James Culbertson
Forum Replies Created
-
[Mike Warmels] “However there seems to be a tendency to consider everything that’s been around for many years as old, old fashioned, obsolete. That’s just as insulting as some people feel when FCPX gets criticism. Renaming things with words with meanings that makes no sense * coughprojectcough * may be part of that feeling.”
But I assume you would agree that what makes sense or what makes no sense varies from person to person. And the problem is mainly that we sometimes take each other too seriously, rather than seeing that each of us has a different perspective and a different set of expectations for how we work and interact as professionals.
-
Does it still have tracks?
-
[Mike Warmels] “Still, operationally I don’t experience the non-integration.”
It seems to me if I can hijack your statement for a more global point. That we are all speaking from personal operational experience which can sometimes feel like it is absolute in the heat of the debate; but there is no absolute objective stance in this discussion though some may try to imply otherwise. There may have been a time when a majority of the group called editors could agree on a set of definitions for what and how we do what we do, but that time has passed. Our preferences all come from our personal operational history with any particular NLE. I don’t operationally experience any cognitive dissonance with differing nomenclature whereas others on this discussion board do.
-
[Bill Davis] “Please stop here. You’re embarrassing yourselves. Accept the simple truth that you stumbled in here, Mike, full of half baked outdated and incorrect assumptions about this software. You exposed your ignorance about it and we’re robustly called out. Leave it there. If you want to explore and learn the actual nature of the program and debate its merits and flaws, fine. But you have homework to do.
David Roth Wise, I’m deeply disappointed in you. This is at least the second time you have tried to paint X users as cultists on par with Scientologists. That is insulting, extremely rude and you should apologize to everyone here.”Yep. Lot’s of projection. Perhaps the name of this forum should be changed to “Fundamentalist Church of the Anti-FCPX.”
-
[Mike Warmels] “I sometimes get the idea that people who worship FCPX work alone… not in larger workgroups with different locations, different set ups, audio mixers, color graders, broadcasters and their broadcast requirements…”
Another incorrect idea. Keep them coming. And no, we don’t worship FCPX; but we do like to correcting mistaken ideas about FCPX.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ”
The word Project has never ever ever not once, caused any modicum of confusion.As a matter of fact, because of the ease of Roles, getting organized for finish is very easy with X.
Also, I don’t experience the performance issues you are experiencing. What computer are you on?”
My experience too. It may be the case that the colorists and audio post folks I work with talk about how immature FCPX’s nomenclature is, but they also have no issues with what I send them and the process is as smooth as any I have encountered with other NLEs.
Editing is smooth as silk on a new MacPro and new MacBookPro.
-
[James Ewart] “For you maybe but it is a pretty major issue for many of us you might agree?”
On this list yes. But all editors I know outside of this discussion board (even those who were intellectually resistant initially) found it to be a non-issue once they started to learn how to use FCPX.
It would be interesting to quantify what percentage of editors find FCPX (and its terminology) hard to grok and what percentage do not.
My guess is most editors don’t care one way or the other. They are either using it or not.
-
[David Roth Weiss] “And, for the record, one of the primary reasons the learning curve for X is longer than most other NLEs is because, not only did Apple change the paradigm, they also changed the lexicon, making the learning curve exponentially longer and more complicated, especially for those with the most experience.”
It probably did take me an extra 5 minutes to absorb the different terminology, and a day or two to understand the new interface and some of the major workflow changes. It took me awhile to get up to speed, but no more than when I started editing on AVID after working tape to tape, or FCP legacy after working on AVID. But I only have 20 years experience editing, perhaps if I had 30 or 40 years of experience I might feel different. I totally understand the irritation with the changed terminology, but this really feels like it is being dragged out of proportion.
-
[David Roth Weiss] “Sorry, but that’s pure BS James. Nomenclature in this business, like standards, was designed so that individuals all over the world can communicate accurately, period, end of story.”
David, I think we can both agree to disagree without referencing bovine ordure.
I’ve always adapted to what I personally consider is a better tool of the trade if it allows me to work faster, better and more creatively. Nomenclature is important, but not really relevant in this case as I just translate for those few who need it, and the rest (the majority) don’t care. I can’t speak for anyone else in this business, but part of my job has always been to translate; it’s just not that big a deal.
-
[David Roth Weiss] “Sorry, but that’s pure BS James. Nomenclature in this business, like standards, was designed so that individuals all over the world can communicate accurately, period, end of story.”
David, I think we can both agree to disagree without referencing bovine ordure.
I’ve always adapted to what I personally consider is a better tool of the trade if it allows me to work faster, better and more creatively. Nomenclature is important, but not really relevant in this case as I just translate for those few who need it, and the rest (the majority) don’t care. I can’t speak for anyone else in this business, but part of my job has always been to translate; it’s just not that big a deal.