Liam Hall
Forum Replies Created
-
[Steve Connor] “I wonder if PPro 6 will fare any better”
Good question. Given Adobe already has a huge professional client base through After Effects, I think Premiere CS6 will gain some traction in the freelance and small shop area, but will have ZERO impact on the larger post-houses where Avid rules. That is, as long as Avid don’t go bust…
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
FCPX has had ZERO impact in London, but then again it took years before FCP established a significant foothold. It had just about gained credibility by the time it was EOL’d. That probably says something about how conservative post houses are in London, it certainly says something about what people think about X.
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
[Jeremy Garchow] “So maybe, Apple’s style isn’t what you want anymore. That’s totally fine. There’s a multitude of PC companies that will gladly help you purchase a computer, and do it with a smile, as well as NLE companies that have a public online presence.
Curious, but have you contacted Apple support about FCPX problems? What was your experience?
“Firstly, just so you understand where I coming from, I’d rather eat my own arm than buy a PC.
Second, as for Apple doing things differently, well yes they do. In that regard they remind me of one of my old clients, Kodak…
In seriousness though Jeremy, as has been mentioned already, we have seen some chinks in Apple’s communication strategy lately and they have delivered on the roadmap they set out in terms of updates to FCPX. If they could continue to open up just a little more I’d be happy.
FYI I’ve contacted Apple many times in the past, customer service has always been first class. I’ve never needed to contact them about FCPX though – I’ve usually found the answer to my question here or on Lynda or somewhere else. Maybe I should send them a note about how I feel about Events or In and outs just to see what they say!
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
[Jeremy Garchow]
I can understand the suspicion, but it’s more of a public relations type of problem at this point.
(EDIT)
Well, you can’t have it both ways. Which is it?W are discussing this in the context of peoples’ perception about FCPX, so yes it is mainly a PR issue.
I don’t want or expect Apple to be forthcoming with anything other than a brief roadmap of their software and hardware products, but I do expect them to engage fully with professional customers. And by professional, I mean everyone who uses their PRO products at whatever level. They certainly should have a presence at trade shows, and they should do a whole lot more online, creating something with substance, not just make a few marketing films telling us how wonderful their products are.
How difficult is it for their product managers to communicate via email with users? Not very. I get regular emails from Adobe and Avid, plus many Adobe guys frequent this and other forums to answer questions in a grown-up civilised manner without giving away secrets. They even host free webinars offering help and advice with direct access to the team.
Surely, in this day and age a little communication is a the least a customer can expect from a company like Apple. Maybe there’s an ap for that…
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
[Craig Seeman] “When you say the timeline isn’t conducive for complex editing and Event and Projects is ill conceived that shows a lack of understanding.
Maybe you have a definition of “complex” you assume is common. You should define and substantiate your position.
There’s nothing at all ill conceived about Events and Projects. Whatever shortcoming you don’t mention, it’s easy to prove its greater flexibility as I have done.
I responded with explanations. You’ve made generalizations.”
Sorry Craig, I’ve only got time for sweeping generalisations. I’ll try and write something detailed when I can – maybe start a new thread with it.
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Who’s perception do they need to change and why?
As far as communication, yeah, it hasnt happened for the last 10 years from Apple, I can’t imagine it getting much better.
Although, since the release of X, Apple has stated clear intentions, and delivered on them, even though we had no idea fcs3 would be EOLd. That was an unfortunate side effect that won’t matter in another year or less.
Jeremy”
Who
As you know, there is a growing suspicion among professionals that Apple no longer cares about them or their products – be them hardware or software. Indeed, many long term Apple customers have been purchasing PCs to do their editing, compositing and other work on for the first time in their careers.Why
Apple claim professional users are important to them – they’ve said this many times in the last eighteen months. Of course, we are small beer in their global success story and we’re a PITA to boot but I’ll take them at their word.I do see a change in their communications strategy lately, but they need to step it up and some if they are to win back the respect they held a couple of short years ago.
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
[Bill Davis] “Poppycock.
I read what you wrote. I asked polite questions intended to uncover your concerns and address the issues you brought up.
I was respectful and polite about everything you wrote indicating how I saw things differently, but not saying a word about you – until you devolved into what I felt was an insupportably snarky attack on Mr. Ubillos’s competency as a programmer. And even in doing that, I cited the reasoning I used to form my opinion.
But here you go again, resorting to personal attacks and deeming those of us in disagreement as “sad.”
Not to tax your ability to reason too much, but EVERYONE on the planet sees things from their own perspective. It’s the only one any of us have.
And if I’d “assumed you were stupid” I wouldn’t have wasted my time responding to your post point by point.
At the base, I agree with Jeremy.
If you have something to say about the software – say it.
To the extent you feel compelled to continue as above with overt attacks on the people here – I’d politely advise you to put a sock in it. This board is not about who’s “likable” or not. (If that’s a persons primary focus, they have a zillion hours of reality TV to wallow in that covers that ground relentlessly)
This is a place where people come to debate whether a particular piece of software can help them get their work done – and I’m not getting a sense that you can argue those merits very comfortably since you keep diverting your posts away from facts and features and into personality issues.
