Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
BLOGS:My COW BlogAdobe BlogMacWorldEditingTechnologyAfter EffectsFinal CutEntertainment

Back into the fire.

COW Blogs : gary adcock's Blog : Back into the fire.
Share on Facebook
Hey,

Yeah, me again. There is alot happening in the industry right now, here is an interview with MacVideo's Rick Young that I did at IBC.
My thanks to Dean Cleary on Bcam and AJA for allowing us to shoot in the booth, that is a 3ality Technica Atom Rig, with 2 Red Epic's behind me in the interview.


http://www.macvideo.tv/editing/interviews/index.cfm?articleId=3305915&pagTy...


gary

Posted by: gary adcock on Sep 26, 2011 at 9:42:50 amComments (83) FCPX, Smoke
Reply   Like  
+1
Share on Facebook

Comments

Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Greg Burke
Randy Ubillos doesn't believe in track based editing.....and the best way to express our discontent with FCPX is to not support apple anymore, I know Im not....

I wear many hats.
http://www.gregburkepost.com
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Bill Davis
That seems simplistic and totally off target to me.

Randy Ubillos was the primary architect of the initial 3 versions of Premier, before being hired away by Macromedia to do the more professionally targeted KeyGrip - which was purchased by Apple and re-christened Final Cut prior to v 1.0

So to opine that Randy ""doesn't believe in track based editing" is kinda dumb.

This is the guy who has written and sold more popular track based editing applications than anyone else on this planet.

You might not like it, but here's a more accurate and useful truth...

The author and primary force behind the worlds most popular track-based editing tools over the past 15 years has now elected to build his next project around concepts he felt might improve how classic editing operations will fit into a future where more people will be editing more kinds of content than ever before in human history.

By all means express all the discontent you like.

You'll have plenty of company here. But don't try to dumb down the discussion by pronouncements like the one you made above.

If you think FCP-X is "dumbed down" fine.

I think just the opposite. It's foundations are a whole lot "smarter" than it's competition. And I also project that it will be getting even smarter, faster, than it's competitors.

It's particular intelligence will NOT be a good fit for many editors with high end workflow needs - but for others - it will drive exceptional possibilities as it grows and develops.

And even more than that, I'm betting that the markets best served by the FCP-X approach will grow faster than the markets better served by the "all in one 'monolithic' NLE packages."

We'll see whose right in time.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor
-1
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Marvin Holdman
[Bill Davis] - "The author and primary force behind the worlds most popular track-based editing tools over the past 15 years has now elected to build his next project around concepts he felt might improve how classic editing operations will fit into a future where more people will be editing more kinds of content than ever before in human history."

This seems to be a bit of revisionist history. It seems more like he was brought in to converge the existing consumer application line in order to create a new product which would position a wildly successful consumer appliance company to expand their market share. It is prettier evident from the design of this product that the focus was NOT the professional editing market. I think it is safe to say that Apple HOPES to regain this professional market with the very questionable tactic of incorporating a much larger role for third party vendors to re-instate the complex, and difficult to support, niche's that had become cumbersome to Apple. Will it work? That is questionable, but given the history of companies like MS, who chose to rely on third party vendors for their hardware, it's going to be a rough road at best. Apple's stated commitment to more frequent upgrades coupled with tighter third party vendor usage is frankly a formula for a very rough ride. Think about how many times you've upgraded your application or OS only to have to downgrade because one of your third party vendors hasn't released their corresponding upgrade. That's the path that has been laid out.

Couple in the fact that FCPX doesn't seem to have any respect for current industry standards (the NEW flavor of XML?), their preferential treatment of limited vendors (still no public API's) and complete dismissal of timeline standards and you've got a program that is an island.

[Bill Davis] - "And even more than that, I'm betting that the markets best served by the FCP-X approach will grow faster than the markets better served by the "all in one 'monolithic' NLE packages."

I'm becoming increasingly curious just where the people for these "new markets" will be coming from? As I've said in post before, video is a time consuming business. Do you REALLY think that millions of new people will be taking this up as a hobby/part-time profession? At the end of the day, there will be more competition for basically the same amount of work. Sure we'll see a lot more amateurish video on the web, but once the novelty of it wears off the public conscious will be on to the next "awesome" thing. Look around, the internet has created a generation of people that are becoming increasingly unable to maintain focus on anything.

At the end of it, I don't think this is personally a bad thing for those who have been practicing this craft for a while. When desktop publishing "revolutionized" print, it created a broader realization that just because you give a thousand monkeys a thousand typewriters, you're still not going to get Shakespeare.

Perhaps I should be encouraging the more monkeys to by the new FCPX typewriter. Perhaps the predicted glut of lame video will create a growing need for something more than mediocre. Perhaps you are right, and we shouldn't resist this crappy software. Perhaps this "new" way of creating NLE products is somehow magically better.... but it sure doesn't feel, look or function like it.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv
+2
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Bill Davis
Typesetters never thought that typesetting would move from the Linotronic shops to the desktops.
They were wrong.
Recording studio owners thought that bands would always need multitrack tape recorders and tuned spaces to make hit records.
They were wrong.
Now you argue that video editors need TV station style post facilities to edit quality video programs.
And you are wrong.
PostScript and the Laserwriter changed typesetting
ProTools and MIDI changed audio recording.
Final Cut and DV changed video editing.

YouTube (for all it's initial "amateurishness") or Vimeo Pro or yes, FCP-X/iCloud or something similar not yet clear (perhaps from Adobe, Sony or left field) built around fatter IP ip pipes and more accessible software will upset video production and distribution as we know it. Heck, it already HAS. Look up how many bulk videos are uploaded to YouTube every day. Sure many are crap. But some aren't. In fact many are very well executed. Professional video post won't die tomorrow. But if you can't see that it's 'death by a thousand cuts' is already under way your blind.

For some shops, they'll survive, wounded but alive because they have a particular niche or unique position.

But many will die.

History tells us so.

Adapt or die.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Herb Sevush
"Final Cut and DV changed video editing."

Wow. I have no argument with your basic point about decentralized post production but this statement is ridiculous. The move away from big studios happened long before FCP. I was cutting away at home, on-lining Betacam shows for PBS on PC's before I even heard of Final Cut. Apple did not invent mobile video editing, not even close. Your adoration of all things Apple really skews the way you see things. I agree that mobile, lightweight, decentralized workflows will keep on evolving as the main way we work, but there is no evidence, none, that Apple is going to lead the way. Before last June I would have said that there is no evidence to say they wouldn't, but now that evidence is beginning to pile up.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Bill Davis
Herb,

Please don't confuse the specific with the trend.

I knew a married couple who did design work who installed a Linotronic L100 in their family room to do professional type setting. But that was NOT the trend that drove design out of phototype houses and on to the desktop. The Mac and the LaserWriter (along with affordable Postscript fonts and RIPs and WISIWIG software) all coming together at the desktop did.

And DV (and the locked audio variant of DVCAM) with FCP pushed video out of the Beta SP era and onto the desktop. That takes nothing away from the folks in post houses migrating from Quad to 1" type C to SP to MII to NLE. It's just that the digital video revolution was always more "bottom up" than "top down" and nobody looking back clearly can honestly dispute that.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Herb Sevush
Bill,

I never worked in a facility. I didn't migrate down. I was an independent producer and freelance off-line editor. While it's true that computers and NLE's were at the forefront of whatever "video revolution" I ever saw, Final Cut was only a part of it. Avid and EMC started the digital NLE boom, but neither were capable of finishing for a long time. By 2000 many people were using Avids, *edit, Fast (then liquid), and Media 100 along with FCP as complete editing solutions. FCP, because of it's price point, made remote editing more popular and I guess this is why you credit them with starting the revolution. The problem was I was there and know it was not that simple. As far as popularity goes the original Premiere, which I never used, had the most seats by far for the simple reason that it was given away free with most PC packages. FCP evolved, slowly, into a leader, but to give them the same credit for a video revolution that the Mac and the Laserwriter deserves for a printing revolution is just not true, at least not in NY or Boston or LA or any other town I did a lot of work in.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Gary Huff
Bill, you've posted about this topic before, and I think you're missing a big part of this particular message from history.

[Bill Davis]Typesetters never thought that typesetting would move from the Linotronic shops to the desktops. They were wrong.

Printing companies still exist.

Recording studio owners thought that bands would always need multitrack tape recorders and tuned spaces to make hit records. They were wrong.

Professional recording studios still exist. Bands still use professional equipment and tuned spaces to make hit records.

Now you argue that video editors need TV station style post facilities to edit quality video programs. And you are wrong.

Not really. There's a level of quality that is still unmatched, in varying degrees, so it depends on what is meant by "quality".

Does "quality" mean "good enough?"

For some shops, they'll survive, wounded but alive because they have a particular niche or unique position. But many will die. History tells us so. Adapt or die.

Here are you correct...to a point. Let's break this down a bit more objectively:

Decades ago, there was a certain "barrier to entry" if you wanted to shoot and edit video. Tens of thousands of dollars had to be spent just to get up and running. So if you had the money, you could start your own business and, baring any other competition in the area, could be the only game in town...PERIOD. Regardless of any talent or expertise in video production, you could be it.

Now, the democratization of the tools of the trade has opened the literal floodgates of competition. Those companies that actually brought skill and creativity could easily adapt and still provide a measure of value that allowed them to thrive. Those that simply relied on the fact that it used to be incredibly expensive to own a basic video camera were quickly swept away.

It's never been about the tools. It's been about the talent. If it was about the tools, then I fail to see why you don't just close up shop and convince your clients who are paying you money to just do it themselves because they can do "good enough" work with their iPhone and a MacBook. Why should I hire Bill Davis to provide a voice over when I can just load up a free application that came with my MacBook and record my own voice? Isn't that "good enough"? Why should I hire Bill Davis to write and produce a video for me when I can just whip out my iPhone and film my own little commercial. Isn't it simply about being "good enough" to convey the content?

Or does Bill Davis think that his embracing FCPX is going to prevent his clients from coming to that conclusion?
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Marvin Holdman
[Bill Davis] - "Professional video post won't die tomorrow. But if you can't see that it's 'death by a thousand cuts' is already under way your blind."

Many times over the years I have heard this. When NLE first appeared. When DV first appeared. And now with the proliferation of the internet. Guess what.... "professional" is not dead. Let's take youtube for example. Sure, there are some good video's on there, but by and large, it is full of garbage. But guess what, before you watch that music video on youtube (produced by Professional Video Post), you are forced to watch a commercial, produced by... wait for it, Professional Video Post! The notion that democratization of the tools we use will somehow eliminate "Professional Video Post" is nonsense. It is the wishful thinking of those seeking an easy way to compete in the "Professional Video Post" field. Well... guess what, FCPX will NOT make you a "Professional" video editor. Only time, commitment and talent will bring that too you.

[Bill Davis] - "Now you argue that video editors need TV station style post facilities to edit quality video programs.
And you are wrong."

I am wrong? To be wrong, I would have actually had to say that, but I didn't. Of course, you can edit quality video programs without TV style post facilities. It's been that way for quite some time now. What I think you fail to understand is that even though their may be more options for editors, the fact is media, on the whole is centralizing, NOT decentralizing. I won't argue that accessing media for editing is likely to move towards cloud based proxy editing in a cloud based environment, but what do you think that "cloud" is going to be???

The new cloud will be the POST FACILITY! What I think you fail to understand is that what makes TV Style Post Facilities work is their ability to create a collaborative environment where decisions can be made quickly and product can be turned out quickly. What MANY businesses are finding these days is that while it is convenient to empower an employee to work remotely, it's turning out to be a rare employee that you can entrust to work collaboratively in a remote situation.

Look around at all of the OTHER industries which have been "revolutionized" by the ability to work remotely. On the whole, they still ask their employees to come into the office and work on their computers. Why do you think that is? You have more control over the situation if you can look out of your office and SEE an employee working. You have can keep a team on track better if you can work by their work station and glance at the days work. You can change course faster if you can gather everyone around for a 10 minute meeting, make a quick plan and see it executed instantly. Can you do all of this remotely? Yes. Can you communicate more effectively via all this minutia? I don't think so.

It is rather apparent from your comments that you don't often work in a team environment. I've done my share of solo freelance, and it's easy to believe that just because that's the way that YOU work, it is the way that every one SHOULD work. It's also easy to loose sight of the fact that as a solo freelancer you will never be able to do the volume of quality work that a team can accomplish.

I will say one thing... Your naiveté continues to amaze me.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Bill Davis
Marv,

You engage in sensibly offered arguments, you express them well. Then you descend into crap like " ... Your naivete continues to amaze me."

I'm not sure what makes you need to attack a persons ideas by attacking them as a person - but while that may work on "low information voters" in politics - in reasoned debate it exposes that you feel your reasoning is insufficient and that you must diminish opinions of your opponents worth in order to successfully discredit their ideas.

I consider that validation of my original thinking.

Thank you.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Gary Huff
[Bill Davis]You engage in sensibly offered arguments, you express them well. Then you descend into crap like " ... Your naivete continues to amaze me."

I'm not sure what makes you need to attack a persons ideas by attacking them as a person - but while that may work on "low information voters" in politics - in reasoned debate it exposes that you feel your reasoning is insufficient and that you must diminish opinions of your opponents worth in order to successfully discredit their ideas.

I consider that validation of my original thinking.


Bill, I don't think "you used a phrase that I consider personally offensive to me, therefore I win" is a valid argument to make.
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Marvin Holdman
Fair enough. I crossed the line. Humble apologies.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Bill Davis
Not a problem.

I've crossed it myself more times than I'd like to admit.

I appreciate your post and hope I'm smart enough and considerate enough to do the same when I'm the guy tripping up next time.

Point to you, sir.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Michael Gissing
The "facility" performs more than just the function of housing the expensive gear and the trained operator. I have been doing sound post for 27 years, grading and picture post for 9 years and in that time I have not seen an editor or the technology that can replace the skill, expertise and fresh point of view that comes with the shift from offline to post finishing.

Most important is fresh creative input. The old model post facility was an expensive behemoth that scared editors and directors. Thanks to technology, the modern facility is largely using similar cheaper tools so more time can be spent on a project. Because of technology, my rate has remained the same for the past 19 years. What is most apparent in the 'all in one editor does everything environment' is that compromises are made because no one person can do it all, let alone using a one stop NLE to do a finished job. There is a great TED talk where the concept of why humans flourished is based on how we do best when sharing and specialising in aspects of a project, not trying to do everything alone.








I have seen more dumb questions being asked on the FCP forum over the period of the past four years which leads me to wonder how young editors who haven't had the opportunity to soak up expertise by watching a grader or sound mixer tackle their work, can possibly handle a much expanded skill set.
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Gary Huff
[Bill Davis]You might not like it, but here's a more accurate and useful truth...

Do you have evidence for what Ubillos' motivations were, or is this merely your opinion?

You'll have plenty of company here. But don't try to dumb down the discussion by pronouncements like the one you made above.

How exactly does expressing an opinion about someone's motivations "dumb down" the conversation?

And even more than that, I'm betting that the markets best served by the FCP-X approach will grow faster than the markets better served by the "all in one 'monolithic' NLE packages."

Again with the "if you don't use FCPX now it's going to come back to hurt you financially!" argument. This is the number one piece of b.s. that is being touted in this forum, and I'm tired of it.
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Bill Davis
Opinion or fact? Put it in precisely the same category as your original assertion. I'm fine with that.

Re dumb down, I felt your initial pronouncements as to Randy's motivations did precisely that. I've met him precisely 3 times and doubt he'd know me from a tree stump. But having used his work since April of 1999 like many others, i simply take issue with your characterization of his work.

You, after all, are the guy who cited him by name as the fundamental cause of what's wrong with FCP-X.

It's a meme the premis of which I deeply dispute. Simply because I don't think there's anything "wrong" with it beyond some immature code and bugs like most early releases of complex software. I and many others are starting to do paid work with it. And pretty rapidly compared to other purported "revolutionary" digital tools. Heck, look at the RED camera. That took YEARS to evolve from rocky release to useful accepted solution. You're just writing off X because it didn't meet enough of your needs inside the first 90 days.

But that's cool.

