Liam Hall
Forum Replies Created
-
[Bill Davis] ” Re: Final Cut X update and free trial
by Bill Davis on Sep 20, 2011 at 6:38:02 pm
They released the program when they felt they needed to. Let the market “shake it around” and try to wrap brains around the substantial and deep changesPlease Bill, let me know who I send my invoice to at Apple…
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
I’d say your daughter is a little young for FCPX. I’ve given it a thorough work out in the last few months and I’d say Apple’s target market is 12 year year olds.
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
I’m not sure about iCut; since it’s made so many people pissed, I’d call it Half-Cut…
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
Export settings for an image sequence in FCPX are TIFF, PNG, Photoshop, DPX, Jpeg, IFF and OpenEXR.
I must admit I haven’t investigated too many workflows for time-lapse in FCPX, as these days I generally use Motion to put together the image sequence (works well with optical flow), but I guess you could set preferences in FCPX to import images as single frames.
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
[Chris Harlan] “Liam, please let us know when you may by chance be stuck again at an airport, so that we can shower ourselves in your honey-dripped condescension. Just the thought that you might once again patronize a forum such as this, instead of sending your flunkies or assistants, adds a delicate beauty to my day that I cannot quite define. I knew that there had to be some reason to be grateful for flight delays.
Again, thank you.”
Fair point Chris, that did read badly!
Kind regards,
Liam
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
[David Roth Weiss] “Let’s see, by pointing out that you too are guilty of invalidating the concerns and motivations of those who disagree with you, I’m being patronizing? Not sure how that follows… It’s like the opposite of patronizing where I come from.
And, I asked you to be specific and to point to what I said about Geoff Dills that was false, but you didn’t or couldn’t give me an answer. Just put up and I’ll apologize to him post haste.
But, more importantly Liam, what do you think actually qualifies Geoff Dills to analyze the motivations of professional editors? That’s the point I raised with him, and I still want to know the answer. Raising that question hardly qualifies as an attack.”
Trust me David, even my cat thinks you’re coming across as a bit cranky here…
I haven’t invalidated anyone’s concerns. I’m not going to be drawn in to a tit-for-tat row over this, but I do feel you need to reread what I wrote:
[Liam Hall] “People are rightly annoyed at Apple for discontinuing FCPX (I am), and it is understandable that most professional editing houses will look at this software and dismiss it instantly (mine did)
Obviously, I meant FCP7…
Anyway, everyone should be allowed their voice. If Geoff thinks some people have a vested interest in denigrating this software then that’s fine, it is his opinion. It’s a perfectly valid one and he doesn’t need to win an Oscar in order to express it.
In life, and in particular on the internet, it is always sensible to consider the source though, I do think you were being more than a little arrogant to dismiss Geoff’s comments in the way you did.
I don’t feel threatened by amateurs or hobbyists using FCPX. Some people on here act like they might indeed be. That’s my opinion and I don’t need to waive my resume around in order to express that either.
Anyway, as is often said on the net; opinions are like arse-holes, everyone’s got one and I’ll add – there’s no need to act like one.
Kind regards and happy shooting,
Liam.
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
[David Roth Weiss] “You don’t actually get it Liam. You see. it’s perfectly acceptable to denigrate the software. What’s not acceptable is denigrating people who may not agree with you. By attaching various pejoratives and motivations to their personal likes and dislikes, as Geoff Dills did that serves only to try to invalidate them. You’ve just done it again in the line above, and you don’t even realize it.”
David,
I do get it, note my use of the word some , so please don’t patronise me and please keep this debate professional.
Regards,
Liam.
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
[Geoff Dills] “I was NOT referring to all professionals. Obviously a real pro examines the software carefully first. Discovers if it can fit his needs. If it does, great. If not, move on. I thought that’s who we’re dealing with. Except one pro decided to take offense and I apologize. But David, the blatant attack on me was over the top. Rein it in a bit.”
Geof,
I’m a 27 year veteran of the film and video Industry, working entirely and continually at the sharp end of international production and post. I’m a fully paid up professional. I totally understood your viewpoint and agree in part that some people are reacting negatively to FCPX simply because it points to a future where the barriers to entry into this Industry have been largely removed – at least in terms of equipment and learning curve to operate that equipment.
People are rightly annoyed at Apple for discontinuing FCPX (I am), and it is understandable that most professional editing houses will look at this software and dismiss it instantly (mine did), as it doesn’t fit either their workflow or business model. Whether it ever will is a moot point and at this time we’re all just guessing if it will or won’t. It was the same with FCP1, that’s why I’m keeping a keen eye on FCPX.
I think you may have touched a raw nerve with the use of the word pro. Some of the comments, plus the amount of time and energy certain COW members are spending denigrating this software points to other motivations. “Me thinks they doth protest too much”.
My advice; just ignore anyone who mentions the editing elite or top editors or the best editors in town. The truth is the best guys and gals in town are busy and not attending meetings or writing on the internet or testing new software – that’s the job of their assistants and of course a boat load of wannabe’s, nobodies and folk stuck at the airport (like me), or watching a render bar on their screen.
I see no reason for you to aplogize. None whatsoever. Indeed, it is you that should receive an apology from David Roth Weiss for his rude and personal attack on you. I don’t care what side of the argument people are on, just that they conduct themselves in a polite and friendly tone – that’s exactly what professionals do.
Liam.
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
-
[Casey Petersen] I think they recommended one that is a ND10 (10 stops).
For 10 stops you’d be using an ND1024 (3.0), not an ND10. ND8 (0.9) will get you 3 stops and ND16 will get you 4 stops.
If you were using a resin filter or a cheap glass one you’ll get a colour cast..
If you were indeed using 10 stops of ND you’ve most likely got infrared contamination.
Typically, for outdoor shallow DoF I recommend using either an ND8 (0.9), ND16 (1.2) or an ND32 (1.5). ND32 is 5 stops which in bright sunshine will get you to f/2.8 at ISO100.
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net