Forum Replies Created

Page 255 of 315
  • Herb Sevush

    October 9, 2011 at 8:05 pm in reply to: Is Oliver Peters wrong?

    My FCP7 wish list was headed by 2 things – the ability to properly and easily digitize over time code breaks and the ability to mute video tracks without erasing all renders. You of all people would recognize these as features we had in *edit 10 years ago. Waited 7 years for it to happen in FCP – never happened; along with a less crucial list that goes on for awhile.

    Being positive is a good thing, but I go by the only adage – hope for the best, expect the worst.

    Herb Sevush
    Zebra Productions

  • Herb Sevush

    October 9, 2011 at 6:45 pm in reply to: Is Oliver Peters wrong?

    “The truth is there is no right or wrong, its a matter of consideration and choice.”

    Absolutely

    “I know that I’m giving myself a lot of extra work, and at times stress, through using FCP X. I also know that at any stage I can simply switch back to FCP 7. I have dipped back into FCP7 on a couple of occasions and it all feels very old fashioned and clunky, kind of square. So for the moment I’m with FCP X and enjoying the ride.”

    I very much agree that in many ways FCP7 is old fashioned and clunky.
    Have you given the same consideration to any of the other NLE’s out there, or just to FCPx, and if it’s only FCPx that your looking at, my question is why?

    Herb Sevush
    Zebra Productions

  • Herb Sevush

    October 9, 2011 at 6:37 pm in reply to: Is Oliver Peters wrong?

    “Perhaps where I differ from those who think FCP is dead, is that I think many if not all of these issues will be addressed.”

    There are any number of features I waited 7 years for FCP7 to fix and it never happened. What makes you think that your list of fixes won’t meet a similar fate. And if they don’t get fixed, will FCPX still be useful in your workflow?

    Herb Sevush
    Zebra Productions

  • Herb Sevush

    October 9, 2011 at 4:17 pm in reply to: FCPX or Not?

    Many posters, claiming as evidence that Apple has not given up on the Pro (complex workflow) market have asked the rhetorical question “Why would Apple have enabled 2k & 4K workflows in FCPX if they weren’t interested in the “Pro” market.”

    The 4s has given us the answer. Apple doesn’t see 2k and 4k as uniquely high end capabilities. Their including it in their Iphones.

    Herb Sevush
    Zebra Productions

  • Herb Sevush

    October 9, 2011 at 3:49 pm in reply to: Is Oliver Peters wrong?

    Jeremy –

    Thanks for summing that up.

    Herb Sevush
    Zebra Productions

  • Herb Sevush

    October 9, 2011 at 2:14 pm in reply to: FCPX or Not?

    I believe you posted this in the wrong thread.

    Herb Sevush
    Zebra Productions

  • Herb Sevush

    October 9, 2011 at 2:03 pm in reply to: Is Oliver Peters wrong?

    Which issues have not been addressed in the update and are not yet scheduled for revision?

    Herb Sevush
    Zebra Productions

  • “maybe the iPhone won’t be the very best camera but in 9 out 10 instances it will be more than adequate.”

    Theodore Sturgeon was a great american science fiction writer of the post war period. More famous than any of his stories is what’s known as “Sturgeons Law” which was uttered when a journalist once asked him if it wasn’t true than 90% of all Science Fiction was crap. Sturgeon replied “young man, 90% of everything is crap.” So yes I’m sure that in 9 out of 10 instances in the work you do the Iphone, or most any little point and shoot camera, would be sufficient. In the work I do that number drops to zero.

    Herb Sevush
    Zebra Productions

  • Bill –

    That sounds like a very innovative solution to your production problem.

    My comments were in reaction to someone suggesting that increasing the pixel count in the 4s was in some way revolutionary. Apparently it isn’t or you would have suggested using 4 Iphones. And if you wanted to use 4 Iphones to shoot your conference, wouldn’t 4 Androids work as well?

    I am very familiar with double system DSLR usage. Coming as I do from a 16mm background the freedom of double system shooting is something I greatly enjoy. My comments about lack of XLR inputs was meant to show that merely having a high pixel count on your Iphone was insufficient to make it a great production camera. Once you have to bother getting a Zoom H4N don’t you think a T2i is a more reasonable choice than your phone?

    “You may want to cling to the idea that your way is the ONLY way to get the job done right, but some of us have learned that if we can’t at least look beyond our own personal mental limitations, we’ll never see any path to improvement.”

    If I could look beyond my mental limitations then they wouldn’t be limitations, would they?

    Herb Sevush
    Zebra Productions

  • Before surrendering to your fatigue may I just state that I like the Iphone and I’m happy it has a camera in it. The value of having a camera in a phone is it’s immediacy, the fact that everyone has it at all times and it allows you to capture the moment and then distribute it rapidly. This is a great thing, as proven by the fact that almost every cell phone now has one. What doesn’t matter is how many pixels the sensor has – if you can see the picture, it’s good. Pictures of the uprising in Egypt would not have gotten more air play if they were shot with the 4S. If your interested in high quality photography get a dedicated camera. It seems a bit of overkill to have a 4K image in a cell phone – that’s all I’m saying. It doesn’t hurt, but I don’t see the big advantage. I don’t think that’s too controversial a thought.

    Herb Sevush
    Zebra Productions

Page 255 of 315

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy