All the changes that were made were fairly predictable in my opinion. It looks like Apple just combined FCP, Color, and Soundtrack Pro into 1 App. There seemed to be some motion graphics capabilities in the demo, but the live feed I watched was black at that point. Can anyone elaborate on the Motion like part of the demo?
I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple release Motion separately, combine it with the nodal interface of Shake to compete with Nuke and possibly eliminate Color, Soundtrack Pro, and DVD Studio Pro all together. Apple doesn't seem too keen on supporting optical based media in favor of their file based distribution system on the iTunes store. That just leaves Compressor, I wonder what will happen with that? Output wasn't really covered in the demo, was it?
I can't believe all the new features + new UI, its awesome. Pluraleyes built in, color correction w/ grading, nesting clips. Excellent.
I wonder what the minimum supported configuration will be? Snow Leopard no doubt, Core2Duo w/ 256MB VRAM probably is my best guess. To process all the rendering in the background seems too good to be true on lower end machines. I don't think many amateurs will be able to purchase the app simply because it won't be supported on a Macbook, low end iMac, or Mac Mini with integrated GPUs, but maybe I'll be eating my words.
All in all, Final Cut Pro X probably just cut my editing time in half. Don't tell my boss
There is no Express. FCPX is it. You either pay the $299 for Final Cut Pro X or you use iMovie.
According to the reports I've read they made no mention of Final Cut Express. Did they actually say it or are you making that assumption? I suspect you may be right but I would like to hear it from Apple.
Since this will be available through the Mac App Store, will Apple be following its own rules that they set for other developers, such as:
Single icon containing ALL of the files used by the application, including libraries and support files.
No installation of kernel extensions.
Any other rules for developers?
It's Apple. They can give you a "Install Final Cut Pro" app in your Applications folder, like how Xcode is delivered now. So the installer will basically get around any limitations.
Dunno - with Aperture going for under $100 on the App Store, it's possible FCX will stick around at a similar price point.
I suspect the other posts suggesting it's only Pro (not Studio) being offered at this price. Can you imagine the download for Studio? To say nothing of the upgrades if the process for XCode is any indication (the latest 4.0.1 patch required a full 4+GB download).
Yeah having to re-download 4GBs and more each time is going to be a pain... Now for pro apps too, I imagine. The developed countries will continue to gain steam with better broadband compared to the emerging world still lagging behind in so many aspects of Internet delivery. Where I am I can't even connect properly to Steam for games without having to use a VPN that goes through somewhere on the other side of the world or what not.
This is really huge. People who are used to the old way are going to be resistant-- this is to be expected when you have a new product that has been demoed and we haven't even gotten to see the demo. We're all going on a few pictures and text snippets from live blogging.
The iMovie UI is fantastic, if you take an hour or two and play around with it and learn it. This UI is more professional and deeper-- that much is obvious from the screenshots. What I think people confuse for "simplicity" or "lack of depth" is really just good UI organization and usability.
I think Adobe's video editing just died. It isn't really used in the industry and the architecture is ancient and the usability is on the floor. I think Avid is just barely coming back from bankruptcy. I don't think Apple will kill them, but it isn't like they are in the dominant position in the industry. (I think Adobe fans and Avid fans talk like they are dominant, but the numbers really don't support it.. it is just wishful thinking.)
Nobody is making use of these core OS X capabilities-- such as grand central dispatch. They have been shipping for awhile, but why would Avid (or Adobe) rewrite their product that is a decade old? Too many people will complain about he features that are missing in the rewrite.
Only Apple has the guts to do a complete rewrite like this. And because of this, now Only Final Cut is a modern video editor.
All the competition just became obsolete and is going to get increasingly further an further behind FCP in terms of usability.
There's nothing special about broadcast editing. Editing is editing. IF it outputs in the format you need then you can use it... if it is a better editor then it is a better Broadcast TV editor.
And this is a redesigned editor, made to be really efficient for editing.
That's really fantastic news.
