Is this too minimalist, even for Apple? Quit making all-in-one desktops altogether.
Instead, just make a range of trash-can style Macs (maybe an upgraded version now, since it's been so long). The idea is Apple gets economies of scale making just one form factor. It's got a small footprint, so I don't think space is really an issue, about the same as a Mac mini.
They've already stopped making a separate display, with the new LG subbing in for that. Why bother with the extra cost and complexity of making screens if other manufacturers can meet high standards? And with scale, the new trash can mfg could be kept and grown in USA. That's a thing now.
So have fixed CPU/memory/GPU options and earlier gen. tech for inexpensive versions for light users at the bottom end - which is plenty darn fast anyway. And then offer newest tech with greater customization and upgradeability at the high end. One form factor for economy, low price at base to keep (heck, maybe even gain new) consumer desktop users, and high end options for the true pros to get mojo back into that market. Call it Mac on the low end and Mac Pro on the high end. Ditch iMac and Mac mini. Too controversial?
Slightly separate note - I can't understand why you would make a sealed up desktop with a spinning, slow HD embedded in it that will, guaranteed, fail at some point. That's not good for the planet either. Recently upgraded my 2012 15" MBP crashed HD to a SSD and that baby sings like I just bought a new machine (admitedly, Photoshop is the heaviest load it gets tho).
Net, the new MP would get rid of mfg complexity of AiO units with displays, get economy of scale with one form factor, hook consumers at the low end and give pros what they really want at high end, with a nice range in between (and a new name) for marketing to play with. And many people seem to just like having the promise of power and optionality in some kind of desktop box, especailly a sharp looking new thing (remember the buzz when the cheesegrater MP came out - that thing was cool in its time, and looked heavy duty, too). Users can even pick the quality and size of display they want.
I see lots of wins in that for Apple and users, if Apple is now dedicating all its discretionary effort and resources to phones and cars.
Late post, but hey, I had too many tabs open over the holidays and am just getting to this one. And sorry poster #200 for breaking your round number
Is this too minimalist, even for Apple? Quit making all-in-one desktops altogether.
Instead, just make a range of trash-can style Macs (maybe an upgraded version now, since it's been so long). The idea is Apple gets economies of scale making just one form factor. It's got a small footprint, so I don't think space is really an issue, about the same as a Mac mini.
They've already stopped making a separate display, with the new LG subbing in for that. Why bother with the extra cost and complexity of making screens if other manufacturers can meet high standards? And with scale, the new trash can mfg could be kept and grown in USA. That's a thing now.
So have fixed CPU/memory/GPU options and earlier gen. tech for inexpensive versions for light users at the bottom end - which is plenty darn fast anyway. And then offer newest tech with greater customization and upgradeability at the high end. One form factor for economy, low price at base to keep (heck, maybe even gain new) consumer desktop users, and high end options for the true pros to get mojo back into that market. Call it Mac on the low end and Mac Pro on the high end. Ditch iMac and Mac mini. Too controversial?
Slightly separate note - I can't understand why you would make a sealed up desktop with a spinning, slow HD embedded in it that will, guaranteed, fail at some point. That's not good for the planet either. Recently upgraded my 2012 15" MBP crashed HD to a SSD and that baby sings like I just bought a new machine (admitedly, Photoshop is the heaviest load it gets tho).
Net, the new MP would get rid of mfg complexity of AiO units with displays, get economy of scale with one form factor, hook consumers at the low end and give pros what they really want at high end, with a nice range in between (and a new name) for marketing to play with. And many people seem to just like having the promise of power and optionality in some kind of desktop box, especailly a sharp looking new thing (remember the buzz when the cheesegrater MP came out - that thing was cool in its time, and looked heavy duty, too). Users can even pick the quality and size of display they want.
I see lots of wins in that for Apple and users, if Apple is now dedicating all its discretionary effort and resources to phones and cars.
Late post, but hey, I had too many tabs open over the holidays and am just getting to this one. And sorry poster #200 for breaking your round number
Although I despise all-in-one designs like the iMac, it is the most popular of the desktop computers for the masses and probably Apple headquarters itself.... I would not mind a trashcan version of the Mac - that is not "pro" (i.e. normal desktop components).... I don't think it is a replacement for the Mac Mini which is superior for many purposes.... like the niche of turning them on their side and basically rack mounting a bunch of them in a datacenter.....
Don't worry about breaking the round number of 200 -- it serves him right for his breaking of 199's ending on a prime number.
Granted Apple would probably prefer to be able to say the Rogue One was cut on FCPX but 3 features in 2 years means some editors are seeing the advantages.
Obviously the interest is still slow, but what do you expect when you have multi-year projects and massive budgets to worry about. You are not going to risk it on big projects right at the beginning. I think we can all agree that when FCPX was released 4 years ago, it was a combination of releasing a new version and failing to call it a public alpha/beta as they should have..... while continuing to fully support and back the older version as the current production version -- which completely freaked out a number of users. There has been significant work filling in the gaps and making it more solid. A number of people that shunned it early on, are beginning to become very interested in it (though I suspect it will take time to build up to larger productions). I watched a few videos of people that have given it a second chance -- and the feedback has been positive because they find they can be more efficient with it for certain projects.
I will add that I saw more than a few education facilities exclude FCP from their courses, and Macs from their hardware requirements due to the debacle of the FCP transition. On the one hand, the institutions had no idea where Apple was going to take FCP, and on the other, the machines were just too expensive for many students to purchase (even with university discounts) after tackling the fees of the courses themselves.Those students were/are future editors that Apple should be doing all it can to accommodate not alienate. If you want to promote the FCP platform, these are the things you should be taking care of.
Blah blah blah. More nonsense. Of the top 25 film schools who uses FCP/FCPX?
USC: Mac/Avid https://cinema.usc.edu/Laptops/ "Therefore, much like the larger production and post-production industry, the school’s Production Division curriculum is entirely based on Apple OSX. "
The rest? Got bored but of the 14 out of 25 schools looked at 10 had Macs in their editing bays, 4 had Final Cut Studio and 3 had FCPX. So half still had FCP/FCPX in the curriculum.
Its utter bollocks that film schools are excluding Macs from hardware requirements and half had FCP/FCPX installed in their editing bays.
Granted Apple would probably prefer to be able to say the Rogue One was cut on FCPX but 3 features in 2 years means some editors are seeing the advantages.
Obviously the interest is still slow, but what do you expect when you have multi-year projects and massive budgets to worry about. You are not going to risk it on big projects right at the beginning. I think we can all agree that when FCPX was released 4 years ago, it was a combination of releasing a new version and failing to call it a public alpha/beta as they should have..... while continuing to fully support and back the older version as the current production version -- which completely freaked out a number of users. There has been significant work filling in the gaps and making it more solid. A number of people that shunned it early on, are beginning to become very interested in it (though I suspect it will take time to build up to larger productions). I watched a few videos of people that have given it a second chance -- and the feedback has been positive because they find they can be more efficient with it for certain projects.
I will add that I saw more than a few education facilities exclude FCP from their courses, and Macs from their hardware requirements due to the debacle of the FCP transition. On the one hand, the institutions had no idea where Apple was going to take FCP, and on the other, the machines were just too expensive for many students to purchase (even with university discounts) after tackling the fees of the courses themselves.Those students were/are future editors that Apple should be doing all it can to accommodate not alienate. If you want to promote the FCP platform, these are the things you should be taking care of.
Blah blah blah. More nonsense. Of the top 25 film schools who uses FCP/FCPX?
USC: Mac/Avid https://cinema.usc.edu/Laptops/ "Therefore, much like the larger production and post-production industry, the school’s Production Division curriculum is entirely based on Apple OSX. "
The rest? Got bored but of the 14 out of 25 schools looked at 10 had Macs in their editing bays, 4 had Final Cut Studio and 3 had FCPX. So half still had FCP/FCPX in the curriculum.
Its utter bollocks that film schools are excluding Macs from hardware requirements and half had FCP/FCPX installed in their editing bays.
You linked to 10 sites and gave information on a further two. Only three of them listed FCPX.
The whole point was that I had seen schools move away from FCP because of the shambles that was the switch to FCPX. It's not about FCP. That is history or soon will be for people beginning their careers.
Why do you feel the need to label things as 'bollocks'?
If, by your own lookups, you only found three places that used FCPX out of twelve you referenced, it isn't a very strong showing.
You linked to 10 sites and gave information on a further two. Only three of them listed FCPX.
The whole point was that I had seen schools move away from FCP because of the shambles that was the switch to FCPX. It's not about FCP. That is history or soon will be for people beginning their careers.
Why do you feel the need to label things as 'bollocks'?
If, by your own lookups, you only found three places that used FCPX out of twelve you referenced, it isn't a very strong showing.
I think you are "reinterpreting" what you said. You posted that they were moving away from FCP because of the shambles that was the switch to FCPX. As I stated before FCPX was for all intensive purposes a new product, and it was released without making a clear understanding that it was "alpha" or "beta" in that at the beginning it did not have all the functionality of FCP. Partly because they expected some third party options at the periphery to replace existing functionality, and partially because they had not implemented all the functionality in what was effectively version 1.0 of a new product. You also mentioned that they were moving away from Mac hardware itself. Now you are turning around and saying no no no, it is the schools have not started teaching FCPX and dropping FCP.... but if they have not dropped FCP then they have not abandoned Mac.... they are just doing exactly what any large commercial user for any large commercial application would do .... and that is being cautious until enough kinks are worked out to make the leap -- or choose something else.
nht has given a rather large sampling of schools which indicate that the dire situation maybe backed up by a statistical pool of one disgruntled school admin.
I will add that I saw more than a few education facilities exclude FCP from their courses, and Macs from their hardware requirements due to the debacle of the FCP transition. On the one hand, the institutions had no idea where Apple was going to take FCP, and on the other, the machines were just too expensive for many students to purchase (even with university discounts) after tackling the fees of the courses themselves.Those students were/are future editors that Apple should be doing all it can to accommodate not alienate. If you want to promote the FCP platform, these are the things you should be taking care of.
In this case we are talking about FCP, not general use computing in the university. Courses that recommended minimum hardware requirements (mostly MBPs). The courses are officially called 'Audio Visual Communication' and covered the entire production and post production process. The courses cover every element of film making. FCP was often a key piece in the process. It is now less visible in my part of the world.
You linked to 10 sites and gave information on a further two. Only three of them listed FCPX.
The whole point was that I had seen schools move away from FCP because of the shambles that was the switch to FCPX. It's not about FCP. That is history or soon will be for people beginning their careers.
Why do you feel the need to label things as 'bollocks'?
If, by your own lookups, you only found three places that used FCPX out of twelve you referenced, it isn't a very strong showing.
I think you are "reinterpreting" what you said. You posted that they were moving away from FCP because of the shambles that was the switch to FCPX. As I stated before FCPX was for all intensive purposes a new product, and it was released without making a clear understanding that it was "alpha" or "beta" in that at the beginning it did not have all the functionality of FCP. Partly because they expected some third party options at the periphery to replace existing functionality, and partially because they had not implemented all the functionality in what was effectively version 1.0 of a new product. You also mentioned that they were moving away from Mac hardware itself. Now you are turning around and saying no no no, it is the schools have not started teaching FCPX and dropping FCP.... but if they have not dropped FCP then they have not abandoned Mac.... they are just doing exactly what any large commercial user for any large commercial application would do .... and that is being cautious until enough kinks are worked out to make the leap -- or choose something else.
nht has given a rather large sampling of schools which indicate that the dire situation maybe backed up by a statistical pool of one disgruntled school admin.
I will add that I saw more than a few education facilities exclude FCP from their courses, and Macs from their hardware requirements due to the debacle of the FCP transition. On the one hand, the institutions had no idea where Apple was going to take FCP, and on the other, the machines were just too expensive for many students to purchase (even with university discounts) after tackling the fees of the courses themselves.Those students were/are future editors that Apple should be doing all it can to accommodate not alienate. If you want to promote the FCP platform, these are the things you should be taking care of.
In this case we are talking about FCP, not general use computing in the university. Courses that recommended minimum hardware requirements (mostly MBPs). The courses are officially called 'Audio Visual Communication' and covered the entire production and post production process. The courses cover every element of film making. FCP was often a key piece in the process. It is now less visible in my part of the world.
I am not re-interpreting anything. I am talking about what I have seen. I made that clear and you quoted me saying it.
