Apple's new releases greatly pleases many "prosumers" like myself.
It also temporarily angers some professional FCP editors while they wait for features.
Compare the number of Prosumers (5 million?) with the number of professional editors (20,000?) and get back to me.
I think we have been giving creedence to FCP editors as if their priorities are Apple's own. Well, I am a prosumer and I matter much more to Apple than the pros do. Great, seeya.
Well I'm not necessarily advocating for the way Apple has developed the new UI. I'll leave it up to the market to decide that one.
I'm simply saying there is little reason that we have to stick to the standard NLE UI because its roots come from a physical machine. When you are working with software there is less need to replicate the controls of a machine.
True enough, I would just add that sometimes analogues to physicality have reasons involving how we operated as human beings and not just because of slavish imitation of earlier forms.
There have been all kinds of peculiar variants on the idea of a "musical instrument" engendered by digital devices, but keyboards and fretboards and strike-able surfaces still predominate because of how our hands and eyes and ears work. I've seen NLEs compared to musical instruments; I think there are limits to how far afield you can go with a musical instrument before you render it unresponsive or inflexible to the musician. Just, hard to play.
Digital technology allows us to configure processes any way we want, with no regard at all for how it was done in the analog world. That doesn't mean, however, than any configuration is going to be particularly good. It's still an art; it remains to be seen how accomplished Apple's art is in this case.
After all of this time why do we have to stay beholden to a work flow and language that we really stopped using twenty years ago? We've only hung on to it simply because it was how people were used to working.
So we should be ashamed of the lineage because it's part of history? We should throw away the terminology and the foundational concepts because they are "old"?
I'd hate to live in your world. No one would be able to get anything done. I suppose we should get rid of the english language too? Or all language for that matter and start with a new visual based language for everyone because it's better?
No one has replaced the qwerety keyboard yet either. nor have we really replaced the pad and pencil.
You are basically a nihilist and in popular vernacular a "hater". You twist your own arguments around to suit your own ends. Give up.
Nothing to fight about. It is a bag of hurt and Apple is wise to reject it.
let me ask you something there Tex. If Blu Ray is no good, how do you intend to share your Hi Def masterpiece? Upload it to iDisk? Publish it to you're mobile me web gallery?
Seems to me that mr. Jobs just turned his back on the very tools he introduced to replace optical media. Seems as though there are plenty of "hurt bags" to go around.
Btw, a remastered Ben Hur is forthcoming on Blu Ray. You should pick it up.
I didn't say the standard NLE absolutely positively has to be replaced. No where in that post do I give a hard black or white assessment.
I asked why is it a requirement that we stick with it. Is there no room to try something different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
So we should be ashamed of the lineage because it's part of history? We should throw away the terminology and the foundational concepts because they are "old"?
You are basically a nihilist and in popular vernacular a "hater". You twist your own arguments around to suit your own ends. Give up.
This would be true if Blu-ray was the most popular or the standard way of video distribution.
Which it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama
let me ask you something there Tex. If Blu Ray is no good, how do you intend to share your Hi Def masterpiece? Upload it to iDisk? Publish it to you're mobile me web gallery?
...Final Cut Pro X stands and a ground-up re-write...
should read "as a ground-up re-write..." You made it to only the second sentence before an error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
... that have led some in video editing circles unofficially coin the release "iMovie Pro."
should read "to unofficially coin the release..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
...managers who openly addressed the softwares "missing features,"
should be "software's", with an apostrophe
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
...RED digital cameras, which are favorite among filmmakers
should be either "are favorites among" or (a somewhat flawed improvement) "which are a favorite..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
...Apple says that its untrue that editors can't set...
should be "it's untrue", with an apostrophe making a contraction for "it is"
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
...and there's reportedly no plans to address the matter...
Should be "and there're...", making the contraction "there are"...no plans rather than the contraction "there is"...no plans. In grade school we called it subject-verb agreement
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
...After consulting with the Apple project manager's, the Time's David Pogue concluded...
This is my favorite, since you've squeezed in two apostrophe errors in the space of three words. It should be "managers..." without an apostrophe, and it should be "Times'..." with the apostrophe after Times, because the name of the paper Pogue writes for is the New York Times, not New York Time.
I'm a little pissed at myself for writing such a sarcastic post, but I'm even more pissed at your publication of a piece making it so easy to do. A lot of the ideas in this article are clearly expressed, and you point out at its conclusion that you really had the scoop on the story months ago. Why ruin that good journalism with such inattention to detail? If you expect us to read your articles, we expect you to read them once, carefully, before posting them. Peace.
Film/television studios wouldn't use Blu-ray authoring tools in FCP so they don't care if Apple offers it or not.
On the side of independent filmmaking. Its much more logistically feasible if they go the video on demand, streaming, downloading route. Than try to deal with distributing Blu-ray discs. So they wouldn't likely make much use of Blu ray authoring tools in FCP either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama
What would be true? I asked a question, I did not make a statement.
I'm simply saying there is little reason that we have to stick to the standard NLE UI because its roots come from a physical machine. When you are working with software there is less need to replicate the controls of a machine.
On the other hand, different is not automatically better.
And different for the sake of being different?
One reason ProTools in pro audio reigns supreme as a standard, or at least omnipresent, is because every time someone comes up with some new useful twists in an audio UI they feel the need to go completely in a new direction, as if to prove they are the new guard and the PT is an old and wasteful IU. Many have come, few have stuck around. Some work for a different way of recording (Ableton Live) but never made a dent in ProTools target user. Most that remain, even as they're different in their own way, are often more ProTools-like than not.
If you're going to reinvent the wheel, make it good. Don't give me an oval wheel with a flashy display and say I'm a fool for pointing out it's a step back.
It also temporarily angers some professional FCP editors while they wait for features.
It's partly to do with trust though. If a consumer uses iPhoto and Apple drops it, they pick up Picasa or whatever. It doesn't matter because consumers don't really care that much.
When you have your livelihood based on a workflow and Apple instantly throws it upside down without a backup plan, it's not really as inconsequential. People with so much riding on it would appreciate a little transparency. The whole 'ta-daaa, we broke everything, Merry Christmas' routine is fine for people who want a new iPhone but not for people who could easily have invested up to $100,000 in the business and built it around Final Cut Studio. You can't just convert thousands of files that you may reuse or revise on a whim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik
Compare the number of Prosumers (5 million?) with the number of professional editors (20,000?) and get back to me.
Would those prosumers be using it if none of the higher-end users were? If people aspire to reach a certain goal, they need to see what's required to reach it. If those people ditch FCP in droves, then yeah there may be a 10x market increase from prosumers but maybe not, they might go right onto a more flexible package.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph L
Nothing to fight about. It is a bag of hurt and Apple is wise to reject it.
I don't think they rejected it outright. You can author to Blu-Ray formats, you can use Encore for menus, you can buy inexpensive 3rd-party burners. The only thing you can't do is watch commercial Blu-Ray movies but just reboot into Windows to do that.
It's partly to do with trust though. If a consumer uses iPhoto and Apple drops it, they pick up Picasa or whatever. It doesn't matter because consumers don't really care that much.
Yup. Love your "Merry Christmas, it's broke" line, (though I meant to quote it and screwed it up going dit dit dit swipe oops on the iPod. I agree with the whole paragraph that I'm not quoting : )
But here's the thing about prosumers using it if the pros weren't (sorry, way too much trouble to get the quote back : ) ) I've been to Aperture presentations at several Apple stores (we're lucky to have a bunch here in NYC) and at every one I got the sense that the non pros present were not affected by that. The vibe was that it was cool to have an affordable software that they could do some pro type stuff with, and seeing the demo was all it took really. I doubt any of them knew Adobe's LightRoom even existed much less if there were more pros using Ap than LR.
And here's another thing: Aperture still needs some serious work. It's good, but there are issues. So what does Apple do instead of making it better? They drop the price to $80 freakin' bucks!!
On the other hand, different is not automatically better. And different for the sake of being different?
I certainly did not say that.
Quote:
One reason ProTools in pro audio reigns supreme as a standard, or at least omnipresent, is because every time someone comes up with some new useful twists in an audio UI they feel the need to go completely in a new direction, as if to prove they are the new guard and the PT is an old and wasteful IU. Many have come, few have stuck around. Some work for a different way of recording (Ableton Live) but never made a dent in ProTools target user. Most that remain, even as they're different in their own way, are often more ProTools-like than not.
Pro Tools has pretty well dominated audio recording for a long time. I don't follow the ups and downs of digital audio recording software. But I doubt Pro Tools dominance is simply based on the fact that they've perfected the UI and never changed it.
They must have changed and adapted to some degree as Windows and Mac have radically changed their UI over the past 10 years.
In other words, Final Cut Pro X isn't ready for full production primetime now, but in a year, most people who are willing to stick it out will have adapted already.
sounds a little like adobe...except that apple keeps it's promise.
Apple did turn things upside in the sense that no one but Apple knows the future of FCP at this point. I can understand concern around that.
In another sense it hasn't really been turned upside down because I doubt many post facilities or editors were planning to upgrade from the current FCP to the newest exactly on June 21st. So life goes and they can continue with what they already were doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
When you have your livelihood based on a workflow and Apple instantly throws it upside down without a backup plan, it's not really as inconsequential.
On the other hand, different is not automatically better. And different for the sake of being different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I certainly did not say that.
Didn't say you did. Why are you reading that into it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Pro Tools has pretty well dominated audio recording for a long time. I don't follow the ups and downs of digital audio recording software. But I doubt Pro Tools dominance is simply based on the fact that they've perfected the UI and never changed it.
They must have changed and adapted to some degree as Windows and Mac have radically changed their UI over the past 10 years.
You're missing and or ignoring the jist my post, as is your habit, and then saying something I didn't say. I made no comment nor judgement on ProTools interface as being perfect, nor whether it ever changed or not. I said it was the leader and others have failed because they tried to be different solely to stand out as different from PT at all costs.
You're a jury foreman's nightmare. What is your problem?
I mean, what is wrong with what you have now considering you've been using it for several years.
Nothing until you find yourself repeatedly booting into an older version of OS X for one program that no longer runs after a minor OS update. Even a bigger problem when a hardware upgrade means you can't use that older OS X release, so you end up keeping two machines around anyway.
I know these things are bound to happen, but some respect has to be paid to legacy users so that upgrading to a new version of an app doesn't mean throwing out a decade of work and experience in one flush.
BTW, Pogue's blog has accumulated some very good responses with further explanations from people in the field which would help those who still don't understand what people like spliff monkey, mstone and others have posted here eloquently and openmindedly. Everyone who hasn't already read them should.
I'm actually a big fan of Pogues and enjoy his take on products. I don't even think he's wrong about most of what he says in his blog (but he misses the boat on some of the biggies, IMO), but the real info is in the responses.
Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."
A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.
Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.
So what do I do when a client sends a 50 year old tape for migration and archive? Do I say, "To bad, no one uses tape anymore."
What do I say when a client asked for the audio stems to be used in a Pro Tools mixdown session? "Oh, you don't really need to do that anymore".
What do I tell the Smoke editor when I can't send him an OMF or XML file anymore? "Oh, you really don't need to do that effect."
And to the client supervising the session, " Oh, don't look at the $25k broadcast monitor anymore, the colors aren't accurate."
To the network that wants an EDL of the session, " Oh, you are so old fashioned".
Professionals give their clients what they want. Professionals don't tell their clients that their workflows are "ancient workflows".
"What do you need, Mr. Client? We are ready to help give you what you need".
Please tell the broadcast networks that they "don't even use tape." And tell that to their face.
Comments
It also temporarily angers some professional FCP editors while they wait for features.
Compare the number of Prosumers (5 million?) with the number of professional editors (20,000?) and get back to me.
I think we have been giving creedence to FCP editors as if their priorities are Apple's own. Well, I am a prosumer and I matter much more to Apple than the pros do. Great, seeya.
Well I'm not necessarily advocating for the way Apple has developed the new UI. I'll leave it up to the market to decide that one.
I'm simply saying there is little reason that we have to stick to the standard NLE UI because its roots come from a physical machine. When you are working with software there is less need to replicate the controls of a machine.
True enough, I would just add that sometimes analogues to physicality have reasons involving how we operated as human beings and not just because of slavish imitation of earlier forms.
There have been all kinds of peculiar variants on the idea of a "musical instrument" engendered by digital devices, but keyboards and fretboards and strike-able surfaces still predominate because of how our hands and eyes and ears work. I've seen NLEs compared to musical instruments; I think there are limits to how far afield you can go with a musical instrument before you render it unresponsive or inflexible to the musician. Just, hard to play.
Digital technology allows us to configure processes any way we want, with no regard at all for how it was done in the analog world. That doesn't mean, however, than any configuration is going to be particularly good. It's still an art; it remains to be seen how accomplished Apple's art is in this case.
After all of this time why do we have to stay beholden to a work flow and language that we really stopped using twenty years ago? We've only hung on to it simply because it was how people were used to working.
So we should be ashamed of the lineage because it's part of history? We should throw away the terminology and the foundational concepts because they are "old"?
I'd hate to live in your world. No one would be able to get anything done. I suppose we should get rid of the english language too? Or all language for that matter and start with a new visual based language for everyone because it's better?
No one has replaced the qwerety keyboard yet either. nor have we really replaced the pad and pencil.
You are basically a nihilist and in popular vernacular a "hater". You twist your own arguments around to suit your own ends. Give up.
Nothing to fight about. It is a bag of hurt and Apple is wise to reject it.
let me ask you something there Tex. If Blu Ray is no good, how do you intend to share your Hi Def masterpiece? Upload it to iDisk? Publish it to you're mobile me web gallery?
Seems to me that mr. Jobs just turned his back on the very tools he introduced to replace optical media. Seems as though there are plenty of "hurt bags" to go around.
Btw, a remastered Ben Hur is forthcoming on Blu Ray. You should pick it up.
I didn't say the standard NLE absolutely positively has to be replaced. No where in that post do I give a hard black or white assessment.
I asked why is it a requirement that we stick with it. Is there no room to try something different?
So we should be ashamed of the lineage because it's part of history? We should throw away the terminology and the foundational concepts because they are "old"?
You are basically a nihilist and in popular vernacular a "hater". You twist your own arguments around to suit your own ends. Give up.
Which it is not.
let me ask you something there Tex. If Blu Ray is no good, how do you intend to share your Hi Def masterpiece? Upload it to iDisk? Publish it to you're mobile me web gallery?
...Final Cut Pro X stands and a ground-up re-write...
should read "as a ground-up re-write..." You made it to only the second sentence before an error.
... that have led some in video editing circles unofficially coin the release "iMovie Pro."
should read "to unofficially coin the release..."
...managers who openly addressed the softwares "missing features,"
should be "software's", with an apostrophe
...RED digital cameras, which are favorite among filmmakers
should be either "are favorites among" or (a somewhat flawed improvement) "which are a favorite..."
...Apple says that its untrue that editors can't set...
should be "it's untrue", with an apostrophe making a contraction for "it is"
...and there's reportedly no plans to address the matter...
Should be "and there're...", making the contraction "there are"...no plans rather than the contraction "there is"...no plans. In grade school we called it subject-verb agreement
...After consulting with the Apple project manager's, the Time's David Pogue concluded...
This is my favorite, since you've squeezed in two apostrophe errors in the space of three words. It should be "managers..." without an apostrophe, and it should be "Times'..." with the apostrophe after Times, because the name of the paper Pogue writes for is the New York Times, not New York Time.
I'm a little pissed at myself for writing such a sarcastic post, but I'm even more pissed at your publication of a piece making it so easy to do. A lot of the ideas in this article are clearly expressed, and you point out at its conclusion that you really had the scoop on the story months ago. Why ruin that good journalism with such inattention to detail? If you expect us to read your articles, we expect you to read them once, carefully, before posting them. Peace.
This would be true if Blu-ray was the most popular or the standard way of video distribution.
Which it is not.
What would be true? I asked a question, I did not make a statement.
Film/television studios wouldn't use Blu-ray authoring tools in FCP so they don't care if Apple offers it or not.
On the side of independent filmmaking. Its much more logistically feasible if they go the video on demand, streaming, downloading route. Than try to deal with distributing Blu-ray discs. So they wouldn't likely make much use of Blu ray authoring tools in FCP either.
What would be true? I asked a question, I did not make a statement.
I'm simply saying there is little reason that we have to stick to the standard NLE UI because its roots come from a physical machine. When you are working with software there is less need to replicate the controls of a machine.
On the other hand, different is not automatically better.
And different for the sake of being different?
One reason ProTools in pro audio reigns supreme as a standard, or at least omnipresent, is because every time someone comes up with some new useful twists in an audio UI they feel the need to go completely in a new direction, as if to prove they are the new guard and the PT is an old and wasteful IU. Many have come, few have stuck around. Some work for a different way of recording (Ableton Live) but never made a dent in ProTools target user. Most that remain, even as they're different in their own way, are often more ProTools-like than not.
If you're going to reinvent the wheel, make it good. Don't give me an oval wheel with a flashy display and say I'm a fool for pointing out it's a step back.
It also temporarily angers some professional FCP editors while they wait for features.
It's partly to do with trust though. If a consumer uses iPhoto and Apple drops it, they pick up Picasa or whatever. It doesn't matter because consumers don't really care that much.
When you have your livelihood based on a workflow and Apple instantly throws it upside down without a backup plan, it's not really as inconsequential. People with so much riding on it would appreciate a little transparency. The whole 'ta-daaa, we broke everything, Merry Christmas' routine is fine for people who want a new iPhone but not for people who could easily have invested up to $100,000 in the business and built it around Final Cut Studio. You can't just convert thousands of files that you may reuse or revise on a whim.
Compare the number of Prosumers (5 million?) with the number of professional editors (20,000?) and get back to me.
Would those prosumers be using it if none of the higher-end users were? If people aspire to reach a certain goal, they need to see what's required to reach it. If those people ditch FCP in droves, then yeah there may be a 10x market increase from prosumers but maybe not, they might go right onto a more flexible package.
Nothing to fight about. It is a bag of hurt and Apple is wise to reject it.
I don't think they rejected it outright. You can author to Blu-Ray formats, you can use Encore for menus, you can buy inexpensive 3rd-party burners. The only thing you can't do is watch commercial Blu-Ray movies but just reboot into Windows to do that.
It's partly to do with trust though. If a consumer uses iPhoto and Apple drops it, they pick up Picasa or whatever. It doesn't matter because consumers don't really care that much.
Yup. Love your "Merry Christmas, it's broke" line, (though I meant to quote it and screwed it up going dit dit dit swipe oops on the iPod. I agree with the whole paragraph that I'm not quoting : )
But here's the thing about prosumers using it if the pros weren't (sorry, way too much trouble to get the quote back : ) ) I've been to Aperture presentations at several Apple stores (we're lucky to have a bunch here in NYC) and at every one I got the sense that the non pros present were not affected by that. The vibe was that it was cool to have an affordable software that they could do some pro type stuff with, and seeing the demo was all it took really. I doubt any of them knew Adobe's LightRoom even existed much less if there were more pros using Ap than LR.
And here's another thing: Aperture still needs some serious work. It's good, but there are issues. So what does Apple do instead of making it better? They drop the price to $80 freakin' bucks!!
What more do we need to know? : )
On the other hand, different is not automatically better. And different for the sake of being different?
I certainly did not say that.
One reason ProTools in pro audio reigns supreme as a standard, or at least omnipresent, is because every time someone comes up with some new useful twists in an audio UI they feel the need to go completely in a new direction, as if to prove they are the new guard and the PT is an old and wasteful IU. Many have come, few have stuck around. Some work for a different way of recording (Ableton Live) but never made a dent in ProTools target user. Most that remain, even as they're different in their own way, are often more ProTools-like than not.
Pro Tools has pretty well dominated audio recording for a long time. I don't follow the ups and downs of digital audio recording software. But I doubt Pro Tools dominance is simply based on the fact that they've perfected the UI and never changed it.
They must have changed and adapted to some degree as Windows and Mac have radically changed their UI over the past 10 years.
The only thing you can't do is watch commercial Blu-Ray movies but just reboot into Windows to do that.
Oh, you can. It takes two programs to do it, but you can play straight from the disc.
In other words, Final Cut Pro X isn't ready for full production primetime now, but in a year, most people who are willing to stick it out will have adapted already.
sounds a little like adobe...except that apple keeps it's promise.
Apple did turn things upside in the sense that no one but Apple knows the future of FCP at this point. I can understand concern around that.
In another sense it hasn't really been turned upside down because I doubt many post facilities or editors were planning to upgrade from the current FCP to the newest exactly on June 21st. So life goes and they can continue with what they already were doing.
When you have your livelihood based on a workflow and Apple instantly throws it upside down without a backup plan, it's not really as inconsequential.
Originall posted by jlandd
On the other hand, different is not automatically better. And different for the sake of being different?
I certainly did not say that.
Didn't say you did. Why are you reading that into it?
Pro Tools has pretty well dominated audio recording for a long time. I don't follow the ups and downs of digital audio recording software. But I doubt Pro Tools dominance is simply based on the fact that they've perfected the UI and never changed it.
They must have changed and adapted to some degree as Windows and Mac have radically changed their UI over the past 10 years.
You're missing and or ignoring the jist my post, as is your habit, and then saying something I didn't say. I made no comment nor judgement on ProTools interface as being perfect, nor whether it ever changed or not. I said it was the leader and others have failed because they tried to be different solely to stand out as different from PT at all costs.
You're a jury foreman's nightmare. What is your problem?
I mean, what is wrong with what you have now considering you've been using it for several years.
Nothing until you find yourself repeatedly booting into an older version of OS X for one program that no longer runs after a minor OS update. Even a bigger problem when a hardware upgrade means you can't use that older OS X release, so you end up keeping two machines around anyway.
I know these things are bound to happen, but some respect has to be paid to legacy users so that upgrading to a new version of an app doesn't mean throwing out a decade of work and experience in one flush.
I'm actually a big fan of Pogues and enjoy his take on products. I don't even think he's wrong about most of what he says in his blog (but he misses the boat on some of the biggies, IMO), but the real info is in the responses.
http://community.nytimes.com/comment...ldest&offset=1
Out of all the complaints, the most ridiculous and unsupportable is that the new version is "not for professionals."
A few old geezers that are afraid of doing anything new or stopping their addiction to magnetic tape (of all things), are making a lot of sounds that it isn't for "professionals" because it removes their ancient workflows from the equation. The majority of professionals using the old Final Cut will move to the new one with no problems at all. The majority of professionals don't even use tape.
Final Cut Pro X is so totally *not* a "consumer" product in any way. Your just being ridiculous.
So what do I do when a client sends a 50 year old tape for migration and archive? Do I say, "To bad, no one uses tape anymore."
What do I say when a client asked for the audio stems to be used in a Pro Tools mixdown session? "Oh, you don't really need to do that anymore".
What do I tell the Smoke editor when I can't send him an OMF or XML file anymore? "Oh, you really don't need to do that effect."
And to the client supervising the session, " Oh, don't look at the $25k broadcast monitor anymore, the colors aren't accurate."
To the network that wants an EDL of the session, " Oh, you are so old fashioned".
Professionals give their clients what they want. Professionals don't tell their clients that their workflows are "ancient workflows".
"What do you need, Mr. Client? We are ready to help give you what you need".
Please tell the broadcast networks that they "don't even use tape." And tell that to their face.
FCPX is not yet ready for prime time.