[Franz Bieberkopf]

Stuart,

You’re trotting out all the usual dismissive straw man arguments:

– Anyone who isn’t enthusiastic about X hates Apple
– “Old time” editors are frightened of technology and change

You missed a couple:

– Apple knows better; if Apple makes it then it’s superior
– Everyone is just being too emotional

Since you seem to have missed it, I’ll point out that there is actually good critical discussion going on in these threads.

[Stuart Short] “Wow… to put any value whatsoever into someone’s opinion that admits to having never actually USED X and cites missing features that in fact aren’t missing, merely because he’s a great editor?”

For the record, he clearly states he’s talking about the june release when XML and SAN support were missing. He also states these features were added in the september update.

Also, he states he hasn’t used the software “in a real world situation” (not that he’s “never used” it). I don’t know whether you’re expecting him to adopt unproven software on a multi-million dollar project, but if you are then you’ve shown something of your character and experience.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Bill Davis] “In broad terms, it’s PULL verses PUSH content. (In the sense that Hollywood and the networks used to have to PUSH their content out in the marketplace for consumption. Today, the world is moving rapidly toward PULL consumption.”

I’ll second the question; I agree that distribution methods are changing, I’m not sure that this changes editing per se.

I suppose you can argue that editing software that is quicker and cheaper serves this market, but I’m not sure how FCPX makes an exclusive claim on either of those qualities.

Youtube also seems to be the domain of largely unedited videos (or editing of the absolute rudimentary variety). Further, it is also the domain of very polished, big budget media “pushes”. So to me I don’t get a clear picture of how that distribution model (which encompasses many production models) impacts on editing needs (except, again, that for most people the cheapest, fastest way will be the winner).

But I consider them all “movies”. They are still images and sounds put together in time. I’m not sure a distinction needs to be made unless you want to talk about them in terms of revenue models.

As for “content” – I’ve always regarded that as a term invented by accountants and distributors, but that’s another post altogether …

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

… to continue with the off-topic.

https://www.sonicscoop.com/2011/10/27/avid-announces-restructuring-lays-off-10-of-workforce/
(… a different David Weiss, I assume?)

This article has a bit more detail and context – including a bit on the recent Pro Tools update.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Bill Davis] “Most people don’t edit movies.”

Bill, I am not sure what distinction you are making here between movies and movies, but the rest of your post is more to the point:

[Bill Davis] “The larger play is increasingly “direct to an audience” via the web.” etc.

I think it’s generally accepted that FCPX is aimed at this market – it’s clearly a consumer product and I don’t think you’re going to find an argument in this forum on that point.

The debate here seems to be why Apple chose to label it as “Pro”.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[shawn Bockoven] ” These students have no NLE baggage …”

Shawn,

It’s more accurate to say they have no experience or expectations.

Reducing an editor’s experience and knowledge to nothing more than “baggage” is a bit emotional, wouldn’t you say?

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Jim,

… well, you certainly do seem enthusiastic.

I have to disagree with you about hardware faders, though. I find they allow and enable the user to manipulate more than one track at at time (where in most software you are pretty much restricted to one track at a time) as well as allowing quickly changing focus while you’re listening. Further they provide a record that can be adjusted manually with keyframes etc.

If I’m not misunderstanding you, it seems that FCPX requires a sort of listen / stop and adjust / listen work-flow in terms of volume graphing.

When I get to a certain point with material, I prefer to be listening while I re-actively mix (the “live” mix)(thus the question about real-time volume balancing). I use the FCP 7 mixer for single track work and sometimes a Mackie or Behringer controller.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Jim,

I’d be interested in more info too – specifically how FCPX deals with real-time volume graphing without a mixer (I assume you can keep several volume controls available?)

Also how you might speculate control surfaces might be integrated in future.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Bill,

From your description, it seems like the work you did could have been done with a number of different pieces of software – it speaks to the utility of many off-the-shelf solutions today.

However, this bit catches my eye:

[Bill Davis] “And with the new database stuff, what I can see is that each time I return to do a gig for a client like this, I would increasingly have ALL their projects, all their keywords, all their graphics and all their footage at my fingertips with nothing more than a plugged in drive and on my laptop. So starting it in X is something I see as an increasingly “incremental” approach to building my editing base around the new meta-data approach.”

You seem to value building a library of projects and media for use in future.

You may want to examine the record that various companies have in terms of how they value past projects and past formats.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

David,

This is a derail but I’d like to know if you have a contribution to this thread:

https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/132/860962

Though my trial has now expired I couldn’t get PPro to work with my Matrox. My impression is that problems are common. I’m inclined to wait for the next upgrade to see if the situation improves. Any insight would be appreciated.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Jeremy,

Thanks. I did read your post. So far as I understand it (which I think I do) it seems useful. A couple of responses (some of which already brought up by Herb Sevush):

Keywording
While it’s true that I do spend time labelling my sequences as I break them down, the process of keywording seems like an extra step to me. On the other hand, I still log with pen and paper. I’ve tried on different occasions to adopt a form of electronic logging – nothing has stuck yet. I mentioned a suspicion of keywording in terms of its utility as a logging tool; nonetheless it seems useful.

Compound Clip – An Extra Category
As far as I can tell, the Compound Clip seems to be something between a sequence and a clip … is this third category useful? I thought FCPX was supposed to simplify, and this strikes me as an additional complexity. But it raises the question – it isn’t a sequence, so I want to know what the limitations are (ie the qualities that make it a compound clip and not a sequence). Is this just a workaround when they realized that sequences in the browser might be useful?

[Jeremy Garchow] “… how do you see FCPX prevent you from being able to use a a sequence to organize your thoughts?”

An important question. Perhaps it doesn’t prevent me. But I’m interesting in software that does more than simply “not prevent me” from working in a preferred way – it should aid and expand the possibilities of my workflow.

I’m quite confident I could find a way to edit on a moviola or in imovie or premiere elements and make the tool work in some way. There just isn’t a compelling reason for me to try. That’s where FCPX is.

The meta data implementation seems interesting. And completely compatible with tracks; I think (hope) we’ll see similar features expanded in Premiere and Avid. Roles also seem interesting and useful. And completely compatible with tracks. The idea of sticky clips or connections or grouping (or, indeed, “nested sequences”) has been used in DAWs as I have previously pointed out and I’d love some sort of implementation of that in my software of choice.

Franz.