[Glen Hurd]

I can be positive . . . no, really!! 😉

You’re welcome, Dave. So many words get lost in the jumble on the page – no matter how many breaks we use to create clarity. But hearing an insightful discussion keeps complex ideas alive and manageable. Much appreciated. Especially with this topic.

[Glen Hurd]

[David Roth Weiss] “but no intelligent person can resist trying to interpret hieroglyphics, so here we are…”

Brilliant!!! So true 🙂

And great podcast, btw.

[Glen Hurd]

I feel like we’re giving Apple too much consideration. It’s like a committee of linguists studying a recently discovered collection of free-verse, spending days discussing the potential insight and irony of this genius, while, unbeknownst to them, it’s actually the meandering words of a child – signed by a playful parent – e. e. cummings.

This isn’t meant to diminish anything written here. David L’s comments could/should be collected and used with every “Intro to Editing” course (with his permission), as a means of showing how much depth exists – and is required – in the editing culture. I thoroughly enjoy the philosophical underpinnings to his observations about FCP X and editing in general. But that’s another topic.

But why don’t we see industry leaders stepping forward saying, “I was a contributor, and it was my idea to do this!” Where’s Walter Murch, the Coen Bros, etc.? I mean, if Apple was serious about improving the industry, don’t you think they’d talk to the big boys? I cannot believe that we are talking about the possible merits of FCP X with the assumption that programmers for Apple could POSSIBLY have more insight into what’s needed for editing, than those who edit!!! And if those who edit contributed to all this, then where are they? Why aren’t they standing up and admitting it was their idea, that they grew up as kids loving magnets, and felt that clocks played havoc with their creativity?

Where are the luminaries? (I know that many of the supporters for FCP X, here at the cow, were indeed beta testers, but even they don’t claim actual responsibility for these ideas.)
Are we assuming that Randy and crew came up with these insights on their own? Or were they handed gold tablets while walking their dogs in the morning dew? Why is someone like David caught flat-footed here, left to wrack his brain around what Apple is trying to do, let alone define the problems that Apple was trying to solve? Obviously, he, nor any of his circle of friends/associates, were consulted.

Are we really contemplating that Apple knows best? And . . . we’re not embarrassed by that?

I think psychologists will use this event in their classrooms to simply demonstrate the power of branding, years to come.

Apple.
Final Cut Pro.
Hmm . . . must be good . . . 1 million editors just gotta spend 6 more months to figure out why.

I don’t accept that Apple was trying to improve the editing paradigm and spent 4 years in a monk-like trance dreaming up the “new way forward.” If they were that passionate about our art, they wouldn’t be killing off other applications along the way, let alone forcing us to adapt to rigid methods – or else.
What, are we sinners, needing Apple’s redemption?

Again, I do enjoy looking at the underpinnings of FCP X in an effort to “study the trees” – a method of understanding Apple’s purpose, and, of more benefit, to define who we are as a community (I think the latter will be more valued).
But I also see a forest on fire, and a company who continues to exceed profit expectations from iPad sales, not to mention a yet-to-be-released upgraded telephone. Woo-f-ing-hoo!!! So the trees aren’t speaking to me.

I’ve been a tireless evangelist for many years, and FCP X has turned me into Nietzsche.

[Glen Hurd]

[Rob Tinworth] “It’s the very ‘inefficiency’ of FCP7 that immerses me in a project. It’s endlessly scrubbing backwards and forwards through the rushes that means that when I’m recutting a scene, I know there’s that shot of that thing, which I never thought I’d use, which an assistant editor wouldn’t have flagged, which I wouldn’t even have looked at, but which turns out to be just the shot I need for this sequence.

At a certain point in any edit, I get the feeling that I have the film in my head, like there’s an index in my brain. I think that’s much more powerful than metadata. Editing is about pictures.
“

Ever since hearing about FCP-X’s superior relational-database underpinnings, I’ve been thinking about this very thing. Not only did Apple drop so much, but the very things they celebrate aren’t that critical to good editing. I need a better database? I have one in my head!! And with every project, I have to put it there or there’s no way I’m going to maximize the value of what’s been shot! And finding rejected footage to solve problems you couldn’t possibly predict at the beginning of a project – how does a database help that. Yet every (good) editor will take that trip, hoping for diamonds that were initially thought to be mud.
Ever hear that a picture is worth a thousand words? Now you want me to turn pictures back to words? I get being organized, but this is weird – like trying to convince a sculptor that the next evolution in sculpting is going to revolve around using better paper to draw his sketches on. Seriously.
Again, it’s like they had no idea what they were designing for, but they knew they were on to . . . something.

My dad told me a story about a time when the Air Force thought it would be a good idea to update the instruments in our fighters.
With the advent of better sensors, and solid-state electronics, they were able to bring a level of accuracy into the cockpits that had never been seen before. Every gauge brightly displayed the accuracy of each sensor, numbers rolling and shifting to the beat of a new age.
The engineers were most proud.
Only one problem.
The engineers didn’t have to fight.

Pilots were impressed at first. (Those were the heady days of fat LED calculators and electronic watches that could blink in sync with the alarm.)
But after a little time, pilots began asking for the old instruments back, preferring the analog displays, though less accurate, to the digital ones.

No, it wasn’t fear of change.
No, they weren’t intimidated by younger cadets who were more accustomed to reading numbers (as if the older pilots weren’t).
The problem was . . . workflow.

With the digital interfaces, if a pilot wanted to see his altitude, he had to read the numbers. 10,152. If he wanted to see his rate of climb, he had to read more numbers. 1,023. If he wanted to know what direction he was heading, or check how close he was to mach . . . well, you get the point. It wasn’t that they were smart – it was that they had to do more thinking to get access to information that they wanted yesterday.

This was most apparent in combat, when you really, really, really didn’t want to be reading. Glancing was good – microseconds at a time – reading could kill you.

If you google “aircraft cockpit,” you’ll see even the electronic displays on the most modern craft are primarily circles and arcs and lines. Because pilots need to understand their situation before they take up reading.
And editors need to feel their footage and their story before the need relational databases and cramped single-window nonsense with buried tags telling their audio what the he** track to go to.

Funny to see instruments in modern aircraft whose concept heralds back to the sundial. What is that, 3,500 years? Talk about “paradigm shift.”

[Glen Hurd]

[David Roth Weiss] “this image is merely a representation of a dog, not an actual dog”

ROFL

(Coincidentally, Isn’t that the sound a dog makes – when throwing up? ROFL?
I don’t know – I have 5 cats! When I showed them FCP X, all I got was “Hack, Hack, Hack” 🙂 )

[Glen Hurd]

Already read it.
Just amazed at how much Jobs gushes over it. Watch it again if you missed it the first time. It’s practically the 2nd coming to editing – and it’s iMovie 08.
What’s more is that its very inception was driven by the need to make a “5 minute movie” in 30 minutes. Maybe their idea of a movie is synonymous with iPhoto’s ability to make photo montages that automagically fit the length of a soundtrack.
Not once have I seen anyone from Apple’s upper management express any insight on editing that reflected a deeper awareness of what’s involved in story-telling – other than: one must get rid of the bad stuff and keep the “cool stuff.”

[Glen Hurd]

Did you see the Jobs interview/announcement in the thread below called “where it started with iMovie ’08?”
This makes sense.
Here’s what we know about Jobs and Randy.

1) A 5 minute vacation movie is a . . . movie.

2) If it takes more than 30 minutes to make a 5 minute movie, then someone is wasting their time.

3) Editing should be as easy as dragging tracks around with your fingers, since anyone devoted enough to telling stories with camera and sound shouldn’t be burdened with outboard gear and a keyboard. How are all those young budding geniuses going to express themselves otherwise?

Ease is the essence of success, don’tcha know.

[Glen Hurd]

We could leave this forum . . . but what to do for spontaneous mirth?!

Ah, well. The week-end’s almost over.

Oh, btw, here’s a link to a video that would be perfect for FCP X – no cuts!

https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=ZPjjZCO67WI&vq

[Glen Hurd]

Absolutely.
Furthermore, it’s rather narrow minded of me to think that the only ancients were human. Some arrow heads could have been brought here from space . . . just be patient, ’cause we’re working on that 😉

[Glen Hurd]

If history is repeating itself, there is more in common with the idea that Premiere will become the new FCP than FCP X.

Here’s a list of features that Premiere shares with FCP, at the time it began battling Avid –

Premiere is still considered a “toy” – but actually has all the necessary features to do broadcast work.

Premiere is open to off the shelf hardware – more so than Avid and, of course, FCP X.

Premiere allows you to play with other programs – and does so very well within the Adobe family.

Premiere is inexpensive, but allows you to expand it tremendously – offering more options in codecs, platform, display size and display ratios than FCP X.

Premiere is still the underdog – and is driven to impress the high-tier markets.

Premiere maintains respect for established work-flow and culture. It works at building efficiency and speed, while keeping compatibility with itself and other edit systems.

Premiere is owned by Adobe, which is financially solid, so won’t go bankrupt any time soon (ala M100)

And, in order to benefit from recent change, Premiere is the easiest and cheapest broadcast solution for migrating FCP users –

and Apple has forced us all to migrate. Whether now, or 6 months from now, we are all in migration mode. Unless we’re retiring.

Going to FCP X is currently a migration with fewer options. How many FCP X supporters have even compared it to Premiere and all it offers? If not, why not? Blinders on? – just kidding.

And if you have broadcast needs, FCP X is expensive because you can’t use it. Instead, you have to wait and hope for change, knowing that if it doesn’t deliver, you’re still 2 + years behind everyone else’s development cycle. Not a risk worth taking, no matter what your culture.

In this environment of paradigm shifts and reinvention, Premiere is practically a shoe-in as the new FCP.

So, it sounds like a revolution after all! 🙂 Think different, people.

And regarding your analogy, let me have a try.

We’re on a tour, with an aging guide, to look for arrow heads out in the plains of south eastern Colorado. We’ve been collecting them for years, around the country, and we do know what to look for. The guide is excited, and has shown us photos of his most recent discoveries. They look beautiful, and the range of eras represented is second to none.
We walk up the last hill where the wind is spitting a little sand into our face – perfect for revealing what was buried long ago. And upon arriving there, we see little plastic arrow heads littering the ground.
First, we gasp. Then we bitch. And when we complain, the guide hires some reporter for the NY Times to tell us to be patient. Maybe the plastic arrow heads will help our eyes adjust to finding the real ones. He has a list of 20 reasons why plastic isn’t bad.
Then the guide grabs his little flask of whiskey, chugs it down and walks/stumbles away, muttering, “I thought those looked pretty good to me. Whiners.”

Heh, heh. 🙂