Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
[Richard Herd] “I see the confusion is that “best” can be construed as “better than PP” or “better than Avid.””
Richard,
I see. To be clear, I understood “best” as meaning it is FCP X’s best feature. (I’ll leave others to brew that controversy.) And I’ll leave DRW to respond regarding his own statements, but I was responding to this:
[Richard Herd] “I would be curious why folks think it is not faster for a feature or a documentary.”
“Faster” is a comparison. What are you implying it is faster than?
Franz.
-
[Richard Herd] “What I said has nothing to do with any other NLE: The more footage a project has the better X is at doing what X does.”
Richard,
This may or may not be true, but it does not follow that this makes FCP X “faster” than other NLEs. (If you were not comparing it other NLEs then you need to explain.)
[Richard Herd] “… the more footage you throw at X the better X is and therefore it can be used on large projects.”
I’m still waiting for reports of performance under load. Someone said they had about 60 sequences at some point but I’ve not read reports of more than that. Clips and sequences seem to stress NLEs in different ways and the design has to accommodate high numbers of both for my workflow.
Franz.
-
[tony west] “If a client is paying by the hour, and they are paying more because a editor is using a program that is not 64 bit, seems like they would complain. Or just go someplace else.”
Tony,
First, the review (still needed in 2014) of the benefits of 64bit:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/44437If work bogs down, people want to know what it is that causes delays.
Outside of specific tasks (ie transcoding) I’ve never had producers aware of what software or hardware might be faster or slower. If we talk about “editing”, software almost never comes up. I have heard producers talk about “fast” or “slow” editors, but even then that’s pretty rare.
Franz.
-
[Richard Herd] “The design of X is meant to cull through massive amounts footage.”
Richard,
It’s generally true that NLEs are designed with this in mind.
[Richard Herd] I would be curious why folks think it is not faster for a feature or a documentary.”
The inverse question is at least as interesting – why do you think other systems would not be faster?
Franz.
-
[Chris Harlan] “I still truly enjoy working with MC.”
Chris,
Of course, I posted the above knowing full well that there are those using it daily and enjoying it. No doubt some (but by no means all) of my issues would have been soothed by habit.
For me, it was a constant aggravation, relieved only by the promise of invoking the literary wrath of Aindreas.
Franz.
Edit: (to paraphrase the dystopia) I was quit when I came in here; I’m twice as quit now. Even if it means being one of the little people.
-
[David Lawrence] “how many people do you think Apple has working on specialty software that accounts for less than 1% of their yearly revenue?”
[Aindreas Gallagher] “It’s hard to get a sense if apple are going to do any of that.”
Another (so far unmentioned) implication from my post the other week is the drop in revenue from Final Cut Pro.
The implications of that graph are a revenue of probably a couple hundred million dollars per year in 2010 for FCP7, and something like sixty million in 2013 for FCPX.
Then measure that against the development evident in the FCP6-7 upgrade.
Franz.
-
[Steve Connor] “Faster it isn’t!”
[Steve Connor] “… the general speed of the software is faster than 7 as well.”
[Steve Connor] I would argue, from experience, that it is faster than FCP7 on long-form.”
[Steve Connor] “… PPro CC2014 … is also much faster than FCP7 on a long form project.”
Steve,
As I’ve argued elsewhere speed is a reference to certain features – certain functions can be timed and compared between different software implementations. Without naming the specific functions, things get pretty vague and subjective (which is also fine) and on that count Final Cut Pro 7 is fast, and perhaps the fastest. (Your experience may vary here.)
Through my experience on the project cut in X, I can say that nothing fundamentally made a difference to the speed in execution of that project (on either micro or macro levels) except the background transcode. In a project with assistants prepping (including among their tasks, transcoding) this is of lesser impact.
I’ll also state that part of my frustration with Media Composer (the part that was user error, no doubt) was the constant feeling that I was not operating as fast as I could think and respond.
I have no doubt that you experience your editing as “faster” with FCP X and I have no reason to question that.
[Steve Connor] “Not having to transcode is a big timesaver to start with …”
The issue of transcoding only saves time if your workflow is better without an editing (“mezzanine”) codec. There are workflows that are better if you transcode and it is not a given that every project should be editing in camera formats.
Transcoding media is still a viable (and in some cases preferred) workflow.
Franz.
Edit: for clarity, I take the speed question to be quite a separate issue from being “up to speed” (ie. learning the software) which is where these comments seem to be leading.
-
[Bill Davis] “In order, …”
Bill,
Likewise …
[Bill Davis] “A – It’s 30 in Cupertino for corporate stuff. I’d expect PR Operations also happen in the hundreds of other operations they maintain worldwide.”
You would expect so. it would therefor be surprising to find that it isn’t hundreds. (Unless you’re referring to “operations” as events and such and not staff.)
[Bill Davis] ” I have no special insight about Jobs or Momentum. But it makes strategic sense”
What I found interesting was the specifics (i.e. what the 8 groups are and who does what) – not the generalities of strategy (about which we know little beyond this article). While you may have know what Bill Evans does, and that he was paired so closely with Phil Schiller, I’m not sure why you would expect “anyone” to know that.
[Bill Davis] “C – that stuff is “team building” 101.”
I’m not sure of your definition of “team building” here – I think you mean hiring? (That is not common usage.) Anyway, I’m not sure what it is about your understand of Cook vs. Jobs that lead you to expect one would bring the operations in house where the other wouldn’t, and one would poach PR talent where the other wouldn’t. This is quite aside from the question of the identification of the PR firm (which I guess you knew before as well?)
[Bill Davis] “D – To answer the MacWorld Magazine question, absolutely.”
You’ve outlined that you understand the reasons Apple expanded their relationships (with blogs etc.). It doesn’t necessarily follow that you would expect magazines to be cut off. And certainly most readers would be surprised that Macworld is cut off from preview hardware – why do you think no one would be surprised by that?
I think in general there is a lot of unknown, if not surprising, information and insight in the article.
… or, as Tim put it:
[Tim Wilson] “I think this article is a big deal: an unprecedented look at one of the most distinctively characteristic dynamics within an uncharacteristically distinctive organization. […] So please, no poo-pooing this as non-news without discussing what of this has been previously reported, and not just surmised. I see a bunch in this article that not only flies in the face of previous assumptions, but also provides details that I sincerely doubt have ever been published before. I invite anyone to please point to specifics where this isn’t the case.”
Franz.
-
[Bill Davis] “… the stuff you called out is precisely what I would have expected.”
Bill,
30 people seems tiny to me; what is it about Apple lead you to expect such a small cohort?
What is it about Jobs gave you insight into “Momentum” as one of 8 teams? You didn’t expect other areas of focus?
What is it about Tim Cook made you know he’d be poaching PR people where Jobs didn’t?
I don’t read Macworld much, but did you expect they’d been cut off from preview units?
Franz.
-
[Bill Davis] “If any of this surprises anyone, THAT should be the surprise.”
Bill,
I’m not sure where you were set up for “surprises” (I introduced it as “broad” and “interesting”) but maybe you knew it all before reading.
Since you’ve raised the issue, here’s some of the things I found surprising (or didn’t know):
– “There are only around over [sic] 30 PR employees in Apple’s Cupertino offices, with another few dozen-some individuals scattered around the world …”
– “Inside the [Product Marketing building] are the following separate teams of employees: Momentum, Mac, Corporate Communications, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, and Events. …. The Mac team is led by longtime PR executive Bill Evans, and is one of the larger PR groups. Mac covers all Mac hardware and software including OS X, consumer Mac apps, and professional apps. […] and Bill Evans works with Senior VP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller.”
– “When Steve Jobs was at the helm, the buck stopped at his office for even the smallest PR minutiae.”
– “There was an “exodus” in Apple PR after Jobs died in late-2011, explained multiple current and former Apple employees, mirroring departures that made bigger headlines in other departments. … When Tim Cook officially took the reins at Apple in late 2011, “he started informing the PR group that Apple needs to become a friendlier company.””
– “While Apple still works with external agency Media Arts Lab of TBWA on print, digital, and TV marketing efforts, … Apple is “aggressively” poaching select members of Media Arts Lab for its in-house team, but not undertaking a full-on corporate raid.”
– “Over the years, Apple has expanded early product review opportunities to technology websites. … Just as the chart shows Apple expanding review hardware access, it also shows Apple subsequently taking away access. […] Macworld … has not received early hardware since the launch of the first Retina iPad. Speculation suggests that less than entirely positive interactions between the publications and Apple’s PR team led to the loss of early product access.”
Franz.