And finally, not sad at all. Quite happy. I have great new software to explore that’s making my editing life easier. So I’m struggle free and good to go. You – apparently not so much.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor”
Ease up there tiger. I’m not looking for a fight…
The title of this thread is, “After a year has perception of FCPX changed?” I gave my opinion in reference to that question. My jury is still out. As I have said, there are bits I like, bits I don’t like, and a corporation I’ve lost some trust with.
Now, play nicely.
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
[Craig Seeman]
You don’t seem to understand FCPX at all.Actually Craig, I do understand FCPX. I’ve used it for over a year, I’ve done the training… …there are some things I like, some things I don’t. It’s funny how evangelists like you and Bill can only see things from your own perspective and assume the rest of us are stupid. Funny, but rather sad too…
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
[Jeremy Garchow] “So while it’s not perfect, the starting infrastructure is actually pretty interesting, even if all the pieces aren’t quite there”
I agree Jeremy. That is why I’m still running it alongside my other NLEs. FCPX is promising, but Apple need to deliver on those promises. More importantly if they want to change peoples’ perception about FCPX and be taken seriously again, they need improve their communication with pro users. I think we can all agree on that…
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
[Bill Davis]Well, a Steenbeck wasn’t actually designed with “complex editing in mind” but that didn’t stop legions of editors from cutting very complex projects on it. So i guess I’m just clueless about what you mean by “complex.” Probably just me.
[Bill Davis]Now this just baffles me. How is elevating a relational database to near parity with the editing interface an example of “aren’t designed with the busy editor or facility in mind?” It seems me that X in time is likely to outstrip most current editorial platforms in media management simply because they designed the database and editorial functions to function totally in tandem. But we must just see this very differently as well.
[Bill Davis]To me, it’s almost completely “mindful.” It appears to me that massive amounts of careful though and consideration went into the construction of the X interface. Primary evidence of that is that it would have been MASSIVELY easier just to do “tweaked” versions of the same workflow approaches that every other software package had done before.
The changes in X might not resonate for you – and that’s all well and good – but to apply a word like mindless is to argue that they are NOT changes – just accidents. And like it or not, the change in X is far from “accidental” – the definitional opposite of “mindless” no?
[Bill Davis]Interesting. Can’t recall who it was and whether or not it was here, but I was reading something yesterday from someone who was commenting about how he didn’t like Events or Projects at first either – but as his work and database got more complex, he appeared to reconsider that initial opinion. IIRC, in the face of increasing workflow complexity – those concepts started to make a whole lot more sense than that did to him when he viewed every “project” as it was in Legacy editors – separate, discrete, “cut off” constructs rather than entries in a “stream” of accessible projects – one of the foundational thinking changes I think that X has made. After all, if you’re still working “one project at a time” – then the entire Event Library makes little sense. OTOH, if you see your work as a series of discrete events – shoots, sound recordings, photo creations, downloads, whatever, that are all brought together into an initial key wording, coloring, and perfecting space (the event browser) – and you’d like access to all of not only that projects assets but ALL your projects assets to be accessible, then the Event idea starts to make huge amounts of sense.
[Bill Davis]Well, you had me seriously engaged up to this.
This is just, IMO, undeserved snarkiness. It implies that X is some kind of empty”all sizzle and no steak” tool and implies that everyone here who’ve spent the past year exploring it are all just clueless fools – and that our year of discussion is based on us being too dense to understand how clever Mr. Ubillos snuck one over on us rubes.
The other view, of course, is that the guy responsible for empowering more professional editors than any other single software designer on the planet, just felt that there might be better long-term ways to assemble media in the modern era – and that those might be worth codifying into a new type of editing tool.
Perhaps you are correct, and all of us who find editing in X to be faster, more flexible, and more interesting than we felt editing was after our years editing in Legacy are just delusional.
But I suppose I’m content in my delusions. And far too polite to publicly say anything your comment above about whoever wrote the current version of Premier or AVID or Vegas – since those folks are all likely worlds smarter about NLE design than I am.
Thanks for expounding on your views, anyway. I personally see them as being largely based on “feelings” rather than “facts” so I remain far from convinced the the arguments – but I certainly appreciate your taking the time to try to explain your point of view.
Thanks.”
Wow Bill, so many words, so much hysteria and so little reason.
Too many points to pick you up on, so I’ll just pick a few. As someone who used to work on Steenbeck I’m well placed to disagree with opening point. A flatbed, a trim bin and a good assistant were indeed designed for complex editing. It would just take a while and a lot of effort. On a modern NLE I can edit in hours what would take weeks on Steenbeck. That’s a fact in case you think it’s a feeling.
On your second point about my use of the word “mindless”. I’m not suggesting they didn’t think about what they were doing, more that the changes they made to the timeline were inferior to the existing one. I’m sure the tech to enable the magnetic timeline/connected clips etc is very clever, though to me it doesn’t enhance the editing process. Change for the sake of change is pointless. No?
As for my barb about Randy’s powerpoint, well I think you are being over dramatic about this and to suggest it somehow diminishes those people that have spent the last year working on FCPX is plain silly. I’m one of those who downloaded it it on day one and have used it since day one alongside other NLEs!! My point was simple, the things that are good in FCPX aren’t necessarily the things that make editors smile, they are things that will make software engineers smile – things like “elevating a relational database to near parity with the editing interface”…
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net