[Oliver Peters]

[Bill Davis] “I’m doing EXACTLY what is appropriate. If a client elects to force me to use a tool that makes my work harder and less efficient, then they have to pay MORE than if they let me use a tool that enables me to be more efficient.”

You have it backwards. If you are less efficient, then the client is already paying more, because it takes you longer. So now you are asking to charge a premium on top of what is already more expensive for the client. Doesn’t sound like a way to win over a client. Unless, of course, it’s a flat bid, which is typically not the case in this type of situation. And besides, no one would be “forcing” you. You either take the job or you don’t based on the requirements and your qualifications.

[Bill Davis] “And in any case, I have LONG been staunchly against trading money for time in general. “

That’s dumb. An editor is supplying a service and that service is paid against time – by the hour, day, week, month, whatever. It’s not a full-service, creative service, like a production company might bid.

[Bill Davis] ” and more and more into the ACTUAL editing – which is really using expertise to curate what to eliminate, what to prioritize, and how to arrange my chosen elements in order to help it to communicate successfully to it’s audience.”

That’s the essence of what every editor does on every tool and on every job. You can argue that X let’s you do it faster; however, it’s impossible to say that you can now pay attention to it purely because you are using X. Any editor worth their salt does that day in and day out on every NLE and does it rather quickly.

And besides, the fastest editor isn’t necessarily the best editor in the first place. So to argue that the client gets more value because X allows you to be faster may be an incorrect metric. One thing you aren’t factoring in is compatibility with the rest of the operation.

Let’s say this is a corporate conference and you are hired to edit the on-site videos. The company is all Adobe-based. They want to supply you with elements and prepared project files done in After Effects and Premiere Pro. At the end, they expect you to turn over Premiere Pro project files that they can revise back at their home base. You are in a pretty weak position trying to argue that X is either faster or better, simply because of the hoops you have to jump through to meet the requirement. And even then you haven’t fully satisfied the needs. The bottom line is that in such a situation, the client doesn’t hire you, they hire someone who is comfortable with the Adobe suite of tools.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Oliver Peters]

[Elliot Bendis] “FCPXLM will not open in Logic”

You can just send to Logic directly from FCPX.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Oliver Peters]

[Bill Davis] “Project type A – (start and complete in X) Base Quote.
Project type C – (start in any other NLE, and delivered for me to finish) Base Quote + 50%
Project type D – start in other NLE, have me organize and edit, then requiring assets to be turnedover for use in any
other NLE) Base Quote +100%”

Huh? Isn’t that contrary to your argument that X is faster? If you are charging more to use another NLE and you are supposedly faster on X, then you are really giving the client the middle finger and pricing yourself out of the market. This strategy effectively tells the client that you have no interest in cutting with anything other than X, even though that might not be in the best interest of the client or the project.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Oliver Peters]

Normally processing effects like noise reduction require a bit of space at the head of the file to calculate what to remove. So copy and paste your track to another sequence along with the effects and add a few seconds at the beginning and end. Export as a self-contained audio file (WAV or AIF). Import that, trim the ends that you’ve added and replace the audio in your original sequence. Remove the effects that might be left over. You should now hear the processing “baked” into the file. Your export should be OK now.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Oliver Peters]

[Paul Neumann] “Well, now you’ve done it…”

I don’t mean that as a slam, although that’s maybe how it sounded. My point is that historically Apple tends not to be part of things officially where they are one of many vendors. I think in this case, it’s a mistake. In many ways this type of event is targeted at exactly the types of users they want for MacBook Pros and FCPX. So they opt not to participate, but Adobe does. I think that’s a missed opportunity.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Oliver Peters]

[Craig Seeman] “Could it be that Filmic Pro is not Apple specific?”

I realize that. It wouldn’t have prevented Apple from participating or offering prices as part of the promotion. Especially given the fact that the high-profile projects that have used Filmic Pro have done so with iPhones. But typically Apple doesn’t like to be part of something that’s not dominated by Apple.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Oliver Peters]

[Bill Davis] “I think I got the gatekeeper gig only because after 25 years of VO announcing, I could stand at the ropes and yell loudly enough stuff like “they say just 5 more minutes!” With the needed punch to keep the crowds at bay.”

LOL

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Oliver Peters]

It’s one or the other. The Proxy workflow is a toggle pointing the clips within FCPX to one set of media (original/optimized) or the other.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Oliver Peters]

Have you reset your preferences?

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Oliver Peters]

[Bill Davis] “I haven’t seen it in a while, but it appeared to me to have a bunch of new material in the last half or so.”

Ooooh…. You’re in it ☺

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com