I've spoken to people involved in the decision making processes at various institutions as well as helped some new filmakers with their first self-financed projects.
The 'rather large sampling of schools' was limited to the US where FCP enjoyed an unusually large share of the market (more than half at one point, I think). I don't know what it is is now but FCP never enjoyed the same success elsewhere. Of that sampling, very few are using FCPX. Others are using FCP and I don't really know why, as FCP is basically dead.
I will add that I saw more than a few education facilities exclude FCP from their courses, and Macs from their hardware requirements due to the debacle of the FCP transition. On the one hand, the institutions had no idea where Apple was going to take FCP, and on the other, the machines were just too expensive for many students to purchase (even with university discounts) after tackling the fees of the courses themselves.Those students were/are future editors that Apple should be doing all it can to accommodate not alienate. If you want to promote the FCP platform, these are the things you should be taking care of.
Blah blah blah. More nonsense. Of the top 25 film schools who uses FCP/FCPX?
USC: Mac/Avid https://cinema.usc.edu/Laptops/ "Therefore, much like the larger production and post-production industry, the school’s Production Division curriculum is entirely based on Apple OSX. "
The rest? Got bored but of the 14 out of 25 schools looked at 10 had Macs in their editing bays, 4 had Final Cut Studio and 3 had FCPX. So half still had FCP/FCPX in the curriculum.
Its utter bollocks that film schools are excluding Macs from hardware requirements and half had FCP/FCPX installed in their editing bays.
You linked to 10 sites and gave information on a further two. Only three of them listed FCPX.
The whole point was that I had seen schools move away from FCP because of the shambles that was the switch to FCPX. It's not about FCP. That is history or soon will be for people beginning their careers.
Why do you feel the need to label things as 'bollocks'?
If, by your own lookups, you only found three places that used FCPX out of twelve you referenced, it isn't a very strong showing.
I label things as bollocks when they are. Your statement that more than a few education facilities exclude ... Macs from their hardware requirements is utter nonsense and trolling.
The whole point is you make the absurd claims and then get all upset when proven wrong. Three places using FCPX isn't a weak showing when that represents nearly half of the FCP install base at the surveyed film schools and FCP/FCPX still represents 50% market share in those schools. Of the 4 that don't show mac usage, two are because there was no readily found information about their editing bays.
People "beginning their careers" shouldn't pony up $30-40K a year for film school anyway because it's a complete waste of money to spend $100K+ to MAYBE get a job holding a boom mike as a PA for $33K a year. If you can scrape up $30K (not using student loans) for one year of film school you are far better off sinking it into making a short or two for your director's reel using a RED Epic or Arri Alexa (around $2K for a week for renting an Alexa) on your own after volunteering on sets (often next to the kids paying $30K a year) and making your first 3-4 shorts on whatever DSLR or video cam you can get. Cutting on Avid vs FCPX is likely less important than if you shot your best and latest pieces on a Epic or Alexa.
You can do that going to a community college in LA or NY for some other degree (say business or marketing if not technically inclined or something computer related if you are) and living cheap.
People "beginning their careers" shouldn't pony up $30-40K a year for film school anyway because it's a complete waste of money to spend $100K+ to MAYBE get a job holding a boom mike as a PA for $33K a year. If you can scrape up $30K (not using student loans) for one year of film school you are far better off sinking it into making a short or two for your director's reel using a RED Epic or Arri Alexa (around $2K for a week for renting an Alexa) on your own after volunteering on sets (often next to the kids paying $30K a year) and making your first 3-4 shorts on whatever DSLR or video cam you can get. Cutting on Avid vs FCPX is likely less important than if you shot your best and latest pieces on a Epic or Alexa.
You can do that going to a community college in LA or NY for some other degree (say business or marketing if not technically inclined or something computer related if you are) and living cheap.
I'm not sure what you're saying there:
1. That it's not worth paying the higher price of a "fancy" school when everything one needs can be learned at a less expensive school, or
2. It's not worth paying for film school when everything one needs to know can be learned without it.
If the latter, I respectfully disagree.
Obviously there are a few examples of people with no formal training who are successful and do good work, but they're the exception. My experience with newbies has been that the ones with training are better equipped to start out by already knowing how to avoid common problems. They don't have to be taught fundamental workflow issues and have a basic grasp of technical matters like what connects to what and how CODECS affect outcomes, etc.
It's okay to learn through trial-and-error if one is working in isolation and there are no clients being affected by any lack of understanding. It's different if one wants to make a career of it. In that world, making videos (whether they be docs, features, TV, promos, whatever) is a team sport. Everyone involved is counting on everyone else to do their job competently, When one player doesn't know what's going on, the whole team suffers. Learning by swinging blindly as a volunteer may be better than working alone, but it's still not as good as receiving many years' worth of accumulated knowledge in digest form through a year or two of training.
If the goal is a career in the NFL, who's likely to have a better shot -- the guy who came through the school system, or someone who learned by playing pickup in the park?
People "beginning their careers" shouldn't pony up $30-40K a year for film school anyway because it's a complete waste of money to spend $100K+ to MAYBE get a job holding a boom mike as a PA for $33K a year. If you can scrape up $30K (not using student loans) for one year of film school you are far better off sinking it into making a short or two for your director's reel using a RED Epic or Arri Alexa (around $2K for a week for renting an Alexa) on your own after volunteering on sets (often next to the kids paying $30K a year) and making your first 3-4 shorts on whatever DSLR or video cam you can get. Cutting on Avid vs FCPX is likely less important than if you shot your best and latest pieces on a Epic or Alexa.
You can do that going to a community college in LA or NY for some other degree (say business or marketing if not technically inclined or something computer related if you are) and living cheap.
I'm not sure what you're saying there:
1. That it's not worth paying the higher price of a "fancy" school when everything one needs can be learned at a less expensive school, or
2. It's not worth paying for film school when everything one needs to know can be learned without it.
If the latter, I respectfully disagree.
Then you also disagree with many famous directors and not so famous directors, film school grads and parents.+
Obviously there are a few examples of people with no formal training who are successful and do good work, but they're the exception.
No, they are not the exception. Survey the list of successful directors and see how many attended film school. This when making films was much harder than today.
My experience with newbies has been that the ones with training are better equipped to start out by already knowing how to avoid common problems. They don't have to be taught fundamental workflow issues and have a basic grasp of technical matters like what connects to what and how CODECS affect outcomes, etc.
Not going to film school isn't the same as not taking any training. And by necessity you learn a lot by doing.
It's okay to learn through trial-and-error if one is working in isolation and there are no clients being affected by any lack of understanding. It's different if one wants to make a career of it. In that world, making videos (whether they be docs, features, TV, promos, whatever) is a team sport. Everyone involved is counting on everyone else to do their job competently, When one player doesn't know what's going on, the whole team suffers. Learning by swinging blindly as a volunteer may be better than working alone, but it's still not as good as receiving many years' worth of accumulated knowledge in digest form through a year or two of training. If the goal is a career in the NFL, who's likely to have a better shot -- the guy who came through the school system, or someone who learned by playing pickup in the park?
Of course it's a team sport. The guy that will be successful is the one that actually plays football a lot as opposed to sitting in a class and watching others play football and playing a game or two a semester.
Tell me...who teaches at film school? Successful directors, DPs,, etc? Folks who are actively working? Or folks that aren't? What practical training to they provide?
The fact is that the ROI in a film school degree is negative and most graduates will not be working in the industry after accruing a six digit debt.
No, they are not the exception. Survey the list of successful directors and see how many attended film school. This when making films was much harder than today.
I wouldn't know where to begin to find such information, but I'm not sure it would necessarily invalidate my position anyway. How many among those who would consider film school are likely to become big Hollywood directors compared to the number who will happily and unceremoniously toil in the crew trenches? For the vast majority of those who will work in the industry, formal training is important.
Even among successful directors who lack formal training, the ones I've worked with can be broken down into two categories:
1. Those who recognize there are things they don't know and listen to those on the team who have expertise in areas she/he doesn't.
2. Those who DON'T acknowledge gaps in their own knowledge who waste money pursuing impossible objectives or working inefficiently.
The latter may not be an impediment to critical or financial success, but it is bad for everyone around them. They succeed IN SPITE of their shortcomings, not because of them.
Regardless of outcomes, knowledge and understanding are almost never an impediment to productivity or success, whereas lack of them often is.
Not going to film school isn't the same as not taking any training.
Then maybe we don't disagree. Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying. What kind of training do you think people who want to work in production or post SHOULD be getting? If you're saying "on the job" is enough, I disagree. There are some things that are better learned in the classroom, and some are things many self-taught "pros" still get wrong.
Of course, and that's why the programs I've looked at include a lot of hands-on, jump-in-and-get-your-feet dirty practical training. The advantage is that the experience is gained with the added benefit of a guiding hand from someone with knowledge of the process.
The guy that will be successful is the one that actually plays football a lot as opposed to sitting in a class and watching others play football and playing a game or two a semester.
I think it's important to have BOTH. Just playing football won't provide nearly as much benefit as having someone who knows the game critique my actions so that I do better next time, teach me strategy so I can plan my actions in advance, and provide an understanding of what OTHER players are doing so that my actions support theirs.
Some things are only learned by doing. Other things need to be taught in a classroom. Both are important. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to spend a large chunk of a very limited post schedule fixing bad audio that happened because the people in the field don't know anything about gain staging or how using their equipment differently would save time and money while also making the product better. They won't learn things like that in the field. That's book learnin'.
Tell me...who teaches at film school? Successful directors, DPs,, etc? Folks who are actively working? Or folks that aren't? What practical training to they provide?
Like anything else, I would imagine it depends on the school. If the example is Vancouver Film School, then yes, it is people who already are or were successful in the industry before/during their stint as instructors. I imagine the salary requirements to persuade people like that to teach are part of what makes tuition so expensive. So does having current equipment for the students to use.
Even in cases where the faculty are not active participants in the industry, the degree to which it matters depends on what they're teaching. I know less than zero about what makes the difference between a crappy editor and a great one, but I am more than capable of teaching an editor -- newbie or experienced -- the dos and don'ts of good audio. Teaching story-telling and how to support the story with pictures and sound requires someone with expertise in that particular area, but knowing what various CODECs do and how various processes affect the material is stuff that can (and probably should) be learned from a techie, for whom extensive practical experience in the specific discipline is not particularly relevant.
I will add that I saw more than a few education facilities exclude FCP from their courses, and Macs from their hardware requirements due to the debacle of the FCP transition. On the one hand, the institutions had no idea where Apple was going to take FCP, and on the other, the machines were just too expensive for many students to purchase (even with university discounts) after tackling the fees of the courses themselves.Those students were/are future editors that Apple should be doing all it can to accommodate not alienate. If you want to promote the FCP platform, these are the things you should be taking care of.
Blah blah blah. More nonsense. Of the top 25 film schools who uses FCP/FCPX?
USC: Mac/Avid https://cinema.usc.edu/Laptops/ "Therefore, much like the larger production and post-production industry, the school’s Production Division curriculum is entirely based on Apple OSX. "
The rest? Got bored but of the 14 out of 25 schools looked at 10 had Macs in their editing bays, 4 had Final Cut Studio and 3 had FCPX. So half still had FCP/FCPX in the curriculum.
Its utter bollocks that film schools are excluding Macs from hardware requirements and half had FCP/FCPX installed in their editing bays.
You linked to 10 sites and gave information on a further two. Only three of them listed FCPX.
The whole point was that I had seen schools move away from FCP because of the shambles that was the switch to FCPX. It's not about FCP. That is history or soon will be for people beginning their careers.
Why do you feel the need to label things as 'bollocks'?
If, by your own lookups, you only found three places that used FCPX out of twelve you referenced, it isn't a very strong showing.
I label things as bollocks when they are. Your statement that more than a few education facilities exclude ... Macs from their hardware requirements is utter nonsense and trolling.
The whole point is you make the absurd claims and then get all upset when proven wrong. Three places using FCPX isn't a weak showing when that represents nearly half of the FCP install base at the surveyed film schools and FCP/FCPX still represents 50% market share in those schools. Of the 4 that don't show mac usage, two are because there was no readily found information about their editing bays.
People "beginning their careers" shouldn't pony up $30-40K a year for film school anyway because it's a complete waste of money to spend $100K+ to MAYBE get a job holding a boom mike as a PA for $33K a year. If you can scrape up $30K (not using student loans) for one year of film school you are far better off sinking it into making a short or two for your director's reel using a RED Epic or Arri Alexa (around $2K for a week for renting an Alexa) on your own after volunteering on sets (often next to the kids paying $30K a year) and making your first 3-4 shorts on whatever DSLR or video cam you can get. Cutting on Avid vs FCPX is likely less important than if you shot your best and latest pieces on a Epic or Alexa.
You can do that going to a community college in LA or NY for some other degree (say business or marketing if not technically inclined or something computer related if you are) and living cheap.
It's not what's right for the student. It's the institution. We can't say, 'the student would be better off with this or that...'. The student needs an officially recognised qualification. After that, the student can do whatever course he or she feels is needed and can afford. The institution will be managing many of the work experience options. The institution is the hoop the student must pass through to get a foothold. The institution sets the 'rules' (pricing, platforms etc) and in this industry, at this time, it is very, very hard to find work.
I'm not talking about private universities. I'm talking about public universities funded by education budgets subject to severe cutbacks for over a decade long period. That said, many private schools have also suffered. In both cases the tuition fees are very high. The very real possibility of not finding work at the end of the study period means that many will be scraping by with financial help from parents, relatives etc before they become truly independent. It all adds up to a lot money. So you are squeezed at one end by government and squeezed at the other having to pitch to people with limited resources. You plan carefully.
Using FCPX means having a Mac. Preferably a MBP. Many of your potential customers have PCs. Remember this is not the US. From a business perspective it's a very hard sell but it was done. I saw the rise of FCP but the switch to FCPX was a disaster for Apple. It wouldn't even open FCP projects and the switch happened during one of the worst economic downturns in living memory. Apple was tight-lipped on where the application was heading. Functionality was missing. There was no roadmap for course planners to present to the financial departments. The whole switch to FCPX was one big mess in that sense. Nobody really knew where the platform was headed and that only changed when users made their feelings known. Only then did we get some real information about what functionality would be brought back and in what estimated timeframe. However, that didn't resolve the hardware side. Retina Macs were expensive and money was scarce. Requiring Macs for editing, with software (FCP) that was on its way out and no one really knowing if Apple would put the required commitment into its substitute, made people think long and hard about continuing with it.
I will repeat. It's what I've seen in my part of the world. That's the second time I've said 'in my part of the world'. Which part of that can't you understand?
And from a studies perspective, what advantages are there to using FCP over FCPX in an education setting? Why isn't everyone (of those who use the platform) already using FCPX?
No, they are not the exception. Survey the list of successful directors and see how many attended film school. This when making films was much harder than today.
I wouldn't know where to begin to find such information, but I'm not sure it would necessarily invalidate my position anyway. How many among those who would consider film school are likely to become big Hollywood directors compared to the number who will happily and unceremoniously toil in the crew trenches? For the vast majority of those who will work in the industry, formal training is important.
Even among successful directors who lack formal training, the ones I've worked with can be broken down into two categories:
1. Those who recognize there are things they don't know and listen to those on the team who have expertise in areas she/he doesn't.
2. Those who DON'T acknowledge gaps in their own knowledge who waste money pursuing impossible objectives or working inefficiently.
The latter may not be an impediment to critical or financial success, but it is bad for everyone around them. They succeed IN SPITE of their shortcomings, not because of them.
Regardless of outcomes, knowledge and understanding are almost never an impediment to productivity or success, whereas lack of them often is.
Not going to film school isn't the same as not taking any training.
Then maybe we don't disagree. Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying. What kind of training do you think people who want to work in production or post SHOULD be getting? If you're saying "on the job" is enough, I disagree. There are some things that are better learned in the classroom, and some are things many self-taught "pros" still get wrong.
Of course, and that's why the programs I've looked at include a lot of hands-on, jump-in-and-get-your-feet dirty practical training. The advantage is that the experience is gained with the added benefit of a guiding hand from someone with knowledge of the process.
The guy that will be successful is the one that actually plays football a lot as opposed to sitting in a class and watching others play football and playing a game or two a semester.
I think it's important to have BOTH. Just playing football won't provide nearly as much benefit as having someone who knows the game critique my actions so that I do better next time, teach me strategy so I can plan my actions in advance, and provide an understanding of what OTHER players are doing so that my actions support theirs.
Some things are only learned by doing. Other things need to be taught in a classroom. Both are important. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to spend a large chunk of a very limited post schedule fixing bad audio that happened because the people in the field don't know anything about gain staging or how using their equipment differently would save time and money while also making the product better. They won't learn things like that in the field. That's book learnin'.
Tell me...who teaches at film school? Successful directors, DPs,, etc? Folks who are actively working? Or folks that aren't? What practical training to they provide?
Like anything else, I would imagine it depends on the school. If the example is Vancouver Film School, then yes, it is people who already are or were successful in the industry before/during their stint as instructors. I imagine the salary requirements to persuade people like that to teach are part of what makes tuition so expensive. So does having current equipment for the students to use.
Even in cases where the faculty are not active participants in the industry, the degree to which it matters depends on what they're teaching. I know less than zero about what makes the difference between a crappy editor and a great one, but I am more than capable of teaching an editor -- newbie or experienced -- the dos and don'ts of good audio. Teaching story-telling and how to support the story with pictures and sound requires someone with expertise in that particular area, but knowing what various CODECs do and how various processes affect the material is stuff that can (and probably should) be learned from a techie, for whom extensive practical experience in the specific discipline is not particularly relevant.
I know guys that have worked skywalker sound and they didn't go to film school. Nor did they learn pro tools or codecs before their internships there. How one of them got there was work a lot of sound for theater and while a THX AV installer got some corporate training at skywalker ranch and caught someone's attention who offered him a full internship. While interning he mixed the end credit music for a couple big movies and learned the tools as part of that work from the masters of the trade.
For DP you need a good eye and lots of practice and a great reel. You're born with an eye and the will to get the required practice. If you don't have either then film school will not help. If you have both then film school won't matter.
For 1st AD you don't need film school either.
I can't imagine getting any of the significant positions in a production on the basis of a film school degree but rather on the strength of a good reel, tape or portfolio. If you have that then you don't need a film school degree.
Bad audio in post means the location sound recorder screwed the pooch or most likely there wasn't one and the director winged it in a small indie production.
The "dos" is hire a good sound recorder for the field and a good sound editor for post. The "donts" is don't skimp on audio (or makeup) in your production.
Seriously Lorin when was the last time someone cared about your degree before they hired you? When was the first time? Ever? It's based on your body of work, references and word of mouth/networking.
Seriously Lorin when was the last time someone cared about your degree before they hired you? When was the first time? Ever? It's based on your body of work, references and word of mouth/networking.
You're absolutely right that no one cares about academic credentials when hiring. I hope I didn't come across as suggesting that a piece of paper on a resume is relevant to getting work in the industry. I agree with you that it isn't.
What matters is how the candidate performs on the job. My position is that those with schooling tend to do better than those without. ESPECIALLY when things go wrong. They have troubleshooting skills that the self-trained lack, and are better at imagining alternative solutions when the primary one isn't available.
Over the last few years the people who moved from intern to part-time to full-time positions where I work have been those with good technical chops. Part of the reason for their good grasp of how things work is their pre-employment training. It's not something they would have picked up in the course of their duties. Obviously they weren't hired because they had training, but their training provided them skills and knowledge others lacked which gave them an advantage.
I recognize that these particular people would likely be more successful than those they beat for jobs even without formal training, because they have the smarts, talent, personality and mindset to do well. I don't dispute that it's possible to have a successful career in production or post without formal training. I'm just saying that it's harder without training, and some people -- despite whatever success they may enjoy -- could (and sometimes should) be even better with some classroom theory under their belts.
I also acknowledge that sometimes their training is a curse. Some people come out of school believing they are "experts" and want to second-guess everything they're told because they know better. Even that has a upside though. Sometimes they're right and I learn something new!
For DP you need a good eye and lots of practice and a great reel. You're born with an eye and the will to get the required practice. If you don't have either then film school will not help. If you have both then film school won't matter.
True, but it's a technical field, so knowing WHY certain actions produce certain results matters. That is, it matters when the tried-and-true method isn't working and the person whose job it is to make it work under unfamiliar conditions doesn't know how. A "good eye" born of natural talent won't provide that. Enough practice will reveal some things, but it seems a lot more efficient to learn about lens characteristics and capture formats in a comparatively few hours of classroom training than years of swinging blindly at unknown targets. Particularly when the thing that sinks the ship is something that hasn't come up in self-directed study. A training course is much more likely to impart information about things the student didn't know would matter.
Bad audio in post means the location sound recorder screwed the pooch or most likely there wasn't one and the director winged it in a small indie production.
The "dos" is hire a good sound recorder for the field and a good sound editor for post. The "donts" is don't skimp on audio (or makeup) in your production.
Yup. Unfortunately the reality is that we're living in a world of ever-shrinking budgets and schedules, while at the same time being expected to produce more. There is no sound recordist on a talking head shoot. One person is expected to handle lighting, audio, and operating camera. The editor and mixer are expected to turn out multiple versions for various applications. The "right" solution is irrelevant when it just plain ain't gonna happen. Sometimes we just have to "make it work" despite adverse circumstances. That's when the people with a broader knowledge base really shine. Obviously that skill set CAN be developed without formal training, but it's much less likely.
Besides, as the post audio engineer I don't get to choose the recordist. If she/he makes a decision in the field that limits me in post, I can't just say "Not my problem -- blame the producer for hiring that recordist." I still have to make it work and satisfy the director. I don't get more time to work on it because the tracks are 20dB too low and noisy. Then, if I do a really good job of "saving" it, I just protected that recordist's future prospects! If I don't it reflects just as badly or worse on ME.
That's why I said being a good team member requires technical expertise (just because the meters are in the right range doesn't mean you're doing it right), and that kind of stuff comes from a classroom, not trial-and-error.
Comments
Instead, just make a range of trash-can style Macs (maybe an upgraded version now, since it's been so long). The idea is Apple gets economies of scale making just one form factor. It's got a small footprint, so I don't think space is really an issue, about the same as a Mac mini.
They've already stopped making a separate display, with the new LG subbing in for that. Why bother with the extra cost and complexity of making screens if other manufacturers can meet high standards? And with scale, the new trash can mfg could be kept and grown in USA. That's a thing now.
So have fixed CPU/memory/GPU options and earlier gen. tech for inexpensive versions for light users at the bottom end - which is plenty darn fast anyway. And then offer newest tech with greater customization and upgradeability at the high end. One form factor for economy, low price at base to keep (heck, maybe even gain new) consumer desktop users, and high end options for the true pros to get mojo back into that market. Call it Mac on the low end and Mac Pro on the high end. Ditch iMac and Mac mini. Too controversial?
Slightly separate note - I can't understand why you would make a sealed up desktop with a spinning, slow HD embedded in it that will, guaranteed, fail at some point. That's not good for the planet either. Recently upgraded my 2012 15" MBP crashed HD to a SSD and that baby sings like I just bought a new machine (admitedly, Photoshop is the heaviest load it gets tho).
Net, the new MP would get rid of mfg complexity of AiO units with displays, get economy of scale with one form factor, hook consumers at the low end and give pros what they really want at high end, with a nice range in between (and a new name) for marketing to play with. And many people seem to just like having the promise of power and optionality in some kind of desktop box, especailly a sharp looking new thing (remember the buzz when the cheesegrater MP came out - that thing was cool in its time, and looked heavy duty, too). Users can even pick the quality and size of display they want.
I see lots of wins in that for Apple and users, if Apple is now dedicating all its discretionary effort and resources to phones and cars.
Late post, but hey, I had too many tabs open over the holidays and am just getting to this one. And sorry poster #200 for breaking your round number
Don't worry about breaking the round number of 200 -- it serves him right for his breaking of 199's ending on a prime number.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/best-film-schools-2016-top-united-states-rankings-920344/item/florida-state-university-25-film-920391
USC: Mac/Avid https://cinema.usc.edu/Laptops/ "Therefore, much like the larger production and post-production industry, the school’s Production Division curriculum is entirely based on Apple OSX. "
NYU: Mac/Avid https://tisch.nyu.edu/grad-film/admissions/recommended---required-software-equipment
UCLA: Mac/FCP http://www.tft.ucla.edu/facilities/final-cut-pro-suites/
Columbia: Mac/FCP, Avid, CC http://library.columbia.edu/locations/dhc/video-editing.html
Yale: Mac/FCPX http://dmca.yalecollege.yale.edu/resources
California Institute of the Arts: Mac/FCPX https://filmvideo.calarts.edu/facilities
FSU: Mac/PP http://film.fsu.edu/about/facilities
Loyola: Mac/FCP/Avid/PP
Emerson: Mac/FCPX http://www.emerson.edu/television-radio-film/production-centers/digital-labs-editing-suites
Boston University: Mac/FCP (Studio) & Windows/Avid https://www.bu.edu/brand/files/2012/10/BUProductions_ProducerManual_WEB.pdf
--
University of Texas: Avid
Chapman: Avid
Wesleyan: No info
Stanford: No info
The rest? Got bored but of the 14 out of 25 schools looked at 10 had Macs in their editing bays, 4 had Final Cut Studio and 3 had FCPX. So half still had FCP/FCPX in the curriculum.
Its utter bollocks that film schools are excluding Macs from hardware requirements and half had FCP/FCPX installed in their editing bays.
Cook's starting to sound like The Donald.
The whole point was that I had seen schools move away from FCP because of the shambles that was the switch to FCPX. It's not about FCP. That is history or soon will be for people beginning their careers.
Why do you feel the need to label things as 'bollocks'?
If, by your own lookups, you only found three places that used FCPX out of twelve you referenced, it isn't a very strong showing.
nht has given a rather large sampling of schools which indicate that the dire situation maybe backed up by a statistical pool of one disgruntled school admin.
I've spoken to people involved in the decision making processes at various institutions as well as helped some new filmakers with their first self-financed projects.
The 'rather large sampling of schools' was limited to the US where FCP enjoyed an unusually large share of the market (more than half at one point, I think). I don't know what it is is now but FCP never enjoyed the same success elsewhere. Of that sampling, very few are using FCPX. Others are using FCP and I don't really know why, as FCP is basically dead.
I'm speaking about what I see.
The whole point is you make the absurd claims and then get all upset when proven wrong. Three places using FCPX isn't a weak showing when that represents nearly half of the FCP install base at the surveyed film schools and FCP/FCPX still represents 50% market share in those schools. Of the 4 that don't show mac usage, two are because there was no readily found information about their editing bays.
People "beginning their careers" shouldn't pony up $30-40K a year for film school anyway because it's a complete waste of money to spend $100K+ to MAYBE get a job holding a boom mike as a PA for $33K a year. If you can scrape up $30K (not using student loans) for one year of film school you are far better off sinking it into making a short or two for your director's reel using a RED Epic or Arri Alexa (around $2K for a week for renting an Alexa) on your own after volunteering on sets (often next to the kids paying $30K a year) and making your first 3-4 shorts on whatever DSLR or video cam you can get. Cutting on Avid vs FCPX is likely less important than if you shot your best and latest pieces on a Epic or Alexa.
You can do that going to a community college in LA or NY for some other degree (say business or marketing if not technically inclined or something computer related if you are) and living cheap.
1. That it's not worth paying the higher price of a "fancy" school when everything one needs can be learned at a less expensive school, or
2. It's not worth paying for film school when everything one needs to know can be learned without it.
If the latter, I respectfully disagree.
Obviously there are a few examples of people with no formal training who are successful and do good work, but they're the exception. My experience with newbies has been that the ones with training are better equipped to start out by already knowing how to avoid common problems. They don't have to be taught fundamental workflow issues and have a basic grasp of technical matters like what connects to what and how CODECS affect outcomes, etc.
It's okay to learn through trial-and-error if one is working in isolation and there are no clients being affected by any lack of understanding. It's different if one wants to make a career of it. In that world, making videos (whether they be docs, features, TV, promos, whatever) is a team sport. Everyone involved is counting on everyone else to do their job competently, When one player doesn't know what's going on, the whole team suffers. Learning by swinging blindly as a volunteer may be better than working alone, but it's still not as good as receiving many years' worth of accumulated knowledge in digest form through a year or two of training.
If the goal is a career in the NFL, who's likely to have a better shot -- the guy who came through the school system, or someone who learned by playing pickup in the park?
No, they are not the exception. Survey the list of successful directors and see how many attended film school. This when making films was much harder than today.
Not going to film school isn't the same as not taking any training. And by necessity you learn a lot by doing.
Of course it's a team sport. The guy that will be successful is the one that actually plays football a lot as opposed to sitting in a class and watching others play football and playing a game or two a semester.
Tell me...who teaches at film school? Successful directors, DPs,, etc? Folks who are actively working? Or folks that aren't? What practical training to they provide?
The fact is that the ROI in a film school degree is negative and most graduates will not be working in the industry after accruing a six digit debt.
I wouldn't know where to begin to find such information, but I'm not sure it would necessarily invalidate my position anyway. How many among those who would consider film school are likely to become big Hollywood directors compared to the number who will happily and unceremoniously toil in the crew trenches? For the vast majority of those who will work in the industry, formal training is important.
Even among successful directors who lack formal training, the ones I've worked with can be broken down into two categories:
1. Those who recognize there are things they don't know and listen to those on the team who have expertise in areas she/he doesn't.
2. Those who DON'T acknowledge gaps in their own knowledge who waste money pursuing impossible objectives or working inefficiently.
The latter may not be an impediment to critical or financial success, but it is bad for everyone around them. They succeed IN SPITE of their shortcomings, not because of them.
Regardless of outcomes, knowledge and understanding are almost never an impediment to productivity or success, whereas lack of them often is.
Then maybe we don't disagree. Maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying. What kind of training do you think people who want to work in production or post SHOULD be getting? If you're saying "on the job" is enough, I disagree. There are some things that are better learned in the classroom, and some are things many self-taught "pros" still get wrong.
Of course, and that's why the programs I've looked at include a lot of hands-on, jump-in-and-get-your-feet dirty practical training. The advantage is that the experience is gained with the added benefit of a guiding hand from someone with knowledge of the process.
I think it's important to have BOTH. Just playing football won't provide nearly as much benefit as having someone who knows the game critique my actions so that I do better next time, teach me strategy so I can plan my actions in advance, and provide an understanding of what OTHER players are doing so that my actions support theirs.
Some things are only learned by doing. Other things need to be taught in a classroom. Both are important. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to spend a large chunk of a very limited post schedule fixing bad audio that happened because the people in the field don't know anything about gain staging or how using their equipment differently would save time and money while also making the product better. They won't learn things like that in the field. That's book learnin'.
Like anything else, I would imagine it depends on the school. If the example is Vancouver Film School, then yes, it is people who already are or were successful in the industry before/during their stint as instructors. I imagine the salary requirements to persuade people like that to teach are part of what makes tuition so expensive. So does having current equipment for the students to use.
Even in cases where the faculty are not active participants in the industry, the degree to which it matters depends on what they're teaching. I know less than zero about what makes the difference between a crappy editor and a great one, but I am more than capable of teaching an editor -- newbie or experienced -- the dos and don'ts of good audio. Teaching story-telling and how to support the story with pictures and sound requires someone with expertise in that particular area, but knowing what various CODECs do and how various processes affect the material is stuff that can (and probably should) be learned from a techie, for whom extensive practical experience in the specific discipline is not particularly relevant.
I'm not talking about private universities. I'm talking about public universities funded by education budgets subject to severe cutbacks for over a decade long period. That said, many private schools have also suffered. In both cases the tuition fees are very high. The very real possibility of not finding work at the end of the study period means that many will be scraping by with financial help from parents, relatives etc before they become truly independent. It all adds up to a lot money. So you are squeezed at one end by government and squeezed at the other having to pitch to people with limited resources. You plan carefully.
Using FCPX means having a Mac. Preferably a MBP. Many of your potential customers have PCs. Remember this is not the US. From a business perspective it's a very hard sell but it was done. I saw the rise of FCP but the switch to FCPX was a disaster for Apple. It wouldn't even open FCP projects and the switch happened during one of the worst economic downturns in living memory. Apple was tight-lipped on where the application was heading. Functionality was missing. There was no roadmap for course planners to present to the financial departments. The whole switch to FCPX was one big mess in that sense. Nobody really knew where the platform was headed and that only changed when users made their feelings known. Only then did we get some real information about what functionality would be brought back and in what estimated timeframe. However, that didn't resolve the hardware side. Retina Macs were expensive and money was scarce. Requiring Macs for editing, with software (FCP) that was on its way out and no one really knowing if Apple would put the required commitment into its substitute, made people think long and hard about continuing with it.
I will repeat. It's what I've seen in my part of the world. That's the second time I've said 'in my part of the world'. Which part of that can't you understand?
And from a studies perspective, what advantages are there to using FCP over FCPX in an education setting? Why isn't everyone (of those who use the platform) already using FCPX?
For DP you need a good eye and lots of practice and a great reel. You're born with an eye and the will to get the required practice. If you don't have either then film school will not help. If you have both then film school won't matter.
For 1st AD you don't need film school either.
I can't imagine getting any of the significant positions in a production on the basis of a film school degree but rather on the strength of a good reel, tape or portfolio. If you have that then you don't need a film school degree.
Bad audio in post means the location sound recorder screwed the pooch or most likely there wasn't one and the director winged it in a small indie production.
The "dos" is hire a good sound recorder for the field and a good sound editor for post. The "donts" is don't skimp on audio (or makeup) in your production.
Seriously Lorin when was the last time someone cared about your degree before they hired you? When was the first time? Ever? It's based on your body of work, references and word of mouth/networking.
You're absolutely right that no one cares about academic credentials when hiring. I hope I didn't come across as suggesting that a piece of paper on a resume is relevant to getting work in the industry. I agree with you that it isn't.
What matters is how the candidate performs on the job. My position is that those with schooling tend to do better than those without. ESPECIALLY when things go wrong. They have troubleshooting skills that the self-trained lack, and are better at imagining alternative solutions when the primary one isn't available.
Over the last few years the people who moved from intern to part-time to full-time positions where I work have been those with good technical chops. Part of the reason for their good grasp of how things work is their pre-employment training. It's not something they would have picked up in the course of their duties. Obviously they weren't hired because they had training, but their training provided them skills and knowledge others lacked which gave them an advantage.
I recognize that these particular people would likely be more successful than those they beat for jobs even without formal training, because they have the smarts, talent, personality and mindset to do well. I don't dispute that it's possible to have a successful career in production or post without formal training. I'm just saying that it's harder without training, and some people -- despite whatever success they may enjoy -- could (and sometimes should) be even better with some classroom theory under their belts.
I also acknowledge that sometimes their training is a curse. Some people come out of school believing they are "experts" and want to second-guess everything they're told because they know better. Even that has a upside though. Sometimes they're right and I learn something new!
True, but it's a technical field, so knowing WHY certain actions produce certain results matters. That is, it matters when the tried-and-true method isn't working and the person whose job it is to make it work under unfamiliar conditions doesn't know how. A "good eye" born of natural talent won't provide that. Enough practice will reveal some things, but it seems a lot more efficient to learn about lens characteristics and capture formats in a comparatively few hours of classroom training than years of swinging blindly at unknown targets. Particularly when the thing that sinks the ship is something that hasn't come up in self-directed study. A training course is much more likely to impart information about things the student didn't know would matter.
Yup. Unfortunately the reality is that we're living in a world of ever-shrinking budgets and schedules, while at the same time being expected to produce more. There is no sound recordist on a talking head shoot. One person is expected to handle lighting, audio, and operating camera. The editor and mixer are expected to turn out multiple versions for various applications. The "right" solution is irrelevant when it just plain ain't gonna happen. Sometimes we just have to "make it work" despite adverse circumstances. That's when the people with a broader knowledge base really shine. Obviously that skill set CAN be developed without formal training, but it's much less likely.
Besides, as the post audio engineer I don't get to choose the recordist. If she/he makes a decision in the field that limits me in post, I can't just say "Not my problem -- blame the producer for hiring that recordist." I still have to make it work and satisfy the director. I don't get more time to work on it because the tracks are 20dB too low and noisy. Then, if I do a really good job of "saving" it, I just protected that recordist's future prospects! If I don't it reflects just as badly or worse on ME.
That's why I said being a good team member requires technical expertise (just because the meters are in the right range doesn't mean you're doing it right), and that kind of stuff comes from a classroom, not trial-and-error.