I'm sure there are some beloved features that will have to be reimplemented and will be missing for awhile.... but the end result is an immediate productivity boost.
It's a blog post by Larry Jordan, the same filmmaker, who revealed some information a month ago.
Quote:
TAKING A STEP BACK
But to look at Final Cut Pro in terms of its features or spec list misses a much bigger point that I want to reflect on for a bit. And it all revolves around a term I used in my first line – this was a “sneak peek.”
This is why you won’t see anything about the new Final Cut on Apple’s website – this is a preview, not the launch. There is still much work that needs to be done on the software.
Well, both of you made claims, anyone have any published facts?
There are no hard facts on this, because many edit stations have both AVID and FCP installed these days. But, as someone as who works in the TV industry I can offer you some average numbers that are "believed" to be true:
It's estimated that AVID is used for about 60% of television programming (we're talking everything from no-budget cable all the way up to big network TV) and about 90% of all films released in cinemas.
Out of that 60% TV market, about 90% of the top tier broadcasters (ie. network television) use AVID. News networks tend to be almost exclusively AVID also.
Hence the perception that AVID is hugely dominant in the "high end market."
Some broadcasters, such as the BBC, use a combination -- last year they even bought 2,000 Premiere Pro CS5 licenses.
So... where does FCP have it's strength? It's used on low budget/indie (ie. non theatrical release films) quite a lot. I am sure it also has a majority usage in corporate and various consumer (weddings, etc) uses. It is also used extensively in the childrens TV market. There are a number of high profile shows that also use FCP, such as GLEE, and (I think?) True Blood, but these are mostly exception: it's taken for granted that unless otherwise stated a television series is working on AVID.
Just to put it out there, but Wikipedia has this to say about FCP marketshare for editors:
Quote:
From the early 2000s, Final Cut Pro began to develop a large and expanding user base, mainly video hobbyists and independent filmmakers. It has, in later years especially, made inroads with film and television editors who have traditionally used Avid Technology's Media Composer. According to a 2007 SCRI study, Final Cut made up 49% of the US professional editing market, with Avid at 22%.[1] A published Survey in 2008 by the American Cinema Editors Guild placed their users at 21% FCP (and growing from previous surveys of this group), while all others are still on an Avid system of some kind.[2][3]
With a few references for those numbers at the bottom. So bottom line; it depends.
Your time line may be off. First, when Apple released Final Cut there was no Adobe Premiere Pro. There was only Adobe Premiere, which was based on an over ten year old code base. That is a long time in computer years. Further, Adobe Premiere was designed for amateur video enthusiasts, and Adobe was focusing more on Windows. Final Cut was designed many years later from the ground up by the same people who designed Premiere. It was commissioned by Macromedia and the audience was professional video producers not amateurs. The product was going to be called Key Grip, but later the name was changed.
Final Cut's intended competitor was Avid Media Composer, not Adobe Premiere. With Avid you needed to buy both expensive hardware and software (not the case anymore). If memory recalls, a relatively cheap Avid Solution was around $10, 000. So, yes, cost was a big benefit with Final Cut. However, the other big advantage was it wasn't based on aging code and it had professional people in mind from the get go.
Final Cut was designed around Quicktime, which was light years ahead of the competition at the time. Premier supported Quicktime, but that wasn't the underlying technology. The other major advantage of Final Cut was Apple's Firewire, which many of the new cameras supported.
Final Cut came to market in 1999. Adobe Premiere Pro was released in 2003 in response to Apple making significant inroads into the professional video market. Adobe Premiere Pro was a complete rewrite of the code base. Not the same product as Premiere at all.
Final Cut was getting a little old as well. To Apple's credit though, it had to rewrite the Code from the ground up to go from Carbon to Cocoa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lales
The first version of FCP was revolutionary only for its price point, and NOT for any other technical or creative reason. One could make the point that Premiere Pro was first at that price point.
Apple limited the live demos. The presenter mentioned the software is still considered beta.
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas
Can't believe there's no video presentation and demo of this thing in action. I want to see how this thing moves. Did they just cancel all the sponsors in order to look good on the show? I thought they did it to use it for long demo sessions.
Also, no official word on h.264 support as an editing format or did I miss something? I expect no transcoding is needed, but it would be nice to know for sure.
For $300 it's a steal, and I will have no reservations buying it. I'm glad Apple is leading the way here. Selling professional suite like that for affordable price is going to be a real hit. Watch out Adobe.
There are no hard facts on this, because many edit stations have both AVID and FCP installed these days. But, as someone as who works in the TV industry I can offer you some average numbers that are "believed" to be true:
It's estimated that AVID is used for about 60% of television programming (we're talking everything from no-budget cable all the way up to big network TV) and about 90% of all films released in cinemas.
Out of that 60% TV market, about 90% of the top tier broadcasters (ie. network television) use AVID. News networks tend to be almost exclusively AVID also.
Hence the perception that AVID is hugely dominant in the "high end market."
Some broadcasters, such as the BBC, use a combination -- last year they even bought 2,000 Premiere Pro CS5 licenses.
So... where does FCP have it's strength? It's used on low budget/indie (ie. non theatrical release films) quite a lot. I am sure it also has a majority usage in corporate and various consumer (weddings, etc) uses. It is also used extensively in the childrens TV market. There are a number of high profile shows that also use FCP, such as GLEE, and (I think?) True Blood, but these are mostly exception: it's taken for granted that unless otherwise stated a television series is working on AVID.
If anything AVID is becoming a legacy system. The kids coming out of such highly deemed 'graphic' schools around the world such as the Carnegie Mellon University College of Fine Arts is more evidence of where the future is headed.
Are you kidding? That list is disingenuous at best. Several of those projects can be traced back to Electric Entertainment (where I've worked before), who made a huge investment in bringing everything in-house via FCP Studio.
Even prior to yesterday's preview, they were seriously considering moving to something else due to Apple's disinterest in the pro market.
There may be features you've been wanting for year but this is a ground up rewrite. The "missing features" may well be no irrelevant, or made pointless by the new way things are done.
I'll give you a few examples and apologize in advance for the long post:
1) Being able to view various different timebases/timecodes regardless of what I'm editing in:
We shoot and edit our content at 23.98fps, but we have to deliver to the broadcaster at 59.94i drop-frame format. Since 23.98 is a non-drop format, the timecode doesn't match what would be on a 59.94i drop-frame master. Even though I'm editing in a non-drop format, I want to see the drop-frame equivalent, because that's what is going to matter to the broadcaster. Sure -- there are all kinds of workarounds ... but it shouldn't be a work-around. AVID has been doing this since... seriously I cannot even remember when they didn't do it.
2) Being able to display and burn-in the filename or clipname, or any metadata (all of them on the timeline). Simple example: Producers, directors, and broadcasters often want to see the filename displayed of every single shot, as it is playing in real-time for them. When they watch a quicktime and see the filename tagging along at the bottom of every clip they can easily comunicate back "hey, this file is a good or bad take" and if they're tech-savvy they can even find the file on the video server. This allows us to keep version-control of shots (crucial for animated series', for example). FCP doesn't do it. In fact, there are forum posts in the Apple forums of programmers claiming it can't do it due to the nature of their plugin architecture. Plugins have no way of extracting the filename of a clip. Once again - there are workarounds, but it shouldn't be a work-around. This has been a dinosaur feature on AVID that's just taken for granted.
3) Switching from offline (low resolution) to online (hd resolution) shouldn't be break the motion properties of a clip. Try it: Make an edit in SD 720x486. Create some kind of a basic motion/zoom effect on a clip. Now make your sequence 1920x1080 - effectively preparing your sequence to ingest HD material ... first of all you'll notice that FCP doesn't scale up any clips, the only way to automatically make it scale is if you use the media manager, create a new sequence. But let's pretend you manually select all your clips and choose "conform" or "scale" from the drop-down menus ... that's only going to assume that all your clips want to be perfectly scaled to fit the screen (any adjustments you made...are gone). But guess what? Now all that basic motion/zoom stuff is broken -- you have to redo all of your movements. Why? Because FCP doesn't accurately scale up its motion effects with resolution. I know I know..you'll tell me "prores proxy is here we don't need low res workflows!" well ...baloney -- that stuff is indeed here to stay, especially as editors begin to work from home and don't just want "DV size" clips, but infinitely smaller clips that can sync from a home internet connection. Bah... I'm getting frustrated just typing this out...forgive me.
...I could go on, but you get the point. I totally understand that these are not features that many the vast majority of video editors need if you include the whopping numbers of indie, corporate, wedding, etc, group of editors. But this stuff really does matter on the broadcast level. It makes a difference on working a 10 or 12 hour day, and ultimately affects how creative we get to be when we're not tricking the software into doing these tasks with work-arounds.
If anything AVID is becoming a legacy system. The kids coming out of such highly deemed 'graphic' schools around the world such as the Carnegie Mellon University College of Fine Arts is more evidence of where the future is headed.
No editor I've ever worked with in 15 years as a producer has come from an art school.
Graphics and editing have nothing to do with one another. Anyone who's serious about becoming a pro editor eventually learns AVID.
If anything AVID is becoming a legacy system. The kids coming out of such highly deemed 'graphic' schools around the world such as the Carnegie Mellon University College of Fine Arts is more evidence of where the future is headed.
No editor I've ever worked with in 15 years as a producer has come from an art school.
Graphics and editing have nothing to do with one another. Anyone who's serious about becoming a pro editor eventually learns AVID.
After having gone though an "art" school, they should all be shut down, sold off and the money used to repay the tuition of the students they stole it from.
Comments
I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple release Motion separately, combine it with the nodal interface of Shake to compete with Nuke and possibly eliminate Color, Soundtrack Pro, and DVD Studio Pro all together. Apple doesn't seem too keen on supporting optical based media in favor of their file based distribution system on the iTunes store. That just leaves Compressor, I wonder what will happen with that? Output wasn't really covered in the demo, was it?
I can't believe all the new features + new UI, its awesome. Pluraleyes built in, color correction w/ grading, nesting clips. Excellent.
I wonder what the minimum supported configuration will be? Snow Leopard no doubt, Core2Duo w/ 256MB VRAM probably is my best guess. To process all the rendering in the background seems too good to be true on lower end machines. I don't think many amateurs will be able to purchase the app simply because it won't be supported on a Macbook, low end iMac, or Mac Mini with integrated GPUs, but maybe I'll be eating my words.
All in all, Final Cut Pro X probably just cut my editing time in half. Don't tell my boss
They said it in the Keynote:
There is no Express. FCPX is it. You either pay the $299 for Final Cut Pro X or you use iMovie.
According to the reports I've read they made no mention of Final Cut Express. Did they actually say it or are you making that assumption? I suspect you may be right but I would like to hear it from Apple.
Since this will be available through the Mac App Store, will Apple be following its own rules that they set for other developers, such as:
Single icon containing ALL of the files used by the application, including libraries and support files.
No installation of kernel extensions.
Any other rules for developers?
It's Apple. They can give you a "Install Final Cut Pro" app in your Applications folder, like how Xcode is delivered now. So the installer will basically get around any limitations.
Dunno - with Aperture going for under $100 on the App Store, it's possible FCX will stick around at a similar price point.
I suspect the other posts suggesting it's only Pro (not Studio) being offered at this price. Can you imagine the download for Studio? To say nothing of the upgrades if the process for XCode is any indication (the latest 4.0.1 patch required a full 4+GB download).
Yeah having to re-download 4GBs and more each time is going to be a pain... Now for pro apps too, I imagine. The developed countries will continue to gain steam with better broadband compared to the emerging world still lagging behind in so many aspects of Internet delivery. Where I am I can't even connect properly to Steam for games without having to use a VPN that goes through somewhere on the other side of the world or what not.
This is really huge. People who are used to the old way are going to be resistant-- this is to be expected when you have a new product that has been demoed and we haven't even gotten to see the demo. We're all going on a few pictures and text snippets from live blogging.
The iMovie UI is fantastic, if you take an hour or two and play around with it and learn it. This UI is more professional and deeper-- that much is obvious from the screenshots. What I think people confuse for "simplicity" or "lack of depth" is really just good UI organization and usability.
I think Adobe's video editing just died. It isn't really used in the industry and the architecture is ancient and the usability is on the floor. I think Avid is just barely coming back from bankruptcy. I don't think Apple will kill them, but it isn't like they are in the dominant position in the industry. (I think Adobe fans and Avid fans talk like they are dominant, but the numbers really don't support it.. it is just wishful thinking.)
Nobody is making use of these core OS X capabilities-- such as grand central dispatch. They have been shipping for awhile, but why would Avid (or Adobe) rewrite their product that is a decade old? Too many people will complain about he features that are missing in the rewrite.
Only Apple has the guts to do a complete rewrite like this. And because of this, now Only Final Cut is a modern video editor.
All the competition just became obsolete and is going to get increasingly further an further behind FCP in terms of usability.
There's nothing special about broadcast editing. Editing is editing. IF it outputs in the format you need then you can use it... if it is a better editor then it is a better Broadcast TV editor.
And this is a redesigned editor, made to be really efficient for editing.
That's really fantastic news.
I'm sure there are some beloved features that will have to be reimplemented and will be missing for awhile.... but the end result is an immediate productivity boost.
There's so much wrong with this...
Avid's not dominant?
Pull your head out of your a**.
There's so much wrong with this...
Avid's not dominant?
Pull your head out of your a**.
Well, both of you made claims, anyone have any published facts?
It's a blog post by Larry Jordan, the same filmmaker, who revealed some information a month ago.
TAKING A STEP BACK
But to look at Final Cut Pro in terms of its features or spec list misses a much bigger point that I want to reflect on for a bit. And it all revolves around a term I used in my first line – this was a “sneak peek.”
This is why you won’t see anything about the new Final Cut on Apple’s website – this is a preview, not the launch. There is still much work that needs to be done on the software.
Well, both of you made claims, anyone have any published facts?
There are no hard facts on this, because many edit stations have both AVID and FCP installed these days. But, as someone as who works in the TV industry I can offer you some average numbers that are "believed" to be true:
It's estimated that AVID is used for about 60% of television programming (we're talking everything from no-budget cable all the way up to big network TV) and about 90% of all films released in cinemas.
Out of that 60% TV market, about 90% of the top tier broadcasters (ie. network television) use AVID. News networks tend to be almost exclusively AVID also.
Hence the perception that AVID is hugely dominant in the "high end market."
Some broadcasters, such as the BBC, use a combination -- last year they even bought 2,000 Premiere Pro CS5 licenses.
So... where does FCP have it's strength? It's used on low budget/indie (ie. non theatrical release films) quite a lot. I am sure it also has a majority usage in corporate and various consumer (weddings, etc) uses. It is also used extensively in the childrens TV market. There are a number of high profile shows that also use FCP, such as GLEE, and (I think?) True Blood, but these are mostly exception: it's taken for granted that unless otherwise stated a television series is working on AVID.
From the early 2000s, Final Cut Pro began to develop a large and expanding user base, mainly video hobbyists and independent filmmakers. It has, in later years especially, made inroads with film and television editors who have traditionally used Avid Technology's Media Composer. According to a 2007 SCRI study, Final Cut made up 49% of the US professional editing market, with Avid at 22%.[1] A published Survey in 2008 by the American Cinema Editors Guild placed their users at 21% FCP (and growing from previous surveys of this group), while all others are still on an Avid system of some kind.[2][3]
With a few references for those numbers at the bottom. So bottom line; it depends.
Final Cut's intended competitor was Avid Media Composer, not Adobe Premiere. With Avid you needed to buy both expensive hardware and software (not the case anymore). If memory recalls, a relatively cheap Avid Solution was around $10, 000. So, yes, cost was a big benefit with Final Cut. However, the other big advantage was it wasn't based on aging code and it had professional people in mind from the get go.
Final Cut was designed around Quicktime, which was light years ahead of the competition at the time. Premier supported Quicktime, but that wasn't the underlying technology. The other major advantage of Final Cut was Apple's Firewire, which many of the new cameras supported.
Final Cut came to market in 1999. Adobe Premiere Pro was released in 2003 in response to Apple making significant inroads into the professional video market. Adobe Premiere Pro was a complete rewrite of the code base. Not the same product as Premiere at all.
Final Cut was getting a little old as well. To Apple's credit though, it had to rewrite the Code from the ground up to go from Carbon to Cocoa.
The first version of FCP was revolutionary only for its price point, and NOT for any other technical or creative reason. One could make the point that Premiere Pro was first at that price point.
Can't believe there's no video presentation and demo of this thing in action. I want to see how this thing moves. Did they just cancel all the sponsors in order to look good on the show? I thought they did it to use it for long demo sessions.
Also, no official word on h.264 support as an editing format or did I miss something? I expect no transcoding is needed, but it would be nice to know for sure.
Maybe this is of interest: http://www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/w..._campaign=feed
It's a blog post by Larry Jordan, the same filmmaker, who revealed some information a month ago.
Thank you for posting the link.
Have a colleague there and his note, "around a couple of thousand were there to see the keynote, but the buzz outside after was equally amazing."
It will be interesting to hear how the other 90,000 attendees at The NAB Show will react. Certainly it was the place and the audience to be in.
http://news.google.com/news/more?q=n...ed=0CCsQqgIwAA
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13961499
Some of the stuff people are getting all worried about all over the web are mentioned.
Also..remember, this is a preview. Relax guys.
There are no hard facts on this, because many edit stations have both AVID and FCP installed these days. But, as someone as who works in the TV industry I can offer you some average numbers that are "believed" to be true:
It's estimated that AVID is used for about 60% of television programming (we're talking everything from no-budget cable all the way up to big network TV) and about 90% of all films released in cinemas.
Out of that 60% TV market, about 90% of the top tier broadcasters (ie. network television) use AVID. News networks tend to be almost exclusively AVID also.
Hence the perception that AVID is hugely dominant in the "high end market."
Some broadcasters, such as the BBC, use a combination -- last year they even bought 2,000 Premiere Pro CS5 licenses.
So... where does FCP have it's strength? It's used on low budget/indie (ie. non theatrical release films) quite a lot. I am sure it also has a majority usage in corporate and various consumer (weddings, etc) uses. It is also used extensively in the childrens TV market. There are a number of high profile shows that also use FCP, such as GLEE, and (I think?) True Blood, but these are mostly exception: it's taken for granted that unless otherwise stated a television series is working on AVID.
Lots of jobs available. NBC, Disney, ABC, CBS, PIXAR, even Apple. http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/li...c/l-california
If anything AVID is becoming a legacy system. The kids coming out of such highly deemed 'graphic' schools around the world such as the Carnegie Mellon University College of Fine Arts is more evidence of where the future is headed.
And as Apple cites, the list of high profile?just keeps growing. http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/in-action/
And as Apple cites, the list of high profile…just keeps growing. http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/in-action/
Are you kidding? That list is disingenuous at best. Several of those projects can be traced back to Electric Entertainment (where I've worked before), who made a huge investment in bringing everything in-house via FCP Studio.
Even prior to yesterday's preview, they were seriously considering moving to something else due to Apple's disinterest in the pro market.
There may be features you've been wanting for year but this is a ground up rewrite. The "missing features" may well be no irrelevant, or made pointless by the new way things are done.
I'll give you a few examples and apologize in advance for the long post:
1) Being able to view various different timebases/timecodes regardless of what I'm editing in:
We shoot and edit our content at 23.98fps, but we have to deliver to the broadcaster at 59.94i drop-frame format. Since 23.98 is a non-drop format, the timecode doesn't match what would be on a 59.94i drop-frame master. Even though I'm editing in a non-drop format, I want to see the drop-frame equivalent, because that's what is going to matter to the broadcaster. Sure -- there are all kinds of workarounds ... but it shouldn't be a work-around. AVID has been doing this since... seriously I cannot even remember when they didn't do it.
2) Being able to display and burn-in the filename or clipname, or any metadata (all of them on the timeline). Simple example: Producers, directors, and broadcasters often want to see the filename displayed of every single shot, as it is playing in real-time for them. When they watch a quicktime and see the filename tagging along at the bottom of every clip they can easily comunicate back "hey, this file is a good or bad take" and if they're tech-savvy they can even find the file on the video server. This allows us to keep version-control of shots (crucial for animated series', for example). FCP doesn't do it. In fact, there are forum posts in the Apple forums of programmers claiming it can't do it due to the nature of their plugin architecture. Plugins have no way of extracting the filename of a clip. Once again - there are workarounds, but it shouldn't be a work-around. This has been a dinosaur feature on AVID that's just taken for granted.
3) Switching from offline (low resolution) to online (hd resolution) shouldn't be break the motion properties of a clip. Try it: Make an edit in SD 720x486. Create some kind of a basic motion/zoom effect on a clip. Now make your sequence 1920x1080 - effectively preparing your sequence to ingest HD material ... first of all you'll notice that FCP doesn't scale up any clips, the only way to automatically make it scale is if you use the media manager, create a new sequence. But let's pretend you manually select all your clips and choose "conform" or "scale" from the drop-down menus ... that's only going to assume that all your clips want to be perfectly scaled to fit the screen (any adjustments you made...are gone). But guess what? Now all that basic motion/zoom stuff is broken -- you have to redo all of your movements. Why? Because FCP doesn't accurately scale up its motion effects with resolution. I know I know..you'll tell me "prores proxy is here we don't need low res workflows!" well ...baloney -- that stuff is indeed here to stay, especially as editors begin to work from home and don't just want "DV size" clips, but infinitely smaller clips that can sync from a home internet connection. Bah... I'm getting frustrated just typing this out...forgive me.
...I could go on, but you get the point. I totally understand that these are not features that many the vast majority of video editors need if you include the whopping numbers of indie, corporate, wedding, etc, group of editors. But this stuff really does matter on the broadcast level. It makes a difference on working a 10 or 12 hour day, and ultimately affects how creative we get to be when we're not tricking the software into doing these tasks with work-arounds.
If anything AVID is becoming a legacy system. The kids coming out of such highly deemed 'graphic' schools around the world such as the Carnegie Mellon University College of Fine Arts is more evidence of where the future is headed.
No editor I've ever worked with in 15 years as a producer has come from an art school.
Graphics and editing have nothing to do with one another. Anyone who's serious about becoming a pro editor eventually learns AVID.
Lots of jobs available. NBC, Disney, ABC, CBS, PIXAR, even Apple. http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/li...c/l-california
If anything AVID is becoming a legacy system. The kids coming out of such highly deemed 'graphic' schools around the world such as the Carnegie Mellon University College of Fine Arts is more evidence of where the future is headed.
And as Apple cites, the list of high profile?just keeps growing. http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/in-action/
Those "kids" aren't going to drive the big corporate entities. The kids learn whatever tool is required to get hired.
No editor I've ever worked with in 15 years as a producer has come from an art school.
Graphics and editing have nothing to do with one another. Anyone who's serious about becoming a pro editor eventually learns AVID.
After having gone though an "art" school, they should all be shut down, sold off and the money used to repay the tuition of the students they stole it from.