I’d love the idea of the capture utility to be completely separate from FCP. Maybe Compressor could evolve to be the media manager, injest, export, browser, rough trimming. It could be called Media Assistant and run as an app to handle the Non-Editing work of Editing. If it could assist in round tripping projects from color, soundtrack, motion in a nodal way that would be great too.

It could establish a nodal interface to track the changes to a project through changes in the Pro Apps.

Posted by erikcantu  on  03/14  at  07:13 AM

---

I agree…this “10%” argument doesn’t hold water.

So if only 10% of people who used Media Composer, say if it was cheaper like FCP, were working professionals, Avid should change it to fit their needs?  The needs of the masses?  That’s one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard.  The job is to make the most professional application out there, that fits the needs of the professional. If it doesn’t, it cannot be called professional software.  If you cater to the needs of the masses, many of whom are NOT professional, then they need to make it a non-pro app.  But not call it Final Cut PRO.  If they do this, they are brain dead halfwits. 

So what if the majority of FCP users aren’t in the professional editing realm?  Or don’t use tape.  What does that have to do with ANYTHING?  Most of the Avid systems don’t capture or output to tape…only a few do.  Most are used as offline editing machines…does that mean that they should do away with tape capture/output?  No, that would be a stupid thing to do.  I don’t get the mindset of catering to the masses.  That’s almost like catering to the lowest common denominator.

That is what gets us watered down products.  Watered down movies, TV shows, applications…trying to make it appeal to everyone.  Instead of trying to make a QUALITY show, movie, product…things are focus grouped and mass appealed.  And that is destroying creativity, destroying the art of films.  Everything is marketted to everyone, instead of aiming high and making something the best it can be, and seeing who’ll come see it, use it.

Only 10% of the people who drive an automatic use the low gears…2, 1…etc.  So, should it be removed because the MASSES don’t use it?  Why have it if only 10% of the people use it.  BECAUSE, they use it for a good reason.  Snow or ice on the road, steep hills.  For very valid reasons.  Remove it and they are stuck…or will crash.  Or will buy the car that suits their needs. 

If Avid did this, there would be a HUGE outcry.  Why is it different if FCP does it?  Oh, because only 10% of the users use that? 

Adobe is getting more respect BECAUSE it is more feature rich and does what the professionals need.  Including capture from and output to tape, working with more third party capture hardware…that has earned it more respect, and in turn, more users. 

You cater to the professionals, give them what they need, because when people find out “Hey, the Coen brothers edited their last 4 films on FCP,” or “Walter Murch cut 3 films on FCP,” “FCP used to cut THE CLOSER?” they think, “cool!  I want the software that professionals are using.”  It doesn’t matter how good it is, or if it does exactly what they need and ONLY what they need.  It will fail.  Just look at Media 100 for an example. 

The reasoning is wrong.  Flat out wrong.

Yes, I know that the lower end mac book pros lost the Express34 slot for the same reason…let’s not go there.

Posted by Shane_Ross  on  03/14  at  09:15 AM

---

First off, I think that 10% number is ridiculous.  Granted, I work in video production, but easily 99% of the editors I know are FCP users (I don’t do much TV or film work), and I’d put 90% of those editors into the ‘Pro’ user demographic.  So if there’s a 10% to be designated, I think it’s casual users, not pro users.

That said, the one major feature that this article doesn’t mention and that I desperately wish Apple would add to this major revision of FCP is the ability to set your scratch disk by project.  I work off many, many external drives, and having a central scratch disk simply isn’t feasible.  So having each project know exactly where its scratch disk when I open it rather than me constantly having to reset it would be a godsend.  Other than that, I just really, really hope they don’t completely wreck the interface just for the sake of change (as frankly they did with iMovie…I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that ‘09 and later is a better interface than HD).

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/14  at  05:17 PM

---

Good points all.

@Jack: the current FCP way of handling scratch disks is very cumbersome. I think that a revision of scratch disks would go hand in hand with better media management. And a project level setting of them would be very nice.

Posted by Scott Simmons  on  03/15  at  07:47 AM

---

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: