[Herb Sevush]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Comparing FCP v.1 to FCPX is often totally irrelevant.”

People keep saying this, and respectfully I disagree. It’s not irrelevant. “

My answer to this is in my response to Walter’s post:

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/23389

Yes X is version 1 software just like FCP 1, with all that entails, but the changes in the market and in Apple make the comparison beside the point.

[Jeremy Garchow] “There are/were plenty of projects that are cut entirely on Smoke, sure it might not be film, but TV/spots certainly. The point of that was to illustrate that learning a new interface is part of the gig. “

No, the point you were trying to make is that a single viewer approach to editing isn’t so weird. The problem is you had to go to an application not generally considered an editor to make it. Yes, people cut spots on a Smoke all the time, that’s what it’s built for, but it would be a chore to cut anything longer on it.

[Jeremy Garchow] “There is no fcp8, and maybe there never could have been. No one believes or wants to believe that.”

Because it’s an illogical statement.

[Jeremy Garchow] ” It was time to start over. Again, there’s no fcp8, why lament over it?”

I lament many things that never were but should have been; it’s what lamentation is good for.

[Jeremy Garchow] “And by the way, have you looked at PPro CS 5.5? It’s the closest you’re going to get to fcp8 with many enhancements. Be sure to use the FCP keyboard shortcuts, it’s pretty easy, despite a few interface differences. “

I’ve used PPro over the years and I’m acitvely considering it now. Again, if I liked it better I would have switched before. Also, I never remap a new ap to old keyboard shortcuts. When it’s time to chnage; change. It’s like asking a new girl to dress like your ex-wife – it doesn’t work in the long run. (that’s a movie reference – Vertigo.)

[Jeremy Garchow] ” It will be for the best, no matter what NLE packages we end up with. That, I believe. FCP as we know it is certainly EOL. “

In this, the best of all possible worlds, yes it will be for the best.

Now I will go back and cry in my beer.

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

[Herb Sevush]

[Walter Soyka] “The second — and the one that I think Jeremy is espousing here — is that FCP v1 truly wasn’t fit for production, but that Apple developed it into a worthy contender over time.”

I’m not disagreeing with this interpretation for what happened then, I’m disputing it’s relevance to what is happening now.

[Walter Soyka] “Jeremy’s right to suggest we shouldn’t pass permanent judgment on FCPX based solely on its first six months, or even its first year. If Apple gives editors enough compelling reasons to use FCPX, then I think FCPX could creep back into the industry over time the same way that FCP Classic did.

The problem is that Apple themselves have also given us many compelling reasons not to use FCPX.
“

FCP 1 had a clear and revolutionary advantage – price. FCPX “might” have a subtle advantage – speed in organizing data. This difference plus the difference of Apple then as a computer company vs Apple now as a consumer electronics company plus the “many compelling reasons not to use FCPX” makes me think the comparison between then and now is somewhat moot.

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

[Herb Sevush]

[Steve Connor] “Even Premiere Pro? To me this seems the closest match to a theoretical FCP8 at the moment
“

At the moment PPro has a limit of 4 cameras for MultiCam. This is insufficient for me. I have heard strong rumors that the MultiCam feature is going to be enhanced in the next upgrade, which is why I qualified my statement with a “at the moment.” There are still a number of other issues with PPro that make it less than ideal, but I’m waiting till NAB to make a decision. Right now, FCP8 was/is still my best choice.

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

[Herb Sevush]

[Jeremy Garchow] “I would invite you to go back and read about the kinds of problems people were having with FCP v1. It was certainly a disruption.”

Jeremy – respectfully I would like to say that there is often as big a danger from learning the wrong lessons from history as from ignoring the past all together.

Comparing FCP v.1 to FCPX is often totally irrelevant.

Yes, FCPv1 like FCPX was buggy and lacked features and it grew and improved over time. If Apple had released theirr new editor as Icut Pro the analogy would hold. But that is not the case here, and to ignore the difference between Apple then and now is more than a little disingenuous.

[Jeremy Garchow] “how is its different, from say, learning Smoke? They are all different. Smoke was a single viewer application for a really long time (it now recently adopted source/record model).”

Which is one of the many reasons why Smoke was never considered an editor, it was a finishing tool with editing capabilities. Not too many films cut totally on a Smoke.

[Jeremy Garchow] “I have likened fcpx to DSLRs. DSLRs removed a ton of control from shooting. No timecode, no audio control, no real time exposure feedback, no full resolution monitoring. In order to make it a shooting package, a ton of bits and bobs needed to be added on to make it more like the cameras the people were used to shooting with. There’s now a generation of video people that ONLY know DSLRs, for better or for worse.”

And if Panasonic or Sony had EOL’d their entire pro camera line to come out with a new super DSLR people would have thought them insane.

[Jeremy Garchow] ” For those who don’t like fcpx, they will adopt a better NLE from a different company who is interested in listening to their customers and this will be the kick in the ass they’ve needed to rethink their operations and move to more powerful solutions, for those who choose to remain with fcpx, then they will have a new platform that suits them and their needs.”

With the added frustration of knowing that the ideal program for them was FCP 8. If there was a better editing solution for my workflow I would have quit FCP before this. For all it’s faults, the FCP feature set was the closest match to the way I preferred to work. All of my other options, at least at this point, require more compromises than I would like.

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

[Herb Sevush]

[Craig Seeman] “The point is that people keep saying Apple is a “consumer” company and yet iPhones and iPads are being used in “Pro” environments including “online broadcast.””

Clothespins are used in studio lighting, that still doesn’t make my local supermarket a studio lighting company.

[Craig Seeman] “For every journalist in a truck with a “broadcast” camera kit, they’ll be scores more with iPhones and iPads able to get to a location and deliver, live if needed, faster. Apple and FCPX may well lead in this market . . . and this market is going to grow a lot faster that episodic TV and feature films . . . and it is Broadcast (even if online) and it is Professional.”

When they shoot the next Brian Williams standup with an Iphone, then I’ll consider the Iphone a broadcast tool. Telephone calls with ID slides make it to broadcast air, what standard are we talking about – if the content is strong enough they will air VHS originated material on a news show, does that make VHS a pro broadcast standard?

Your playing semantical games, Chris’s point is correct.

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

[Herb Sevush]

[David Chai] “I wish (apart from the multicam and video out) there was a non-linked mode and a track mode. I think that 99% of the 1% would pretty much be satisfied with that for FCP X.”

But then they would have called it FCP8 and we wouldn’t have this forum.

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

[Herb Sevush]

[Chris Harlan] “[Steve Connor] “Perhaps Apple might buy Avid, to recapture some of the “Pro” market :)”
Yeah, that would Shake things up.”

Actually, that would be my only fear, that Apple would buy Avid to kill it, like it has done with every other product it touches. Apple is like an animal in the wild, it kills any child that isn’t it’s own.

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

[Herb Sevush]

Craig –

My response has been all about this statement from an earlier post:

“I find it odd that TV and Film is heavily dependent on Avid which apparently hasn’t been able to make money (get out of the red) for five years and counting, with that industry’s heavy dependence. So if TV and Film can’t support the one NLE company they depend on, it would be odd to base a business model primarily on those industries.”

It’s totally misleading. The fact that Avid has made some poor choices does not mean the TV and Film Industry is an insufficient market to support the NLE that services them. Avid’s failures as a company does not justify that statement. So no, I don’t find it odd.

If you want to go back a little in time, Media 100 was a successful and rising company 10 years ago, with a strong NLE product. The company then invested 2 years and a lot of money on a real time compositor called the 844/x. Wrong product, wrong time and the company went bankrupt. Did that mean the Media 100 NLE was not a viable product? Hardly, as it’s rebirth a few years ago by Boris demonstrates.

So I agree with you about the problems Avid has as a company, but I wouldn’t be hesitant to invest my money or my future in MC software. It’s too valuable a property to be left to die, if Avid can’t fix their problems financially then someone else will pick it up.

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

[Herb Sevush]

Craig –

You are missing my point.

Yes Avid is loosing money and yes Avid makes most of their money from hardware sales and yes Avid’s business model does not seem to be currently sustainable.

But no, you have given no evidence to show that MC software is losing money “by itself” and there is no evidence to show that if MC was broken off from the parent company that it wouldn’t financially succeed on it’s own merits. Avid’s problems and MC software profitability are not the same, specifically because Avid is a hardware company, anymore than FCP profitability and Apple’s profitability are highly linked, and for the same reason.

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

[Herb Sevush]

[Craig Seeman] “It’s certainly not profitable for Avid.”

Are you saying you’ve seen Avid’s financials and the software division is broken out separately and is not profitable?

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