Mitch Ives
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “”Coming in early 2012”
Where did you see “early”… it says 2012… that’s anytime until December
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com -
[Chris Kenny] “Consumers don’t actually buy $300 software “
I wish people would stop saying this. Consumers but $500 iPhones… $900 iPads. Lots of consumers buy Photoshop, which costs more. We really need to stop saying this, as it’s a really lame statement that has no basis in fact…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com -
[Craig Alan] “Word processing/broadband did this for writing. There are writers now at all levels that get an audience. There will be room for ‘pros’ now that video is a new form of literacy.”
Yes, I know those people too, and none of them are making much money now. It’s a part-time thing now for a lot of them. Having said that, I get your point. Graphic Designers went through the same thing. There was a huge wash out rate and a dearth of time before it started coming back a bit.
[Craig Alan] “I have been wondering for a while … if the cloud is the distribution system, what is the proper form of color correction?”
Hey, it’s the wild west… your guess is as good as anyone’s…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com -
I think there’s several points being made in this thread.
The first, as both Bill and David have suggested, is that any perceived shortcomings of FCPX can be overcome by having a secondary system around. This is a legitimate approach, though I doubt that everyone will see that as acceptable, particularly when every other NLE doesn’t require it. Still, if one sees the advantages of FCPX as great enough, it might be able to be justified… at least for as long as you can keep that secondary system alive.
The second is that quality is no longer important, since so much of production goes to web. That’s also a legitimate point, though I believe that correct color will still be required. If there is a company logo or corporate colors involved, plan on hearing from the legal department if you’re not very very close. I’ve known people who have gotten the letters for both print and video over the years, so I believe the “it doesn’t matter cause it’s the web” defense may be weak.
Bill went so far as to suggest that web video is higher quality than the “dumbed down broadcast” quality (as he referred to it). I suspect a lot of people won’t agree with that. Since I’ve been watching HD longer and editing HD longer than Bill, I’ll disagree. As an early pioneer of web video and someone who is always pushing the envelope on web video quality, none of it comes close to what I watch on my 65″ HD set. In fairness that may change in time… and in the interest of full disclosure, yes I’ve known Bill Davis for many many years.
Third, with regard to Bills $49 online training experience… I’ll go out on a limb here and guess that it was a program made on FCPX and about FCPX? No surprise that the absence of external monitoring wasn’t a problem for him in that example.
Fourth, Steve is correct in his notion that Broadcast isn’t about Broadcast. What it’s about proper quality. Always has been. Broadcast monitors were used by people who never went to broadcast. They are your only defense against the “color looks wrong on my TV” argument. If you could demonstrate that it was in perfect color on a known calibrated standard, then you were vindicated. A brass pin serves the same purpose in a survey. If, as Bill is suggesting, we don’t need any brass pins anymore (a potentially true point), then I predict chaos. But perhaps that’s where we’re headed.
Fifth, David’s two step approach to getting correct monitoring may well work. I have my doubts, but perhaps someone will make really great DisplayPort monitors at some point in the future.
Sixth, I’d like to suggest that these beliefs may well be making us the architect of our own demise. If Bill is correct, and I think he might be, since I’ve been making similar points about the death of our industry for a few years… then many of us won’t be in business in a year. If quality, craft or accuracy no longer matter, then the guy who does video on the side while working in shipping and receiving department can do the video. For that matter, why not the receptionist?
We’ve seen this before, so it isn’t without precedent. Perhaps the “Democratization of video” that I spoke of many years ago has finally arrived. If that’s the case, everyone will do their own video… and your phone will stop ringing. Could be that you won’t be using FCPX at all, because you won’t be using anything to edit.
All interesting things to ponder…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com -
[Bill Davis] “But anyone who can’t see the massive additional possibilities of the new approach, IMO, has blinders on.”
I’d love to see it. Let us know when they can get the full video signal out so we can see it on a monitor.
[Bill Davis] “I’ll still use 7 till I can grasp everything going on here. But every day, I’ll be reading, learning and practicing with X.”
Me too. Seriously, FCPX needs 6 months, especially with Lion being such a big change. I was disappointed to see Apple announce that Lion brings no new capability to FCPX. I was really hoping that the A/V Foundation in Lion was going to help FCPX. At least we now know why Apple released FCPX a month earlier than Lion. No point not to, and to avoid confusion.
I just hope it’s 6 months, not a year…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com -
[Steve Connor] “Ironically that’s what drove us to FCP and now after all this time we may be driven back to Premiere.
“someone once said life is a circle… You may have just proven that…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com -
[Walter Soyka] “[Bill Davis] “All we can do is keep trying to do our work well – but all the careful lighting, camera setting, and production values mean nothing if at the point of some DA, comb filter or software transcoding hash table strips out our careful work and displays a MESS to the public.”
Yes, we must continue trying to do our work well, but let’s take it a step further. We must reinforce to other professionals the importance of doing our work well — not only to preserve the value we as an industry have to offer, but also in order to preserve the good old-fashioned notion of pride of workmanship.
There are three ways to do something: wrong, good enough, and right. I believe that “good enough” usually isn’t, and I see the “good enough” bar being lowered every day. That’s why we should all aim for right.
I will go down with this ship if I must. “
Well said. Bill’s point is right, but you make the same point I’ve been trying to make… a more important point IMO. If we don’t continue to do things absolutely correct, then why shouldn’t they just use a high school student to do their work. We’re handing our own gun over to somebody to be shot with it. Does that make good business sense?
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com -
[Chris Kenny] “We’ll probably find out in the next week or two if Lion has changed that, or if Apple is still working on this aspect of AV Foundation.”
That’s what I keep hoping. I hope you’re right and that it will be there, and that they won’t force you to buy some completely new Thunderbolt interface to do it…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com -
[Paul Dickin] “Not a ‘solution’. but a measured assessment of the problem.”
Yes, I’ve seen Philips, as I’ve known him a very long time. I hadn’t seen the other one, which was an interesting “mental” exercise, but as you pointed out, not a solution.
IMO, a lot of people are trying to rationalize not having made the appropriate investment.
More to the point, I believe it’s our job, as a professional, to do it right… not try to make the unilateral decision that “good is good enough”. Perhaps this is why so many people just use a high school student to do their video for $400, because we aren’t pointing out all the things they get with a properly trained and knowledgeable professional? Maybe we’re bringing this on ourselves by cutting corners and not taking it all the way…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com -
[Steve Grimes] “I am not trying to say quality is irrelevant, but rather a decently calibrated computer monitor with attention to detail when grading will yield something so close results wise that 99% of those watching the content will never notice the difference.”
Ahhh… no. Not true at all. I see a lot of people who are trying to rationalize not having made the appropriate investment.
[Steve Grimes] ” I just can’t wrap my mind around given nearly everyone watching the content absolutely destroys their display settings anyways.”
Because our job, as a professional, is to do it right… not try to make the unilateral decision that “good is good enough”. Perhaps this is why so many people just use a high school student to do their video for $400, because we aren’t pointing out all the things they get with a properly trained and knowledgeable professional? I’m just saying… maybe we’re bringing this on ourselves…
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com