Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iMovie '08 Was Originally Called 'First Cut', Ubillos on Final Cut Pro X
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm writing this in behalf of a co engineer, Apple is after the prosumer market these days., sounds about right to me.
Weak comparison. That was people being wrong about a new product being introduced. In this case there's a full featured product that has been available for years, and it has been discontinued in favor of a new one that is missing a number of features that are crucial for many work situations. Many people doing this for a living simply can't use the new software, period. That has nothing to do with the iPods introduction.
The better analogy would be the OS 9 -> OS X transition. OS X version 10.0 was released with a lot of lacking features of OS 9, stuff that didn't even work in Classic (like burning CDs for instance...). Key differences :
- 10.0 was released but Apple kept selling new Macs with OS 9.
- Apple kept on supporting OS 9 until OS X was ready for primetime
That is what is called "transition". Here, there was no transition. One day it's FCP7, the next it's FCPX. Either your workflow translates over or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you're just a whiner who's not adjusting to the times, the features that are missing are obviously non-essential and just fluff (or so many posters here would have you believe).
The software, maybe. But those guys are also buying the most expensive hardware Apple sells. And there's a halo effect, if those guys are doing work on macs they're probably also going to use them for home machines, recommend them for friends and relatives etc. I just don't think Apple is in a position to write off any segment of their current customer base.
Didn't they start filming House MD on dSLRs?
My point isn't he can't do no wrong. My point is: a lot of people are cursing the person behind FCPX and iMovie '08 while singing praises for the person who made FCP originally without realizing it's the same person.
I know they filmed one episode of House... it was a season finale. I think it was more more of a proof of concept... I don't think they've switched to DSLRs full time. (I don't know for sure though)
The opening credits for SNL were shot on Canon 5DmkII and 7D.
Then it should have been released in a year, not premature and crippled as a pro app.
Imagine if Microsoft released a new version of Word without support for fonts or spell checker and it couldn't edit documents made on prior versions.
Sure, it's usable and still has lots of features... but professionals aren't going to be able to use it. Only what Apple did was worse...
I agree with the sentiments that this should have been released as an upgrade to Final Cut Express as a teaser to pro users. Though that is kind of backwards in how the releases should unfold.
"Well, the features are coming... we just want your cash now" is what this stinks of.
I guess the problem is the you dont understand that pro are not only the broadcast and movie editors. There are many pros that wont miss ANYTHING at FCPX.
You are very blatantly ignorant in concerns of retail matters. And not only should you not talk out of your rear end, please don't make up percentages that are not true. I despise people who make up numbers because they have not educated argument on a topic.
The new final cut retails at $299
iMovie stand alone is $14.99 (and free on new macs.)
So they need to sell 20 copies of iMove to match the sales revenue of 1 copy of FCP. iMovie development was always easier being able to use the pro software as a template and model for where to take it (even with FCE.)
Yeah, pro apps are ALWAYS a smaller part of a companies business when they also are in the consumer space. Look at Adobe has more of a professional user base. Most of their software is pro centric or freeware. The reason their pro software is so expensive is because they sell less copies and need to recoup R&D and make some money, while funding it's freeware.
Pro Users also aren't dropping $1199 on an iMac either, more like $4k and up in most cases. It's a huge cash cow. The highest margin Mac's are the pro models.
Apple's problem is that they are dipping into to many areas and not increasing resources accordingly as they do so. When you are constantly yanking one team to help get another teams project ut the door, it's a sure fire sign they need to take some of that cash sitting in the bank and hire more people. The quality of everything Apple has been releasing since they moved away from a "computer" company to a free for all in technology company has been horrendous. When was the last time Apple released software of any kind (and even hardware in many respects) that wasn't carrying more than reasonable .0 release bugs or glitches?
I don't see the difference between that, and wait to upgrade, in either case your waiting. But this has the added benefit of a "public beta" period where the early adopters find and report eventual bugs and Apple adds in more features in version updates.
You're mistaken on several fronts here. There was a time when Zip drives very much *did* look to be the replacement for floppy disks. I worked at a CompUSA during that particular bit of history, and remember when a few different manufacturers started including Zip drives in their machines. Apple was one of them, as were CTX, and I believe both HP (it might have been Compaq) and Packard-Bell. Both Dell and Gateway had them available as optional components, though I'm not aware that they were included in any models by default.
Regardless of that, floppy disks had long since outlived they're useful life as a technology. They were a hassle for transferring files before CD drives were even *available* in PCs. Or have you forgotten the days of having to create a multi-disk spanning ZIP archive to transfer a single file to another computer?
C
champ01
Guest
Public beta at full price?
Kill selling the previous version and only have a public beta available??
Thats one of stupidest things a company can do don't you think???
It's obvious from your comments that you have no work experience in either broadcast TV or feature film post-production. iMovie and FCPX lack features that are essential in those workflows. I'm happy those products work for you.
I'm not saying that it is a public beta, off course it isn't. But from at practical stand point, you could choose to view it like that. After all what is the point of wasting time and energy arguing about a theoretical best practice, especially when the outcome is the same, ie in either case you wait one year (to take the OPs example) to upgrade.
So I gather that prosumers do not use tape and do not produce DVDs? Because that is not going to be easier with FCP X.
This is not about which market Apple is after. This is about Apple ditching a loyal, well paying group of customers. In hear some of you say: don't complain, just leave. Well, that is exactly what this group is going to do, and that is a shame.
And while doing so, they have every right to complain, because Apple is costing them a lot of money.
Even I, being an amateur film editor, understand this.
The prosumer market? Prosumers are most likely going to buy their stuff from the same place as the professionals do.
600 filmmakers sign complaint about Final Cut Pro X
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06...ne+Brainstorm+Tech)&utm_content=Google+Reader
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06...ne+Brainstorm+Tech)&utm_content=Google+Reader
At this point, FCP7 and Media Composer have enough feature parity that either tool can be used to edit anything. Hopefully Apple will add features to FCPX to make it as functional as FCP7.
Not Apple's true pro customers
Clearly, Apple customers who depend on some features in Final Cut Pro aren't "winning" with "Imovie +".
What's the score so far, guys? Who's winning?
Clearly, Apple customers who depend on some features in Final Cut Pro aren't "winning" with "Imovie +".
Okay guys, I must admit over the weekend I have changed my opinion about FCPX by 180°!!!
I therefore apologize to anyone I have crossed blades with, during the last few days.
What made me change my mind and appreciate Apple's goal?
At first I was perplexed and also relieved that despite all the uproar about the many missing features, almost everybody who actually TRIED to edit with the damn thing, loved the timeline handling immediately.
I read things like "it grows on you" and some even called it "fun" to edit with.
And this came from actual working professionals at creativecow.net or final-cut-pro.de. Not from some imovie-fanboy.net kids...
The next thing that puzzled me was this example video here:
http://library.creativecow.net/battistella_david/FCPX-Calcio-Storico/1
Because what I saw there, is exactly the fluid, dynamic, emotional editing style I'm trying to achieve in most of my work! So how come this piece of dreck software did this task so well?
Personally the most shocking news of this FCPX release was the fact that multicam editing was gone. I was very happy to learn from Pogue that this missing feature is a top priority on Apple's to-do-list.
Then it dawned on me, and I began to realize WHY this has been my absolute favorite feature in FCP7.
It wasn't about the multi cam angles. It was the FLUIDITY of this editing process that got me hooked.
And then I suddenly UNDERSTOOD Randy Ubilos' vision.
They are trying to give us this FLUID EDITING EXPERIENCE with one camera on the ordinary timeline as well!
THAT'S why these early adopters had so much fun with the core editing functions of FCPX. Editing became a much more fluid process than ever before!
Personally, I despise effect-laden montages of beautiful shots that provide an overload of style, but offer not much function and make even less sense.
I'm usually more interested in TELLING A STORY in the most realistic, interesting and dynamic way possible.
By working with FCP7 I often found myself pulled out of the editing FLOW by the tedious work steps and frankly rather clumsy approach this tool required.
NO, FCP7 has never been a real love affair and was not nearly as much fun to work with, as for instance InDesign is.
To me, FCP7 was nothing more than a rather irksome tool that got the required tasks done. But I always found the UI to be very un-Apple-like and rather windozy or adobeish.
Is this product really aimed at ambitious amateurs and semi-pros?
Absolutely NOT.
FCPX is clearly aimed at anybody who understands and speaks the VISUAL LANGUAGE OF MOVING IMAGES.
Which most amateurs, consumers and hobbyists frankly do not...
This tool is for people whose favorite editing book is rather Walter Murch's "In the Blink of an Eye" than "Editing Techniques with Final Cut Pro" or any other boring How-to-Do-Bible!
In other words: FCPX is for creative filmmakers and video creators with storyteller talent and/or a genuine visual concept, but NOT necessarily a tool for video technique lovers who like to impress their clients mainly with their TECHNICAL SKILLS and EFFECT WIZARDY...
Yes, some of these creative movie minds might be evolving from related creative professions like photographers, graphic designers, dynamic web designers, camera people who didn't edit, etc., because:
FCP X is all about PROFESSIONAL CREATIVITY while FCP 7 was more about TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY.
Now that I see Apple's vision much clearer, I'm beginning to like where this is heading. Although I must admit, they have a lot of work ahead.
To use an analogy from the OS history to explain the current development state and potential of the major NLE editing tools:
Avid Media Composer = Windows 2000 Server
Premiere CS5 = Windows XP
Final Cut Studio 3/FCP7 = Mac OS 9.2
Final Cut Pro X 10.0 = Mac OSX 10.0
Hopefully FCPX 10.3 will be reaching at least Mac OSX 10.4 levels.
What about the missing EDL, XML, OMF import/export and other communication and interchangeability problems?
As usual Apple is thinking way ahead of the curve.
In 5-6 years I assume we won't be needing all this transcoding stuff to connect with ancient hardware anymore.
I've been there already and experienced similar transitions in the printing industry. 20 years ago we graphic designers had to work with a plethora of specialists (econgeek would call them monkey assemblers ;-) to get our creative work published. Most of these professions are long gone by now! Typesetters, photo lithographers, letterpress printers, offset printers, intaglio printers, photo finisher including their almost factory-sized prepress houses are all extinct. Only a small minority of these highly-paid jobs has merged into new professions.
Around 1995 the printing industry was the same chaotic mess the video industry is right now. Then Adobe Acrobat grew into the backbone technology that tied everything together and finally changed our industry forever.
We graphic designers were probably the least affected by these revolutionary transitions and stayed always IN CHARGE of the creative game. Except now we are enjoying even more creative control than ever before. Believe me, my job is a lot more fun and creative now than it was 20 years ago!
Printing industry workflow today:
Art Director/Graphic Designer & Mac & Adobe Design Collection > PDF as connective link > digital printer, direct-to-plate process or print technology of your choice
The future motion media workflow will be similar:
Video Director/Filmmaker & Mac & FCPX > future standard video codec as connective link > video distribution of your choice (web, broadcasting, theatrical projection, discs, download, whatever...)
All the current fancy high-end post production facilities (equivalent to prepress houses) with their insanely expensive transcoding hardware, including ancient broadcasting technologies with tapes and what-not will be phased out, as soon as the missing connective link - a new standard codec (equivalent to PDF) - is being created. By then the classic editor-only job will only be found in Hollywood and in high-end TV productions.
Of course we are not there yet. But believe me, we will. Sooner than many are realizing.
During the coming years the still ongoing (and most likely worsening) recession will add a lot more pressure on us to improve our productivity.
Because that will be the only way of still making money.
Let's not forget: The broadcasting industry is only sticking with their ancient technology and old-fashioned equipment, because they have no decent alternative found yet.
I think they hate these expensive, complicated and insanely clumsy workflows as much as any reasonable person would.
The only people resisting change and clinging to old school workflows are those who have invested way too much into such equipment and the knowhow to wrangle it!
What about the missing in-dept control and effect tools and interactions with other software?
Obviously Apple has a more modular system in mind.
If Red or Sony wants to get their proprietary formats or files into FCP X, they have to provide their own plug-in or take a hike.
If Adobe is willing to add-on After Effects or anything else, they'll probably be welcome as well.
Who is stopping someone like Roxio or Adobe from providing an FCP X tool for authoring DVD's or even BluRays?
The "BD is dead" crowd wouldn't be forced to buy it and could stop complaining about ancient technology they have to pay for...
From what we've heard, several effects filter companies are already committed.
A sound warning to everybody thinking about jumping ship.
If you go the Avid or Premiere road now, you'll probably rushing with 100 mph into a dead end street.
Because all the technical reasons behind your switching plans will be moot in 3-4 years anyway. You'll be losing a lot of money and wasting a lot of learning time for nothing...
I think in the long run the hold out with FCP7 and watch FCP X grow up strategy will be much smarter.
At least that's what I'm going to do, after a weekend of sober reflections.
I therefore apologize to anyone I have crossed blades with, during the last few days.
What made me change my mind and appreciate Apple's goal?
At first I was perplexed and also relieved that despite all the uproar about the many missing features, almost everybody who actually TRIED to edit with the damn thing, loved the timeline handling immediately.
I read things like "it grows on you" and some even called it "fun" to edit with.
And this came from actual working professionals at creativecow.net or final-cut-pro.de. Not from some imovie-fanboy.net kids...
The next thing that puzzled me was this example video here:
http://library.creativecow.net/battistella_david/FCPX-Calcio-Storico/1
Because what I saw there, is exactly the fluid, dynamic, emotional editing style I'm trying to achieve in most of my work! So how come this piece of dreck software did this task so well?
Personally the most shocking news of this FCPX release was the fact that multicam editing was gone. I was very happy to learn from Pogue that this missing feature is a top priority on Apple's to-do-list.
Then it dawned on me, and I began to realize WHY this has been my absolute favorite feature in FCP7.
It wasn't about the multi cam angles. It was the FLUIDITY of this editing process that got me hooked.
And then I suddenly UNDERSTOOD Randy Ubilos' vision.
They are trying to give us this FLUID EDITING EXPERIENCE with one camera on the ordinary timeline as well!
THAT'S why these early adopters had so much fun with the core editing functions of FCPX. Editing became a much more fluid process than ever before!
Personally, I despise effect-laden montages of beautiful shots that provide an overload of style, but offer not much function and make even less sense.
I'm usually more interested in TELLING A STORY in the most realistic, interesting and dynamic way possible.
By working with FCP7 I often found myself pulled out of the editing FLOW by the tedious work steps and frankly rather clumsy approach this tool required.
NO, FCP7 has never been a real love affair and was not nearly as much fun to work with, as for instance InDesign is.
To me, FCP7 was nothing more than a rather irksome tool that got the required tasks done. But I always found the UI to be very un-Apple-like and rather windozy or adobeish.
Is this product really aimed at ambitious amateurs and semi-pros?
Absolutely NOT.
FCPX is clearly aimed at anybody who understands and speaks the VISUAL LANGUAGE OF MOVING IMAGES.
Which most amateurs, consumers and hobbyists frankly do not...
This tool is for people whose favorite editing book is rather Walter Murch's "In the Blink of an Eye" than "Editing Techniques with Final Cut Pro" or any other boring How-to-Do-Bible!
In other words: FCPX is for creative filmmakers and video creators with storyteller talent and/or a genuine visual concept, but NOT necessarily a tool for video technique lovers who like to impress their clients mainly with their TECHNICAL SKILLS and EFFECT WIZARDY...
Yes, some of these creative movie minds might be evolving from related creative professions like photographers, graphic designers, dynamic web designers, camera people who didn't edit, etc., because:
FCP X is all about PROFESSIONAL CREATIVITY while FCP 7 was more about TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY.
Now that I see Apple's vision much clearer, I'm beginning to like where this is heading. Although I must admit, they have a lot of work ahead.
To use an analogy from the OS history to explain the current development state and potential of the major NLE editing tools:
Avid Media Composer = Windows 2000 Server
Premiere CS5 = Windows XP
Final Cut Studio 3/FCP7 = Mac OS 9.2
Final Cut Pro X 10.0 = Mac OSX 10.0
Hopefully FCPX 10.3 will be reaching at least Mac OSX 10.4 levels.
What about the missing EDL, XML, OMF import/export and other communication and interchangeability problems?
As usual Apple is thinking way ahead of the curve.
In 5-6 years I assume we won't be needing all this transcoding stuff to connect with ancient hardware anymore.
I've been there already and experienced similar transitions in the printing industry. 20 years ago we graphic designers had to work with a plethora of specialists (econgeek would call them monkey assemblers ;-) to get our creative work published. Most of these professions are long gone by now! Typesetters, photo lithographers, letterpress printers, offset printers, intaglio printers, photo finisher including their almost factory-sized prepress houses are all extinct. Only a small minority of these highly-paid jobs has merged into new professions.
Around 1995 the printing industry was the same chaotic mess the video industry is right now. Then Adobe Acrobat grew into the backbone technology that tied everything together and finally changed our industry forever.
We graphic designers were probably the least affected by these revolutionary transitions and stayed always IN CHARGE of the creative game. Except now we are enjoying even more creative control than ever before. Believe me, my job is a lot more fun and creative now than it was 20 years ago!
Printing industry workflow today:
Art Director/Graphic Designer & Mac & Adobe Design Collection > PDF as connective link > digital printer, direct-to-plate process or print technology of your choice
The future motion media workflow will be similar:
Video Director/Filmmaker & Mac & FCPX > future standard video codec as connective link > video distribution of your choice (web, broadcasting, theatrical projection, discs, download, whatever...)
All the current fancy high-end post production facilities (equivalent to prepress houses) with their insanely expensive transcoding hardware, including ancient broadcasting technologies with tapes and what-not will be phased out, as soon as the missing connective link - a new standard codec (equivalent to PDF) - is being created. By then the classic editor-only job will only be found in Hollywood and in high-end TV productions.
Of course we are not there yet. But believe me, we will. Sooner than many are realizing.
During the coming years the still ongoing (and most likely worsening) recession will add a lot more pressure on us to improve our productivity.
Because that will be the only way of still making money.
Let's not forget: The broadcasting industry is only sticking with their ancient technology and old-fashioned equipment, because they have no decent alternative found yet.
I think they hate these expensive, complicated and insanely clumsy workflows as much as any reasonable person would.
The only people resisting change and clinging to old school workflows are those who have invested way too much into such equipment and the knowhow to wrangle it!
What about the missing in-dept control and effect tools and interactions with other software?
Obviously Apple has a more modular system in mind.
If Red or Sony wants to get their proprietary formats or files into FCP X, they have to provide their own plug-in or take a hike.
If Adobe is willing to add-on After Effects or anything else, they'll probably be welcome as well.
Who is stopping someone like Roxio or Adobe from providing an FCP X tool for authoring DVD's or even BluRays?
The "BD is dead" crowd wouldn't be forced to buy it and could stop complaining about ancient technology they have to pay for...
From what we've heard, several effects filter companies are already committed.
A sound warning to everybody thinking about jumping ship.
If you go the Avid or Premiere road now, you'll probably rushing with 100 mph into a dead end street.
Because all the technical reasons behind your switching plans will be moot in 3-4 years anyway. You'll be losing a lot of money and wasting a lot of learning time for nothing...
I think in the long run the hold out with FCP7 and watch FCP X grow up strategy will be much smarter.
At least that's what I'm going to do, after a weekend of sober reflections.
Last edited:
One more thing as an addendum to my previous comment:
The interesting thing about how technology has evolved and supported the editing workflow over the years is the fact that no matter what the medium: film, analogue tape, digital tape, digital file... the most important aspect of editorial was never lost: organization.
This may not be such a big deal for those youtubers who are only working with a 5 minute show and a shooting ratio of say 5:1 but it becomes a very big deal when you are trying to deal with a 50:1 ratio on a feature-length project.
Try telling Terence Mallick's 5 editors that they can no longer easily hand off, sculpt and mold, process and re-process various a,b,c,d,e storylines without losing the basics of what ties it all together: organization.
It's no accident that a folder is called a "bin." There is a direct correlation between non-linear, random access editing software to the old laundry bins with clothespins holding strips of film. Trimming, Slipping, Sliding all have their roots in film editing on a flatbed. There is a reason why these seemingly archaic acronyms have stood by each technological advance: It's called the Editor's brain.
Dear Apple:
An editor is an organizational control freak. You have just taken away what s/he thrives on: The ability to fine-tune where, how, why material is stored and organized at every level of the editorial process.
This is just one very basic change introduced with X that is not for the better. Usually Apple nails usability. This time, they missed the nail and pretty much bludgeoned the thumb of every professional editor out there.
As a side note though, to flip this around -- Is it possible that a piece of software could actually replace an assistant editor? Yes. In many ways it already has.
So... maybe, just maybe... FCPX is FCPX.01 -- An intelligent beast that will eventually 'learn' from the master editor. FCPX needs no coffee breaks, it doesn't care if it works the overnight, simply because it works what was once 24/7, instantaneously in the background.
Hmm. What if FCPX.03 becomes the tool that simply works. No more messing with codecs, sync, frame rates, broadcast standards... (not so different than just plugging a printer into an apple computer and clicking the print button). What if it knew the BEST resolution available automatically, depending on the device chosen... And degraded gracefully from the Arclight Dome down to the iPhone?
There is just ONE BIN and it lives in the cloud and it is omniscient. It knows what master editor just walked into the room. It will alert you automatically on any changes that the other master editor working half-way across the world just made and allow all 20 master editors to compare a,b,c,d,e through z storylines in a manner not unlike holding a piece of celluloid up to the light.
Oh ****, that bin just fell on the floor and the intern just threw everything away. Forget re-connecting and finding the media. The media just EXISTS. It will always exist even when you don't want it to (there is no such thing as permanence in an infinite universe) How many times has this happened: the moment you threw out that box you've been storing for decades -- Knowing that you will never ever never ever need it again... To find that you ****ing need it again!
Just maybe, this is the direction that FCPX.x is heading. Hmm. That's something amazing.
BUT... BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM:
The more I think about it, the more I see that this is just a financial reality. Apple is in the game to make money. They were never considered a player in the true workhorse sense of the professional filmmaking/editing soft/hardware world (until the introduction of FCP3)
They bridged the gap between the 100k turnkey system and the laptop. They gave the professional and prosumer what they wanted: An affordable post-production solution. They did that beautifully.
But remember, Apple has always been about the consumer. The consumer wants it simple and elegant. They don't care about codecs or 7.5 ire. They just want to be able to get it done asap and up on facebook without all that techno mumbo jumbo.
Likewise, citizen journalist and citizen movie maker has no need for technical standards. Garbage in Garbage out. We live in a consumerist wasteland and your show is 5 minutes old. What have you done lately as in the last minute?
FCPX is giving the PEOPLE what they want. Apple has just left the building and Elvis has just bought an AVID.
The interesting thing about how technology has evolved and supported the editing workflow over the years is the fact that no matter what the medium: film, analogue tape, digital tape, digital file... the most important aspect of editorial was never lost: organization.
This may not be such a big deal for those youtubers who are only working with a 5 minute show and a shooting ratio of say 5:1 but it becomes a very big deal when you are trying to deal with a 50:1 ratio on a feature-length project.
Try telling Terence Mallick's 5 editors that they can no longer easily hand off, sculpt and mold, process and re-process various a,b,c,d,e storylines without losing the basics of what ties it all together: organization.
It's no accident that a folder is called a "bin." There is a direct correlation between non-linear, random access editing software to the old laundry bins with clothespins holding strips of film. Trimming, Slipping, Sliding all have their roots in film editing on a flatbed. There is a reason why these seemingly archaic acronyms have stood by each technological advance: It's called the Editor's brain.
Dear Apple:
An editor is an organizational control freak. You have just taken away what s/he thrives on: The ability to fine-tune where, how, why material is stored and organized at every level of the editorial process.
This is just one very basic change introduced with X that is not for the better. Usually Apple nails usability. This time, they missed the nail and pretty much bludgeoned the thumb of every professional editor out there.
As a side note though, to flip this around -- Is it possible that a piece of software could actually replace an assistant editor? Yes. In many ways it already has.
So... maybe, just maybe... FCPX is FCPX.01 -- An intelligent beast that will eventually 'learn' from the master editor. FCPX needs no coffee breaks, it doesn't care if it works the overnight, simply because it works what was once 24/7, instantaneously in the background.
Hmm. What if FCPX.03 becomes the tool that simply works. No more messing with codecs, sync, frame rates, broadcast standards... (not so different than just plugging a printer into an apple computer and clicking the print button). What if it knew the BEST resolution available automatically, depending on the device chosen... And degraded gracefully from the Arclight Dome down to the iPhone?
There is just ONE BIN and it lives in the cloud and it is omniscient. It knows what master editor just walked into the room. It will alert you automatically on any changes that the other master editor working half-way across the world just made and allow all 20 master editors to compare a,b,c,d,e through z storylines in a manner not unlike holding a piece of celluloid up to the light.
Oh ****, that bin just fell on the floor and the intern just threw everything away. Forget re-connecting and finding the media. The media just EXISTS. It will always exist even when you don't want it to (there is no such thing as permanence in an infinite universe) How many times has this happened: the moment you threw out that box you've been storing for decades -- Knowing that you will never ever never ever need it again... To find that you ****ing need it again!
Just maybe, this is the direction that FCPX.x is heading. Hmm. That's something amazing.
BUT... BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM:
The more I think about it, the more I see that this is just a financial reality. Apple is in the game to make money. They were never considered a player in the true workhorse sense of the professional filmmaking/editing soft/hardware world (until the introduction of FCP3)
They bridged the gap between the 100k turnkey system and the laptop. They gave the professional and prosumer what they wanted: An affordable post-production solution. They did that beautifully.
But remember, Apple has always been about the consumer. The consumer wants it simple and elegant. They don't care about codecs or 7.5 ire. They just want to be able to get it done asap and up on facebook without all that techno mumbo jumbo.
Likewise, citizen journalist and citizen movie maker has no need for technical standards. Garbage in Garbage out. We live in a consumerist wasteland and your show is 5 minutes old. What have you done lately as in the last minute?
FCPX is giving the PEOPLE what they want. Apple has just left the building and Elvis has just bought an AVID.
Last edited:
Very good post, and it's refreshing to see someone actually trying to understand what Apple is trying to do here. There is warranted optimism in your post, and also warranted concern about some things.
Again, great post!
And you know about this "magical" codec and we have to believe in your faith because....