>artistic ability with media in general.
True enough. For me, the application open on the desktop is pretty much irrelevant, as long as it does what I need it to do. Quite frankly, I've been editing ever since it was *pressing the "Play" buttons* on a couple/three quads (no timecode) and then hitting the Record button at the appropriate instant, taking into account: hardware response, tape speed, erase delay, tach phase, colour framing, counting a switcher operator in, and so on. And then I'd have to fight off a pterasaur. And Dino would knock me over every time I came back into the cave. They were RCA machines, what can I say? I'll bet there are fewer than a handful of individuals on this thread who could define "color framing" without googling it, but would be quick to point out that it is irrelevant in today's environment. Is that important to an editor? It used to be crucial, and it also used to be crucial to have some technical skills.
Quite frankly, working with new entries; people and applications, energizes me, but the current experience, supposedly a "Revolution" of the environment (hardly) and what it is choosing to discard really concerns me -- as a grade/finish specialist, I am constantly trouble-shooting and correcting VERY basic, core-function errors, mostly because I may be one of the remaining few who can recognize them. Choosing to ignore what has gone before is a well-explored philosophical debate, and has its own special set of dangers. There have been revolutions and evolutions, and this little bug-tussle is getting to be as ludicrous as the "really screams" hype that a couple of per cent improvement in processor speed spawns. Hype. Usually, does the same **** thing, and also usually, worse. Make more errors in far less time!
As far as 'process of editing' goes, I'm finding it confusing that the X-architects wanted to construct an interface that "didn't require its operators to carry a whole bunch of things around in their heads". And then took away from what I model as the note-taking capability (the cut-sequence) the ability to see all your media in juxtaposition (the multi-track/multi-cam paradigm) in favour of the one-up... setting aside the "Audition" mode for the time being. Now, you really do have to keep it all in your head-- for me, personally, two weeks ago, 42 takes, different angles, all within the same single scene. But, a seasoned editor will sometimes have the whole thing "done" after having reviewed the raw footage once, and its just a matter of chopping it together. That's 'editing' as an intellectual exercise, rather than chainsaw sculpture. The vast majority of time, the producer discussions will take much, much longer. And in my case, the producer/director was not even aware of how many takes were available for the song's chorus. But if you are the producer... well, that's a different framework. No discussions necessary, just do it and --
For the most part, FCX really caters to, and is almost ideally streamlined for the auteur, the one-off, non-collaborative, self-contained, improv mindset, and that is not a bad thing. I strongly urge everyone, in their tens of thousands, who do this form of production to embrace the new software because I think it really will help them to achieve their goals. At the moment however, I'm not really in a position to help move the project along to any kind of broadcast deliverable. Sorry.
jPo
