Jamie Franklin
Forum Replies Created
-
That is actually a violation of the terms on craigslist which probably won’t see much done since they have embraced or ignored these types of sweatshop ads…
I would like to know any other industry that gets these kinds of insane “job” postings…Although, this one is so bad it must be a joke…
If serious, I hope someone tells this guy to get a life. I know of a comfortable screening room with padded walls…
“I want 3 cuts! One 3 hours!”
LOL.
-
[Thomas Frank] “Or you don’t want to adjust”
You’re right. I don’t. I want to stick with a *better* way of control, sharing, fades, handles and placing it where I want without an annoying number of forced shenanigans…
I will keep repeating this as it never gets tired for those not tired of passing judgement on the whole “you don’t want to adjust” snark. There is nothing wrong with *adding* a feature or improving one. Wiping away a standard that works is not an improvement, doesn’t help bridge a laundry list of issues when dramatically restructuring a toolset.
This canard of early final cut versions being a comparison is a terrible waste of grey matter. And re-treading another tired old argument. Build on a decade of standards, truths and expressions. Don’t throw them out and defend their iMovie legacy import ability sillyness….
-
When the leading editor of the Final Cut legacy says ick and adobe crew are posting in the Final Cut X forums with a smirk…yes, somethings dying all right…
Some of us are in denial of course 😉
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “For you”
And an industry that won’t embrace it for this and a litany of other shortcomings…
-
Now you’re just being silly…
No one is saying everything that FCX offers blows.
But it wouldn’t surprise me if this was introduced in X into every single edit and you have to hold down a key to prevent it from being an auto-feature….
-
There is nothing wrong with expanding on what works or adding a new feature. Just don’t throw out how other people *prefer* to work trying to appear innovative…it’s forcing stuff like this that really is FCX’s undoing…
-
Neat. I’ve always found myself taking longer trying to smooth those edits than I do cutting the interview. Thanks for posting.
I like. See Apple, innovation. Not mutation.
-
Roles won’t replace tracks.
[Jeremy Garchow] ” It could. Instead of tracks, you have Roles, and a Role can get assigned to a channel, kind of like they do now on Multi Channel audio QT Exports from FCPX.”
I’ll say it again, roles won’t replace tracks. It’s a band aid.
If you’ve spent a decade using a multi-track and like roles, I won’t understand it, but there it is. You do…I think roles are not an acceptable replacement in my opinion. Maybe for projects that are exceedingly simple. But even still, meh…
-
Well, whatever. I think the biggest take away is that the most prolific and high profile Final Cut editor can’t use it and has finally come forward and vocalized why. But nothing he said was surprising or insightful if you were to read this forum.
Maybe because it was “measured” it allows more of the same banality to seep through so we can spend the next month psycho analyzing what “he really meant”. But it all boils down to, he can’t use it, now! That says it all.
Yes, he was measured…but what did anyone expect from an insider? Him to start ripping off his clothes and start a Begbie inspired bar fight over it….that’s probably what Aindreas would do…
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “All of his objections are things that are solvable”
Does that include a multi-track?
Roles, compound clips do not solve this. And he expressly said in the context of consumer users this might be useful, but not to him.
The dna might not like that mutation…