Simon Ubsdell
6
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Thomas Carter] “quickly to address the visuals, I did this to divide the day and the night of the interactive story. With one quick lasso I could enable, or disable either side of the edit, while I worked on the other.”
Was there a reason you decided not to do this with roles/subroles for night and day?
(Thanks for coming back BTW!)
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Brett Sherman] “Why are we trying to limit discussion here?”
I absolutely don’t want to limit discussion and would fight to the death for the freedom for anyone to express whatever opinion they like as loudly as they choose.
It seemed to me that Oliver’s post was being shouted down in a manner that didn’t seem to me to be reasonable – and by those whose credentials to shout it down (I know this is presumptuous to say) seemed to me to be not quite as solid as they might be given how loud they were shouting.
Of course, shouting is what makes this forum such an entertaining place to visit – and Tim should be encouraging it wherever possible … as long as it remains on the right side of civility, obviously.
I don’t think I disagree with you at all, but I do sense that there are a tiny few with some quite loud voices who would like to limit what it’s permissible to say about FCP X. Though of course I could be completely wrong about that and am very happy to admit to it if that’s the case and apologise accordingly.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Scott Witthaus] “See what you started, Oliver? :-)”
Well, you can’t say it hasn’t been a lively discussion 😉
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Robin S. Kurz] “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?”
Thanks for clarifying the state of your knowledge of Media Composer – it’s helpful to know exactly what it is in the light of the current discussion.
Here’s why, expressed simply:
If Mr A says that X is better than Y, but then it transpires Mr A has little or no knowledge of Y, then Mr B is surely entitled to question the validity of Mr A’s argument that X is better than Y. Yes, Mr A is employing an ad hominem argument, but it’s a case of an entirely valid ad hominem argument. Mr A is not properly qualified to state that X is better than Y if he doesn’t in fact have equal knowledge of both. Of course he can legitimately say that he prefers Y but that’s something quite different.
You may be entirely correct in your conclusion that FCP X is superior to the other NLE’s currently on the market, but if you are correct, then you’re correct by accident rather than through actual knowledge. (If you are not saying that FCP X is superior, then I apologise for misrepresenting you.)
Oliver P. started this thread off by pointing out that each NLE has its strengths and weaknesses and each has a different appeal to different segments of the market, which seems to me a pretty reasonable position to have adopted. Moreover Oliver has I think been editing since before the days of DW Griffith and it is well known that he has taken the time to “dive deeply” (in Bill’s phrase) into a wide range of editing systems.
It seems odd to me that those who shout the loudest about the superiority and uniqueness of FCP X are also those who have the least experience of NLE’s not made or developed by Apple. FCP X enthusiasts with a wider knowledge of what else is out there tend to be far less strident and far more ready to accept that other options have equal worth.
[Robin S. Kurz] “Whatever…. feel free to continue with whatever (unidentifiable) agenda you’re following…”
I really don’t have an agenda, I’m afraid – but your suggestion that I do is of course a classic example of an ad hominem argument 😉
For my part, I really don’t have a preference among the top three NLE’s currently on the market and will use (and have used) whichever is most suitable to the job at hand. Same with most of the professional applications I use, whether it’s audio, or mograph, or VFX, or 3D – I let the context decide. And sometimes, of course, the client dictates what I should use which means my preference is not relevant.
I just don’t see the point in trying to decide on the “superiority” of one application over another and then sticking with that through hell or high water. Learn as many of them as you can, keep learning, and keep revising your opinions as circumstances change, because what is true today will almost certainly be a lot less true a year from now.
The more perspectives through which you view the craft of editing, the better editor you become – and keeping abreast of all the latest developments across a range of editing systems is a great way of doing that.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Robin S. Kurz] “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!”
I guess what you’re saying here is that you haven’t ever actually used Media Composer, is that right?
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Robin S. Kurz] “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.”
I’m not entirely sure when the price became operative but quite a few years back now you were able to buy MC outright for $995 which is only marginally more expensive than the Dashwood plug-in – and you’d walk away with an industry standard NLE for your money in addition to being able to access the best stereoscopic workflow available. A decent enough deal, I’d have said.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Andrew Kimery] “over 40 3D films have been released in the US so far this year so it makes since for Avid to cater to their niche.”
Had no idea it was so many – that’s still a heck of a lot of movies and all of them virtually by definition very big budget. Makes total sense to be servicing the needs of that market.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Robin S. Kurz] “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.”
Dashwood Stereo3D Toolbox costs 520.66 of our English pounds and therefore quite a few more of your American dollars – 799, to be precise.
A monthly subscription to Media Composer currently runs at $49 per month.
The Media Composer workflow is seriously powerful and seamless – I would recommend you try it.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Scott Witthaus] “[Simon Ubsdell] “damp squib”
I have no clue what this is! :-)”
damp squib – noun BRITISH – a situation or event which is much less impressive than expected.
The launch of FCP X is a good example of a damp squib 😉 Just kidding, sorry, couldn’t help it.
[Scott Witthaus] “If Avid had listened to it’s users, it would have known not to chase this fad. A lot of valuable time and resources went after this “damp squib” (I think!) that Avid should not have wasted. What other requested features were put on the back-burner because of the 3D investment?”
You are in danger of disregarding the fact that there have been some truly massive stereoscopic movies that have made gazillions of dollars. This being the case I can’t really agree that it was inappropriate for AVID to have helped facilitate the workflow that made some of those movies possible.
Stereoscopic was a huge mistake – though it’s maybe too early to call it a dead duck (another idiom for you). But it’s surely a good thing that there are companies that are willing to put the effort into developing workflows that can generate massive revenue streams … just as much as it’s a good thing that there are companies that facilitate small shops to deliver more profitably.
[Scott Witthaus] “Yes, I do agree and it re-enforces some ideas that Avid is becoming a niche product for broadcast and film.”
AVID have always serviced a niche and they always will for as long as they are around – their forays into the mass market have all been ineffective or disastrous. I’m just not sure I follow why we should be dismissing their products for that reason. Niches can be hugely profitable and provide employment for a surprising large number of people. Are you saying they shouldn’t be catered for?
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Brett Sherman] “I find FCP X is just the most efficient for what I do. I’m not sure why Oliver thinks otherwise.”
Surely he didn’t say that, though. What he clearly said was: “In the end, it depends on what’s best for your business, your market, your clientele and your own style.” And that’s hardly contentious.
I think though there is a trend here to try and imply (if not state outright) that there is something exceptional about FCP X that sets it apart from the competition.
Oddly this seems to be claimed the most loudly by a few who don’t actually seem to have much, if any, experience of its competitors.
The fact is surely that every NLE has its weaknesses and each one has its strengths and that therefore they are each exceptional in their way.
Surely no-one can really argue that if you need a solid multi-user environment, Media Composer is still well ahead of the field. Similarly if you need integration with the industry standard for motion graphics, it doesn’t get any better than Premiere. And of course, there are advantages to using FCP X that have been extensively rehearsed here over the years.
Surely very few people are still arguing that FCP X doesn’t have a proven place right up there up among the other top NLE offerings. I’m am pretty certain that Oliver didn’t try to suggest that FCP X isn’t a great fit for your workflow, or did I miss that bit?
There’s been a lot of discussion of the Honda spot – and clearly FCP X was ideally suited to that job. On the other hand, if it had been a stereoscopic job (yes, they still exist!), it’s clear that by far the best choice would have been Media Composer.
The suitability of an NLE for one type of job doesn’t necessarily entail its being ideal for every type of job – it seems almost too obvious to state this.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com