FIinally, I doubt you can find a post of mine that ever said what you're purporting to me. I have argued (and vociferously,) that people should give the software a chance and judge it in ways other than how it does things differently from 7. Not to get stuck in entrenched thinking, essentially. But while I'm happy to look at in the light of what it might eventually become, I don't think I've ever argued that it's gonna be the sole legitimate path to success as your allegation implies.

It's a tool. A new and unique one. And one that has upset a particular type of user more than many imagined possible. But so what?

Upset isn't fatal - and it's creating lots of opportunities for debate, which I enjoy.

And so it goes.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Gary Huff
[Bill Davis]Opinion or fact? Put it in precisely the same category as your original assertion. I'm fine with that.

Bill, a) I'm not Greg Burke and b) So when you said "truth" you really meant "opinion"? There's quite a difference between those two you know.

i simply take issue with your characterization of his work.

Again, to remind you, I'm not Greg. However, it's fine if you think it's unfair or uncalled for to say that he's anti-track-based editing, but does that really mean you have to pronounce "truth" as being on your side when you know clearly that it is not necessarily so? That the truth could be that Ubillos thinks track-based editing is dumb? Or perhaps some other reason which was not what you proceeded to describe?

You're just writing off X because it didn't meet enough of your needs inside the first 90 days.

Do you believe that people who didn't purchase FCPX within the first 90 days will never purchase it even if it turns into something good and useful? Do you believe that people who held off on jumping onto the Red bandwagon on day one didn't bother to purchase one after the show-stopping bugs were ironed out?

Not to get stuck in entrenched thinking, essentially.

It's only your opinion that FCPX offers the way "out" of such "entrenched" thinking, whereas there are others who think there's nothing inherently better about its workflow, merely different (and in some cases, perhaps actually not better). Why is that not an acceptable opinion?

It's a tool. A new and unique one. And one that has upset a particular type of user more than many imagined possible. But so what?

And why the constant reminding that "you'll be sorry!" if we don't immediately jump onto it now? I have no problem with anyone using FCPX. If you can make iMovie work for you, great. I don't want to use iMovie. Does that mean I'm somehow a bad person? Am I simply going to end up on the streets if I don't use your particular flavor of tool for editing video?

Upset isn't fatal - and it's creating lots of opportunities for debate, which I enjoy.


I sense another Bill Davis Blowout coming soon...
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Greg Burke
[Bill Davis] "So to opine that Randy ""doesn't believe in track based editing" is kinda dumb."

He took out the timeline in iMovie 08, He thinks Track based editing is a thing of the past I mean actions speak louder than words right?. on a more positive note It will be really be cool to Have A editing program on a ipad and all your footage on a cloud somewhere, its just sad they had to Kill Final Cut Pro 7, in place for something that clearly wont be able to replace it for another few years...if that.
I wear many hats.
http://www.gregburkepost.com
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Craig Seeman
There's some irony I see in the "jilted lover" comment.
I remember many a large facility refusing to move to new technology for some real or perceived flaw only to find that decision was a costly business mistake.

Examples:
A linear room based facility who didn't want to move to Avid because they felt they couldn't charge as high an hourly rate. Apparently they didn't factor in that they would no longer need four video machines per room and a switcher and all the accompanying routing as well as maintenance costs and the fact that with the change in space needs, they could have more rooms.

A CMX 6000 laser disc based NLE facility who thought that the CMX name and the poor video quality of Avids (1989) would doom the Avid. They finally bought one Avid and put it in a large walk in closet. Within a year they were off-lining two syndicated TV shows, had to buy more Avids and the large CMX 6000 rooms and the laser burner began to gather dust.

A facility with many Avid Media Composers, buying a digital linear room for what could have purchased several Avid Symphonies because they felt that linear was faster as you didn't have to digitize anything.

I don't know if each case was impacted by "love" but it seems love of a technology or love of a brand name (CMX) resulted in short sighted business decisions.

We can only speculate on the future of FCPX and Apple hardware but if (and only if) Apple offers a compelling product with a good ROI, then they either may need to get over "jilted lover" syndrome or they may suffer the cost of an expensive decision.

New facilities not enamored by a specific technology or brand may be at an advantage over those who set up psychological barriers over business decisions. This is not Apple specific but it is something that has been one common downfall of many facilities.

Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Herb Sevush
Craig -

I've seen the same thing and couldn't agree more. Which is why I feel that any FCP7 user that doesn't actively investigate every possible direction for his business, whether it's PC, Mac or Linux, Adobe, Apple, Avid, Smoke (bite my tongue), Vegas, Media 100, Edius and Lightworks, is making a mistake. The decision isn't between the past and the future, FCP7 or FCPX - that decision has been made for all of us. The decision we have to make is where do we go next. Being blinded to everything not Apple puts you in the exact position of the facility who could only see CMX in his future.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
+2
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by gary adcock
[Herb Sevush] " Being blinded to everything not Apple puts you in the exact position of the facility who could only see CMX in his future."


Very Very true Herb.

There has never been only one option and people have seemed to overlook that fact.

and for the record I have most of what you mentioned, thought I do not have current copies of Edius or lightworks in my office, but I have a discreet edit workstation that is still rocking Windows NT.

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

http://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

+1
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Bill Davis
Craig,

That is a good overview of the history of "facilities."

My consternation is the viability of the whole "facilities" concept in the long run.

What is one? It's a place where money, talent, expertise are centralized into working toward a single goal. The facility originally existed because the tools needed to do the tasks required were expensive, difficult to maintain, and required very specialized expertise in order to operate.That means you have to work on the equipment, with the talent, and with the workflows in which the facility operators and owners invested. That was the only game that got you to quality results.

I'm not arguing against that, by the way - it's wonderfully efficient when the business model puts quality and consistency of execution at the top of the value list.

I'm seeing, however, lots and lots and lots of evidence that there are other alternate production models that solve OTHER important content creation needs in a fashion superior to the "facility" model.

Interesting article worth reading on Apple Insider today - particularly if you don't get stuck on the headline. The headline implies that the story is just a PR piece about Apple's increasing success in selling into IT departments and Enterprise environments - but I suspect the REAL story is actually buried in the interior paragraphs.

It talks of large companies like KRAFT moving squarely into allowing employees to exercise vastly more personal choice in their IT tools. They quote a Barclays Capital analysis as saying "you can basically outsource your IT department to Apple."

I'm not agreeing with nor arguing that the entire article is correct, or even meaningful. What I think IS important is the clear trend away from centralized decision making to individual empowerment as a superior model that drives success in meeting business objectives.

And that bears on what happens when a particular "creative pro" with specific design skills, or editing chops, or even research or content expertise, has to be integrated into the creation of a "video."

The current "facility" model, is predicated on the model where everyone must come in and create on facility provided tools.

But that model is what's under attack here. And not just in video. I happen to sit on the Board of Directors of a 501 (c)3 run by a community college district with a huge student base, robust IT resources and lots of technical expertise in-house. The IT guy who timeshares on the charity IT stuff left. The new guy was hired and the first question he asked is if it was OK to remove both the desktop and laptop provided by the facility and simply use his own laptop instead. He argued not only was is superior technically to the "vanilla" unit in place, but that he wouldn't be wasting time trying to learn how to do stuff on a whole new system when he had a perfectly good tool that he already knew how to use that he could connect to the networks to do the stuff that the station needed him to do.

Extrapolate that to video creation.

Do you keep seeing the videomaking process as something that MUST be done on your gear in your workflow and in your office space? Maybe so. Maybe that works for your business model. But once upon a time, collaborators were largely people who would come in and sit on your couch and tell your in-house button pushers what to accomplish. Today, they might be people would would be more useful if they could simplly "jack in" to the workflow using whatever personal toolset they're comfortable using.

Or will they even NEED to "come in" at all.

Many here know I do a lot of voice talent work. I used to travel to studios to do that. That model is gone. I do my talent work wherever I find myself, on my laptop, and send it to my clients over the internet. I have a "facility" (voice booth) in my home studio - but I've also got tools I can use to do a professional quality VO on the road from a hotel room the back seat of a rental car, or anywhere else I find myself.

If that's where we're going - what IS a facility?

That's the long tail question that we're struggling with here.

The question of whether FCP-X is a replacement for, an alternative to, or will ultimately lose to Editing Software Solution X is missing the whole larger point.

Which to my mind is "where is editing likely going in the future."

And to my mind, an "individual operators desires" will eventually be more valued than "facilities needs" idea is pretty compelling.

For what it's worth.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor
+1
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Marvin Holdman
[Bill Davis] - "And to my mind, an "individual operators desires" will eventually be more valued than "facilities needs" idea is pretty compelling."

As soon as individual operators pay the bills, they can place their needs before facilities. I keep hearing usage of the term "cloud". What do you think the "cloud" is that they are describing? It is those same facilities that you seem so quick to dismiss as dinosaurs. The facilities of the future will likely become a data hub that rely more and more on freelancers. Those facilities will be looking for the most standard form of NLE and interface in order to have access to the largest portion of people. Sure, Apple is trying to corner that market by creating their own flavors of timelines, metadata, XML and the like. But to imagine that all of the other vendors will forego EDL's, track based editing and standard XML's to adopt Apples vision of how things should be, is a pipe dream. Closer to the truth is that "the industry" decides what is "standard" based on what the largest number of skilled users choose. As Apple has just decided to tell a vast number of those skilled users to get lost, it's going to be a LONG time before they can get enough synergy to make a play for being a widely accepted standard.


Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv
+1
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Gerald Baria
{adopt Apples vision of how things should be, is a pipe dream. Closer to the truth is that "the industry" decides what is "standard" based on what the largest number of skilled users choose. As Apple has just decided to tell a vast number of those skilled users to get lost, it's going to be a LONG time before they can get enough synergy to make a play for being a widely accepted standard. }

Ahem. Tell that to the PC UI. Mouse pointer. Floppy drive. And eventually optical disks. Apple has always been the fkrst to offer an entirely different way of doing things, and the rest of the industry eventually follows. Its been true when they were just a small company who tried to make the first non-command line based computer for the people,up the the latest reinvention of the computer tablet. They have a knack for envisioning how things should be. Implements it, and while it takes a little while sometimes, eventually people gets it and loves it so much it reshapes entire industries. So all this talk about FCPX's new way of doing things, I bet by the middle of 2012, after the next major update and when all 3rd party vendors have gotten around FCPX integration, every single one of you will be at FCPX's feet. Those who are not will be loosing money each second. Even those who jumped ship will return, this is a system which does not require a special tower anyways. Any new MBP/mac mini will run it. Bookmark this comment please.

Quobetah
New=Better
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Marvin Holdman
Gerald, you are making that assumption that just because it's from Apple, it will be an instant success. Sure Apple has been the front runner for the industry. Once upon a time, they monikered themselves as a "technology" company. The fact of the matter is, they have had their share of failures as well. It's all part of living on the bleeding edge. One of the reason's this forum is so popular is due to the fact that this particular move has all the signs of an initial failure. The target market for FCPX is unclear. The release was botched. The program incomplete.

Will they eventually fix it? More than likely. How much of it's existing design will remain? Who knows. To be blindly optimistic at this point is risky behavior at best. If you are only making decisions for yourself, then the risk is not quite as great, but a great many folks in this debate are responsible for making recommendations, purchases and decisions for others. This cast a different light on the situation. It's one that is a bit more complex than curmudgeon vs. rebel without a clue.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by kim krause
all good points...and considering how all the big post houses are scaling down or changing their business model i sense it won't be long til we just have facilities that store and manage media and distribution of such! from my own personal experience, i haven't done a film transfer for over five years yet i'm grading more features and t.v. shows than i ever did.......
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by kim krause
thank you so much for validating everything i've been posting and getting grilled over for. the amount of negative replies i get whenever i post is astounding. you said everything i've been preaching in such a beautiful way. (the jilted lovers line was priceless)the age of the video dinosaurs is upon us and those with foresight and an open mind will benefit from where the industry is going. thank you , thank you thank you! it is all so clear to me where we are heading......
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
[kim krause] "the age of the video dinosaurs is upon us"

Hmmm. Dinosaurs dominated for 160 million years and continue to be very popular. ;^)

RBG
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Ken Zukin
Gary,

I appreciate your "look" into the future; you've got the credentials and I respect your opinion.

Unfortunately, it doesn't change my present dilemma -- new edit software that doesn't meet my needs.

And, like a lot of others here, I'm royally chaffed at Apple, esp. after supporting them to the tune of over $25K spent just on hardware this last decade.

I'm going to sit on the sidelines for awhile, but will probably migrate over to Premiere Pro eventually.

Btw -- big time screen direction problem with your video. Cameras "crossed the line" -- pretty amateurish
but an interesting watch.

Cheers.
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by kim krause
my daddy never bought me a pony when i was little and now i'm gonna stomp my feet and hold my breath.......poor thing....so now you're not going to buy a mac just out of spite...i guess you'll switch to a pc then as well...at least premier pro works just like final cut so you won't have to learn many new things! sheesh....
-2
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by gary adcock
[Ken Zukin] "Btw -- big time screen direction problem with your video. Cameras "crossed the line" -- pretty amateurish but an interesting watch."

Once again, I was not incontrol of the situation, the camera angle, nor the compression issues on my shirt, only the words coming out of my mouth. At least they were not killing turkeys behind me.


My business revolves around change, I make a living being the pointy end of the spear, and this is one of those set and wait or change and cry kind of times.

Some how caution is not seen as a viture nowadays.

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

http://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Gary Huff
[kim krause]the amount of negative replies i get whenever i post is astounding. you said everything i've been preaching in such a beautiful way. (the jilted lovers line was priceless)the age of the video dinosaurs is upon us and those with foresight and an open mind will benefit from where the industry is going.

No thanks, kim. I'm actually of the type that wants to make professional quality video, not the cell phone YouTube b.s.

Best of luck to you though.
-1
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by kim krause
dont blame me...i'm just responding to mr adcock and his wisdom....which i totally agree with of course..have you watched the interview and really listened to what he is saying......the link is at the top of this post.....
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Marvin Holdman
Mr. Adcock was pretty animate about the fact that much of the "future" that folks describe is really nothing new. The notion that the ONLY way to get to that shiny future is via FCPX is a bit misconceived. The implication that some here have is that unless you get on the FCPX train, you will somehow become extinct is a bit narrow minded. While FCPX may develop into a part of the future, I say you will see it just as much in the competitor NLE's and probably, thanks to this debacle of a release, with a much smoother ride.

The dinosaurs may be extinct one day, but it won't be JUST because of FCPX and it certainly won't be because they didn't embrace it with tender love.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by gary adcock
[Gary Huff] "I'm actually of the type that wants to make professional quality video, not the cell phone YouTube b.s."

GaryH,

There are few here on Creative Cow that embody that philosophy more than I do, I live in the top 3-5% of users and my list of credentials is all over the web, but my content is maintained at the highest levels. My clients work on every platform in almost every application possible.

I cannot discount any product or workflow, I have a real hard time comparing a DSLR to an Alexa, much in the same way that I donot do anything other than HD production, even for web content. That does not mean that I would disrespect someone for thier views or opinons.

I have spoken up loud and clear about the state of FCPX, that does not mean you cannot do professional work with the app, it means that you had better have a clear idea of your workflow and process if you plan on making it work, and I can assure you that you can do creative, high level content from FCPX, you just have to use other tools to handle the content for delivery, and honestly, that is how it all used to be done.

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

http://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

+1
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Gary Huff
[gary adcock]I cannot discount any product or workflow, I have a real hard time comparing a DSLR to an Alexa, much in the same way that I donot do anything other than HD production, even for web content. That does not mean that I would disrespect someone for thier views or opinons.

FCPX seems to have opened the floodgates for the opinion that all video production needs will soon turn to people with their phones + touch device. That it will play a part will be the case, but for those who think that if you don't jump on that bandwagon and prove you're hip to the future, then you will be left behind...well, I think their work will probably speak for itself.

That was my point.
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Craig Seeman
[Gary Huff] "FCPX seems to have opened the floodgates for the opinion that all video production needs will soon turn to people with their phones + touch device"

Actually it opens the floodgates to more sophisticated use of metadata in organizing and executing projects. That's not to say other NLEs won't go there too but FCPX seems to have been designed specifically around the use of metadata.

Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Herb Sevush
"but FCPX seems to have been designed specifically around the use of metadata."

That is only one of it's design components. Again using the car analogy, metadata may be the engine, but that doesn't explain the brakes, the windows or shape of the grill. Metadata doesn't explain the magnetic timeline, the single viewer, or the export to youtube pre-set. Metadata isn't what pissed off most of the posters here; I know in my case I think it's a great feature.

Metadata makes the magnetic timeline possible but it doesn't make it necessary.

Once and for all, the UI design choices are independent of the use of metadata.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Craig Seeman
[Herb Sevush] "Metadata makes the magnetic timeline possible but it doesn't make it necessary."

I think the magnetic timeline was the result of other changes such as AV Foundation. Sometimes things are done that aren't obvious in the current iteration either. In other words, necessity isn't always obvious given Apple knows parts of its roadmap that they aren't revealing. They may genuinely feel it's a combination of ease of use as well as something that plays a greater role in the future.

Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Herb Sevush
"necessity isn't always obvious given Apple knows parts of its roadmap that they aren't revealing. They may genuinely feel it's a combination of ease of use as well as something that plays a greater role in the future."

We went thru this last June and now I guess we have to go thru this again.

The "necessity" I'm talking about is totally independent of Apple's roadmap. Apple's roadmap is a design choice that is not necessitated by the use of metadata.

Again,

Question: Is it possible to have designed a metadata based NLE that used tracks in the traditional way?

Answer: Absolutely.

Question: is it possible to have designed a metadata based NLE that used tracks in the traditional way and still coheres with Apple's plans for the future?

Answer: Maybe not, don't have enough information, I'll go along with Craig's assessment that is wasn't.

This still leaves us with the basic fact that building an NLE based on metadata is not the reason that FCPX is the way it is. It's design was based on Apples total vision for their product, not just on the metadata aspect of it.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Marvin Holdman
[Craig Seeman] - "I think the magnetic timeline was the result of other changes such as AV Foundation."

I'm curious what makes you say this? I see it more driven as a convergence for iMovie. Given the fact that version 1.0 allowed you to import iMovie projects (at the expense of being able to import FCS, more than likely) it would make more sense to believe it was in an effort to tap into the iMovie consumer market. How is it that magnetic timelines are more inherently practical for a simple media interface utlity?

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Craig Seeman
[Marvin Holdman] "I see it more driven as a convergence for iMovie."

Keep in mind that iMovie Quicktime based (Mac) and iMovie AV Foundation based (iPad) are both years newer than the FCP legacy codebase and were being designed as a core element. Keep in mind Randy Ubillos wanted to call the new iMovie "First Cut" so he may have been designing iMovie as rough cut, media selection utility for a new higher end NLE which we now know as FCPX.

iMovie was designed to feed into a new NLE and FCP legacy was not.

[Marvin Holdman] "How is it that magnetic timelines are more inherently practical for a simple media interface utlity?"

They're easier to use when you don't have to worry about clip collisions or elaborate vertical selections to move elements of a story around in time. It's certainly easier for me. There certainly is a need to improve it to make it easier still (don't get me going on dual mono).

Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Marvin Holdman
[Marvin Holdman] "How is it that magnetic timelines are more inherently practical for a simple media interface utlity?"

[Craig Seeman] - They're easier to use when you don't have to worry about clip collisions or elaborate vertical selections to move elements of a story around in time. It's certainly easier for me. There certainly is a need to improve it to make it easier still (don't get me going on dual mono).

I'm sorry, I guess I didn't ask quite clear enough...

How is the magnetic timeline more inherently practical for interfacing with AV Foundation? Is there something about it vs. a track based timeline that makes it more useful? Again... in relation to using a core OS utility like AV Foundation? I just didn't understand what the inference was from your previous post. Perhaps I just misunderstood your previous post?

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Craig Seeman
[Marvin Holdman] "How is the magnetic timeline more inherently practical for interfacing with AV Foundation? Is there something about it vs. a track based timeline that makes it more useful?"

David Lawrence says no.

But I look at this.
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#DOCUMENTATION/AudioVideo/Conceptual...

as well as this

http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#DOCUMENTATION/AudioVideo/Conceptual...

and can't help but think media assets relative to other media assets (clip connections, secondary storylines with connections, Compound clips seem like a natural (but not necessarily "ordained") result.

Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Walter Soyka
Craig, the old QuickTime APIs allow you to collect multiple pieces of media, combine them into a single entity, and move them around in time, too.

You linked to the docs that describe the overviews for AV Foundation representations, but can you find anything that relates specifically to some of FCPX's higher-order functions like clip connections, or the difference between storylines and clips, or the metadata we both appreciate?

FCP7 could have been built on AV Foundation, and FCPX could have been built on QuickTime. These APIs provide developers with the mechanisms for reading and writing media files; the NLE applications offer the data models and user experiences for editorial.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by David Lawrence
[Craig Seeman] "But I look at this.
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#DOCUMENTATION/AudioVideo/Conceptual.....

as well as this

http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#DOCUMENTATION/AudioVideo/Conceptual.....

and can't help but think media assets relative to other media assets (clip connections, secondary storylines with connections, Compound clips seem like a natural (but not necessarily "ordained") result."


Craig, I agree but this just supports my argument that the UI seems driven by the data model. That may please the engineers, but what does that have to do with usability? How does forcing the user to understand an abstract data model make it easier to edit?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Walter Soyka
[Craig Seeman] "I think the magnetic timeline was the result of other changes such as AV Foundation."

I continue to disagree.

I have read the AV Foundation documentation, and I haven't found anything there that suggests it has anything to do with the magnetic timeline. AV Foundation has its mutable compositions, which you refer to, and the ability to ripple-insert time ranges -- but no mechanism I can find for clip connections among the compositions tracks. Without clip connections, ripple inserts will split media at the given time.

I think the magnetic timeline is a higher-order function. AV Foundation provides the underlying media interface, but the magnetic timeline is driven by data constructs visible in the FCPXML docs that exist outside of AV Foundation.

Even if I am wrong and you are right, changing the way time works on the timeline and clips relate to each other was a conscious design decision, and Herb's point stands.


[Craig Seeman] "In other words, necessity isn't always obvious given Apple knows parts of its roadmap that they aren't revealing. They may genuinely feel it's a combination of ease of use as well as something that plays a greater role in the future."

Or the designers may have felt that the magnetic timeline is a genuinely useful feature that editors would love -- remember the "sync is sacred" line from the SuperMeet?

You keep inviting us to imagine the future power of FCPX, and I agree with you that there's a ton of potential given the strong foundation evident in the first release. It's a ranch now, but that's just because they haven't built the top 3 stories of the mansion yet.

I'm inviting you to consider that Apple built that foundation with modern tools and a modern design, but more or less delivered the user experience that they envisioned. The ranch will certainly get some additions, but it's also possible (and consistent with the development of other Apple applications) that this was never really intended to be the mansion you're describing.

This is all fascinating to talk about. I've never thought so deeply about how the tools I use work, or what really matters to me when I choose one. I've never thought so expansively about what the future of an application or a platform could hold. At the same time, though, our ideas about what FCPX could be don't matter -- Randy Ubillos's do.

It's my hope to be conceding to you in two years' time, but as of today, we just don't know how deep Apple's plans for FCPX are, and at this point we're still really discussing potential and wishlist features.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Craig Seeman
[Walter Soyka] "I have read the AV Foundation documentation, and I haven't found anything there that suggests it has anything to do with the magnetic timeline. AV Foundation has its mutable compositions, which you refer to, and the ability to ripple-insert time ranges -- but no mechanism I can find for clip connections among the compositions tracks. Without clip connections, ripple inserts will split media at the given time."

It's not that AV Foundation necessitates or dictates a magnetic timeline, iMovie Mac (Quicktime) and iMovie iPad (AV Foundation) both have similar timelines which are, of course, similar to FCPX. From what I've read AV Foundation seems to make it easier to have media files relative to other media files. I'd have to dig through the documentation again to see where I put that together.


[Walter Soyka] "It's my hope to be conceding to you in two years' time, but as of today, we just don't know how deep Apple's plans for FCPX are, and at this point we're still really discussing potential and wishlist features."

We've only seen Apples first follow up move with FCPX 10.0.1 which is why the conversation has renewed itself. The implementation of Roles points to a possible direction. Certainly a lot more has to happen. I certainly see this update as a step further in the right direction (a direction I like) than a misstep.

Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Neil Ryan
[Walter Soyka] "... consider that Apple built that foundation with modern tools and a modern design, but more or less delivered the user experience that they envisioned."

So I wonder; did Apple design FCPX because they could and hoped there would be a market for it, or did they research a certain market (all FCP users / some FCP users / other) and design a product for them?
If it's the former, that doesn't sound very clever.
If it's the latter, then I wonder what customers it is aimed at?

Neil.
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by David Lawrence
[Craig Seeman] "I think the magnetic timeline was the result of other changes such as AV Foundation. "

Actually, Herb and Walter are right on this point. If you look at the A/V foundation reference guide, you'll find that tracks are an integral part of of A/V foundation. See:

Time and Media Representations

AVAssetTrack Class Reference

The magnetic timeline UI is a design decision, not an engineering decision. I believe it's driven by two primary things:

1) engineer-centric vs user-centric design values -- i.e. what engineers think is elegant from a data model perspective. I think they got too far down the rabbit hole on the wrong assumptions before they tested with real users and by then it was too late to turn the ship around.

2) marketing -- being able to sell a "new paradigm" to pros and connect to the broader consumer driven market that iMovie might bring.

If you play with iMovie, the roots of the magnetic timeline are right there. Even down to connected clips and the same object collision avoidance behaviors. Try breaking apart audio and making some J-cuts and you'll see it right there.

The bottom line is the UI is an abstraction. It can be whatever the designers what it to be. This design is what Apple wants. I don't think they got the reaction they were hoping for.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
+1
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Gary Huff
Hey, Craig, thanks for chiming in with something that in no way reflected on the point I was making.
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Marvin Holdman
[Bill Davis] - "Actually it opens the floodgates to more sophisticated use of metadata in organizing and executing projects. That's not to say other NLEs won't go there too but FCPX seems to have been designed specifically around the use of metadata."

Actually, CatDV opened those floodgates years ago. There is a subtle distinction between logging and tagging video. It remains to be seen whether the meta tagging of FCPX will be better than traditional bin based organization. I think there is promise in the fact that FCPX publicly announced Square Box (makers of CatDV) as one of their preferred vendors, but I would say the floodgate you describe is more akin to a water hose, at this point. Not to bust on you, it just seems a bit exaggerated to make a statement such as this. There are far more flexible, non-application specific ways to manage and move your metadata. That's far from new and certainly not more sophisticated.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by gary adcock
[Marvin Holdman] "Actually, CatDV opened those floodgates years ago. "

Sorry but you guys are not even close, CatDV just happend to be the first one out of the box for FCPX.

I have been working on metadata and standards with VFX people for nearly 10 years, Dave Stump and I talked about using metadata for VFX during the fiming of Quantum of Solace in an article 3 years ago. Dave won his technical oscar for capturing metadata from a technocrane.
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/metadata-the-future-of-filmmaking


None of this is new for people that have needed the information and believe me, the tools available to you to work with are minimalist compared to tools like FotoKem's amazing nextLAB system for data management or some of the more elaborate privately created archive toolsets that have been using meta-tagging in mySql that some of the ad agencys use for maintaining their commercials for review.

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

http://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Marvin Holdman
I suppose I should have said, "opened the floodgates FOR ME!" although sometimes I wish someone would close them. I guess my point was, as with many product releases, the hype tends to end up being a sort of revisionist history where the world didn't exist before Brand F came along. As someone who has seen far too many products not live up to their hype, this one just seems to be adding to that very long list.

I do appreciate your enthusiasm, but more for the industry than the product. I personally don't think it warrants such raves, it's going to be a rough road for the early adopters filled with many twist and turns. Witness AD in the last day or so.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Gerald Baria
[gary adcock] "you just have to use other tools to handle the content for delivery, and honestly, that is how it all used to be done."

See why cant everybody just get this. Its just all about workflow and finding the right 3rd party tools to get between the gaps. Its how it is with PPros/Avid/FCP7 horrible color grading tools, thats why we use Da Vinci or MB, or Color, etc. and a lot of other aspects in video ingestion, finishing, and delivery! ITS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY. Now suddenly with FCPX, they're expecting it to do everything! How stupid is that!

Quobetah
New=Better
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Walter Soyka
[Gerald Baria] "Its just all about workflow and finding the right 3rd party tools to get between the gaps... Now suddenly with FCPX, they're expecting it to do everything! How stupid is that!"

That's because FCPX shipped without the ability to interchange. Apple released it as an island. Since it can't work in broader workflows, it has to do everything, or else it can't be used.

This will change once FCPXML really gets going across the industry, but as of today, FCPX doesn't play well with others.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Gerald Baria
So ots in the 3rd party's ball park now. Its how fast they can update their softwares to support fcpxml. Everybody should stop blaming apple now.

Quobetah
New=Better
-1
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Bill Davis
Not to put too fine a point on it Walter, but "does not play well with others" is a sentence that seldom comes up when discussing newborns.

After they craw and finally walk, then they play, and we assess their ability to interact.

Someone in authority at Apple surely understood that this was going to cause a ruckus - and simply said "fine - put it out there - people are going to squawk regardless - so let them squawk about this first stuff - then as we role new stuff out - they can squawk about that."

The expectation that FCP-X would be a fully realized teenager on birth is the central core of what we all got very, very wrong.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Herb Sevush
Someone in authority at Apple surely understood that this was going to cause a ruckus - and simply said "fine - put it out there - people are going to squawk regardless - so let them squawk about this first stuff - then as we role new stuff out - they can squawk about that."

That's real marketing genius. Apple as Mel Brooks in the 2000 year old man -

The first doctor, I came to him with a headache and he stuck a fork in my eye, I scream "why did you do that, you've blinded me" and the doctor says "yeah, but your not complaining about your headache anymore." (this was a paraphrase of a much better routine.)

Lets make a car without wheels, so no one will complain that the engine sucks and the breaks don't work. Those A-holes out there are all a bunch of complainers anyhow, they should be grateful that we let them give us their money.

Isn't that the way they teach it at Harvard Business School?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Walter Soyka
[Bill Davis] "Not to put too fine a point on it Walter, but "does not play well with others" is a sentence that seldom comes up when discussing newborns. After they craw and finally walk, then they play, and we assess their ability to interact... The expectation that FCP-X would be a fully realized teenager on birth is the central core of what we all got very, very wrong."

This is certainly a fair point, Bill, but I'd counter that I wouldn't hire a newborn to work for me.

In my mind, acknowledging industry standards and supporting collaborative workflows on release would have changed the discussion dramatically.

I imagine we can agree that Apple set the bar very high for themselves with their prior successes. If FCP hadn't been such a force in the industry, the fact that FCPX was totally unusable in many workflows on release wouldn't have mattered.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Bill Davis
>In my mind, acknowledging industry standards and supporting collaborative workflows on release >would have changed the discussion dramatically.

As to "industry standards" the FLASH paradox is instructive. Yes, it's an industry standard. But one that is so inefficient that even Win 8 has abandoned it. What's wrong with Apple doing likewise? They clearly have decided that even their own "in house" standard of Quicktime isn't up to the task of modern video processing so they've "obsoleted" it in favor of CoreVideo and AV Foundation.

As to "collaborative workflows" that is, at best, a shifting and diffused target. At the high end, yes, these are mission critical. But below that level, the trend over the past 15 years has clearly been the single-seat model where an individual is given a toolset that does multiple functions and is expected to do not just the editing,, but also color correction, sound design, authoring and encoding for distribution and possibly make coffee for everyone.

This is the reality that FCP-X is being introduced into.

Just look at the job postings that are left. Hardly anyone posts for exclusively an "editor" anymore. Instead we see ad after ad looking for multi-discipline talent that can manage a project through the entire post production process. Or better yet a person who can write, direct, shoot, edit, title, compress and then blog about the whole damn project while simultaneously doing SEO in the background.

Depressing, huh.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
[Bill Davis] "But one that is so inefficient that even Win 8 has abandoned it. What's wrong with Apple doing likewise?"

When a piece of software provides me with a blank screen where there should have been video, I would call that software uneconomical, wasteful, unproductive, time-wasting, slow and unsystematic: the definitions of "inefficient." The excuses are unacceptable, irrelevant.

RBG
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Bill Davis
I'm not sure I get your point.

Are you saying the FCP-X produces a blank screen?

That would seem to fly in the face of most people's experience with it.

Or maybe I'm confused.

Wouldn't be the first or last time.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Is it really that hard to understand how anyone could be more than just upset over a "program upgrade" that is suddenly incompatible with every project ever created in the past? Or flat out doesn't have the features needed to support a paying client's continuing needs?

You're a smart guy, Gary, and I really have no doubt FCP is going to soar to astounding new heights some day but maybe you could explain how "trying it" could change any of that, now.

On a lighter note: Do you buy your clothes at the same place as Watchmen's Rorschach?

RBG
+3
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Shane Ross
Let's say Avid came out with Avid Liquid (they did)...and then they completely discontinued the Media Composer line. And said "From now on, Liquid is THE ONLY solution we will offer at this time." And projects started with Media Composer or DS will not transfer to Liquid. Projects cannot move forward. But hey, there's background rendering (TRUE background rendering, by the way. Not what FCX calls it).

They kill Symphony and Avid DS. Kill UNITY and say "we are leaving that part up to third party vendors."

Will people be angry? Will that anger be justified? Will YOU understand why people will be angry, and why that anger will be justified?

Shane

GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD...don't miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def
+1
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by John Godwin
Avid BOUGHT Liquid from Pinnacle, which got it from FAST. I usually had to set the background rendering to pause when anything was happening in the foreground to be able to keep things working smoothly, on a top of the line pc. Not that I don't miss Liquid. I finally gave up and got FCP to be compatible with a lot of my clients, not to be as efficient as possible.

All this was when Liquid could run rings around almost everything else, including if not especially FCP, but so many people could only see "Mac" and "FCP". Many of those same folks seem to be freaking out about FCPX.

Things change. You adapt and evolve. Or not. I've purchased CS 5.5 because of the deal, and having Photoshop and AE again, and on a Mac, seems like a good idea. But I find myself thinking of it as a step sideways, not forward. I've never been one to drink the Apple koolaid. I do think it's time for some sort of paradigm shift. I don't know if FCPX is it, but it feels like time.

Best,
John
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by gary adcock
[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] " I really have no doubt FCP is going to soar to astounding new heights some day but maybe you could explain how "trying it" could change any of that, now. "

RBG-
I included everyone, my comments are not just about FCP, I cannot use FCPX for my day to day work, and no one I work with can do much with it either, nothing has changed that, not even with a .01 upgrade.
I work with all of these apps, I am not married to any single one of the tools, why is it if I don't say something negative I am somehow seen as no longer professional?

Did you miss the part about how I have been cutting editorial projects in Smoke? Or how much I really like PPro and the changes that Adobe has coming?

Why can't I see the future while working in the present?

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

http://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
I definitely took it the way you intended, and of course likewise it's not "everyone" who is complaining - just the ones who presently want to use it to make a living.

Perhaps a sign of getting old is (my) increasing need for focus and stability, and an increasing resistance to burning time learning all the various phone-book sized software user manuals, especially for "edification."

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Neil Ryan
[Rob Brandreth-Gibbs] "Is it really that hard to understand how anyone could be more than just upset over a "program upgrade" that is suddenly incompatible with every project ever created in the past"

I heard it said quite a number of times, that this was a marketing error, in that, Apple should never have called it Final Cut. Then FCP users wouldn't see it as some crazy upgrade, rather view it as the base for a whole new & wonderful future...
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Greg Andonian
[Neil Ryan]

"I heard it said quite a number of times, that this was a marketing error, in that, Apple should never have called it Final Cut. Then FCP users wouldn't see it as some crazy upgrade, rather view it as the base for a whole new & wonderful future..."


I think the problem with that, though, is the FCP users probably would have felt like they were being ignored, and would start wondering why Apple's new editing program, which is obviously descended from iMovie, got a new 64-bit foundation and lots of speed enhancements while the professional-level FCP is still not reaching the potential that it could be because it's being overlooked while Apple pursues their iToy consumer ambitions.

The way I see it, the only way this fiasco could have been avoided is if Apple had decided to man up and do a re-write of FCP using the tried-and-true track based paradigm that everyone instantly equates with non-linear editing, THEN create the program we now know as Final Cut Pro X- and call it something else. This way they could try out radical paradigm shifting ideas without ruffling any feathers, since there would be a viable pro solution (that could open old projects) that people could use while they wait for the new paradigm to mature...

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Mitch Ives
[Greg Andonian] "The way I see it, the only way this fiasco could have been avoided is if Apple had decided to man up and do a re-write of FCP using the tried-and-true track based paradigm that everyone instantly equates with non-linear editing, THEN create the program we now know as Final Cut Pro X- and call it something else. This way they could try out radical paradigm shifting ideas without ruffling any feathers, since there would be a viable pro solution (that could open old projects) that people could use while they wait for the new paradigm to mature..."

You hit the essence of it. FCP was very long in the tooth. An update was years overdue. FCP went from being at the front to being at the back. Still everyone remained loyal. Everyone kept getting told that an update was coming... just be patient. Unfortunately, that never happened. Instead we got a dog and pony show at NAB that indicated that this was just a partial preview, when in fact it was the whole thing, as the app currently stood.

Had FCP been remotely current, then people could afford the luxury of waiting the two years or so that FCPX needs to mature.

I am certain that this debacle is going to end up being a case study at the major business schools on "how not to do things". This roll out makes the MobileMe rollout look perfect by comparison.

I too was turned off by Gary's interview and the reoccurring theme that if you don't get it... or see it, then you're just intellectually inferior in some way. In fairness to Gary, it was the interviewer that pushed that theme along, though Gary did seem to buy into it at times.

I'm going to suggest something radical. Maybe it's the critics that have the bigger picture view? Maybe the fanboys lack the experience to grasp or see what we see? Or maybe I'm kidding myself, and that's not even possible...

I get what FCPX is... it's a flying car that cannot fly yet. I'm sure it'll be great at some point, but that's not the point. The point is that Apple has become inbred and is no longer listening to it's customers. That is harder to fix than adding features to FCPX. Tim had it right when he reminded us that we should have seen it coming. Apple leaving NAB was just the canary in the coal mine... the harbinger of things to come...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
http://www.insightproductions.com
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Oh, this is a marketing error alright. I can guarantee you it will find its way into the marketing text books and case study discussions at business schools right alongside New Coke.

Since simple market polling would have quicky revealed the FCPX shortcomings, I can only attribute this mess to arrogance.

Sitting in my arm chair, I personally believe they would have to call FCPX "Final Cut something" to cash in on the brand. (Say, Final Cut NEXT.) But couldn't they have built in a legacy switch, or better still, simultaneously created a FCP8 with plenty of EOL notice?

Again, think how Coca Cola pulled themselves out of a bad situation with Coke Classic. Apple could have had two magnificently successful NLEs on the market, much like countless businesses running similar products geared for different markets. FCPX by comparison would seductively beam "This way to THE FUTURE." No one loses. Except Premiere Pro and Avid. I say a Hail Mary free FCP8 upgrade might still pull this out of the fire or at least ameliorate the damage. Don't wait to make it, announce it now.

Instead. What do they have?

The doctor is out.

RBG

Rob Brandreth-Gibbs
Bravo Zulu Productions
Vancouver, Canada
+1
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Shane Ross
Holy cow man...your shirt is really wigging out with major moire.

Shane

GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD...don't miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def
+1
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Bill Hall
That is exactly what I took away from this video.

My mind went "Yes yes excellent points but I'm not sure what to believe because that shirt may mean I'm having an acid flashback"
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Marvin Holdman
Thanks for sharing Gary. It takes a lot of courage to come to a forum like this, put on a shirt like that and then use the graphic "Video Expert".

:-)

BTW... what is the best FCPX filter to fix that problem? Or are we still waiting on third party support for that?

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv
+4
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Bill Hall
This is why I enjoy corporate video sometimes. The solution is simple.

"We interviewed Gary by phone here are his answers" Static image and B-Roll
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by gary adcock
[Marvin Holdman] "t takes a lot of courage to come to a forum like this, put on a shirt like that and then use the graphic "Video Expert"."

Why do you think that TV anchor's have dressers

This was recorded at about 9:30a after getting in at 03;00, so the shirt is accurately mirroring what I was seeing at that time.

yet I get no credit for acutally being coherent?

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

http://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Marvin Holdman
Thanks Gary. In all sincerity, thanks for sharing.

I understand your zeal for this new product and the implications that you have pointed out. It's just that, as you mention, the implications were present long before FCPX. I think we've all had the same time with FCPX whether we are pro or con. There seems to be an implication that if people "just spent more time with it" that they would fathom it's glorious implications. Problem with that is I think most have spent enough time to realize it's a ball of deep fried problems based on many design decisions that have little to do with editing and everything to do with selling hardware. While it is conceivable that Apple will eventually work it out, I personally think it is only due a limited amount of time at this point.

For those who find it perfect for them, I say great, use it. It would appear that the vast majority of folks who make a living at this have either moved on or are planning too as quickly as possible. A great many are sticking with 7 until they have the time/money to transition to something else. It is, after all, EOL'd software and the clock is ticking on it's viability. The notion that most are waiting for Apple to decide (or if they've decided, to follow through) what this will be and make it happen is not one that most have the luxury of waiting for. We've got to have the tools to work with what comes in the door today, not next year.

I agree with your assessment of PPro and am eager to see where that goes. Judging by the 45% rise in sales since the release of FCPX I'd say it's coming out as a strong contender. I think it might be easier for a company like Adobe to adopt this product to some sort of touch screen type of device (should this turn out to be practical, but the juries still out on that one). They will obviously have the distinct advantage of being witness to how NOT to do such a thing courtesy of Apple. Will they learn anything? More than likely, as they are a different kind of company (enterprise level software, not consumer electronic appliances). This is what makes me think waiting for Apple to figure out who they are is simply not the best decision at this point.

All that being said, it's not an either/or proposition. Just because we rapidly migrated to PPro doesn't mean we won't monitor the progress of FCPX. I wouldn't be here if that weren't the case. I simply choose not to don the rose colored glasses that seem to be so in fashion for many on this forum. It seems the more even handed approach.

Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username - vidmarv
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by gary adcock
[Shane Ross] ".your shirt is really wigging out with major moire."

No shit...

I thought that HD was supposed to solve that issue, Rick grabbed me, and I did not even think about it.
Nothing I can do now...

I think he was really trying to pixelate my waistline.

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

http://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Shane Ross
Sorry, the shirt was a bit mesmerizing. Missed a lot of the content of what you said.

But yes...how you and Rick are a bit shocked at the blowback to FCX's release is odd. Really? You don't understand how suddenly there is no upgrade path from FCP 7? When facilities have invested lots of money into FCP and that whole workflow, now to have a new app that doesn't bring projects forward, doesn't mix AT ALL with established workflows for post audio or professional color correction? Amazed that we need to BUY IT before we can note that those features, and others (lack of Multicam, proper external monitoring, OMF export, exporting of proper audio stems...etc) are missing and comment on how the lack of those make the app useless to us, to say the least?

Well, I downloaded the demo and...yup, all that is STILL missing. The magnetic timeline does still suck...although I get to see that now in person (although most of my interface comments were made after playing with FCX for 2 hours at a friends place.) I had the trial...tried to edit with it for a day, found it utterly useless for everything I do. It doesn't solve ANY post issue I have. And it only add more issues to the pile. Don't get me started on the Magnetic Timeline...it is the thing causing most of the issues (reason why XMLs from FCP 7...that HAS tracks...is problematic to an app that doesn't believe in tracks).

We didn't need to play with it to see what was lacking. And we noticed a lot of this lacking at the NAB Demo. Including tracks. Who said that track based editing is wrong? Not an editor, that's for sure.

No...I saw it...saw that it was missing vital pieces to my workflow puzzle. Saw that they were no longer catering to the higher end pro ("Import from iMovie!" Red? noooooo), and just went to appease the mass amateur editing crowd. Was it a sound business decision? yes it was, and they will make money hand over fist. Did they do so by ruining their reputation in the pro video market? Yup. Do they care? I don't know. They keep saying "we're listening!" and yet go "Here, now here are more features...and ROLES! Now what do you think?" Sorry...but nope, still missing the point. They are listening to someone, but not editors. Well, professional editors...and by PROFESSIONAL I mean editors who want control over what they do...not people who like one-button fixes.

At least you got the Adobe part right...they are well positioned to fill the major hole that FCX has caused. Avid will fill the other gaps, but I highly doubt you will see many, if any, national broadcast shows edited with FCX anytime soon. It will not have the proliferation into that market like FCP7 had. But boy, will we get a lot of creative YouTube and Vimeo videos.

Shane

GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD...don't miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def
+6
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by gary adcock
[Shane Ross] "But yes...how you and Rick are a bit shocked at the blowback to FCX's release is odd. Really?"

Not the blow back, but more about all the people that have made commentary without ever having acutally used it.

I have been just as vocal anyone has about the lack of Hardware support, what bothers me the most is that even though almost no-one converts edit suites in the first 6 months of a new release.

We are 3 months into the conversion and here we go once again with both an OS and a App change, most people will not change in the first 6 months, but everyone ran away, its been a windfall for Adobe and Avid.

That does not mean that FCPX is going away and anyone that thinks that does not understand the way the hardware is moving, Whether or not FCPX remains in the place it has been needs to be seen, but as I said in the video no one I know ever goes back to a relationship with a jilted lover.

gary adcock
Studio37

Post and Production Workflow Consultant
Production and Post Stereographer
Chicago, IL

http://blogs.creativecow.net/24640

Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by Aindreas Gallagher
[gary adcock] " no one I know ever goes back to a relationship with a jilted lover."

pedantic but - we're not the one's going back into a relationship with a jilted lover - we are the presumed jilted lover -
I'm not personally saying I'm jilted, rather maybe that my girlfriend had a jeff goldblum end of the fly style transformation, he said... not at all over the top.

I'm geena davis, i'm not jilted, I'm in a state of wide eyed horror.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
Re: Blog: Back into the fire.
by David Lawrence
[Aindreas Gallagher] "I'm not personally saying I'm jilted, rather maybe that my girlfriend had a jeff goldblum end of the fly style transformation, he said... not at all over the top.

I'm geena davis, i'm not jilted, I'm in a state of wide eyed horror."


LOL, pure win Aindreas.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Join industry geek Gary Adcock as he explores the world and technology as it relates to Film and Video production. I am also a Glass artist, so I spend my free time creating art from silica and fire when I am not cooking.
Blog FeedRSS


Archives:

September 2012 (2)
August 2012 (2)
July 2012 (2)
June 2012 (2)
May 2012 (1)
April 2012 (10)
January 2012 (6)
December 2011 (3)
November 2011 (2)
October 2011 (6)
September 2011 (11)
August 2011 (1)
July 2011 (3)
June 2011 (7)
May 2011 (2)
April 2011 (7)
March 2011 (2)
February 2011 (3)
January 2011 (1)
December 2010 (1)
November 2010 (1)
October 2010 (1)
September 2010 (3)
August 2010 (3)
July 2010 (11)
June 2010 (2)
May 2010 (2)
April 2010 (4)
March 2010 (4)
February 2010 (8)
January 2010 (2)
December 2009 (1)
April 2007 (1)


Tags:

FCPX (19)
ARRI Alexa (11)
IBC (8)
NAB (7)
macworld (7)
FCP (6)
Cameras (5)
3D (5)
Thunderbolt (4)
Final Cut Pro (4)
nab (4)
ipad (3)
arri (3)
iphone (3)
gary (3)
CES (2)
Sony (2)
FSI (2)
tapeless (2)
Arri (2)
sony (2)
gary adcock (2)
alexa (2)
Fletcher (2)
LogC (2)
DP (2)
3D tools (2)
Adobe CS6 (2)
show more


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]