James Ewart
Forum Replies Created
-
Thanks Walter. I do kind of get that. It does put people off though in my experience. You think to have retained the old “nomenclature” would have caused much confusion? Is it necessary for us to think about it so differently? Perhaps it is. There may well be a very good reason. I just haven’t figured out how and why yet.
I can’t help thinking occasionally they changed it just to be different and maybe that’s not such a bad thing either.
Anyway I guess Mr Kurz is possibly right in that it is quite an old topic. It’s just is still seems to put people off over here. It’s so much easier to jump into PP and I know so many who have done so and another company who I work for a lot who are changing over to PP as we speak. They looked at Avid, looked at FCPX and decided the simplest switch would be to PP much as I tried to convince them otherwise.
-
I’d hate to disappoint you professor. You are the expert (I assume you don’t need me to substantiate that). Not only do you know everything about FCPX but you give clinical psychiatric diagnosis as well. You really are a clever guy – I guess you don’t need me to substantiate that either. 😀
Who is “We” by the way? Is that the “We” that are better and cleverer than everybody else? “We” the intellectual elite? “We” the German nation perhaps? Who? Do tell.
In any event, that my friend is an excellent example of having a narcissistic personality disorder. Or, as WE say, being a twat. ;-D
I won’t take up any more of your time. Your students must be wondering where you are.
-
There’s no logical fallacy to it Herr Kurz. It’s just that your manner is offensive and patronising. I put up with it and tried to ignore it for a few posts in the interests of the friendly and constructive atmosphere I usually encounter in the Creative Cow community. But every time you come back with another snide point scoring remark. And if you read back you yourself admit to being guilty of the very thing you accuse (yes accuse) me of. It ceased to become a constructive dialogue ages ago. I am bored with it. If you want to treat this as some kind of “victory” on your part then please feel free to bask away.
Capiche?
-
I’m not sure you need an answer to anything Professor. You seem to have all the answers already.
Your tone in this thread has been insulting, patronising and presumptuous from the outset.
I have no wish to engage in any further dialogue with an individual like yourself.
-
Your patronising insulting tone deserved no less.
-
Wow you are a clever guy. Just 5 minutes to adjust to the FCPX terminology after 20 years of other non linear systems?
Hats off to you.
You know everything already. Why are you wasting your time here Mr Einstein?
-
Well from my even more humble (naturally) perspective I agree. We are doing pretty well three years down the line. Finally.
Nomenclature is not nonsensical. Language is the key to civilisation and progress from year zero. Without us all knowing (in whatever language) what a doughnut is we make no progress, because we cannot communicate effectively. Apple have wrongly tried to rewrite the language of film editing. STUPID MOVE.
To use a word processing analogy it’s like calling a “Sentence” a “String”. A “Paragraph” a “Chunk”. A “Comma” a “Tadpole”. POINTLESS and counter productive.
Why do that?
These are established terms in film editing jargon. And incidentally I go back as far as cutting film with Moviolas and Steenbecks so I know where this terminology comes from.
-
Yeah why not just call it a bloody timeline.
-
“And you clearly don’t know/remember how long legacy FCP needed before it was widely accepted”.
Well that’s another assumption you got wrong.
I took delivery of FCP version 1.2 in the UK. It required four updates until version 1.2.5 until it worked properly in PAL and was, I remember very well, very poorly received because it did not do the job properly. Then when (with about version 3?) Walter Murch used it to cut Cold Mountain it began to be widely adopted and taken seriously.
So yes I find it incredibly frustrating that once again they chose to launch Beta software and it is this long slow journey before the software is widely adopted.
In terms of workflow it has taken them three years to go back to the “Project, Bin, Clip, Sequence” concept that we now have back with “Library, Event, Clip, Project” in FCPX.
And of course (may I remind you I am not a complete moron – your patronising tone Sir, implies you have decided otherwise) I am not a programmer and cannot imagine how complex the task must be to create software like this, but I do wish when they released the software it was “fit for purpose” and properly thought-through in the first place.
It’s great software. It should have been so when it was launched. A few bugs are fair enough. But make us pay for Beta Software without admitting it was Beta software? Bollocks to that.
-
I suppose because first they had Projects outside Events and then put Projects into Events where they always should have been and then introducing Libraries in which everything exists is much more like FCP7 (Projects and Bins) than it was when it was launched. Next we will be able to have multiple Projects open at once so we can toggle between them probably. Just like we do in Legacy with Sequences. It’s great that they are listening but it’s so very long. How long to get where we are now? Is it nearly four years?