Marvin Holdman
Forum Replies Created
-
Um, technically speaking it does NOT leave XDCAM footage native. You are working with re-wrapped files which are a second set created when you bring them in. Wish that it did, it would half your data footprint. It is true to say that it leaves your re-wrapped XDCAM files native… until you apply effects.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
To expand on your analogy….
FCPX is a language that no country speaks. Perhaps it will gain widespread popularity one day, but we all learn languages fast, so why waste time on something that may, or may not be commonly spoken in 3 years?
If you enjoy working with it, great. Have fun. Does it expand your vision of the future? Awesome. I can see just as much of that future transitioning to PPro plus I get everything I need to do the job.
As for metadata… you say this;
[Bill Davis] “FCP-X on the other hand, is built for the serial content producer. Assets, type treatments, database logs, – virtually everything about it is “sticky” in that once you create them, you can access and re-access them time and time again. You can sort assets, search assets, re-combine assets with amazing ease.
Why build that in if you’re just serving a market doing THIS ONE video? It makes no sense.”
“Sticky”? Sure, in as much as you are “stuck” with it, if this is your choice to manage your metadata. If you are in a non-colabrative environment and have a limited amount of on-going work to do, the I could see it working for you. But I see some real problems with their metadata plan down the road. First, you are married to it completely. There is no portability of this metadata. You can’t take it to another application (say an SQL database) and work it. You might say that’s “coming in the future” but has it come for iPhoto or iMovie? Similar data systems that are completely closed and likely always will be.
Frankly, there are more (and better) sources to do what you describe. Better functioning in the present versions with a historical likelihood of moving toward this bright shining future that you seem only to be able to see through the FCPX prism.
As I said, if it works for you great, but I would suggest that you are putting all of your eggs in one flimsy beta-basket if you are currently building your entire meta structure around this application.
FCP7 does work today, but we (like many others) have decided it was best to migrate away from it as quickly as possible to minimize future impacts. Given the current state of FCPX we decided that it was simply not ready for the task. As you are still using FCP7 for some of your work, it would appear (through your actions) that you agree with this. Watching this unfold over the last several weeks, hearing other professionals weigh in on the matter and Apple’s near complete silence on the matter leads us to believe that there is a problem in the Cupertino Paradise. Will it be fixed? Will it be “awesome” in 3 years? Who can say.
I argue the point with you because, at the bottom of it, I want to agree with you. It’s just that you are not giving a sound enough argument to embrace the same level of enthusiasm that you seem to have for this product. I really would like to gulp down that frosty mug of koolaid you seem to enjoy so much, but given everything I’ve seen and heard so far…. our business would die (or get really, really sick).
Please, prove me wrong. Run a multi-editor, collaborative, meta-data driven, cloud driven, enterprise level broadcast business with it and show us all this bright future that you so believe it to be a harbinger of. The product you are describing is the one I was waiting for. But I’ve not seen the one you describe.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
You seem to apply that FCPX is the ONLY program that has this vision of the future. I would say that the democratization that you are claiming is so visionary has been afoot since NLE’s came about. The fact is, video editing was becoming more accessible long before FCPX came out. The fact that it seems it is purpose built to “simply” the process, thereby making it more widely accessible is nothing new at all.
The real question at this point is…
Will this current interpretation of the future be successful?
I say it’s already been proposed by Apple in the form of iMovie. A much broader range of people have access to iMovie than FCS and as a consequence the current explosion of youtube is, at least in part, being fueled by this fact. Perhaps a slightly better version of iMovie will bring a rash of cliche presets to the world of youtube, but will it make those video’s any better? Historically, easier access to presets will not appreciably improved anyone’s ability, it will only make for more effects in the same mediocre videos. I am not deriding experimentation and fun with this craft, it’s one of the reason’s most of us took this as a career… it’s fun. But I would say the same number of people who will keep after it once they find out that, as much fun as it may be, it is still hard work to make something that is consequential, is still just as limited (no matter how awesome the NLE application). And FCPX doesn’t inherently improve the quality of the craft. Frankly, it is ultimately limiting in the range of what CAN be done. As long as you do it FCPX’s way, you’re fine, it you want to be be creative, or experimental with your tools, you might be better off finding a tool that allows this. FCPX is not that tool.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
We are not so far apart in our worlds. Of course we all want to do whatever it takes to keep our clients happy, but…
I’d rather keep them happy in the long run than confuse them about what it is we do.
When you say this, “I (of course) am not talking about finishing or fine tuning, I am simply talking about last minute changes and requests.” SOME clients can’t make the distinction you are talking about. It’s a subtle difference. Personally, I prefer to leave their office, head down to the coffee shop, make the changes, check my email and maybe make a few calls, then come back later and say, “Well, it took some doing, but we were able to stretch it out and get that change made. Whew! That was a tough one”. Much as Houdini would routinely take a break after an escape, and before re-appearing, to “build drama” while the audience imagined him struggling to free himself.
I think the point the original poster made was that this trend of anywhere, anytime editing is going to be a challenge to manage with our clients relationships.
I don’t disagree with what you are saying, nor do I dismiss the “portability” of our work, I just think it needs to be used judiciously and with an understanding that sometimes it suits us best NOT to do this type of work “in the cloud”. I think we’re all just trying to make sense of when those times are. Frankly, we’ve got some time to figure it out. As I think everyone agrees… we’re not there yet.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
Jeremy Garchow – “Certainly it would not be practical all the time, but sometimes I would and save myself the trip to the office.”
I don’t think anyone is arguing that this doesn’t have promise, I think the point is raising to level of expectation of your client to believe that these technologies are reliable and practical enough to depend on is not a good idea. Sure, we can all remote in to our office machine from time to time and yes it is convenient. To take it from there to depending on that type of connection for deadline work, in a fluid environment, is something I don’t think even you would want to do.
As professionals, we should migrate to proven, reliable gear and processes. Cloud based Starbucks edits are only for discrete convenience and curious exploration. Not ready for the client world just yet.
That and dealing with the abusive nature of some of our clients. Sadly, it’s not going to make much difference where you are, or what gear you use, for those who are inclined to such.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
Yeah, it’s a shot.
The fact that you can’t attach a broadcast monitor and it seems most of the “sharing” is targeting uploads to internet outlets. Just seems this software is a conscious effort to migrate away from anything to do with SMPTE. That’s all.
Wish I could come to that meeting though. I read the notes you posted. Interesting stuff. It seems our world is turning into a real “tower of babel” these days regarding standards. They mentioned MXF wrappers in the article. We’ve worked with Sony MXF for the last couple of years and have a love/hate relationship with this vendor specific form of it’s flavor. The compression is great, but the proprietary nature of it sucks for working with the bigger world.
I really don’t envy broadcast engineers these days. Although organizations like SMTPE try to impose some form of standard, the manufacturers disregard for those standards has created a big, big mess. Sony is one of the worst. Sure, they use MXF and MP4, but the ONLY way you can use them is with Sony’s software and on Sony’s equipment. Geez, I wish SMPTE had some real teeth.
In the end, I’d love to hear the opinions on where this is all going from these folks. Post us some links if you make it.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
Bill, I think it’s all well and good to say the future is coming, but to make a blanket pronouncement that not embracing this particular application (FCPX) is simply “short sighted” is, well, simplistic and not true. I don’t think anyone will argue that perhaps cloud based work is somewhere in the future, but I also think you must admit that this software is far from ready for it. Not to mention the bigger picture in which our current network infrastructure is FAR from being able to support ANY cloud based viability for anything but proxy editing.
That being said, I think the “clouds” that most of the people in our business will be using won’t be some third party server farm that we rent space at. Perhaps some kind of VPN solution that will make if viable to have more mobility to where our edits and scrubs might take place, but I still believe that for our industry (let’s just say broadcast video and above) cloud distributed media assets won’t come for at least another 10 years. Provided we trust the current ISP’s to actually invest their profits in the future instead of merely reaping short term gains on existing, sub-par infrastructure (but that’s another subject).
This all comes back to why I think it’s foolish to “embrace” this pity of a program. While it might be worth a day or two of time invested, trying to incorporate it into any existing workflows is a fools errand. There is NO WAY you can know how long it will take for this thing to have the features needed to be productive. It is so vastly different from the interface and terminology side that it is simply incongruent with the existing industry. Why should anyone take the time to learn this magnetic timeline approach and in-bred meta convention? The likelihood of industry wide adoption of this bastard child is less than likely.
At the end of it, I really wonder why you would deride anyone who might feel anyway other than enthralled with this strange dysfunctional application (Bill Davis -“Sounds extremely short sighted to me.) I would propose that it is exactly the opposite and that say that very astute to take advantage of the current pricing structure of the competitors NLE’s due to this debacle. In three years time, what will happen will happen. In all likelihood, they will upgrade from whatever is purchased today based on the CURRENT capabilities of the choices at hand on THAT day. To struggle with a half-built application in the meantime is nothing short of silly and painful.
I agree that FCPX is worth a look. I agree that there are some good things about it. I think SOME of the features MIGHT gain widespread acceptance. I just don’t see how anyone can justify more than a 5% commitment of time to using this application in it’s current form. What i hear from most advocates is that it “has promise” and because of that they feel that something will be missed if they don’t try and incorporate it today. I don’t believe that it’s necessary, or even wise, to even try at the moment. When (or if?) it gets fleshed out most here will be able to learn it rather quickly. Look around, there are very bright people here. Nothing will be missed by NOT adopting it for the next three years.
You want to be an early adopter? Great, good for you. If you have the time and inclination, go for it. It will certainly be appreciated by everyone here in the long run. But to call people out because they don’t share your fascination with this half-baked application is just rude.
[Bill Davis] “Every day studying FCP-X tells me it’s a new tool for a new age. I might be absolutely wrong. But I’m also NOT stopping my exploration. If for no other reason that when I jettisoned my fear of what was different, I finally starting seeing what about it might be a lot better.”
I believe you are absolutely wrong to say that FCPX, in it’s current state, is “a new tool for a new age”. I think it MIGHT be one day, but this is not that day. I KNOW you are wrong about implication that most folks here “fear” change. You can’t work in this industry for ANY length of time and fear change. The implication that folks here “fear” what FCPX proposes for change is just silly. Most that I see simply wonder if this new way of thinking is pertinent. The jury is still out on that one, but it doesn’t appear that everyone is going to adopt magnetic timelines and Apple’s proprietary metadata formats as an industry standard anytime soon (or at all for that matter). The rest of the features seem fairly innocuous in terms of being fearful of their adoption. Things such as background rendering and format compatibility are all well and good, if they are included in a functional package. No one I know fears either of these concepts. Nice, sure, revolutionary? Not really. More evolutionary actually, and in all likelihood some form of these ideas are likely to appear in coming versions of the competitors NLE’s. I’m really not sure what you think people “fear” in this program, but the assumption of it is condescending to this herd.
Sorry for what might seem like getting personal, but it appears you enjoy engaging folks in this manner. Thought I’d return the favor one time.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
Funny, some folks have pointed out that Apple’s main motivation to make software is to sell Apple hardware. Given the recent migration to other NLE’s it would seem FCPX is most effective at selling other vendors software.
Bad plan, or no plan?
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
I think it’s probably safe to say there have been at least a few “WTF” meetings about this in Cupertino and those usually bog a process.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
Interesting question as FCPX doesn’t seem to support SMTPE standards.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv