Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
Steve,
I’ve discussed my process previously as well as the model for editing in FCPX, but I’m not looking for responses to that here – I’m genuinely curious about how people approach the Primary Storyline question.
Franz.
-
Christian,
Thanks for the link – I don’t really monitor the techniques forum and I had missed this.
David Lawrence‘s suggestion here is genius – I can imagine any given “storyline” as having multiple tracks.
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/344/3871#3930
… utterly off-topic but interesting.
Franz.
-
Craig,
I thought the crop feature on that camera looked interesting in that it seems to imply that at full crop there is no line-skipping. That might be over-interpretation on my part but I immediately wondered about the implications for moire. (Certainly not an ideal solution, but it is the first thing I thought of).
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “Simply selecting a Rec. 709 profile for your monitor will not make it accurate.”
Walter,
I hope you’ll consider doing a real (article level?) critical analysis of the FCPX monitoring solution when it is finally announced / included. I, for one, would love to hear what you have to say about it.
Franz.
-
[Craig Seeman] “Apple would want the blessing of facility based users if they want FCPX to fly with some credibility as soon as it’s released.”
Oh Craig … I can’t help but think you miss Aindreas when you say things like that.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “… Apple’s raison d’être …”
… summarized in a handy chart.
(via arstechnica – a bit out of date but the point stands).
Franz.
-
[Bill Davis] ” I kept seeing it as the writer having a single construct of what “the customer” is.”
Bill,
I’m not sure at all the thoughts in the article require this. I think the writer claims that people can be articulate about their needs – I don’t really see any claim that those needs are going to be unified or consistent it any way; that sort of assessment is left for the problem-solving end of it.
Franz.
-
Where to start with this … I’m no business or marketing student but I think I’ve read a few things recently that are germane – though this might not be as coherent as it could be.
I think it’s important to note that Apple seems to have approached both FCP and FCPX in terms of cost – they offer them as cheap alternatives to what is out there. Is it an accepted given that “Apple doesn’t compete on features” or do I need to find a cite … someone help me out here.
There was an interesting article about Google Plus a while back – talking about features vs. products. It seems to me that apple’s strategy (again, in a consumer market) is to shift video editing more to a feature of their platform, less a product on its own. As has been repeated many times here, Apple is a hardware company (and a media distribution company but that’s another topic).
https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222547/Why_Google_will_become_Google_s_only_product
But the root of the discussion is really about innovation – whether FCPX is an as-of-yet unrecognized innovation (some would say “revolution”) or a failure. I’m thinking about this article from a “Shake Insider” who was reflecting on FCPX by looking back on the way the Shake acquisition was handled. He recounts how:
“… Steve told everybody point-blank that we/Apple were going to focus on giving them powerful tools that were far more cost-effective than what they were accustomed to… but that the relationship between them and Apple wasn’t going to be something where they’d be driving product direction anymore.”
https://digitalcomposting.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/x-vs-pro/
I’ve been bothered by the much referenced Gretzky quote that Steve Jobs apparently used (cite, anyone?) about “skating to where the puck will be, not where it is”. It is, of course, a variation on the Henry Ford quote. It’s bothered me because I’ve seen Apple’s last 10 years as a slow transformation into what they really aspired to be: the American Sony. The quote that Jobs was really echoing was Akio Morita, Sony’s founder.
In his 1986 book “Made In Japan” (in discussing the Sony Walkman, I believe – but it may have just been a general idea) he said:
“There was no need for market research. The public does not know what is possible. We do.”
(As an aside, I think the a more extensive comparison of Apple and Sony is probably quite interesting as they have a professional video division and are also involved in media distribution – but that is for another day …)
However, I’ve posted all of this just to introduce the article that I thought was relevant to the discussion. That article is here:
https://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2011/03/16/innovation-matching-needs-and-solutions/
Ralph Ohr is speaking to the cliché I’ve talked about above (He is actually quoting a marketing article by Lance A. Bettencourt)
“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.”
One of the things that I like about this is that it is clear about how to judge innovation. Something is not innovative simply because it is new or different. To call something “innovative” is to judge – to assess how it addresses problems and needs.
Franz.
-
[Oliver Peters] “I think what all of this points to is that we can no longer (and shouldn’t) place all of our eggs in one basket”
Oliver,
I think this is an interesting point (and it’s been discussed here before). The drop in costs of software and hardware supports this approach (though we do seem to be reaching some sort of plateau in that respect).
On the other hand, it does suggest that software should be evaluated on how well it functions in the context of collaboration.
When FCPX (one might say, “proudly”) can’t open legacy projects while competing NLEs can, it does seem to suggest a certain counter-collaborative philosophy. While it’s hard to count them out until they figure out what they really want to do with XML, what I’ve said above does align with their consumer strategy.
It’ll be interesting to see what comes of the Adobe / Auto Duck collaboration.
Franz.
-
[Anders Haavie] “There will be a big update in January.”
[Craig Seeman] “Apple announced a major upgrade coming this quarter.”
[Andrew Richards] “Early 2012” does not mean January.
Anders and Craig, I think you’re both being optimistic. This is the company that took “summer” into late September. I think you have to read “Early 2012” as being “before mid-year”, and any release before then as being “ahead of schedule”.
Franz.