[Glen Hurd]

Yes, it’s almost like they have mastered the art of delivering art that limits how we make art.
Heh 🙂

[Glen Hurd]

I’ve been pondering that myself and have entertained the possibility that FCP X was really a way to allow Premiere to flourish with its own ecosystem – eventually luring them into the app-store machine. After all, the people who supplied food and beer at the famous gold rushes in early America made more money than those who were actually there looking for gold (or so I’ve been told). Set up the atmosphere for buying and selling, take a small piece of the action, and you generate money while you sleep. Actually, the banking systems operate on the same principle, but that’s another topic.
However, that doesn’t explain Apple’s actions entirely. So I still come back to my belief that Apple’s “pro-division” is staffed by professional engineers who, through their own creations, have become “democratized” artists. Talk about irony – heh.
That would be the topic to a very interesting documentary, wouldn’t it? When toolmakers become “artists,” and then become their own consultants.
There’s an old saying about being your own lawyer – maybe it’s time for an update.

That said, I think there is one flaw in Apple relying on 3rd party involvement for mission-critical features. Every time 3rd party developers (3PD) contribute to a product, they generally add nominal value to it. But consider if a basic product has no value to me until a 3PD becomes involved, then the strength/value of that basic product becomes completely dependent on the 3PD – which are generally smaller and vulnerable to being bought out, getting bored, or simply collapsing.
Look at Automatic Duck.
If OMF export is critical to my workflow, I could have adopted FCP X a month ago, with a purchase of AD to meet all my needs.
But today, what are my purchasing choices? Can I buy FCP X today and get OMF? Not as far as I know. Unless I plan on following a convoluted process with FoolCut and the Adobe product line, or abandoning OMF completely – which isn’t going to happen.

This is a serious flaw that is beyond dereliction of duty – it’s a brick wall.
So, yeah, the FCP X team needs to change their strategy on this . . . unless they’re already overworked and have no choice in the matter. But, that, too, is a different topic.

[Glen Hurd]

That is too funny. There’s a toy I actually want to play with!

[Glen Hurd]

Yes, but they are going to change all that in the near future. In the meantime there’s a report floating around the tech section of the NY Times stating that as a work-around, you can put 2 separate video files into each 3D file, and using stereoscopic goggles, you can multicam the 3D content to achieve a 4-camera multicam workaround until this gets resolved. 😛

OK – joking about the NY Times bit.

[Glen Hurd]

Here is a sample, 25 minutes in.

“10 years ago you would only assume that if you go to a concert, there’s a performer on stage and has an audience of 10,000 people – that they’re performing to. What’s happened with the media atmosphere that we are in now, is that you go to this concert and there’s 10,000 people there – the difference is that everyone believes that they are the artist, and everyone else is the audience. The problem with that, of course, is that everyone else thinks the same.” – David Girhammar, Pop Magazine
“When you fall into the trap of confusing the artist and the audience – when you believe that the audience knows more than the artist, is more authoritative, is more creative, is more talented – then art ends. Then you have something else – you have cacophony. You have simply an apology for radical democratization. And it’s wrong to confuse democratization in cultural or political terms with the creation of art – which is, by definition, for better or worse, an elitist business.” – Andrew Keen, Author.

oops 😉

[Glen Hurd]

Avid (and others) may sit tight until FCPXML supports more features than the current iteration. Currently, you can’t even export and import an FCPX project and preserve your audio levels. Let alone support flip/flop, blending modes, etc. for video. If FCPX can’t even roundtrip with its own implementation of FCPXML, I don’t see why Apple’s competitors should be obligated to fix it.
Ironic that foolcut is a more feature-rich strategy for opening up FCP X than Apple’s own FCPXML is. But irony has always permeated the FCPX commentary.
As to the barbarians repeatedly attacking this gem, I think you should feel safe. Our attacks are the nature of debate – its how ideas get fleshed out. Speaking of politics – that too is about the combat of ideas. The constant cry for compromise is always sung by those who are being beaten, and never mentioned when they are winning. Yet, if in the act of being beaten, their ideas show up as shallow and short-sighted, isn’t it better they stay beaten? Should we celebrate survival of the fittest? Or is it someone else’s turn?
But here, in this forum, you can find easy support for Apple, percolating under the surface. Look at the commentary regarding their recent roadmap to support features that every other self-respecting editing system has had for at least 5 years. The celebratory exhilaration surrounding Apple’s radical revelation to support . . . wait for it . . . to support . . . broadcast monitoring . . . has left us all breathless. For different reasons of course.

Don’t be too offended. Some of us feel like we’re watching the “future of editing” spin around like a leaf caught in a gurgling eddy – our curiosity piqued by the curious recognition that the wealthiest of companies seems confused by its own intentions.

Until they can settle down, you can hardly blame anyone else for not.

[Glen Hurd]

Hey Kim, my point wasn’t to kick old farts in the ass – especially since I am one, heh 😉 I was just pointing out that FCP X may not be the panacea for those using video/edits on the web either. I admire your enthusiasm, but I’d like to cautiously point out that success isn’t easy.

How can you make money on the web unless you can draw a consistent audience? And since millions are trying to draw millions, you will need a “special ingredient” to capture that audience and keep it.

The easiest method is porn, but that has its own limitations, and may not lead you very far in terms of developing a lot of professional talent (there’s that word again – “professional.” Maybe it should be “marketable” instead. Is FCP X “marketable” software? Yeah!!! I like that !!!! OK. So I may be a little ADHD myself.)

In one corner, there is the ingredient of “wow.” I would put FreddieW in that category. But his ingredient takes a lot of focus. You can tell he spends a lot of time studying film – probably with the sound turned off – to evaluate what camera moves evoke the emotion he’s looking for. He then exagerates them – for humor – adds in some very sophisticated effects, and even uses some exotic photography platforms – quadcopter in his latest. That’s a lot of work. And he does have a partner and staff working with him each week. Also, his workflow would keep him from being able to use FCP X, because FCP X is clumsy when sharing content with other programs.

In the other corner, there is the ingredient of “personality.” There are a lot more people in this category because it isn’t as research intensive – although it still requires a measure of intelligence and deep knowledge. HuskyStarcraft is a classic. Fast talking, self-depricating humor, and fairly in-depth knowledge of StarCraft while doing game-play analysis. Throw in a music video once in a while, and you’ve got another 6 million views.
So, when a personality driven show shows disdain for FCP X, I do a double take.
In fact, if I saw a youtuber celebrating FCP X, I’d “bring” him here as well. I just like getting input from those outside our community, to see if Apple really targeted them as well as we think they tried to.

Either way, it is a lot of work to gather an audience, and keep them. The more tools you have, and the better you know those tools, the better your odds of succeeding. In the most basic sense, video is about manipulating someone else’s mind – “should I watch Freddie’s video or join my friends on Battlenet?” And every day your audience is getting more and more jaded.

If you can pull it off, there is a lot of potential for you. Jon Favreau was recently on Jimmy Kimmel’s show, joking that his internet star-power took off when he did a cameo with FreddieW but “. . . in a movie that I directed with Harrison Ford in it . . . it’s like get away . . . ” Of course he’s joking. But there’s no doubt Freddie and Brandon are on a great trajectory, but FreddieW isn’t an example of someone using an easy path to fame and fortune.
I don’t think there is an easy path.

[Glen Hurd]

C’mon Andy. I have a man crush on you, too.

I didn’t criticize you for not considering him pro. I would never do that . . .

But I did bring him up as, what I think to be, a typical user of video that Apple could have been easily targeting.
Whether you like his style or not, isn’t it at least interesting that he feels Apple missed the mark for his needs as well?

What I was responding to you on was the implied message that if he’s ADHD (and not using that style to show off his intelligence and timing) then what’s there to learn from his position? That’s what I was responding to.
And it was really a little, little dig at you. I could try peppering my comments with smiley faces, but that would start to lose its meaning, too – just like the word “pro.” 🙂

I brought him up as an example of someone I think is a classic target for FCP X – someone who needs more than iMovie, but wouldn’t need the complexity of FCP original. Someone whose ingest needs are probably all file-based. Someone whose audience can be reached completely through the internet. Someone who doesn’t have difficult quality-control issues to consider. No special effects. Pretty much fits the demographic, right?

Considering all those factors, he has a pretty annoyed reaction to the “solution” aimed right at him. So the (implied) question is “why?” Did his experience with Premiere and FCP 7 color his language and interface skills enough that FCP X becomes its own barrier? Is the simplicity of a normal timeline something we take for granted, but something a less experienced editor might find essential? That would be ironic, wouldn’t it?

Most people are looking at FCP X from a pretty experienced perspective. Here’s a chance to see someone coming at it from the other side – yet having a very similar reaction. I find that intellectually interesting.

Instead, I see responses about him being annoying and a poster boy for ADHD. I didn’t post the link as a recommendation to his channel – my son just introduced him to me today. My son’s 12.

But it is an example of Apple missing a target. Maybe it’s just one guy. Or maybe it’s a thousand. At least I have an example of someone giving an honest assessment who doesn’t even know about The Cow, or even have any loyalty to Apple. ie. He’s not a FCP instructor/training facility giving me his opinion on the future of editing. (That’s called conflict of interest. See the difference?)

As to the “pro” issue, I’m getting tired of a term that means nothing. If “pro” simply means to make money or a living, then it loses it’s value in language, because it basically describes everything. The minute you make money with something, it becomes “pro” and, ergo, should be respected. If I write a brochure in Simpletext and get paid for it, does that make it “pro” software?
In the colloquial sense, no.
Pro football means the best of the best. Pro soccer – the same thing. It’s supposed to define the elite.

So how would you describe good software that is quite useable all the way to the top of an industry? How about those who can push that software to its limits and beyond – as part of their own experience? Can we say that Avid is “hotshot” editing software, and that those who use it are “hotshots?”

Hmm. This could be difficult.

Heh.

[Glen Hurd]

He is going somewhere, I’m pretty sure. 🙂 He just knows his audience.

But aside from his style, I find it ironic that his simpler needs still leave him feeling cold about FCPX. That is part of the mystery of Apple’s “target” and whether they really researched it or simply plunged in.

While we’ve postulated that Apple was going after a more internet-driven ecosystem, I think his comments are interesting. Remember, he switched from Premiere to FCP original because FCP was easier.

Here’s someone as successful as FreddieW (in terms of viewer draw) making comments on FCP X – so my ears prick up, as I’ve always assumed they were Apple’s easiest audience – remember iMovie import?

Toby did mention that one of his friends was going to teach him how to use FCP X – but even they were saying it’s only good for vlogs.

[Glen Hurd]

You’re right – why would we want his thoughts on anything. He’s no pro, right?

PS. I’m going to try, but anyone who can get James Cameron to vlog with him may be hard to get to. 😉

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx8L20N6U-M&feature=fvst

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.