Re: [Frameworks] FInal Cut Pro X

From: Alistair Stray <>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:30:17 +0100 (BST)

If you buy into a truly proprietary system digitally you're buying a RED, and if you have that kind of money (even to rent one really) you're going to have no problem buying the edit and compositing software that supports its codec (which is most of them). The way things go in digital is that all the software makes a serious effort to support as many formats and workflows as possible (with the exception of FCPX), I can't see how your footage will ever become unplayable or beyond re-editing or transcoding. I cannot think of a single example where this has been the case, and I switched to digital editing around 20 years ago. As David Tetzlaff said, old codecs don't ever really disappear. There are good HD codecs out there that are free, and there always will be, and the good software will always support them. It would be suicide for the software companies to withdraw support for them. Studios and all artists really respond badly to large changes, or having
 their workflow knackered. Proprietary software is not hampering creativity, you buy the software that does the job you want, and you can be pretty sure it will ingest the footage that you have. Open Source software is great, I've contributed to various code bases in the past, (In my younger years I used to write patches and fixes for Povray), but frankly it does not deliver tools good enough for digital editing and compositing. Someone cited using Ubuntu, which I recently stopped using completely after they royally messed up the UI. Also, the only really stable NLE that actually supports a real HD workflow is built into Blender (a 3d animation program) and is a PITA to use. Kdenlive, PiTiVi etc just don't deliver stability or a decent editing workflow. This is though where the proprietary codecs do hamper things, because the open source community, by principle, cannot pay the licence to include them in the software. But this is not the main problem with open source projects,
 which is that they don't actually have to listen to their user base at all, they can do what they like because there are no consequences to their decisions. In fact, whoever shouts loudest in a development team tends to get their way, open source development groups are very, very cliquey, and patches/fixes are dealt with mostly on a 'can I be arsed to do this' basis. It is development and design by whim by a small number of individuals. This results in the disaster that is the current release of Ubuntu. Good open source projects are run exactly the same way as commercial software projects (Linux Kernel, Firefox etc), unfortunately none of the open source creative projects (even gimp has gone awry) aren't run this way. In terms of NLEs and compositing programs the open source equivalents (with the exception of Lightworks) are many years behind the commercial products. In fact there isn't an open source node based comping app at all (PureData ? er.. nope,
 that's an audio app with some video support fiddled into it, and badly). Commercial products are more stable, the developers and designers have to listen to their users, (with the exception of the mad egotistical attitude of Apple), provide roadmaps of future development so their customers can plan for, and discuss with them, future changes to the software (again this is something Apple have lacked). Sure, open source projects do occasionally provide development road maps, but the developers work on the projects in their spare time, and there is no relying on when a fix or a feature will ship, or if it ever will. As for audio editing and production in open source land, omg thats a whole different story of woe and unusability in itself.  . So.. I'm just one guy knocking out experimental videos on commercial software, I don't feel creatively hampered, in fact I feel liberated by the options and flexible workflow I have in nuke particularly. Also, I could always switch to other applications if I needed too because I'm on a PC platform.  Because I use the same software that the large studios and VFX houses use I can be pretty sure that nothing I use is going to go FCPX on me too, as the software companies that make it rely entirely on the studios and VFX houses for their revenue stream. I also don't want to be fighting with my tools, which is what using the open source apps felt like.   I guess Apple will do with the FCP 7 & FCS 3 code base what they did with Shake and offer to sell the source code to studios who rely on it to maintain it themselves. You can't really draw and analogy between film companies and software producers ?, You're right you can't but for completely different reasons to the ones I think you're hinting at. Old software doesn't stop working or disappear on you when the company who developed it decide to drop it or change it. Also there is a lot more choice out there than you think, not just in the software but in how you use it, working in the digital medium is not as remotely predetermined as I think you're trying to suggest. Sure it used to be, I could guess what software was used on any given VFX shot pretty well years ago, now I could barely guess the workflow let alone the application used. Theres usually at least 3-5 different ways to achieve a shot or a look within any given good application these days. ________________________________ From: sef208 <> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <> Sent: Wednesday, 29 June 2011, 17:27 Subject: Re: [Frameworks] FInal Cut Pro X yep, and that is a problem too. But I think the digital platform issue is a little different  - even with the cutbacks, there are still a variety of choices for stocks and a stock is way less predetermined than a computer program - in other words, you can't really draw an analogy between film companies and computer software producers.   On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:55 AM, graeme hogg <> wrote: >Eastman Kodak, Fuji etc are they not propietry interests? > >Anyone encountred OpenEXR file format. Developed by ILM of all people. > > >> The lesson is proprietary software is a hindrance to creativity. > >_______________________________________________ >FrameWorks mailing list > > > _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list

FrameWorks mailing list
Received on Wed Jun 29 2011 - 10:30:26 CDT