Matt Callac
Forum Replies Created
-
[Craig Seeman] “And why not taxi drivers? They are professional. They have a different objective and course than a race car driver. They are professional. They get paid. Certainly the cab companies are businesses and they can be very profitable. Maybe the wrong assumption is that all professional car drivers are race car drivers. Even the UPS and FedEx driver is professional as is the bus driver. They may even need to pass special tests. Maybe the goal is to get the package and the passenger delivered on time for those drivers. Maybe overall cab, bus, package delivery services are a much bigger business than race car drivers. They are certainly professional.”
Now we’re getting way off track… BUT.
I don’t think Taxi drivers should be included in any analogy whatsover. All other drivers make their money by maximizing some sort of efficiency. Racecar driver, by winning races. Truck driver by delivering stuff in a timely manner. Etc. Taxi can maximize their profitability being inefficient from a driving standpoint. The money they make is based on the cab fair, so they can make more money by taking you a round about way to get somewhere. (not saying all of them do).
But the main thing about the driving analogy is that each form of PRO driver has a different set of priorities, much like each form of Pro editors.
-mattyc
-
[Herb Sevush] ”
To keep the analogy going the question isn’t what do “most” drivers do, but rather what do most “pro” drivers do, and even here we want to talk about race car drivers and long distance truckers, not taxi drivers”So in this stretch of the analogy I guess we’re deeming Taxi drivers as Non-Professional Drivers? You’re gonna piss off a lot of taxi drivers that see themselves as professional drivers.
-mattyc
-
[Walter Soyka] “I said that car analogies always fail!”
or maybe analogies always fail.
-mattyc
-
[Craig Seeman] “But in FCPX things relative to that master and its clips are only relative to the clips. They are not fixed to the master time”
Right, but sometimes it’s necessary for things to be locked to a Master Time, and not what you might call Story Time (time as dictaded by the primary storyline).
-mattyc
-
[Simon Ubsdell] ”
I’m not sure what the moral is – except you’re probably right that the car analogy isn’t as helpful as it might be ;-)”Moral is, Simon is a jerk-face for ruining Walter’s great manual shift analogy.
-mattyc
-
[Craig Seeman] “So you require a stick shift otherwise you are not an alert driver.”
Exactly. Point being: Less thinking does not always mean better result for the task at hand.
-mattyc
-
Craig, I think David’s point is that sometimes master time needs to be absolutely fixed. Ideally, an editor is a story teller, and the story should be the master. Hence the primary storyline being the movable adjustable clock for the edit. Problem is All editing isn’t ideal and a lot of times you are a slave to absolute time. a commercial that is 30 seconds. A documentary for Television that has to fit nicely in 5 designated timed segment etc etc.
So some editing models just can’t fit in the new timing paradigm apple has created.
-mattyc
-
[Craig Seeman] “But I don’t see how it encourages you not to think. It just changes the sequence in which one thinks.
For example, even without clip collision you are still confronted with an overlap that you have to deal with. It’s just that you get to move into that position and deal with it rather than having to take that into account before moving the clips. For some, being able to see the result helps one deal with the results more creatively.”
Lets go back to the stick shift example example for driving a car. In an automatic you don’t have to think about shifting gears. The car handles that for you. For a lot of people that’s fine. For me it’s a problem. Not having think about shifting makes me not really have to think about driving. So when I drive an automatic, I tend to sort of miss stop signs, or accidentally go faster than I have intended. I only drive stick shifts because it makes me more aware of what I’m doing. It’s sort of the same for editing. Having things automate, means I don’t have to think about them, which means I might end up with a tendency to miss certain things because I’m no longer use to having to pay attention to certain aspects of an edit.
-mattyc
-
[Craig Seeman] ”
Great proof that FCPX is more flexible. Think in the order you like, not dictated by the NLE.”I think Herb’s point is that the program encourages you not to think, and thinking is an integral part of the process of editing. Especially before you start an edit.
-mattyc
-
[Herb Sevush] ”
The magnetic timeline – perfect for fixing things that was never a problem in the first place. Like “clip collisions” — oohhhh now there’s a scary term. But what is it really. Why would I EVER want to slide a clip into the same location as another clip without either rippling it or overwriting it?”I don’t necessarily disagree with you about this, but maybe the reason we’d never want to do this type of operation is because it wasn’t possible before.
-mattyc