Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] I’ll add to the compliments to you Jeremy (and those here in general): This forum offers so much more perspective.
That’s from my post down below – but if it isn’t clear, I think this forum is great!
My comment in post above was referring to PH orig blog – I’m not sure what it contributes.
Franz.
-
[Oliver Peters] “Why is Smoke even part of this discussion?”
A better question is this: Why is FCP7?
People are looking for a way forward. Good comparisons are hard to come by; good discussions, harder.
Franz.
-
Jeremy,
I suppose.
But to me this discussion really metastasizes from that original concern that most editors face: the issue of time.
It’s funny to me that most here seem to fall back on the old chestnut of how important “storytelling” is (my thoughts on that word for another time) – but that takes thinking and feeling.
I’m not sure that Phillip’s post (or FCPX) really addresses that issue in the broad ways suggested.
“Two times faster!” makes a good headline though.
To wit: sometimes negotiating a longer schedule might be the answer (and should probably be considered). I have turned down projects with unrealistic schedules (though, it is true, I don’t always have that option).
Franz.
-
Phillip,
If you read my post below, it outlines why I don’t think you’ve addressed the concerns of editors as expressed in the original video.
But I’ll add this here since I think it underscores the debate:
[Philip Hodgetts] “I then pointed out that those who are using FCP X are reporting that it is much faster for the work they’re doing than the same work in FCP 7.”
This seems an odd point of departure for considering NLEs.
Two year old software? It is not a continuation as many people are so careful to point out. Why not compare to the other options out there? I suppose it was the comparison that “a lot of people you knew” were making, but you should probably consider a larger perspective on a post that asks if FCPX is “favoured” on a blog about “The present and future of post production business and technology”.
Franz.
-
Salesman does sales job – and quite muddled at that.
That post is so muddled, I don’t know where to start.
Fortunately (and not unexpectedly) most of the good points have already been made here by the usual suspects. So I’ll try to keep my thoughts here short.
For all the excess that Aindres exhibits here (https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/22909) it is no more ridiculous to claim, as Philip Hodgetts does, to know the psychology of Apple when he says “Apple understands the pressure that’s on production folk.”
I’ve read a little bit of his blog on relevant issues since the release of FCPX. He does like magic numbers: “200 to 400% faster”, “universally” no less, from “a lot of people” who have been “using Final Cut Pro X on a huge project”.
Of course all of this grinds down to the details: what constitutes a “huge project”, how many people are “a lot”, and most tellingly: what exactly is it faster at doing? … and faster than what?
“The present and future of post production business and technology”? – not really. He seems to be comparing certain functions of FCPX to 2 year old software from Apple (that has been neglected for longer). A more useful survey might be a comparison of how different software packages compare in terms of “the pressure that’s on production folk”. It might make it clearer why he feels FCPX is superior. (Their concerns are about having time for the edit).
But imaginary numbers aside, it’s the other bit that is more telling: what is it doing faster?
The examples he gives seem to include transcoding and “polish”. Faster transcoding is unquestoinable valuable. No transcoding is even better. Canned “polish” can be left for another discussion (already started here by others).
No one has yet invented an NLE that can make you think and feel faster.
The thing is, if he’s really onto the speed game, those “efficiencies” in time – where does he imagine think that “extra time” ends up? In the edit room? Can anyone give me an historical example of anything where efficiencies in production ended up giving the worker “more time”? That efficiency becomes standard expectation on the producing end. He might be arguing with his vague, framing comment about the “democratization of video” that the new producers-as-editors will benefit from that – I don’t know, that link isn’t clear and is also contradicted by his focus on “huge projects”. But it’s also not his summary statement at the end:
“It seems to me that if getting to a cut faster – and getting to a more finished cut while you do it – are the realities of a lot of editors lives, then Final Cut Pro X has been designed perfectly for the modern, professional edit environment.”
He muddies these waters too in the comments by stating that there are only 25,500 “film or video editor” in the U.S. according to government statistics; but that the “market” is more than that. So is he speaking to the pressures of the “professional” market (his scare quotes) or the “editing market”. If its the latter, he should adjust his rhetoric. (Shane Ross makes this exact comment).But this comment from Philip (in response to Shane) is absolutely ridiculous (and quite bold in its rhetorical acrobatics):
The “working editor” is a construct and real only to you and those like you working in the niche business that is film and TV.I’ll be frank: I would be embarrassed to say to anyone that I work with that new software has made me “200 to 400% faster” – it shows a real lack of valuing what it is that I do as an editor, by belittling it and trying to use numbers as a crutch. (Let me be clear – I don’t mind talking about faster transcoding, faster distribution, etc.)
I’ll add to the compliments to you Jeremy (and those here in general): This forum offers so much more perspective.
-
Jeremy,
Have you really never negotiated on points of schedule?
Franz.
-
Mark,
I’d be interested to know what it is about FCPX (shortcomings aside) that makes it preferable to PP . Organization? Interface?
Franz.
-
Giles,
This forum is a bit hot right now – I’d try posting on the Apple Support Forums or even here in the FCP X Technique forums.
The only suggestion I have is to see if you have a project you can recover from time machine back-ups.
Franz.
-
[Paul Dickin] “Why do I keep getting this sinking feeling that what Apple means by ‘broadcast monitoring’ may not be at all what people in this forum mean by the words…?”
1. Because Apple isn’t telling.
2. Because you’ve been burned by Apple before.
3. Because they claim “broadcast quality” – and that seems to leave possibly just enough semantic wiggle room.
4. Because broadcast video seems to be an afterthought to AV Foundation.
5. Because it might end up that you’re holding it wrong.Franz.
-
[Bill Davis] “It talks about software as a constant work in progress – and how rather than yesterday’s start-build-finish model of a program, it’s more a “start – get to useful status – then revise and refine for a much longer lifespan” model.”
Bill,
I think you’re a bit off on your “yesterday’s model”.
I don’t know much about software design and such, but isn’t this the way software has always been approached?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_good_enough
Not exactly what he’s talking about in the cnet article, but it comes down to the same principle – ship now, refine later.
The idea of software as a service (not product) has been a glint in eye of every major software corporation that has ever been anthropomorphized. Which means it probably isn’t good for anybody. (Think about sudden changes in terms of service and use Facebook as your starting point.)
Anyway, it would be great to hear about the issue from anyone with software experience.
Franz.