Herb Sevush
22
COW Coins
20
Premiere Pro Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
Been there, done that. Finished a major piece for one client as the firemen were coming up the stairs. Does wonders for quick decision making.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
“Breaking out of conventional thought avoids mundanity. It’s probably also why I see FCPX as an asset because the tool opens one to working a little differently.”
So would editing FCP7 upside down with my pants on fire, plus I could still have a viewer window.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
I stand corrected on that point. AT least I’m safe to say that Avid invented Avid.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
Craig –
I like Motion, use it all the time. But it has had NO impact on the field of compositing. My statement was about “software of any importance”, as in creating software that influenced the field, was a category leader, etc. After Effects is such a program, and it wasn’t invented by Apple. I’m just questioning this vision of Apple as being the company to create the future of the NLE – they’ve have no track record that makes me believe they can do it.
Now track record isn’t everything, but then again software design isn’t hardware design, which, along with marketing, IS Apple’s field of excellence.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
“Apple made a huge design decision with FCPX, and legacy compatibility is one of the things they were willing to trade for it.”
And the fact is this is not unique to FCPX. Adobe, among others, did the same thing when going from Premiere to Premiere Pro, The difference being that Adobe was upgrading from a consumer app to a pro app, whereas Apple …
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
“The only questions left, IMO, is who needs to stay where editing IS for very defensible and sensible business reasons – who is ready to buy into the possibilities that FCP-X might hold for a better future – and who’s going to get STUCK unable to decide what they should do – and for how long.
That’s a pretty simple array of choices.
IF you edit, you HAVE to take one of those three paths. Apple has decided that for you. Like it or not.”
This implies that FCPX is not only the “future” of editing, but also the only future. It’s a good bet that an exciting alternative is waiting right around the corner, and it isn’t being made by Apple.
Considering Apple’s track record; the fact that they have made their reputation marketing software created and designed by others, and that they have never before internally created any software of any importance in the field of visual media creation, betting that this first time effort is going to be a field leader seems rather far fetched.
If one is going to bet on innovation in this field, Avid and Adobe have the track record to bet on.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
“This all makes handling mono audio channels separately rather wonky.”
I generally use 4 cameras with mono audio split out among the channels, effectively giving me 8 channels to play with as I cut. This kind of work around stuff, for something I use all the time, everyday, is an absolute deal breaker for me. I wonder in which FCPX upgrade they will figure out they need to address it?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
“For example, try taking clips with dual mono audio. Now adjust different audio levels on each of the two tracks and different in/out points.”
Oliver, what happens in this case?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
Oh it must be wonderful to be so powerful that you get to tell all your clients what the deliverables will be, no matter what the requirements are. Poor peon that I am, when my client asks for something, I actually give it to them – if they say tape, I give them tape, if they say DVD, I give them DVD (if they same jump, I give them the rope). I even have one regular broadcast client who insists on DVDs so he can review copies on his home TV because he doesn’t feel he gets a true representation of the way the shows “look” on a computer screen. It is terrible to have to work for such dolts, but then again I am not so powerful as I would like to be.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
What do you think would have been the result of calling it Final Cut X, leaving out the pro? If they came out with a product that didn’t call itself “Pro” no high school kid in America would have touched it, let alone an experienced editor, it would have announced that they were no longer “cool.” They had to keep the word Pro in the title, even if they dropped the Final Cut. Calling it Final Cut Pro X was strictly a marketing move, nothing else can be inferred other than cash flow.
I guess this comes down, as so many arguments do, to semantics. What do we mean by the word “pro.”
FCPX is obviously not aimed at the Imovie market. I maintain that just as obviously, it’s not aimed at the “high end” or, if you will, the “complex workflow” market.
It was rolled out when it was because it had the feature set that was aimed at their target market: emerging video makers, pro’s creating work to be distributed on the web, shops who’s workflow doesn’t require collaboration. Many of these people are by definition professional, many of those that aren’t will one day be. So yes, FCPX is absolutely “Pro” if that’s the definition of the word you want to use.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions