Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
Hunter,
This is good info – I have not read of any other experiences using FCPX for long form projects.
I’d suggest, once you’re through the gauntlet, putting together a post of your experiences in the forum if you have the time. I would certainly be interested in hearing about them, and I’m sure there would be others.
Many thanks.
Franz.
-
[Richard Herd] “There’s no straw man there, which means he builds the contradictory point of view in order to knock it down.”
Richard,
His view is that Apple’s FCPX is revolutionary. He paints a character of those who do not share this view:
Apple was truly aiming where the puck will be with FCP X, and many of us dislike where the puck is going to be.
…
Like Luddites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite) we believe this new technology was a death sentence to our much loved craft.
…
Let us not be Luddites.(See my post below for a clearer picture of Luddites and their aims.)
The implication is that those who do not view FCPX as revolutionary are Luddites (with his meaning and negative connotation) and a bit emotional about it all.
I’ll be clear: I don’t know where “the puck” will be, and can’t say that I dislike the future he seems to know. I don’t feel FCPX represents any kind of threat or death to a craft (loved or otherwise). I am also not convinced that FCPX is a good tool for me (though I am still undecided).
There are many here who are just assessing FCPX as a tool, and it comes up a bit short in that assessment.
[Richard Herd] “… it’s really difficult for anyone who hasn’t actually worked (not toyed with, worked) in X to say anything convincing about it or critique it …”
This is true to a limited extent (though “difficult” does not mean impossible); on the other hand (and this was not true when FCP first debuted) there is a fairly broad, varied field of choices right now for NLEs. A piece of software now has to actually attract my interest for me to invest time and energy into learning it.
This is change and progress, too.
Franz.
-
It took me a while to find this as I could not remember much about it.
from the article:
The word “Luddite,” handed down from a British industrial protest that began 200 years ago this month, turns up in our daily language in ways that suggest we’re confused not just about technology, but also about who the original Luddites were and what being a modern one actually means.
…
Despite their modern reputation, the original Luddites were neither opposed to technology nor inept at using it.
…
But the Luddites themselves “were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices. “They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods.”
Franz.
-
Hunter,
Thanks for this.
I’d be interested to know how you’ve been organizing your sequences (projects) and how many you’ve used as you edit/organize and if that has presented any challenges.
Also, how large do you projects tend to get? Do you notice any slow down or sluggishness with large projects?
Thanks again.
Franz.
-
T. Payton,
You’ve dragged out the usual straw man arguments (once again): that those who are critical of FCPX are acting out of emotion and fear (fear of change, fear of technology, etc.), and further that Apple is somehow “right” about the future just because they’ve done something “new”.
If you’ve been following the forum here, you would find a wide range of challenges to both those assertions.
[T. Payton] “Apple made a bold move to propose that there was a simpler way to edit, manage, color correct, etc.”
You got this part right … Apple has made a proposal. The other part of the equation is how users have, and will, react.
You point to a success story like Illustrator, but you neglect that there are many stories of failure – which will FCPX be?
Franz.
-
Simon,
Yes, thanks for adding that. I just found this thread quite vague on what the actual issue is and whom it might affect; the talk of DSLR models exacerbated that.
Franz.
-
Richard,
It should be stated that the issue is with the way PPro reads data written by another piece of software – QTChange. If you don’t use that software, this isn’t going to affect you at all, regardless of what DSLR you use.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “Have you read David Lawrence’s excellent article”
Indeed I have – those original posts were what motivated me to join the forum.
[Walter Soyka] “Basically, … [etc. etc.]”
Yeah, not doing much to help me. The thing is I completely grasp the mechanics of it (and the dependencies model), just not why people see such a difference between the absolute and relative aspects (with respect to the timeline). But I think your previous response hit it when you said that from an output point of view it looks the same, and perhaps the model in my head relies on the “output point of view” and so sees no difference.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] ”
FCPX makes this explicit. Every clip is now essentially relative to the first clip of the primary storyline …”Walter,
This is sort of where I fail in understanding the two models – can’t one say that the “absolute time” model essentially relates all clips back to the start time? Or to restate: in what way is the “absolute time” model not dependent on the first frame of the sequence?
But:
[Walter Soyka] “FCP7’s design is generally to preserve a clip’s place in absolute time at the expense of its connection to other clips; FCPX’s design is generally to preserve a clip’s connection to other clips at the expense of its place in absolute time.”
This seems the clearest, most concise articulation of the different models. Great!
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “The classic timeline data model is all about placing clips freely in absolute time. The clips have no codified relationship to each other.”
Walter,
I’m not sure I agree with this, or at least not without qualification – clip relationships are dependent on or defined by absolute time.
Likewise, I would qualify this:
[Walter Soyka] “Editorial now involves explicitly managing the relationships between clips in an edit in a way that doesn’t exist with other apps. FCPX is built for defining the relationships between clips, not defining their position in time.”
I take exception because I wouldn’t object to defining editing as “managing” or “defining relationships between clips” (on one level). It seems clear there are different kinds or ways of managing those relationships in X (eg. clip connections), so it’s expanded the kinds of relationships possible (and their importance) while abandoning other kinds of relationships (tracks).
On the other hand, I think I still might be missing a piece of the theory of X – I can’t see much difference between the idea of an “absolute time” timeline and a timeline which references back to the longest clip or clip amalgamation – meaning I can’t really see how that difference impacts on the timeline in any meaningful way. Clip connections, parent-child, object models – I can understand those differences. I’m just not sure what the practical ramifications are for what we’re calling absolute and relative time models, or more to the point: a ripple still looks like a ripple in either model.
(I might be conflating data models with editing theory here, but where else better to do this?)
Franz.