On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:07:07 -0700, newvideo@amug.org (Bill Davis) wrote:

>SNIP
>>
>> I don't understand this point of view, since it ignores even
>> cheaper, even more intuitive, even faster-rendering, even
>> more versatile systems which were around before FCP, and
>> which until recently had better CODECs for less error in
>> the rendered video (and therefore were even a bit more
>> "broadcast" ready than FCP...). The myopia of the Mac crowd
>> (and their odd clinging to their more expensive and less
>> able editing solution in the face of evidence of the
>> existence of other more able and less expensive systems)
>> does truly amaze me... Anyway, enough said on all this
>> (use whatever you like, of course!) - but one cannot
>> help observing that the power of belief over evidence
>> can be truly amazing... ;-)

>I too am tired of being anything like "combative." I agree that everyone
>will use the solution that suits them best.
>
>The only thing I do want to point out before we leave this subject behind
>is that we all MUST agree that video creating is rapidly ceasing to be as
>much a "team sport" and becoming the province of empowered individuals. As
>that happens, it's silly to say "my system is 'better' than yours" It's
>true of us Mac people and it's EQUALLY true of those who use other
>systems. It's like telling a pianist that a Bosendorfer is "better" than a
>Steinway. If the player likes the "touch" of one verse another, what's the
>point of telling him or her that they're WRONG?

This was not my intent - it was my intent to point out that in ways that may be critical to editors, FCP is inferior to
some other editors, and therefore should not be presented,
as it often seems to be, as a great general-purpose editor,
when its characteristics can easily stop one dead in the
water when editing some fairly common types of videos...

>You may feel that there are other "better" systems out there. For your
>preferences and work style that may be absolutely true. One may even cost
>less than the other. But arguing that a synthesizer is a "better"
>insturment for composing music simply because it has more features -
>ignores the very process of music composition.

Yes, of course...

>I have no doubt that you can make a fine video program on the system you
>use. You also will surely agree that there are likely to be kids out there
>making quite fine programs on Casablancas and Screenplay systems as well.
>In the end, the marketplace will determine the winners and the losers.

I never argued against any of the above...

>I am still interested, however, as to the kind of work that both you and
>Chazdoz persue. (honestly) As I mentioned, I make corporate videos for a
>living. I've been self-employed for the past eighteen years. I typically
>do 25 to 30 projects a year.

Then maybe a cuts-only editor (with minor amounts
of processing/transitions/special-effects added
to the project) would probably work fine...;-)

>From your sig line, I presume you're either an instructor or perhaps
>student in higher education. I don't know about Chazdoz. I'd be interested
>in the kind of video projects you both do. Do you make videos for a
>living?

Yes, as well as still photography, for longer than I
can imagine...;-) Check out my web page for some idea of
the variety of the still work I do (my video work is
about equally varied in type...).

>I'd like to get a handle on the kind of work you do so I can see if it
>matches the kind of work I do. If so, and you guys have discovered robust,
>dependable systems that work better, faster and cheaper, that's
>information I can use.

The Canopus-Raptor (with Premiere on a PII/PIII/Celeron
dual-monitor + TV system that has been optimized for video)
can handle things like 3-camera editing (with color-matching
and sharpening, done in reasonable time, for a reasonable
price for gear), very long edits (like three hour videos),
multiple projects, multiple levels of rendering without
quality losses, 3-D work, extensive audio work, etc., etc.,
etc. - in other words, the system is not limited to only
some types of video work... (I do weddings, publicity work,
travel, nature, "aht", whatever - I may find myself
recording an opera, a memorial service, a story, or just
the change of the seasons..., but my editing system can
handle just about anything I have tried to do with it).
Since we build our own computers (and occasionally build
them for others), we can use the best parts from a variety
of sources, and make sure the parts are as compatible as
possible. Are our systems glitch-free? No, but close...;-)
And they are versatile...;-) Obviously, other systems can
work at least equally well for specific tasks, but some
are more expensive, and some are more limited in the
range of what they can do well (and some are just about
equally versatile for about the same price [this is added
so as not to spark again the MSPro/Premiere/EditDV
discussion.....;-]).