Final Cut Pro X

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.

This certainly seems to be the case with FCPX.

And might've been the case with the original FCP. But Apple took advantage of some stuborness and arrogance by Avid to really leap Final Cut into the broadcast - and even film - world.

It's the abrupt transition back to focusing on the one-off auteur that is startling. And unexpected.

The media technology out there now really is a bit of a train-wreck. Our local community college, like the majority of others, has not considered replacing their $200K of 1970's equipment with $20K of modern capability. As a result, the local news stations have no call to renovate, and the broadcasts still appear to be decades behind a 12-year old's YouTube documentary. I may be exaggerating a little, but not much.

I would have expected by this time in history that any business, even a Mom-and-Pop, would not even think of trying to serve customers without a media editor on board (if that's the right term for independent media production capability). I certainly would have expected that the public relations department of any corporation would consist of an independent media production department, cameras and crew. I couldn't imagine trying to run a corporation, meeting with marketing, meeting with operations, meeting with finance, and not at least taking a look in the media production office, room or floor.

Even for a coffe-shop job, I would expect, with today's costs and capabilities, the winning application would have a 'yes' box checked for "FPX".

Obviously, Apple knows the capability and uses it. Every move they make is accompanied by a nice little media production. So while the power that used to talk behind the editing screen of the broadcast station may be waning, the same scene is likely appearing elsewhere in slightly variable forms.

It's even outrageous to me that elected officials, all the way up to the Senate, run on little more than pre-ordered posters on their choice of color and heavy, medium or light card-stock.

Have you checked out LIGHTWORKS? It is the editing software used for all of these films: Shutter Island, The King's Speech, The Departed, The Good Shepherd, Gangs of New York, Chicago, The Pelican Brief, Goodfellas, The Raging Bull...and many others. Best of all, it is absolutely FREE as part of an Open Source project! Google it for additional info. I'm not linking to it directly since it currently only runs on Windows and even though they are working on a Mac OS X version (and they list a roadmap on their website targeting that objective this year), there is just something that seems counterproductive about posting a link here to a program that Mac users can't run natively.

The only downside of LIGHTWORKS I have seen so far is a limitation regarding what types of files can be imported. I find it interesting that the user interface resembles a Steenbeck flatbed film editing suite (perhaps out of respect for a previous generation of editing tools as well as making transitioning from a Steenbeck that much easier). I doubt there would be a steep learning curve involved especially with editors already familiar with the basic concepts of video editing. Best of all is that they are planning to release the source code for Lightworks later this year! That means coders will create plug-ins for additional functions that aren't part of the current release. That is almost enough to renew my interest in writing code since I'd venture to say that is a more lucrative business to be in right now as opposed to most other career options available to me.

>Have you checked out LIGHTWORKS?

Yes, in the early '90s. It even had a control surface that operated exactly like a Steenbeck. It was a package tailored to the needs of feature editing, cutting dailies... the vast majority of which is cuts,cuts,cuts -- 1200 or so in the average 94 minute property. And that's why its still in use in some circles. There is a saying among old film editors "if you can't solve it, dissolve it" and the use of transitions of any kind, even if its a nice dissolve, is the province of the incompetent. I'm not making that up, I was regarded as one of the "vidiots" until I started working a lot more with negative for a while, there, 94-2005. I'd never use the term, myself.

AVID killed Lightworks with price (yes, even AVID was cheaper and more flexible as an alternative then), and much more suitable for television, and then there was this other play-toy that Apple was flogging.... etc.

I'd find it hilarious and perhaps ironic that this authentic antique approach was being considered a new alternative. Everything old is.... well, denigrated, mostly, until one realizes that its the same concept, simpler, and it works, usually intuitively. So re-name it... the industry is ADD, so... as long as its shiny... its new again.

jPo

The Knight Poet wrote:

Have you checked out LIGHTWORKS?

Indeed so - twenty-odd years ago when it was an expensive and very competent system. It was the only system that allowed full-rez mulitcam on multiple monitors back then - Avid at the time could only show very low res proxies of multicam angles, and FCP, well it didn't exist. Even today, no other system can do that. Lightworks essentially went out of business, much to the chagrin of many feature editors who favoured it, and seeing it resurface as an Open Source project is, as JP Owens says, kind of fantastic and kind of appealing. It never had many bells and whistles, because you don't need bells and whistles to edit, but it had a unique interface (timeline scrolls right to left under the playhead, simulating film) and a unique approach. I've been tracking the Open Source project and it will be very interesting to see what becomes of it. Free is always an interesting option, eh?

Here is something interesting I just tried: Googling a sentence from a recent post here (from three days ago) and finding both a cached version and a direct link to the webpage here where that sentence appears. So apparently, this entire public thread and perhaps everything posted in the Apple Discussion forums is being permanently stored by Google without much of a delay. Additionally, when I Google my Apple handle, my Apple account profile webpage is the first link out of over 2000. When I Google your Apple username, it also shows up first out of over 2000 results. Could this be the case because of a recent increase in the traffic perusing the perplexing pages of these forums looking for answers to their questions only to discover that one layer of questions only reveals a deeper layer of question marks wallowing willfully in the quicksand quagmire of composited disillusionment?

Someone suspected a conspiracy might be behind all of these hits. I suspect that it could have something to do with the practical application of a therapeutic band-aid (cheaper than a Therapist Pro X) whereby the isolated personality comes to realize that he or she is only part of the whole...an individual component (one) of a much larger system (many) adversely affected by recently harvested Fruit...like a forgotten frame in a film that passes swiftly from sight before another piece of popcorn is transformed by another buttery bite.

Message was edited by: The Knight Poet

It would be great if some younger folks with a knowledge of film or media could glean some more fruit from some of the pros in this forum regarding movie and media production history. There might not be a better opportunity to get it. Let alone specific current questions about technique.

This is quite a read.

Sometimes I think about trying to stop the emails coming through, but when I do read through the comments and replies, it really is interesting to see so many editors / business owners with different perspectives and knowledge on film / video editing past, present and future.

Ignorance and stupidity are two different things. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge, and has no bearing on the individuals capacity to acquire the knowledge or skill set necessary to achieve a particular objective.

The fact that you recognize that one does not become a professional editor by osmosis, and you are willing to put forth the hard work and hours required in pursuit of academic accreditation, shows that you are not stupid, but smart and dedicated.

Press on my young friend and best of luck in your endeavors.

wasn't talking to you bullocks chops...

it's unfortunate you have to read through 64 posts of ****** of "pros" before actually "gleaning" anything resembling experience 😉

I just hope Apple doesn't try to buy the source code for Lightworks before it is released this year and turn it into a $99 plug-in for FCP X.

Have you guys perused YouTube lately?

It's unfortunate that I haven't the youthful energy or open schedule to glean more! The people who can really develop in this field are in their teens, possibly but not necessarily admissible into University, and without a clue as to the 'structure' of any industry. I hope you all take the time to try to find them on youtube and share some of your knowledge, even if it's slow to enter, and I hope the tools to advance in their art are not kept from them for the sake of centralizing control of enterprise in media.