only can customers articulate their needs, but those needs become the valued foundation of the innovation process requires.”

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Richard,

Thanks.

[Richard Herd] “Been editing in FCP since 2003 and never thought to drag a sequence into the viewer.”

Yes – it sort of speaks to the depth of certain functionality in FCP7 that there are things many experienced editors don’t know it can do. There was someone (experienced) a while back complaining they couldn’t solo audio in it (though there is a “Solo Selected Items” function right there in the sequence menu). There have been other examples too.

This suggests one of the recurring undercurrents on the forum – we all tend to be a bit blind to features, functionality, and requirements outside of our own workflow, or even just our habits.

(The recent “FCPX audio functions are better” thread was interesting in this light, because it essentially amounted to the idea that if you ignore the audio functions that are lacking in X (like a mixer) and focus on the audio functions that are better (like plug-ins) then you can come to the conclusion that FCPX audio is overall better). (The comparison was, of course, chronically, once again to 7).

[Richard Herd] “I hope that answers some practical stuff.”

It sounds like much of what you’ve talked about is based around colour work, and I do very little of that.

But if I’m reading your correctly, there is little difference between compound clips and sequences beyond their location. I may look into it a bit more, though to be honest my motivation for exploring X right now is quite low.

Thanks for the write-up, though. That kind of thing makes this forum really worthwhile.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Chris Harlan] “… want a mixer over universal plugins”

I’m amused at how beaten down and humble the editors have become. Because it is just beyond software and hardware to have both a mixer and decent audio plugins …

[Chris Harlan] “… to be able to use a controller. I think it was FCP6 that added it …”

I think it was earlier – like 3 or 4 – but that might just be bad memory.

I really don’t understand why people do not want to listen while mixing, and champion stop and go, adjust and check, over listen and react (with more than one track! in real time!) I don’t doubt that adjusting ranges works for people, I suspect because it is visual, but I want to use my ears for sound and react.

No doubt this will be the same crowd championing a touch interface mixing “revolution” at some point …

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Craig Seeman] “That the bulk of the facilities are holding on to FCP6,7 is telling. Neither Avid nor Adobe is yet a compelling economic proposition.”

Craig,

As one who is still using 7 for the forseeable future, I’d amend your comment:

Apple, Avid, Adobe have no compelling propositions on any level.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Michael Hendrix] ” 2013 will be the year of transition for my shop”

Michael,

I’m sure I’m not the only one who would want to hear about your experience – please consider posting something once you’ve managed to transition. (or in the middle of it!)

Franz.