Robin S. kurz
Forum Replies Created
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “I guess what you’re saying here is that you haven’t ever actually used Media Composer, is that right?”
Huh?? The relevance being?? :-)))
But very little at the time, yes. Imagine that! So are we down to straw-men and red-herrings now? Is the fact that it made no sense to me on any level at the time (nor today for that matter) so utterly inconceivable for you? Am I somehow insulting you personally with that or does that not fit into your world? Because I have no clue why we’re even still debating this. I’m amazingly okay with my decision. Go figure. You want to do stereoscopic on Avid because any other solution is out of the question… be my guest. I actually don’t care. Weird, huh?
Whatever…. feel free to continue with whatever (unidentifiable) agenda you’re following…
– RK
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “you were able to buy MC outright for $995”
Exactly. Additional money I neither needed to spend nor saw any point in spending. And I already had an “industry standard NLE”, too, btw. One that I actually used. If buying an entirely new (foreign) software package that you’d need twice the time to get into for (at the time) one single project makes sense to you, great. Go for it. It sure didn’t to me, not by a long-shot. I guess I’m just weird that way!
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Simon Ubsdell] “A monthly subscription to Media Composer currently runs at $49 per month. “
Right. Never mind that I said “for years” and not “just weeks”. And that the Avid subscription is… how old? 😀 At the time you couldn’t even get as much as an incremental update for Avid for that much, so it’s rather a matter of perspective. Not sure how today’s cost is in any way relevant to what I said.
But even if it had existed, I would have paid much more by the time of the second project either way. AND had an NLE that I’m not interested in working with otherwise on top of it. Don’t see much of an advantage in that.
[Andrew Kimery] “If you are working on a Hollywood movie”
I’m not at the moment. Nor do I see that part of the industry as any sort of measure of my needs or that of more than 95+% of the entire market. Add those that actually need 3D and you’re even easily in the area of what? 99+%? And the Dashwood plugin paid for itself on the first project, so I don’t care either way. 🙂
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Honestly, I think you’re wrong here.”
Like I said, “I’m pretty sure”, not that I’m certain.
[Jeremy Garchow] “As long as the TC spans the clip, you can relink.[…] must be long enough to cover all the clips that refer to the files”
I have no idea how I can have e.g. a TC reading 10 mins. if it’s in fact just 2 mins. long. Give it a try once you get it working and let us know. 🙂
I just know that I’m currently having the classic issue of not even being able to relink the actual original files of a project because they supposedly are somehow different… what the exact difference is is apparently a secret only FCP knows. :/
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Jeremy Garchow] “you could go through the trim steps, and then relink the sequence”
I pretty sure that X won’t relink to a source that is shorter than the original clip i.e. has any major difference compared to the original clip it is referencing, no. Unfortunately, unlike 7, it just plain won’t relink, period, instead of just complaining along the lines of “I’ll do it, but proceed at your own risk!“. Definitely something that needs to be changed.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Simon Ubsdell] “That doesn’t take away from the fact the AVID provided an incredibly solid and easy-to-use workflow while the fad lasted.”
No idea what Avid is doing better/worse/different, but I’ve done a few stereoscopic projects with FCP X over the last couple of years with Dashwood just fine. May not be perfect, maybe not the best/easiest option, but more than possible. And I’m pretty sure at just a fraction of the cost.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Oliver Peters] “but you are saying that no US spot features this level of effects and compositing? “
Once again, a complete misinterpretation i.e. misrepresentation of what was meant or said.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Walter Soyka] “I agree that Apple made a brave choice in starting over from scratch, but I think it was a uniquely easy choice for Apple to make for a variety of reasons — not the least of which is that there was no real cost to the company if the gambit failed.”
I find that to be a meretricious cop-out and gross devaluation of any and every vision, effort and/or intention they, the FCP dev team, had or have with FCP X if you ask me. Since if the whole thing somehow didn’t matter either way, then why DID they code the by far most elaborate app they ever have to date? Why not go the “easy route” as I described? Why even have FCP at all? Your notion makes no sense whatsoever to me in light of the facts. And no, not just to sell hardware, even though that will have played into it, sure. Duh, they’re a profit oriented business.
If you knew anyone from the FCP team, as I do, then you’d know very quickly how passionate and serious they are about making the best possible product. To suggest that it was just “for fun” or that it didn’t matter to anyone whether it succeeded or failed, just because they could “afford” it, is just plain ludicrous and I’m sure pretty darn insulting to them. If you believe that, then you would appear not to have any idea how Apple actually works, specifically the FCP team.
Never mind that we’re talking about the most valuable company on the planet. I guess, by that logic, something you become when you have some sort of willy-nilly business practice, where things are decided because, hey, screw it, who cares if we blow a few hundred million and make for horrible PR?
Oh right. It’s just all iPhones and luck. I forget. 😀
[Walter Soyka] “And my point is that “playing catch-up” is a matter of perspective.”
Sorry, but not when it comes to industry and technological basics and standards for this industry, which both 4K and 64bit are. I was never referring to some individual *feature*.
[Walter Soyka] “What have I said that’s overdrawn and misleading?”
I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to the initial notion that Avid somehow qualifies for the three aforementioned traits in comparison to a slew of others. In general terms and in reference to the overall gist of the thread (to the point where you joined). I guess I should have used the term “one” instead of “you”. But I thought it was obvious I was speaking in general, not to you specifically. My bad.
[Walter Soyka] “I was talking about Avid”
Yes, and again, as I understood it, equating what they have achieved (most of all WHEN they achieved it) with the achievements of others. As others before you, whom I was referring to. Which again I found to be a extremely short-sighted take on the matter. Since if we had been having this conversation just a mere six months to a year ago there would have been very little to argue in favor of Avid in respect to the aforementioned points.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
Like I said, in comparison. I’m not saying it can’t do great stuff in general. I meant more along the lines of “everyday stuff”. As you say, for smaller things like that it’s, FOR ME, just way too cumbersome and having to render out each time in a big minus for my usual workflow also. As a standalone it’s superb, no doubt.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Shawn Miller] “what are you expecting to use it for”
I’ve used it for years exclusively for VFX since it’s a compositor at its core, no doubt. Can’t see using it for motion graphics, since that’s certainly not one of it’s strengths in comparison to others imho. If tight integration with Resolve is introduced (which I think is a given) I can see myself using it in that context i.e. for possible touch-ups of visuals etc. But I personally don’t see it as a replacement for Motion in the context of FCP. I’d say it all depends on what they end up doing with it in terms of I/O possibilities. Who knows what (new) avenues may open up. But first they have to make it available for OS X in general for any of that to come into consideration. 🙂
– RK