67 thoughts on “Episode 33: Concepts of editing”

  1. Terry, you got under my skin too. I am one who makes my living editing video full time. I have been using Final Cut since version 4 and have also used Avid Symphony, Avid Media Composer, and Adobe Premier Pro. I have grown up into the new paradigm that delivers almost exclusively to the web. The fact that I am not working off a multi-million dollar budget or using 35mm film or a RED or Arri Alexa or the like does not make the work I do any less professional than what you do. If you want to compare number of viewers of the work I produce day to day we could do that. Total viewership of the videos I have produced just over the last year is in the tens of millions and yet it is almost exclusively online. So on this end I would disagree with Philip a bit on this as well because I am working on it full time, with a team of 9 people who do everything from shooting to editing to motion graphics and audio editing etc. FCP X would work better for us than any of the other options because of our workflow, which culminates into the delivery of hundreds of videos every year for our company’s users. We are actually in the process of working out a plan to transition from FCP 7 to FCP X.

    I also want to add the very first thing I learned in film school that has stuck with me today: It isn’t the tool you use to tell your story but how you use it to tell your story.

    Clearly the quality of the tools helps, but if you don’t start with a good story it won’t matter if you shot on 35mm film and edited on an Avid system – your film’s going to suck.

    If you want something to compare the paradigm shift to still photography is a good one. Canon and RED have both demonstrated the use of high res (4k and 5k) video cameras for still photography. The photographer no longer has to use his/her tools to capture specific moments because they have already been captured in 60fps or more. They just go into a software program and make their selects. There are also cameras coming out soon that let you choose your focus after the fact – no more having to capture it in the moment. You can get perfect focus every time. These are huge paradigm shifts in the tools available for stills photography, and I think it is very similar to the paradigm shift initiated by FCP X.

    Cheers.

  2. Eric, I am glad I got under your skin. I am sorry though that you feel I said you weren’t “professional” because you don’ have million dollar budgets. I have said, and continue to say, that anyone who makes a living doing something is a professional.

    That said, is there any difference between the you tube video guys who are making a modest living doing that and a feature like Avatar? Can you sense any difference in quality? If not, we are through with this conversation. If the answer is yes, then the question becomes how does that difference get there? It was shot with HDCAMs. Surely a hack with a RED camera should be able to deliver a better product, right?

    Or could the combined experience of the many artists contributing to Avatar have something to do with? And how did those folks get that combined experience? Could it be by working a lot of projects over the years and refining their skill set? And maybe the tons of folks who would have liked to work on Avatar, and were passed up so that this select group who were some of the best of the best at what they do could have made the same project, but then again maybe not.

    Not every guitar player is the same regardless of the instrument. Not every surgeon is the same regardless of the scalpel. So we end up with tiered levels of talent who traditionally have been able to get more experience based on their standing out from the others and getting to work on better projects. When I talk about high end pros, these are the folks I mean.

    1. Those folks you mean, won’t use FCP for those Hi End work anyway, they use AVID, so what’s the point?

      The strong user base of FCS was never in Hollywood but in TV, documentary, middle and small Productions Companies and many one man companies.

      And that user base is shifting… so AVID for Hi End and FCPX for the rest… that is going to be the feature. And that’s what’s makes sense for Apple from the economy poing of view: iPads, iPhones, Mac Pros, MacBook Airs and lots and lots of them using FCPX.

      A new FCPX community have emerged just in weeks, hundreds of plugins, add ons, tricks, videos, tutorials have been made for FCPX in weeks, as I have ever seen in FCP in years. Let’s face it, FCPX is being a huge success for Apple, you like it or not, we like it or not.

      Avatar 2 will never been made in FCPX but in AVID. And that’s ok for Apple since the big bucks won’t go for AVID, and that’s what they care about, sadly is so.

  3. That was a very entertaining discussion. I don’t have an opinion on the ‘prosumer’ tag as that could go either way. What I will say is that it’s absolutely okay to call FCPX ‘iMovie Pro’ as that’s a matter of opinion coming from who is calling it iMovie Pro. While Apple named it Final Cut Pro X they could have as easily and as rightly called it iMovie Pro since it shares way more in common with iMovie than FCP. It may not share a single line of code but it sure shares a whole lot of similarities in terms of interface, concept, tools and operation. It’s fine to say it’s a different way of editing but I have a problem with those who say it is a better way of editing. I’m not convinced that a lot of these new basic editing concepts are better at all. It often takes more steps and a lot more fiddling to do a lot of things in the timeline. I’m currently doing a 90 minute 3-camera job. I’m helping a comedian friend as I thought it would be easier for him in FCPX. I’ve done some, taught him how to do some. We got an old FC Express edit after the fact and he’s been doing some of the work in there as well. He far prefers how FC Express works to FCPX. Obviously this is one opinion but it goes back to re-inventing the wheel. All the background processes, no transcoding, auto-analysis stuff is great and was expected in a modern NLE. But reinventing basic editorial with these new paradigms in the timeline was IMHO trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. What Apple could have done is EXPANDED on what we already had and really made something amazing. I think they’ve only succeeded at making something different (from an editorial standpoint) that isn’t as good and wasn’t very well thought out from a workhorse pov.

  4. Terance, I am glad you got under Philips skin, I think he needs it. Philip, I think your to close to Apple editing products because you make a living from it. And will likely make an even better living in the future as it heads more to mass market type product and not the hi-end pro type product.

    FCPX is, iMovie Pro. The fact it is a tool that is trying to appeal to the wider market, like iMovie, defines it as such.
    Just because it has all the underlying foundations to be as good if not better then any current NLE, means very little to us “right now” and may never.

    Apple is not “Behaving” like a good enterprising solutions company. And that’s what hi-end pros want. Making some videos that do well on youtube is great. Having to ingest hours per day, manage and edit it. Apple has abandoned that market.
    Well, not just abandoned it but given it the Bird. Now you may say that is how Apple works, but sorry, That’s not how corporations or large companies work.
    Some minor production studios making series work, owned and run by the workers. They have left Apple and in general, also only use PC’s They are less then half the cost. And that matters to a company. Its not the tools, but the talent that matter. And if the tools run on PC or Mac, you purchase the cheaper alternative, that you can also UPGRADE and not have to re-purchase as super high prices every few years.

    Now, I know Philip would say, Apple Mac run better. but a professional has the know how to make PC’s and Linux work for him. Its a competitive advantage for the larger companies.

    Look at devinchi. Yes you can purchase it for the Mac as that is what a log of people in that market like to use. However, all the extras and rendering engines are Linux PC based as that is the reality of running a large production facility. Your crazy to purchase Macs to do that.

    I personally think Adobe should port to Linux. That would turn the industry on its head. Imagine Adobe suite for ubuntu 64 bit. It would SCREAM. Near match Apples performance on the same CPU’s but you would spend 1/3 to get that perfomance.

    Thats Autodesks path. If Adobe did it, it would be a major shift in the OS market. Ie, once mass market tools jumped on to the linux desktop. I would expect Apple or Microsoft to try and purchase Adobe before they let that happen. But maybe DOJ will not let them.

    Terance, whats your opinion on that?
    James

    1. The problem with developing tools for Linux, is that Linux users DO NOT WANT TO BUY software. It is not enough that a few companies would buy it, the whole Linux community moves and is based about Open Source not about Close Software. Porting such complex applications to Linux represents a huge effort for a company, and so from the Enterprise point of view it does not make sense…

  5. Terence and Philip, first and foremost, thank you for sharing these discussions with us.

    Geoff Boyle over at the Cinematography Mailing List changes his forums from time to time, but his designations might be useful in your recent discussion. His “cml-general” forum is described for “general discussion of cinematography not students.” His “cml-hd-prosumer” forum is for “HDV discussion all palm sized HD cameras with half-inch or smaller sensors” and the “cml-students-basics” forum is designated for “student and basic cinematography issues.”

    I agree with Philip that there are many new professionals making money with gear that Mr. Boyle considers “prosumer” but I appreciate Terence’s view that software should be designed for the big screen, first.

  6. To me a Prosumer device is one that is made for the consumer with some of the “professional” features that are above and beyond the general consumer’s needs in that device.
    You can find that as one of the definitions in Wikipedia also so at least one other person out there agrees with me on this.
    I would consider the cameras that fall in the prosumer space to be good examples of this. Does that mean someone who uses one to make a living is not a professional? Of course not. It just means he is possibly sacrificing some of the toolset he might like to have in exchange for a costs savings on equipment.
    And yes, to me FCP X fits this description of Prosumer to a T.

  7. James,

    Are you asking my opinion on what would happen if Adobe went Linux, or if Apple or Microsoft would then buy them?

    I don’t know that Apple or Microsoft would be allowed to purchase Adobe, might go towards monopoly territory.

  8. Great episode. You guys are having toooo much fun!

    Actually it seems to me that Apple is less concerned with who the actual users of FCP X are. FCP X provides an advanced tool that’s in alignment with iMovie, so it’s a consistent environment. Just as you have pros and hobbyists use Aperture or Logic, so it’s the same with FCP X.

    The point is to drive sales for iMacs and Mac Pros. Adding the advanced features shows off the benefits of the faster (more expensive) machines for those that need them.

    Oliver

  9. I agree that a full range of interface choices should exist, but why not design for the rigors and flexibility required by the highest-level users first and then offer lower tiers of functionality for the rest of us? I believe that an innovation these days is more likely to originate as a solution to a storytelling problem than to be born of a manufacturer’s imagination, anyway.

    If a manufacturer can satisfy Terence’s needs and demands, the later “prosumer” version of the product I buy will likely exceed my expectations.

  10. To Philip’s question about designing for the big screen, how do resolve the fact that audio was so badly handled in the FCP X design? Clearly no one was listening to any user at all on this one. Audio mixing needs are pretty similar if I’m doing basic low-end TV work or a corporate presentation or a webisode to run on YouTube.

    The whole trackless metaphor breaks down when you have to deal with multiple audio tracks from one source – at different levels and starting edit points. Since Apple already had good models in Logic, Soundtrack Pro and even GarageBand, maybe it’s just that the video-centric designers once again treated audio like the stepchild.

    And the “metadata” answer is not a functional response. For example, I have 2 different mics on my camera source and I need to mix them in context to other sources. Simply assigning that clip as a “dialogue” role is pointless. The current model doesn’t seem to work for any user at this point.

    Thoughts?

    Oliver

    1. Exactly my point –I don’t feel that FCP X was designed for the “highest-level users.” If it had been written for users like yourself and Terence, a later (okay, “prosumer”) version would likely come along in no time, and that version would likely be a BETTER (more advanced) version than one that was only written for my meager needs.

  13. Guys–Always enjoy the show–how about doing one on the various NLE’s of the past and how each one contributed to and/or pushed forward the software genre. You both seem to have a lot of connections in the industry–I think it would be fascinating to learn what became of these early pioneers–Thanks again for doing the show–hope no friendships are harmed during the creation of it…

  14. I’m a pro video during the day, but my side-work is prosumer. Why should I be ashamed to be a prosumer as well as a pro? I don’t edit for free with high-end gear, Philip. I bought high-end gear because it’s what I use during the day and it’s easier to come home and use the same skills with my prosumer work.

  15. I also use the same pro gear at home for my daily home-type, consumer type activities. That is why I am a prosumer – I’m using the gear not only to make money, but also to consume media. I know, Philip, you think it’s a derogatory word, and I’m sure it is to some people. But the vernacular might not be quite as bad as you think. I proudly take the prosumer label as my own.

    1. If you use the gear to make money, by definition you’re professional. You may use your professional gear for non-professinal purposes but that makes you still a professional who sometimes uses their pro gear for non professional (paid) purposes. I think that would cover every working professional – sometimes they do stuff for free or for themselves.

      There’s nothing between Professional (gets paid) and amateur (doesn’t get paid). You’re one or the other.

      1. When every person who posts here (and on the parallel thread on my blog) uses the word “prosumer” with a different context, it is obvious that the word is meaningless – every person who uses it has a different meaning, so it’s a pointless, useless word.

  16. I agree with this paragraph from wiki regarding the word. “”Professional consumers” prosumers are excellent, better informed consumers who are buying top-grade or best-value products, or think they are. This group also includes a broader target for marketers and advertisers. According to Prosumer-Reports.com this attractive hip, young group “are influencing markets all over the globe. Empowered by new technologies and improved access to information, Prosumers are highly knowledgeable and demanding consumers.”

  17. As the word is used today within the industry:
    prosumer = low-end professional

    prosumer does not mean hobbyist (as Phillip argues)

    The prosumer is most definitely still a professional, but they are working with gear that is of lower quality. That does not mean they can’t tell great stories or shoot great images or capture pristine audio it’s just the nature of that range of professional.

    I don’t have a problem with the term in so far as people recognize a prosumer as a professional. If it’s used to marginalize and belittle a given production/post-production environment then I think that is using the term inappropriately. I would argue that the term “professional” is visually laid out as a continuum. On one end you have high-end professionals (i.e. broadcast TV/film) and on the other end you have low-end professionals. Arguably, there would be room for professionals to fall anywhere on that continuum in between those 2 extremes.

    In relation to FCP X I believe Apple has chosen to leave behind the high-end professionals with the current release. They have chosen to focus their efforts on making a NLE for the middle to low-end professional. Or as others have said the 80/20 rule. Apple is focusing on the 80% of editors out there and leaving behind the very grumpy and particular 20%. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. They are a business and are moving to where they see their profits coming from. Instead of spending so much time trying to please the 20% you spend that same time trying to support the 80%. The particular 20% will always demand certain features like audio tracks, some sort of XML import/export, being able to move legacy projects forward, working well in a multi-user environment (i.e. SAN), etc. Apple may incorporate some or all of these in future releases, but as it currently stands FCPX is a NLE geared for the professional who doesn’t need to play in multiple sanboxes (i.e. After Effects, Motion, Da Vinci, Nuke, etc.).

    The rub ultimately lies in how the product was marketed to us. Unveiling it at NAB (arguably a higher-end professional market implying that what we’ve come to know of FCP 7’s features would be included in FCPX), killing FCP 7 the day X releases, not communicating with any spectrum of the professional market with regards to pro-apps direction, and offering little to no timeline with regards to missing features in the current version.

    All of this to say, the person labeled as a “pro-sumer” is a professional. A “pro-sumer” is not an active hobbyist or impassioned amateur. They are professional. But one must make distinctions even within the professional world and for that I tend to describe it as high-end to lower-end (i.e. much like a baseball player…the Major League’s are the high-end compared to triple-A double-A, or single-A ball players – they are all professionals however, some are just playing the game at a different level).

    Good discussions on the podcast. Keep ’em coming.

    1. If you make money, you’re a pro. If you don’t make money, you’re a hobbiest. What’s in between?

  18. @Philip (sorry for the 2 l’s in my above post) — pro-sumer is a type of professional. Same as your discussion about a handyman vs. carpenter. Handyman is a type of professional. A carpenter is a type of professional. They are not the same. Professional yes. Different roles and requirements yes.

    Is your only criterion for “professional” if they get paid for doing X?

  19. I think the dividing line between Terence’s high-end film and TV examples and Philip’s preditor journalists and corporate videographers is not the editing tools. Everyone has access to very sophisticated editing tools now, be it $300 FCPX, $1,700 Adobe CS5, or $2,500 Media Composer. The age of the $150,000 Media Composer (and the $1,000,000 CMX before it) is long behind us, and editing video on a computer with all the advantages that brings is no longer the dividing line between the high-end and the mass-produced. The tools I see delineating the high-end are tools for sophisticated compositing and VFX, high-resolution color grading, and more than anything else the time and talent necessary to put a nice polish on all that. Video editing on a computer isn’t rare or expensive anymore. That isn’t to say that all editing is equal. Storytelling is still a craft, and the artisan is more important than the tool. But the specialized tools and technology that set apart the high-end big-budget productions are not the editing tools anymore.


  20. Philip:

    If you make money, you’re a pro. If you don’t make money, you’re a hobbiest. What’s in between?

    We are talking about two different things here. You are talking about a person, I am talking about a tool.

    A tool can be consumer, prosumer or professional. That delineation is generally defined by feature sets. The more features, the more pro, the more cost.

    A person is a professional if they earn a living at something, otherwise they are a hobbyist as you have properly identified.

    I’ve never used “prosumer” to describe a person, only gear.

    1. Twelve minutes in you explicitly make reference to a “prosumer” as a person. And thus the discussion started.

      1. Now you made me go and actually listen to part of our show! 😛

        So yes, I did use prosumer to describe the users of prosumer gear and maybe that isn’t accurate enough a description. In the calmer debate that is occurring here, I have reasoned out what I feel is a good definition of prosumer gear vs. consumer and pro gear.

        There is no easy way to apply that to people, so in hindsight prosumer can’t truly be applied to a person. You either make money at your craft (pro) or you don’t (hobbyist / consumer)

        None of this changes the opinion I have that FCP is a prosumer NLE. It is neither a good fit for pros (lacking to many pro features) nor a good fit for the average consumer (packs more punch and has a steeper learning curve) which leaves it in the prosumer space as far as I’m concerned.

        Can you make money using it? Yes. Can everyone who makes money editing use it to make a living? No.

  21. I’d have to concur with Terry here. Speaking from the view of someone who does reviews, I’ve generally used the term to apply to gear, not people, as well. I consider something “prosumer” when it lacks features a professional would expect.

    Sometimes this is context. For instance – cameras. From a videographer’s point-of-view, a Canon 5D is a “prosumer” level HD video camera (and that’s probably being generous). Nevertheless, national commercial, TV and even film work is done with the camera by professionals. To a photojournalist (who may also have to deliver video) the 5D is a professional camera.

    In that sense, FCP X may be viewed as “prosumer” by a professional editor, yet “professional” by a amateur or someone who only occasionally edits video.

    Oliver

  22. James,

    Just wanted to add in more support. I’d looove any sort of linux option. Any chance to ditch the MS and OSX bs, I’d be all over it.

    Although I’d love it happening, I’m not expecting it from Adobe anytime soon. I’ll bet they’re locked into complex agreements that would be very tough to get around. It would take something major to happen, something that puts the customer demand in place.

    But this whole subject is one of the things that draws me to Autodesk. Too bad the pricing really isn’t practical at all beyond high end work.

    The crazy times will tell.

    Fun podcast guys, thx!

    – wb

    1. Great point Weston. The problem is that in the end it’s all business. If you can’t afford to hire the programmers, designers, sales people, marketing folks, support staff, etc. from the proceeds of sales, then you can’t continue to do it without losing your house. So, how many seats will you sell on linux? And for how much in the Apple set $299 NLE market?

  23. Philip

    Your last show was great

    but gosh you got a whole lot of inverse snobbery going on here.

    take it easy.

    go FCP X and be happy.

    and make your business fly from making plugins for
    Pro-Summers

    Are CNN going FCP X

    Have they told you?

    What happened to preditors?

    Editors making movies are crafting stories

    maybe the difference are those who don’t cross the line

    1. Producer-editors are definitely an FCP X target audience. Everyone is always crafting stories in every edit, not just “movies”. No idea about CNN but their 2000+ journalists are the perfect target for FCP X as they are professionals and edit video as part of their professional skillset.

      We do not now, nor will we ever make a product for the thing that does not exist: prosumer applied to people. We make tools for professionals of all kinds, including Preditors.

      1. wrong post

        sorry

        Will you not make products for Pro- Summers?
        That is rather elitist
        Will you make your plugins available for Adobe Avid Sony & Thomson too if they release and API?
        Will you make plug ins for FCP X?

        1. We already have applications designed to work with Premiere Pro CS 5 or 5.5. We have another in the works for Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and another in the planning stages. BTW, we don’t make “plug-ins” we make workflow stand-alone applications that add functionality to an NLE.

          Avid’s AAF is way too closed for small developers. Sony’s Vegas is already well accommodated with tools from VASST (or is it VAAST, sorry Spot) and PC only and we’re more OS X focused. Thompson’s Edius has too small a market share for third party applications to be viable and have no API.

          And as I said we already have Event Manager X for Final Cut Pro X (been out for about 3 weeks) and we have another app for FCP X almost ready to go – as soon as we get set up in the App Store. I’m sure, that when Apple releases developer tools for FCP X we’ll work on more tools and port some of our FCP 7 tools to work with FCP X as well.

    2. Will you not make products for Pro- Summers?
      That is rather elitist
      Will you make your plugins available for Adobe Avid Sony & Thomson too if they release and API?

      Will you make plug ins for FCP X?

      2. We will certainly make plug-is for Apple’s Professional NLE. (Final Cut Pro X). We will not make plug-ins for Apple’s consumer NLE (iMovie) because professionals pay for their tools. There is no such thing as a “pro sumer” as a person.

        1. Great

          would you make your apps available for other professional editing systems if there was an interface to do so?

          I will never refer the ‘???’ in any kind of metadata group / tag / schema again

          1. Well, Final Cut Pro 7 has about 52% of the “Professional NLE Market”; Media Composer about 22% and Premiere Pro, Vegas and Edius round out the supplies of NLE manufacturers. Final Cut Pro X wasn’t available at the time those stats derive from (about two years back).

            We already develop for more than half – Final Cut Pro 6/7, Final Cut Pro X and Premiere Pro. Media Composer’s AAF interface is expensive and complex to use, so we’re not interested until Avid produce a more developer-friendly interface for workflow (as opposed to effects). Vegas is interesting but already well catered to by another developer and Edius has such a small market that it’s not worth developing for. I have no idea if it has any sort of developer access.

            And that covers our plans for every NLE. Hopefully your curiousity has been satiated.

        2. Philip

          I agree the term sucks
          Though your abhorrence of the word flies in the face of Apple, who I believed coined the term
           Apple Prosumer

          Unless the word was made before and they just copied it
          So Prosumer refers to iMovie only?
          At lest this validates the person as a marketing term in your eyes if nothing else.

          http://www.internavenue.com/internships/opportunity/36/apple/

          your comments are quite dysfunctional though IMHO

          which is the ‘Apple Way’

          they love dysfunctional types
          So I suppose everything is ok

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oAB83Z1ydE

          what do you think

          ???

          2. Unfortunately you’ve stopped making coherent sense. I’m sorry that I don’t follow your entire point. The Apple London job relates to – well, I don’t know. Apple have only ever used “Professional” for Final Cut Pro and Final Cut Pro X. If anything at Apple is “prosumer” it would be iMovie.

            I don’t watch youtube video, sorry. Too time consuming.

          3. OK
            well Apple YouTube links to one of their biggest marketing campaigns

            the signature I sent is one Apple signs their corporate emails with

            So if Apple calls their division that caters for FCP, Logic & Aperture Prosumer I suppose it is them and me that is not making coherent sense
            As for the Misfits that Apple love, I am glad to say I think you are one of them

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oAB83Z1ydE

  25. Philip
    I hope FCP X flies
    I dont agree that it is something that 1.4 million people are waiting for. Something different, because how could they yearn for a different paradigm when it did not exist?
    And why did they all buy FCP 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and make money from it? Because it worked / s
    Nor do I think Apple does NOT want to make a product for 25,500 editors that include Walter Much and the Coen Bros and including those who make less than stellar movies.
    Crappola or no crappola, well paid or not well paid, those editors still craft the edit & still do not cross the line.
    Are you suggesting that the way Avid and FCP7 works is wrong for 1.4 million other professionals.
    Surely not
    Also it would kill the prosumer & education market
    ‘Apple don’t make pro products any more!!!’
    Who then wants to learn it?
    Good example is Autodesk vs SGO Haleo and now called Mistika
    Some might say SGO was always and is still a better product but the kids want to learn Flame and Smoke.
    VHS vs Betamax.
    Just like Walter. lose him, as you suggest, and away goes the aspiration.
    What of apple were to retro fit the timeline back into 10.x
    They need to because that is the way we ride the bicycle.
    What then?
    What would your views be?
    Would it be ok for Walter and the 25,500?
    How was Lunch?

    Metadata is the way forward but it needs to be invisible to the craft not pervasive and overbearing
    like this
    http://www.autonomy.com/
    We are all semantic babies but not necessarily in the timeline 😉
    Apologies if I misheard the story
    I am slightly deaf 😉

  29. Enjoyed the discussion, and impressed by the comments (and commenters – they are blog posters I follow).

    I have only heard of ‘prosumer’ in relation to things (hardware, software), and never to people. I suggest that definition for terms of a truce.

    My day job is editing episodic television, feature films, and Imax movies. My needs are very different from someone whose job is writing, producing, and editing a product. But both of us are professionals, with different job titles.

    FCP has always been lacking in features and reliability, to where we moved from FCP to Avid from season 2 to season 3 on my episodic series. Apple’s move has certainly killed any version of FCP in my world. And generated way more anger and frustration than was really necessary or wise. And that is too bad, as they provided the only incentive Avid has had to improve and lower costs.

    A close friend is a sports television producer. I don’t see how FCP X makes his job anything but harder: split edits, adding vo, adding music, outputting to tape, keeping music and sfx separate, having to spend time managing metadata.

  30. Harry,

    Avid stil has an incentive. First, it’s not like Adobe is resting on their laurels. Second, FCP X still might mature into a tool for us, or our universe might move to where FCP X is good enough.

  31. Prosumer is a much better term for equipment, not the user. The only thing that defines a your gear as “Professional” is it’s features and performance; contrasting that to what makes a product “Consumer” is mostly price.
    If all hammer at the store were equally priced, I would choose the $65 framer’s hammer. But they aren’t, I choose the “consumer” model (though not labeled “consumer, it isn’t labeled “Pro” like the $65 hammer) because my need for the advances features and performance were not enough to warrant the higher price.
    Professional>Prosumer>Consumer is a very linear scale of increasing performance, features and price.

    The range of people editing, is not so linear. Full time feature film editors and people editing vacation videos could be the north and south of editors, but the east and west spectrum are indie film editors, solo video journalists, industrial video editors, legal video production, in-house corporate videos all have different workflows and are often using “Prosumer” equipment, but are getting paid to edit video at some time. FCPX may be overkill for the vacation video editing and missing important important features to work in a feature film pipeline, but for a lateral spread of a large number of editors, FCPX can still pay the bills for them.

  32. Erik,
    I agree that FCP X was built for a larger middle ground of the market. SO, the bigger question, with companies like HP threatening to dump their computer line, and Apple probably 1 model away from not having workstations anymore, where are the pros going to get CPUs?

    1. HP may be getting out of the PC game, but just like IBM and Lenovo, HP will sell off their PC making business to someone else, and that someone else will most likely continue making much the same line of products. It isn’t as if tower PCs are anything special. It’s miniaturization that takes engineering (laptops).

    2. By the way, I do not own or use FCPX, the loss of XML was all it took for FCPX to be irrelevant to me.
      For our editing hardware? I can only trust that the wonders of capitalism will provide us an answer. The public wants media, now more than ever (faster too,) and we make media. Some companies must still see creating solid workstations for content creation as a viable business, now matter how sexy making smart phones is to their shareholders. BOXX is a great example of a workstation maker who specializes in marketing to the professional content creators. Avid should work with them.

      I do love the future and am excited to see new workflows and products and techniques: just as long as they are solid for getting the job done. FCPXII may actually be good enough to warrant being called “Pro.”

    3. By the way, I do not own or use FCPX, the loss of XML was all it took for FCPX to be irrelevant to me.
      For our editing hardware? I can only trust that the wonders of capitalism will provide us an answer. The public wants media, now more than ever (faster too,) and we make media. Some companies must still see creating solid workstations for content creation as a viable business, now matter how sexy making smart phones is to their shareholders. BOXX is a great example of a workstation maker who specializes in marketing to the professional content creators. Avid should work with them.

      I do love the future and am excited to see new workflows and products and techniques: just as long as they are solid for getting the job done. FCPXII may actually be good enough to warrant being called “Pro.”

      I just started listing to the show and love listening to two guys who can argue and disagree at times and still keep it civil and intelligent.

  33. Terence a Pro should also know how to use a Dictionary.
    haha

    prosumer |prōˈso͞omər|
    noun
    1 an amateur who purchases equipment with quality or features suitable for professional use: the magazine is aimed at the prosumer who uses a $10,000 camera to make home movies of his dog.
    2 a prospective consumer who is involved in the design, manufacture, or development of a product or service. a panel of prosumers weighed in on the plans for the new shampoo.

    professional |prəˈfeSHənl|
    adjective
    1 [ attrib. ] of, relating to, or connected with a profession: young professional people | the professional schools of Yale and Harvard.
    2 (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one’s main paid occupation rather than as a pastime: a professional boxer.
    • having or showing the skill appropriate to a professional person; competent or skillful: their music is both memorable and professional.
    • worthy of or appropriate to a professional person: his professional expertise.
    • informal, derogatory denoting a person who persistently makes a feature of a particular activity or attribute: a professional naysayer.

    1. Do you log everything yourself or does an Assistant log? Or are you saying you don’t ever log clips? (All logging is metadata) If you don’t i’d not employ you as you’re being way too inefficient.

  35. Guys. Great discussion, love the banter. I am part of the high middle, we do mostly commercials, followed by web and corporate content. As of right now, we won’t be using FCP X. It just doesn’t have the feature set to live up to FCP 7. I really hope that it will ‘grow up soon’ as I would love to use It, it just doesn’t fit our pipeline/workflow…which isn’t too demanding btw. That being said, I can’t call it a full professional tool…because it lacks some features/tools. I dont mean that in a negative way, it’s just a fact to me, it is what it is. I also don’t think it’s iMovie pro, it looks very similar, but there are too many features/tools in FCPX to be called iMovie Pro. So what is it, I think time wil tell whether it’s a full fledged ‘professional’ tool, or a three quarter fledged ‘professional’ tool. I hope this clarifies the sanity with a little confusion.

  36. Tom, Which “dictionary” did you use to get that definition?

    Here’s another one from Dictionary.com

    “Main Entry: prosumer 1
    Part of Speech: n
    Definition: a device or appliance that is between the consumer and professional models”

  37. Sorry I’m late to this one!

    Guys – there’s a much easier way to describe this equation. You were on the right track with the Handyman vs. Carpenter…

    FCP X is for generalists – one-man bands, who do editing, sound, color, etc… It matters not whether they make money at it or not.

    FCP 7, Avid, etc – are tools for specialists who COLLABORATE with other specialists. (More often than not, they make money at it, but I know some dedicated hobbyists who don’t.)

    That’s all you need to say – Every other discussion can be based from that starting point – workflow, features, etc… everything makes sense when you think of it in those terms.

Comments are closed.