I’m not sure I follow:
“It’s more like buy it for nothing and not be able to rent it! That’s the problem with their concept. Why do these folks want to drag the existing businesses into the ground? Just so they can edit for free?”
So, if companies are offering solutions for free, people can’t buy them because those who buy are dragging the business into the ground?
Posted by Taubkin on 05/18 at 11:12 AM
“They can’t use the edit system to do that anymore because it has no value. So they have to do it on talent.”
I think this is the biggest nugget of truth in the article! End of the day, it’s *not* about the box - It’s about the talent, experience, professionalism and resourcefulness of the person in the chair!
As a freelance editor in LA, trying to make a business model work upon having my own uncompressed HD-capable system, Lil’ Timmy in his basement with cracked (i.e., stolen) software, and all kinds of free time, could represent a competitive threat.
But can Timmy quickly and accurately navigate deck menus on an HDCAM SR deck when it comes time to print to tape? Can Timmy decipher, and comply with, pages of broadcast specs? Can Timmy get up at 7:30am to make that presentation meeting?
I think it’s a bit of an oversimplification to say “FCP is cheaper.. therefore better”. Gear comes down to business model. If you’re a busy multi-seat house, and time is critical, Avid might be the answer, with its ability to handle multiple streams in real-time. Yes, it costs more - but if you are losing clients who can’t accept rendering when it’s 30 minutes til FedEx…
Conversely, if you are a single-artist, or small specialty shop, FCP presents a better bottom line.
Pay for your gear in 25 weeks?? Where is this Fantasy Land? I remember in the Linear days, if you were able to pay for your gear in 3 years, you were doing well!
Posted by Christian Glawe on 05/18 at 11:58 AM
And besides this ... the kid down the street with a cracked final cut system has given us a new type of edited and finished program ... the “good enough” program. While an agency/record label/corporate entity/whatever has paid and experienced editor with good gear for a great product they often then see the program that the cracked kid produced and while definitely lesser in quality (in many different areas) it is often “good enough” especially when they see the money they saved. I think that is the biggest danger to the professional high end editor.
Posted by Scott Simmons on 05/18 at 03:26 PM
I call that the KMARTization of America. The more people accept “Good Enough” the lower the bar goes. Eventually there are no craftsmen left who know how to make fine quality products. And the consumer doesn’t know enough to realize the options he has lost.
Posted by Terence Curren on 05/18 at 10:57 PM
Blows me away that people think that $2500 is still too much to pay for the most mature NLE on the market. Oh, forget that it cost $90,000 just 5 years ago, with hardware.
Let’s not forget the brainy producers that equate the cost of the editor to the cost of the system they are using. “Oh, you are using FCP? Then why are you charging me $500/day? The system is cheap therefore you should be too.” I have gotten this on more than one occasion, and the first time I heard it I couldn’t help but to laugh out loud. Then I realized he was serious.
“Well, good luck then.”
But then they go out and get the “good enough” editor.
Posted by Shane Ross on 05/19 at 09:17 AM
“Let’s not forget the brainy producers that equate the cost of the editor to the cost of the system they are using. “Oh, you are using FCP? Then why are you charging me $500/day? The system is cheap therefore you should be too.” I have gotten this on more than one occasion, and the first time I heard it I couldn’t help but to laugh out loud.”
This is a tremendous point, Shane - and something I encounter quite often!
I’m Avid-proficient, as well - but my FCP system better fits my particular business model. But a lot of people still believe that, if you’re using the “cheaper” NLE, you must be a “cheaper” editor!
As an aside, I do believe that the Producer who accepts “Good Enough” has probably been accepting “Good Enough” *throughout* the whole production (pre-prod., writing, shooting, etc., etc.), to the point where the compromises have added up. Now, he needs a “Really Freakin’ Good” editor to save the program! Whether Mr. Producer *realizes* this fact, well….
Posted by Christian Glawe on 05/19 at 09:32 AM
Wow, where have I heard this kind of diatribe before ... oh yeah ...
“Now that any artist with Pagemaker and the Laserwriter can ‘publish” this is going to kill high-end design.” (Didn’t happen.)
“A musician can lay down their own tracks with a Mac and Prologic? There goes audio production values.” (Didn’t happen, either.)
Just because the old model is going away, doesn’t mean quality and artistry need suffer. It just means you need to adapt to the new model, and that mostly means the new “business” model. Me? I’m not going to shed a tear for expensive bloated post suites.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/19 at 11:30 AM
<<“Now that any artist with Pagemaker and the Laserwriter can ‘publish” this is going to kill high-end design.” (Didn’t happen.)>>
I started Alpha Dogs because of that very issue.
Back in the 90s I foresaw the post world going through what the printing world went through. I was there.
It used to be if you wanted to make a flier for your business, you went to the local print shop and their graphic artist did a mock up for you. That was expensive. Then you paid for every change. Then you paid to make a master plate. Then you paid to run your fliers off. The Mac changed all of this. It killed most of the print shops and left Kinkos in their place.
The side effect was that everyone with a Mac decided they were a graphic artist. The results were atrocious. Flash forward to today and most people will still make their own fliers. However, if you are in business you will pay a graphic designer to handle this as they have the talent and training. You just aren’t paying for the overhead of the print shop.
It took many years for the market in general to learn that the graphic designer was worth paying for. Many small businesses haven’t figured that out and your mailbox probably gets more than it’s share of poorly designed ads. Or just watch cable to see the lousy quality of what fills most of the air time.
Now for the difference between these situations. How many people desire to be in the printing business? How many desire to be in “show business”?
That’s the difference. The kid down the street will suffer an amazing amount to be in “show business”. Even if it’s a local industrial, this is his stepping stone to being the next Spielberg. That makes him a far more serious threat than some kid who likes to design graphics on his computer.
And if you believe that the average garage band kid can make a great mixed track because he has ProTools LE, you must be listening to different music than I am.
Posted by Terence Curren on 05/19 at 12:11 PM
Let’s not forget the brainy producers that equate the cost of the editor to the cost of the system they are using. “Oh, you are using FCP? Then why are you charging me $500/day? The system is cheap therefore you should be too.” I have gotten this on more than one occasion, and the first time I heard it I couldn’t help but to laugh out loud. Then I realized he was serious.
“Well, good luck then.”
But then they go out and get the “good enough” editor.
I just had one of those. Client mad that our rates went up from a year ago and that I wouldn’t charge less than last year since we’d already worked together. When I offered to negotiate a package rate, I was told, “never mind, I found someone in New York who will only charge $60 an hour.”
So supposedly my client found a place that is giving away the room for the cost of what most editors alone charge. Nice.
I wished my client luck and imagined the edit session they were about to have - sitting in the back seat of a kid’s Chevy Nova working on his laptop putting the edit together….
Did I mention this project was for a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation??
Posted by pdxfilms on 05/19 at 03:35 PM
Hey guys,
Just want to chime in. Survival of the fittest, that’s the chime. Just listen to it, it rings so beautifully. But seriously folk, its the end of Avid and the “old time editors”, unless they change their business plan. With the advancement of technology (Moore’s law), PC’s are advancing to the point where hardware is becoming obsolete. Therefore, the Avid/hardware and outrages prices that go with it is an outdated model. But who does this new model benefit? That’s right folks, you guessed it, the kid in the basements. And you better be worried about him. Because now that he has the means and opportunity, he’s gonna work harder and smarter then most of the “old timers”. Some poster said that the old timers shouldn’t worry. I beg to differ. The poster made a comparison about what editors are going through today with what graphic designers were going through in the early 90’s. True, graphic editors are still in demand today, but a real comparison should be made not with graphic designing (which kid grew up wanting to be a graphic designer) ,but with the music industry instead. In other words, you should compare it to another form of entertainment. In the early 50’s 60’s and 70’s music was in the hands of the elite. You had to go to school to get trained on mixing, editing, and composing, cause a studio deck is complicated thing. Also, if you wanted to start your own studio you had to have a large amount of capital, decks, mixing boarding cost a lot. Therefore, for a long time there wasn’t much threat to the producers and music men. That all changed in the 80’s, with the introduction of the sampler. The kid living in his parents basement in Harlem, who a decade ago couldn’t afford to be mixing and music now was given the chance. All of a sudden kids got samplers, electric keyboards, turntables, and 8 tracks. And by the time you knew it, kids where make beats in their basements. And they got good at it. Some of those kids are now top producers, Dr. Dre, Diddy, Timerland, etc. Old timers like Ike and Phil Spencer became obsolete. So fellow editors beware, those kids in the basement just might become the next hot thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/19 at 09:09 PM
“It took many years for the market in general to learn that the graphic designer was worth paying for.”
I haven’t seen this. Those that appreciate good design, always have. The small business that won’t pay now, wouldn’t have paid then either. Even before the Mac, there were hack designers in the basement of newspapers, etc. that would knock out quick crap. Desktop publishing didn’t create crap design, it just allowed more people to try their hand at it.
“And if you believe that the average garage band kid can make a great mixed track because he has ProTools LE, you must be listening to different music than I am.”
I wouldn’t consider artists like Aimee Man average anything! 
I live in Nashville. I have a friend who owns a studio, but the bulk of his business is building PC-based home recording systems for A-list artists. They don’t feel the need to have the label force them into Mastermix or other high dollar studios. (They don’t really feel the need for their label, period, but that’s another discussion.) A-list artists are recording incredible albums without ever stepping foot in a “traditional” recording or mix studio. That’s why I’m not going to cry if some Avid-editors who build their biz around their equipment end up dinosaured like all of the giant 24 track boards jutting from dumpsters in Nashville alleys.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/20 at 06:54 AM
<<I live in Nashville. I have a friend who owns a studio, but the bulk of his business is building PC-based home recording systems for A-list artists.>>
And who does the mixing? The kid down the street or a seasoned mixer?
The fact that the studio gets smaller and the equipment gets cheaper doesn’t make everyone a great mixer. I agree that building a business around equipment is a bad model. My company has always been built around the talent. The problem is that commoditizing the gear means higher end tools don’t get made anymore.
Since you like using audio as an example, how many kids down the street are going to buy Cedar audio gear to fix problem sound? So that company foes out of business. Can you achieve the same thing with a plugin? Yes. Is at as easy, fast, high quality and intuitive? No.
I can convert an NTSC shot to PAL in software. Will it look as good as running it through a Teranex box? No.
Here’s the capper, how many kids out there even know what Tereanex or Cedar do? Bingo! Once again “almost there” is “good enough.” Sometimes the line between watchable and a masterpiece is very fine.
Back to music, easy access to the tools doesn’t make a great musician. There is still a ton of music being created by well paid professionals. The bulk of features you see and higher end television shows are proof of that. They don’t use a kid down the street with “garage band” to score them.
Posted by Terence Curren on 05/20 at 09:56 AM
“Here’s the capper, how many kids out there even know what Tereanex or Cedar do? Bingo! Once again “almost there” is “good enough.” Sometimes the line between watchable and a masterpiece is very fine.”
I think your missing the point. Kids might not know what a Tereanex box is now, but once the prices of a Tereanex box drop, as it already has from the hundreds of thousands of dollars to $60,000 (and it will conitune to drop), eventually a kid in his basement will get his hands on one.
Slowly, the general masses are getting the tools needed to compete with the old timers. We’re half way there, we still need a couple of more years, but it will happen (look at Red Scarlet). And when it does, those kids in the basements are gonna kick ass.
Why did avid editors had an advantage for so long? Not because they we’re genetically gifted editors, but because they had ACCESS and PRACTICE to editing suites. Regular folks (kids in the basements) just need to get some more practice with the right tools. And when they do, old time editors won’t be charging $800.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/20 at 03:48 PM
“And if you believe that the average garage band kid can make a great mixed track because he has ProTools LE, you must be listening to different music than I am.”
I’d recommend Beirut.
-But, yeah, it doesn’t sound anything like Madonna.
Posted by Taubkin on 05/20 at 07:55 PM
Madonna is a great example. It takes a great mixer and a great producer to turn a mediocre singer into an international phenomena.
See any kids pulling off that trick in their garages lately?
And this is not a validation of Madonna’s music, just a validation of what the right group of pros can achieve with talent and experience. And I guarantee you her music is not produced on cheap gear.
Posted by Terence Curren on 05/21 at 09:11 AM
“And this is not a validation of Madonna’s music, just a validation of what the right group of pros can achieve with talent and experience. And I guarantee you her music is not produced on cheap gear.”
Actually her music is produced on some really cheap gear.
Producers who worked on her new album are Kanye West, Timberland and Danja(Danja is Timberlands “sidekick”, so is not alway credited)
The Gear the use:
Danja uses a laptop, an Edirol MIDI controller and Steinberg’s DAW Cubase.
Timberland currently uses a Neko and Miko.
Kanye West actually uses “ancient” equipment a turntable, ASR-10, and an MPC.
More importanly, the above producers got started using 8 track recorders and disregarded equipment.
The point is: Give the kids in the basement time and practice, and they will be better with off the shelf software then any editor with an $100,000 suite charging $800 bucks an hour.
Just ask Madonna.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/21 at 04:43 PM
These are very rough numbers I found quickly:
Neko 64 $5,500
Miko LX4 $5,000
Edirol MIDI Controller $200
DAW Cubase $800
Laptop $3,500
Pro Microphone $1,000
Pair of KRK E8B Speakers $ 5,000
Skipping any amplifier or additional plugins, this comes to $21,000 so far.
Properly sound isolating and treating a room is where the price really comes in. You can spend 50 to 100K here in a heartbeat. But I’m sure Madonna doesn’t mind recording in a room where she has to keep doing retakes due to cars driving by, folks talking in the hall, audio hum from the A/C, etc.
Hmmm, ,maybe the kid down the street CAN do this on his weekly allowance…
Posted by Terence Curren on 05/21 at 05:40 PM
Wow, every time someone tries to point out the obvious, someone from the “old guard” blasts the “kid down the street.” Are you painting them with a broad negative stroke because they can’t afford “pro” gear, or are you assuming they can’t be talented because they don’t have eons of experience with said equipment ... the argument seems to change to suit. Which is the problem?
I’m sorry, but there is *nothing* digital that can be done as well, or better, in software as it can in hardware. It might take longer, but it *can* be done. If you want to trade time for money, you can, and get indistinguishable results.
Editing is not some unfathomable black art that takes a lifetime of apprenticeship to “get.” Yes there is skill. Yes there is artistry. And yes, like all things, experience can be an asset ... but really, you can pick-up the basic concepts in a weekend. And if you are to be truly great, well, that’s a gift you were either born with or you weren’t, and no amount of time or equipment will change that fact.
PS. Madonna isn’t a superstar because of who produced or mixed ... she’s a superstar because 1) she got lucky 2) mega corporations glommed onto her charisma and manufactured a superstar, and 3) she is savvy enough to play the game for all that it is worth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/21 at 06:23 PM
You continue to miss the point here. Why would you use a $1,000 microphone for Madonna instead of a $15 microphone from Radio Shack?
If the Radio Shack mic is deemed “good enough”, then the other manufacturers will go out of business since they can’t produce quality that cheap and no one will be able to use a better microphone.
And why is that every time someone tries to point out the obvious, that is that there is value to experience, someone from the “new guard” blasts folks from the “old guard.”
Want to know what experience brings? While the new guy is trying to figure out how to solve a problem, the older guy has already moved on as he figured that one out years ago when he had the same problem.
Net result is that the old guy has more time available to polish areas that the new guy doesn’t even realize are problems.
BTW: Kanye West is 33 years old
Timbaland (I assume that’s who you meant) started producing albums in the mid 90s and is 36 years old.
Danje is the youngest at 26. He got his break when he met Timbaland when he was 19. He is rumored to charge 50K to 100K per track.
These guys don’t qualify as the kid down the street.
Posted by Terence Curren on 05/21 at 06:45 PM
I hope the two story’s below will prove to everyone that now a days almost anyone (given time and practice) can do the same quality work as professionals for less money and with less expensive equipment.
Would you believe me if I told you that a kid, he’s now 33, but he got his big break when he was in his 20’s, makes hit records for artist such as Jay-Z, The Game, Mary J Blige, and Destiny’s child with a Dell Laptop ($2,000) and off-the-shelf software (Fl Studio $300). Well, you better believe it, cause his name is 9th Wonder. All he uses is Fl Studio and a laptop.
http://remixmag.com/artists/remix_little_feat/
He blew up because he made “excellent” not “good enough” music and sold it to other artist initially for really cheap. Why did he sell “top notch” music for so little, because he didn’t invest in expensive equipement!
Now, the same story can be applied to the film industry. Two guys edit, shoot and do the VFX work for a short film. They do all the work with off the shelf software. Once they’re done they posts it up on net. The video get a million hits, and bang, before you know it, both guys are working on million dollar Hollywood films/commercials.
Wait a minute this story did happen. Two guys, self trained, did a movie called “405” with off the shelf software such as Lightwave. More importantly they continue to useoff the shelf software such as Lightwave and Photoshop.
http://www.405themovie.com/
There are countless other examples of where young cats are using software with good techniques in order to produce “excellent” work. And they are doing it with inexpensive tools. As technology advances you’ll see more and more of these kids popping up, and in order for the “old timer” to compete, they’ll have change there pricing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/21 at 07:56 PM
Let me tell you another story. Back in 1992 a young aspiring filmmaker made a movie for 7K. It was called El Mariachi. It went on to make a lot of money. That young filmmaker is still making movies. And he is still making money.
However, in the 16 years since then, the movie industry hasn’t changed. 18 million is still a “low budget.” 2 million is “bottom feeding.”
So what does this do to your theory?
Posted by Terence Curren on 05/21 at 08:22 PM
BTW
Timbaland got his first big break at 25 when Rapper Missy Elliott heard his material and, taken by Timbaland’s style started to work with him. At the time Missy Elliott discovered him he was using a Casio keyboard ($1000.00)to make hip hop tracks.
Danja got discovered at the age of 19 by Timbaland. And Danja didn’t have access to expensive equipment (he grew up in low income housing in Virgina Beach).
Kanye West made his first “commerical” single at 19, for Jermaine Dupree, using at the time, a Gemini PT-1000 II turntable($100) and a ASR-10 ($1500) while living at home with his mother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanye_West_production_discography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danja
Again, the above examples go to show you that you do not need expensive equipment or 15 years of experience to produce quality work.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/21 at 08:42 PM
I’m fairly certain that a good carpenter can build a house with a rock and an exacto knife given enough time. Does that mean he should? Does that mean no one should sell expensive hammers?
Posted by Terence Curren on 05/21 at 08:45 PM
Terence, the El Mariachi example validates my point, which is: you do not need expensive equipment or years of experince to do “quality” editing.
Robert, while still in school, shot and edit El Mariachi. He made a rough edit using a 3/4” videotape/VHS.
Prior to El Mariachi I can bet that if I gave him a film to edit, when he was 24, using only 3/4” videotape, that he would do a better job then a guy with 20 years of experience on a $50,000 Avid editing bay.
Would you not agree?
Furthermore, if you were a director, who happened to see El Mariachi, would you not give him an editing job? Trust me, you, me and everyone else would hire him in a heart beat. You wouldn’t care that he’s young, living at home, and editing on 3/4” videotape.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/21 at 09:02 PM
“I’m fairly certain that a good carpenter can build a house with a rock and an exacto knife given enough time. Does that mean he should? Does that mean no one should sell expensive hammers?”
If I was a carpenter starting out I would not buy an expensive hammer if it cost 10 times the price of an exacto knife and did exactly the same thing.
Also I would hope that I would not be judged by my age or by my tools, but by work and craftsmanship.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/21 at 09:08 PM
I can see I’m running in circles with you. I am glad that you would be happy hammering with a rock. I have better things to do with my time so I would prefer to use a hammer and be done quicker. And I learned long ago that buying a hammer that lasts ten times longer for three times the price is a good deal.
As for Rodriguez, first he used a lot of slo-mos as he was trying to fill time because he didn’t have enough footage and Spanish television (his intended market), had certain length requirements. Those slo-mos ended up being a cool touch that helped his project get noticed. Lucky accident, not skillful.
Second, when Columbia picked up the film based on the VHS screener of his offline, they proceeded to drop 1/4 million on post to make it a movie.
Third, Robert Rodriguez edits in a very nice office space with top quality gear now. He no longer uses the cheapest thing he can find, but settles for the best instead. That doesn’t mean most expensive, it just means the best for what he does.
My original post was about bringing the price of NLEs so low that perception of people who use them is that anyone can do it so why pay a lot. Also the decrease in income for the manufacturers means less R&D;on tools that can make our lives easier.
You have yet to disprove either point.
If you are on a crusade to prove that a new editor is better than an experienced on based on select examples, I won’t debate you. I can just as easily prove otherwise as I feel I have done here. You have to look at more than a few examples to prove a thesis.
You have refused to directly address my claims in our discussion here, so I can only assume you really don’t want a healthy debate but would prefer a bully pulpit to espouse your beliefs. This will neither change my mind, my experience, or the real world.
Let’s just agree to disagree. 
PS: Enjoy your cheap tools.
Posted by Terence Curren on 05/21 at 09:48 PM
Terence,
Firstly, I never objected to your original post. If you had bothered to actually read my first post you would have know that it was a reply to posters Joseph Moore and Scott Simmons.
But you are right about one thing, this debate is going no where, so I think it’s best to just end it.
PS: Thanks, I will. I love my “cheap tools”, they bring me a six figure income, and only cost $1200.00
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/21 at 11:47 PM
Terrence, there is a subtext to your post, and your replies that by default more expensive “hammers” are better. That’s a flawed assumption.
My point is that I’ve worked through the same tectonic digital/desktop/software shift with two other creative industries, and it hasn’t killed them, nor materially lowered professional standards. What has changed is the barriers to entry for who can do the work, and for how much money. And if my equipment costs $10k instead of $100k, there is a lot of room to make money at the new rates, because they aren’t ten times lower. In fact, I make more profit now than I have in 25 years, and I’m constantly buying new equipment.
In regards to R&D;budgets, I think there is some truth in your fear, but honestly the big boys are never where true innovation comes from. They’re much more likely to ape a young, hungry start-up’s idea. Who innovated more in browser technology Microsoft with it’s gajillions of dollars, or Firefox? Software changes everything. As long as Intel keeps making faster chips, people will be making more and more capable software. The next big thing is more likely to come from a group of guys on a discussion board than it is from Avid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/22 at 06:36 AM
My final thought: Evolve or die. I will not shed a tear for the passing of the dinosaurs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/22 at 06:38 AM
