[Herb Sevush]

[Bill Davis] “IMO, Apple can’t do what Apple does best (which is take chances when they see opportunities that might disrupt current practices, but that they feel may pay off in the longer term) if the company isn’t strong overall financially. “

Do they have to be #1 in valuation to meet the standard of “strong overall financially.” Why the glee? Whats in it for you or anybody else where they fall on the list of top 30 companies? If they “only” had a value of 600 billion would they be any less adventurous?

[Bill Davis] “Basically, the stronger the company grows after exhibiting a culture of innovation to the marketplace – the MORE innovation we’re likely to see. “

Since the growth of the company has nothing to do with FCPX or Mac’s in general, why do you think the direction of their innovating will be of benefit to you?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

The obvious question is why do you care? I know that I don’t care what Adobe’s valuation is, as long as they’re not going out of business. Does Apple’s financial success mean anything positive for FCPX or Mac’s in general? If so, then what? if not, then so what?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Scott Witthaus] “Project Rush?”

You might think so, but not as far as I can see. Rush has tracks, non magnetic, no keywords, is part camera app, stores everything to the cloud automatically and then uses pre-made AE templates if you want to fancy things up graphically. Nothing X about it that I can see from the demo’s.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

Charlie –

Thanks for the reply. I’ve downloaded Resolve but haven’t really played with it much, now you’ve inspired me a bit.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Charlie Austin] “Resolve”

I’m not doubting you but asking in all earnestness – can you elaborate?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Bill Davis] “I have never said anything even remotely like this.”

Which part have you never said anything remotely like – that it’s easy to learn, or that it’s hard to master? Since you’ve repeatedly said both, even though they directly contradict each other, I need to know which one you never said, or is it that you’ve never said either?

[Bill Davis] ” Unless, or course, you believe that Premiere suddenly adopting it’s proxy workflow and enabling “hover scrub” et al – had nothing to do with X. Is that your position?”

Proxy workflows go back at least 10 years before X was invented, by multiple NLEs, back when disk space was very limited, but of course you wouldn’t know anything about that because you don’t know anything about the history of NLE’s.

Hover Scrub was being developed before X was released, which is why it came out so soon after, there wasn’t enough time to copy it.

And I would definitely like to hear more about your “et al” since I don’t think there is any “al” for you to name.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Bill Davis] “The implication was clear. The REASON X got so “screwed up” is because it was designed by someone who didn’t really understand the game he was trying to play. “

The posted interview had nothing to do with FCPX, it was about Randy’s work with FCP legacy. My comments were about Randy’s design choices for legacy. I have assumed that Randy had much more exposure to the editing world by the time he designed X, and his choices at that point were made with intent more than ignorance.

(I was going to say “made with arrogance more than ignorance”, but I don’t know the man at all and that would be unfair, all though more stylish.)

[Bill Davis] “Apparently, there are a whole lot more of us around the planet who feel that Mr. Ubillos not only “got it” – but was in a position to see things on the horizon that the rest of us were missing along the way. The rise of file based workflows. The explosion of content creation. The need for more efficient tools, and much, much more.”

Good lord, if you only had any knowledge of what is going on in the world of NLE’s you would realize that everyone was aware of these things.

Randy/Apple made a new NLE that you describe at the same time as “so easy anyone can learn it” and so complex that anyone who hasn’t learned it already will be lagging behind those of you who have plumbed it’s mysteries from the beginning.

FCPX emphasizes certain things that make it perfect for certain workflows, nod to Charlie Austin here, but at the cost of de-emphasizing others — and this is true of all tools, digital and analog. It suits your workflow – we all get it, congratulations. But it hasn’t changed the world of editing – not one PC knockoff, not any significant impact on the design of other Mac NLE’s – and as a believer in free market forces I have to ask why? Why, after 7 years, if this revolutionary product has made editing so time efficient has no one else tried to make a buck off these concepts? I’m not talking about editors here, I’m talking about those who make their tools.

Premiere Pro (not the original Randy/Premiere) is a direct knock off of FCP Legacy. Why? Because Adobe wanted to make money. Where are the companies trying to make money off of X?

[Bill Davis] “You can persist in a traditional path as Herb’s has elected – constantly looking for tools that work largely as you’re expecting.”

No Bill, I’m not only looking for tools that work as I expect, I’m constantly amazed at the range of tools I am finding, but I am looking for tools that fit the work I do. You are the most narrow focused, blinkered horse in this stable, and that’s fine, your doing well with it, but it is irksome to listen to you go on about other people’s direction of vision when you can’t even turn your head.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Scott Thomas] “Because editing wasn’t the reason it was created. It evolved into that roll.”

Evolved is the wrong word. It was originally a small film projector that wasn’t selling, an editor asked if it could be converted into an editor’s viewer, and viola, the Moviola.

As for Avid, no it wasn’t originally designed for film work, but what does that have to do with anything, I’m missing the point of your statements.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

[Scott Thomas] “How much knowledge of film editing even existed when the Movieola was released?”

The Moviola was invented in 1924, so lets say around 20-25 years. Why?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf

[Herb Sevush]

Artists have been drawing directly on screens for years, and though I can see how making them horizontal can be helpful I’d like to see more detail as to how the dial is better than a mouse for making screen choices. I know a number of editors who use a Wacom as an input device, I’ve tried it and it didn’t work for me except when drawing masks.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf