Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
This is what I do / did for semester one. Project one:one week, one minute, one shot, no sound. Project two: one week, two shots, and so on (including, or not, shot one from the previous project, building up to more complex structures. Drawing on film early on in the semester. A BW project etc. Years ago, on the Time Based Media course founded by David Hall at KIAD Maidstone (UK), we used to have the students make no-technology time-based work before they got their hands on camcorders. This generally meant performance, a walk-through environment, sometimes a crawl through environment, eg, where the spectator had to crawl through a tunnel made of cardboard boxes whiles they were subjected to human-generated effects from outside the tunnel, or an object that could only be seen in a series of successive moves etc. Worked well. Nicky. -Original Message- From: John Knecht jkne...@colgate.edu To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Sent: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:39 Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking Tim, I would hold their first projects to one minute in length. Talk to them up front about each frame being precious. Hold them responsible for what they shoot. Talk to them about light, color, motion (the camera moving and what is being shot as moving). Keep it extraordinarily essential. If they can learn to appreciate the shot that they are making, if they can think about composition, color, and the semiotic system within each framed rectangle, then they will be able someday to make any kind of film; narrative, doc, or strictly formal. Forget this story telling stuff. That is something else. Teach them about light and motion. You will then have empowered them to use a cinematic tool to convey the content of what ever it is that they want to say to the world. Then they can tell their stories if they have something to say. jk On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Tim Halloran televis...@hotmail.com wrote: But with our students it actually is speed that's killing creativity, as they become more and more acclimated to working fast--digital cameras, digital editing systems, etc. Ah, it's just terrible--so much junk. Shoot slow, edit slow, experience slow. ;] Tim From: fl...@flickharrison.com Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:29:52 -0700 To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking On Apr 18, 2014, at 15:26 , Tim Halloran televis...@hotmail.com wrote: Slow=bad?! Bah. Tim It's nice to work slowly if you are trying to do so; it's insanely annoying if you are not. Imagine if a painter put a stroke on the canvas and couldn't see it for 30 seconds afterwards. Not too many painters are striving to achieve that workflow. ;-) -- * WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD? http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison * FLICK's WEBSITE: http://www.flickharrison.com ↑ Grab this Headline Animator Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Flick Harrison fl...@flickharrison.com wrote: ...will sloow you down, and that's bad creatively... - Flick ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- John Knecht, Russell Colgate Distinguished University Professor of Art and Art History and Film and Media Studies ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
look at ebay, one man's trash is another man's treasure. i think it is good for the old to learn from the young and vice versa. it is a negotiation. That is teaching, not one way. That is constructivist theory and I think it fits right well with experimental philosophies of filmmaking. On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:25 AM, nicky.ham...@talktalk.net wrote: This is what I do / did for semester one. Project one:one week, one minute, one shot, no sound. Project two: one week, two shots, and so on (including, or not, shot one from the previous project, building up to more complex structures. Drawing on film early on in the semester. A BW project etc. Years ago, on the Time Based Media course founded by David Hall at KIAD Maidstone (UK), we used to have the students make no-technology time-based work before they got their hands on camcorders. This generally meant performance, a walk-through environment, sometimes a crawl through environment, eg, where the spectator had to crawl through a tunnel made of cardboard boxes whiles they were subjected to human-generated effects from outside the tunnel, or an object that could only be seen in a series of successive moves etc. Worked well. Nicky. -Original Message- From: John Knecht jkne...@colgate.edu To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Sent: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:39 Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking Tim, I would hold their first projects to one minute in length. Talk to them up front about each frame being precious. Hold them responsible for what they shoot. Talk to them about light, color, motion (the camera moving and what is being shot as moving). Keep it extraordinarily essential. If they can learn to appreciate the shot that they are making, if they can think about composition, color, and the semiotic system within each framed rectangle, then they will be able someday to make any kind of film; narrative, doc, or strictly formal. Forget this story telling stuff. That is something else. Teach them about light and motion. You will then have empowered them to use a cinematic tool to convey the content of what ever it is that they want to say to the world. Then they can tell their stories if they have something to say. jk On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Tim Halloran televis...@hotmail.comwrote: But with our students it actually is speed that's killing creativity, as they become more and more acclimated to working fast--digital cameras, digital editing systems, etc. Ah, it's just terrible--so much junk. Shoot slow, edit slow, experience slow. ;] Tim -- From: fl...@flickharrison.com Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:29:52 -0700 To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking On Apr 18, 2014, at 15:26 , Tim Halloran televis...@hotmail.com wrote: Slow=bad?! Bah. Tim It's nice to work slowly if you are trying to do so; it's insanely annoying if you are not. Imagine if a painter put a stroke on the canvas and couldn't see it for 30 seconds afterwards. Not too many painters are striving to achieve that workflow. ;-) -- ** WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD?* http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison ** FLICK's WEBSITE: * http://www.flickharrison.com [image: Zero for Conduct]http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ZeroForConduct/~6/2 ↑ Grab this Headline Animatorhttp://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/headlineanimator/install?id=90rffbei3nr88m9ci3u0qr9d14w=2 Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Flick Harrison fl...@flickharrison.com wrote: ...will sloow you down, and that's bad creatively... - Flick ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- John Knecht, Russell Colgate Distinguished University Professor of Art and Art History and Film and Media Studies ___ FrameWorks mailing listFrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.comhttps://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
If you want to piss off students, wasting their time and money, then by all means, make them learn some specialized, anachronistic subject that has little or no application in the real world. Aaron ten years ago at art school I went to, this was the argument from management about 16mm filmmmaking. Strangely enough, we're in the midst of another resurgence. technology is neither new nor old. Adjuncts have to continually prove/improve themselves, and can't rest on their laurels. Ever. Also Aaron Local art school has a five year cap on sessionals--you can teach a course or two every year for up to five years and then never teach again. The results-- sessionals give the school as much investment that the school gives to them. Students suffer. best Chris ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
But with our students it actually is speed that's killing creativity, as they become more and more acclimated to working fast--digital cameras, digital editing systems, etc. Ah, it's just terrible--so much junk. Shoot slow, edit slow, experience slow. ;] Tim From: fl...@flickharrison.com Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:29:52 -0700 To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking On Apr 18, 2014, at 15:26 , Tim Halloran televis...@hotmail.com wrote: Slow=bad?! Bah. Tim It's nice to work slowly if you are trying to do so; it's insanely annoying if you are not. Imagine if a painter put a stroke on the canvas and couldn't see it for 30 seconds afterwards. Not too many painters are striving to achieve that workflow. ;-) -- * WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD? http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison * FLICK's WEBSITE: http://www.flickharrison.com ↑ Grab this Headline Animator Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Flick Harrison fl...@flickharrison.com wrote: ...will sloow you down, and that's bad creatively... - Flick ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
Classes are only 13 weeks. :) On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Tim Halloran televis...@hotmail.comwrote: But with our students it actually is speed that's killing creativity, as they become more and more acclimated to working fast--digital cameras, digital editing systems, etc. Ah, it's just terrible--so much junk. Shoot slow, edit slow, experience slow. ;] Tim -- From: fl...@flickharrison.com Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:29:52 -0700 To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking On Apr 18, 2014, at 15:26 , Tim Halloran televis...@hotmail.com wrote: Slow=bad?! Bah. Tim It's nice to work slowly if you are trying to do so; it's insanely annoying if you are not. Imagine if a painter put a stroke on the canvas and couldn't see it for 30 seconds afterwards. Not too many painters are striving to achieve that workflow. ;-) -- ** WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD?* http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison ** FLICK's WEBSITE: * http://www.flickharrison.com [image: Zero for Conduct]http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ZeroForConduct/~6/2 ↑ Grab this Headline Animatorhttp://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/headlineanimator/install?id=90rffbei3nr88m9ci3u0qr9d14w=2 Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Flick Harrison fl...@flickharrison.com wrote: ...will sloow you down, and that's bad creatively... - Flick ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
Of course. Well stated. Tim Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:39:10 -0400 From: jkne...@colgate.edu To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking Tim, I would hold their first projects to one minute in length. Talk to them up front about each frame being precious. Hold them responsible for what they shoot. Talk to them about light, color, motion (the camera moving and what is being shot as moving). Keep it extraordinarily essential. If they can learn to appreciate the shot that they are making, if they can think about composition, color, and the semiotic system within each framed rectangle, then they will be able someday to make any kind of film; narrative, doc, or strictly formal. Forget this story telling stuff. That is something else. Teach them about light and motion. You will then have empowered them to use a cinematic tool to convey the content of what ever it is that they want to say to the world. Then they can tell their stories if they have something to say. jk On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Tim Halloran televis...@hotmail.com wrote: But with our students it actually is speed that's killing creativity, as they become more and more acclimated to working fast--digital cameras, digital editing systems, etc. Ah, it's just terrible--so much junk. Shoot slow, edit slow, experience slow. ;] Tim From: fl...@flickharrison.com Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:29:52 -0700 To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking On Apr 18, 2014, at 15:26 , Tim Halloran televis...@hotmail.com wrote: Slow=bad?! Bah. Tim It's nice to work slowly if you are trying to do so; it's insanely annoying if you are not. Imagine if a painter put a stroke on the canvas and couldn't see it for 30 seconds afterwards. Not too many painters are striving to achieve that workflow. ;-) -- * WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD? http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison * FLICK's WEBSITE: http://www.flickharrison.com ↑ Grab this Headline Animator Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Flick Harrison fl...@flickharrison.com wrote: ...will sloow you down, and that's bad creatively... - Flick ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- John Knecht, Russell Colgate Distinguished University Professor of Art and Art History and Film and Media Studies ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
Tim, I would hold their first projects to one minute in length. Talk to them up front about each frame being precious. Hold them responsible for what they shoot. Talk to them about light, color, motion (the camera moving and what is being shot as moving). Keep it extraordinarily essential. If they can learn to appreciate the shot that they are making, if they can think about composition, color, and the semiotic system within each framed rectangle, then they will be able someday to make any kind of film; narrative, doc, or strictly formal. Forget this story telling stuff. That is something else. Teach them about light and motion. You will then have empowered them to use a cinematic tool to convey the content of what ever it is that they want to say to the world. Then they can tell their stories if they have something to say. jk On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Tim Halloran televis...@hotmail.comwrote: But with our students it actually is speed that's killing creativity, as they become more and more acclimated to working fast--digital cameras, digital editing systems, etc. Ah, it's just terrible--so much junk. Shoot slow, edit slow, experience slow. ;] Tim -- From: fl...@flickharrison.com Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:29:52 -0700 To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking On Apr 18, 2014, at 15:26 , Tim Halloran televis...@hotmail.com wrote: Slow=bad?! Bah. Tim It's nice to work slowly if you are trying to do so; it's insanely annoying if you are not. Imagine if a painter put a stroke on the canvas and couldn't see it for 30 seconds afterwards. Not too many painters are striving to achieve that workflow. ;-) -- ** WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD?* http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison ** FLICK's WEBSITE: * http://www.flickharrison.com [image: Zero for Conduct]http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ZeroForConduct/~6/2 ↑ Grab this Headline Animatorhttp://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/headlineanimator/install?id=90rffbei3nr88m9ci3u0qr9d14w=2 Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Flick Harrison fl...@flickharrison.com wrote: ...will sloow you down, and that's bad creatively... - Flick ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- John Knecht, Russell Colgate Distinguished University Professor of Art and Art History and Film and Media Studies ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
Damn you kids, get off my lawn!! This argument has been going on ever since the Sony Porta-pak video system became available in the late 60s. Lower cost and instant gratification has supposedly killed creativity. But of course, now there is an entire historical catalog of long form video art that is now in the experimental cinema canon, preserved in museums, part of the establishment. Technology is not making things too easy, it's enabling people who previously couldn't make movies to be creative. They often do need guidance, and that guidance has to come from mentors who understand the art of cinema as well as its technological developments. Rejecting the technology is a losing strategy. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. To stay relevant, instructors must adapt to the changing times. This is the fundamental issue with education across the board. Aaron At 4/23/2014, you wrote: But with our students it actually is speed that's killing creativity, as they become more and more acclimated to working fast--digital cameras, digital editing systems, etc. Ah, it's just terrible--so much junk. Shoot slow, edit slow, experience slow. ;] Tim -- From: fl...@flickharrison.com Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:29:52 -0700 To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking On Apr 18, 2014, at 15:26 , Tim Halloran mailto:televis...@hotmail.comtelevis...@hotmail.com wrote: Slow=bad?! Bah. Tim It's nice to work slowly if you are trying to do so; it's insanely annoying if you are not. Imagine if a painter put a stroke on the canvas and couldn't see it for 30 seconds afterwards. Not too many painters are striving to achieve that workflow. ;-) -- * WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD? http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrisonhttp://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison * FLICK's WEBSITE: http://www.flickharrison.comhttp://www.flickharrison.comhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ZeroForConduct/~6/2 http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/headlineanimator/install?id=90rffbei3nr88m9ci3u0qr9d14w=2$B,(B Grab this Headline Animator Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Flick Harrison mailto:fl...@flickharrison.comfl...@flickharrison.com wrote: ...will sloow you down, and that's bad creatively... - Flick ___ FrameWorks mailing list mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.comFrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.comFrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator http://dr-yo.com http://digitalartsguild.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
Forget this story telling stuff. That is something else. For a class or assignments defined by an experimental' rubric, sure. But for any general motion-picture production class story is essential, though not, of course in a Bob McKee Hollywood formula kind of way. Which is to say that choices in composition, color, and the semiotic system within each framed rectangle all should be made within the context of the overall purpose of the work. You have to have a goal in mind, something you want to say, to make good choices about how to use the medium to express it effectively. Thus, especially for beginning students who have no background in fine-art film, telling a story is not at all something else from the semiotics of the individual shot (or cut), but inseparable. ... As for the whole question of speed... I'm in complete agreement with John that introductory pedagogy should focus on the bread and butter aspects of shaping meaning (in the broad sense, which would include poetics, abstraction, etc.) In technical terms, to me this means straight cuts, and basic fades/dissolves in the NLE, things which place very low demand on computing power, and can be executed quickly on even the most basic hardware. A need for speed (if I may be so bold as to employ a Tom Cruise/Tony Scott film reference on Frameworks) suggests to me that students would be doing compositing or other kinds of effects work where rendering time becomes an issue. To me, THAT is Something Else (too much French pastry in the words of the great Al McGuire) and it's presence in any introductory class is (to mix metaphors) putting the cart before the horse, IMHO. ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
You, sir, are obviously neither an educator nor an artist. ;] Tim Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:02:39 -0700 To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com From: aa...@digitalartsguild.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking Damn you kids, get off my lawn!! This argument has been going on ever since the Sony Porta-pak video system became available in the late 60s. Lower cost and instant gratification has supposedly killed creativity. But of course, now there is an entire historical catalog of long form video art that is now in the experimental cinema canon, preserved in museums, part of the establishment. Technology is not making things too easy, it's enabling people who previously couldn't make movies to be creative. They often do need guidance, and that guidance has to come from mentors who understand the art of cinema as well as its technological developments. Rejecting the technology is a losing strategy. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. To stay relevant, instructors must adapt to the changing times. This is the fundamental issue with education across the board. Aaron At 4/23/2014, you wrote: But with our students it actually is speed that's killing creativity, as they become more and more acclimated to working fast--digital cameras, digital editing systems, etc. Ah, it's just terrible--so much junk. Shoot slow, edit slow, experience slow. ;] Tim -- From: fl...@flickharrison.com Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:29:52 -0700 To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking On Apr 18, 2014, at 15:26 , Tim Halloran mailto:televis...@hotmail.comtelevis...@hotmail.com wrote: Slow=bad?! Bah. Tim It's nice to work slowly if you are trying to do so; it's insanely annoying if you are not. Imagine if a painter put a stroke on the canvas and couldn't see it for 30 seconds afterwards. Not too many painters are striving to achieve that workflow. ;-) -- * WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD? http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrisonhttp://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison * FLICK's WEBSITE: http://www.flickharrison.comhttp://www.flickharrison.comhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ZeroForConduct/~6/2 http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/headlineanimator/install?id=90rffbei3nr88m9ci3u0qr9d14w=2$B,(B Grab this Headline Animator Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Flick Harrison mailto:fl...@flickharrison.comfl...@flickharrison.com wrote: ...will sloow you down, and that's bad creatively... - Flick ___ FrameWorks mailing list mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.comFrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.comFrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator http://dr-yo.com http://digitalartsguild.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
On 4/23/2014 4:21 PM, Tim Halloran wrote: You, sir, are obviously neither an educator nor an artist. ;] There is just about never a reason for an ad hominem attack such as this one. Fred Camper Chicago ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
Lol. Alright, was just kidding around, but apologies to any delicate flowers who took offense. Tim Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:30:37 -0500 From: f...@fredcamper.com To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking On 4/23/2014 4:21 PM, Tim Halloran wrote: You, sir, are obviously neither an educator nor an artist. ;] There is just about never a reason for an ad hominem attack such as this one. Fred Camper Chicago ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/framewor ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
But you _can_ reject the technology. Not at all times, nor throughout the whole program. But, just because oil painting exists does not mean that art students shouldn't learn how to make frescos. --scott ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
It's true, professors with tenure can ignore the changing times. There's no accountability and no consequences, so tenured professors can be rigid, inflexible, and anachronistic, and get away with it. But of course, that is doing the students a disservice. There's a huge disconnect between academia and the real world, and young people know it. In a way, the decline of tenure and the expansion of adjunct hires is good for students. It's bad from a labor perspective, but at least it keeps fresh blood coming in. Adjuncts have to continually prove/improve themselves, and can't rest on their laurels. Ever. Regarding technology, I'm a selective adopter. Just because something is new does not make it good. But the corollary to this is that just because something is familiar does not make it good, either. We all must think critically about technology if we are to be effective educators, makers, and even consumers. Control the tools, or they will control you. The fresco analogy unintentionally makes the opposite point. Art schools don't teach fresco painting anymore, except as an extremely specialist subject. Oil painting is a widely adopted technique that has immediate application across the board. Fresco painting is, for the most part, a dead art. So, in fact, students should not be required to learn it. If you want to piss off students, wasting their time and money, then by all means, make them learn some specialized, anachronistic subject that has little or no application in the real world. Aaron At 4/23/2014, you wrote: But you _can_ reject the technology. Not at all times, nor throughout the whole program. But, just because oil painting exists does not mean that art students shouldn't learn how to make frescos. --scott ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator http://dr-yo.com http://digitalartsguild.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
Then again, with all the dross out in the world, some people/students should never be allowed to make a film/video. Peter (Perth) On 24/04/2014 8:12 am, Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com wrote: It's true, professors with tenure can ignore the changing times. There's no accountability and no consequences, so tenured professors can be rigid, inflexible, and anachronistic, and get away with it. But of course, that is doing the students a disservice. There's a huge disconnect between academia and the real world, and young people know it. In a way, the decline of tenure and the expansion of adjunct hires is good for students. It's bad from a labor perspective, but at least it keeps fresh blood coming in. Adjuncts have to continually prove/improve themselves, and can't rest on their laurels. Ever. Regarding technology, I'm a selective adopter. Just because something is new does not make it good. But the corollary to this is that just because something is familiar does not make it good, either. We all must think critically about technology if we are to be effective educators, makers, and even consumers. Control the tools, or they will control you. The fresco analogy unintentionally makes the opposite point. Art schools don't teach fresco painting anymore, except as an extremely specialist subject. Oil painting is a widely adopted technique that has immediate application across the board. Fresco painting is, for the most part, a dead art. So, in fact, students should not be required to learn it. If you want to piss off students, wasting their time and money, then by all means, make them learn some specialized, anachronistic subject that has little or no application in the real world. Aaron At 4/23/2014, you wrote: But you _can_ reject the technology. Not at all times, nor throughout the whole program. But, just because oil painting exists does not mean that art students shouldn't learn how to make frescos. --scott ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator http://dr-yo.com http://digitalartsguild.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
As a tenured professor who has spent the entire day meeting with students about their work, writing page-long evaluations of same, assisting with the preparation of a student film festival - and the entire week researching digital filmmaking technology and contemporary French cinema (to name two) to improve my knowledge of these things for the next two weeks of film history lectures, I don't have a lot of time to jump into Frameworks fracases. I'll just briefly call Bullshit on your cliche, tired, caricatural of tenured professors. Oh, I'm also assisting another tenured colleague prepare his performance and salary review (no accountability and no consequences?). Saying adjuncts are good for students is more bullshit. We've had plenty of part time and adjunct hires who have done just as poor work as the proverbial checked out tenured prof. An adjunct hired for a single semester as a leave replacement has even less motivation to prove him/herself than a tenured faculty member - not that it's the adjunct's fault. And a revolving door of overworked and underpaid adjuncts that provides no consistency or continuity in a department is not good for students either. Adjuncts don't have the market cornered on youthful exuberance and with-it-ness. As for application in the real world: I hear that refrain regularly from anti-intellectual conservatives who want to eliminate arts and humanities programs, who demand that colleges focus on professional or career readiness. If that's all you value, then yeah, teaching film students how to use Bolexes, Steenbecks, etc., is pretty useless - but then so is teaching them about practically anything else. Jonathan Walley (tenured professor) Department of Cinema (which I'm told is dead) Denison University (which is a liberal arts school teaching all sorts of things with no application in the real world) On Apr 23, 2014, at 8:12 PM, Aaron F. Ross wrote: It's true, professors with tenure can ignore the changing times. There's no accountability and no consequences, so tenured professors can be rigid, inflexible, and anachronistic, and get away with it. But of course, that is doing the students a disservice. There's a huge disconnect between academia and the real world, and young people know it. In a way, the decline of tenure and the expansion of adjunct hires is good for students. It's bad from a labor perspective, but at least it keeps fresh blood coming in. Adjuncts have to continually prove/improve themselves, and can't rest on their laurels. Ever. Regarding technology, I'm a selective adopter. Just because something is new does not make it good. But the corollary to this is that just because something is familiar does not make it good, either. We all must think critically about technology if we are to be effective educators, makers, and even consumers. Control the tools, or they will control you. The fresco analogy unintentionally makes the opposite point. Art schools don't teach fresco painting anymore, except as an extremely specialist subject. Oil painting is a widely adopted technique that has immediate application across the board. Fresco painting is, for the most part, a dead art. So, in fact, students should not be required to learn it. If you want to piss off students, wasting their time and money, then by all means, make them learn some specialized, anachronistic subject that has little or no application in the real world. Aaron At 4/23/2014, you wrote: But you _can_ reject the technology. Not at all times, nor throughout the whole program. But, just because oil painting exists does not mean that art students shouldn't learn how to make frescos. --scott ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator http://dr-yo.com http://digitalartsguild.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
Late to the conversation, please forgive. When I was teaching (an associates degree program), I taught as I had learned. Tell a story visually in three minutes. Edit in camera, no retakes, if there is a mistake, so be it, it is after all only an exercise. Yes it is a pain if you are parallel editing, but again, it is an exercise. After the footage is reviewed, discussed, and the mistakes, wonderful and not so wonderful, are looked at. Then go shoot the same story again, this time though, you can edit the footage in an NLE, so you can do re-takes, and etc. etc. I think my students got something out of that, even though shooting in video and editing on an NLE. Some students fought like hell, throwing up creative roadblocks, and others had to be hauled back in, as they had designs to fly before they could even crawl (That's fine and great, but got to learn the rules or guidelines as I called them, then learn why they work, and then study and figure out how and when to break them). It does few any good to bite off too much, and become discouraged. Perhaps the easiest thing about teaching is recognizing which student needs the nudge, and which need a brake, the hardest is getting them to trust you. -- Steven Gladstone New York Based Filmmaker 917-886-5858 http://www.gladstonefilms.com http://roadtodad.blogspot.com/ http://indiekicker.reelgrok.com/ http://www.blakehousemovie.com http://www.hellion.gladstonefilms.com On 4/23/14, 8:36 PM, Peter Mudie wrote: Then again, with all the dross out in the world, some people/students should never be allowed to make a film/video. Peter (Perth) On 24/04/2014 8:12 am, Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com wrote: It's true, professors with tenure can ignore the changing times. There's no accountability and no consequences, so tenured professors can be rigid, inflexible, and anachronistic, and get away with it. But of course, that is doing the students a disservice. There's a huge disconnect between academia and the real world, and young people know it. In a way, the decline of tenure and the expansion of adjunct hires is good for students. It's bad from a labor perspective, but at least it keeps fresh blood coming in. Adjuncts have to continually prove/improve themselves, and can't rest on their laurels. Ever. Regarding technology, I'm a selective adopter. Just because something is new does not make it good. But the corollary to this is that just because something is familiar does not make it good, either. We all must think critically about technology if we are to be effective educators, makers, and even consumers. Control the tools, or they will control you. The fresco analogy unintentionally makes the opposite point. Art schools don't teach fresco painting anymore, except as an extremely specialist subject. Oil painting is a widely adopted technique that has immediate application across the board. Fresco painting is, for the most part, a dead art. So, in fact, students should not be required to learn it. If you want to piss off students, wasting their time and money, then by all means, make them learn some specialized, anachronistic subject that has little or no application in the real world. Aaron At 4/23/2014, you wrote: But you _can_ reject the technology. Not at all times, nor throughout the whole program. But, just because oil painting exists does not mean that art students shouldn't learn how to make frescos. --scott ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator http://dr-yo.com http://digitalartsguild.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- Steven Gladstone New York Based Filmmaker 917-886-5858 http://www.gladstonefilms.com http://roadtodad.blogspot.com/ http://indiekicker.reelgrok.com/ http://www.blakehousemovie.com http://www.hellion.gladstonefilms.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
On Apr 18, 2014, at 15:26 , Tim Halloran televis...@hotmail.com wrote: Slow=bad?! Bah. Tim It's nice to work slowly if you are trying to do so; it's insanely annoying if you are not. Imagine if a painter put a stroke on the canvas and couldn't see it for 30 seconds afterwards. Not too many painters are striving to achieve that workflow. ;-) -- * WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD? http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison * FLICK's WEBSITE: http://www.flickharrison.com ↑ Grab this Headline Animator Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Flick Harrison fl...@flickharrison.com wrote: ...will sloow you down, and that's bad creatively... - Flick ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
Re below, they didn't: http://www.bolex.ch/NEW/index.php Nicky -Original Message- From: David Tetzlaff djte...@gmail.com To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Sent: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 18:01 Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would abandon FCP7. When Bolex stopped making the H16, ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
I teach at CalArts and we switched our editing curriculum over to Avid two years ago from FCP 7, mainly because FCP X and Premiere were not satisfactory for our workflows, including working with flex files and cut lists for 16mm editing (though animation students learn Premiere to integrate with After Effects). We still have FCP 7 installed for those who haven't made the transition, but it's getting harder for the tech people to maintain, as it conflicts with newer versions of QuickTime and other software, so they may be bailing on it next year. While each of the current NLEs have their plusses and minuses and we'd rather not have technology be an inhibiting factor in our students' creative evolution, as Adam mentioned previously, Avid still provides more opportunities for employment in post-production here in Los Angeles, where I am seeing those companies who were reluctant to give up FCP 7 for the past couple of years, finally making the switch to Avid (even independent documentary productions). Best, Laura Kraning ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
FCP X feels like it's intended for assembling TV news programs instead of feature films. That's probably fine for some things, but it depends what you're trying to teach. --scott ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
assembling TV news programs what do you mean by this? Seriously, I think there is a critique of FCP X to be made, its just that I NEVER actually hear it. Feels like it is intended for that can't make any sense. OH, THE CHILDREN! On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Scott Dorsey klu...@panix.com wrote: FCP X feels like it's intended for assembling TV news programs instead of feature films. That's probably fine for some things, but it depends what you're trying to teach. --scott ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
I think I'd like to second what Scot has said here: it depends on what you're trying to teach. Over the last three years, I've taught at three different schools and have instructed with FCP 7, FCPX, and Premiere. I've had good results using all three, and I've had unimaginative, lazy projects in all three. With FCP X, I definitley had to design some assignment that demanded students explore the different interfaces, and specifically that they mix sound and tweak the presets on all of the effects. After doing this, however, I saw video newbies grow very quickly in terms of their comfort with the program, and they started thinking in terms of how to generate the images in their imagination, and not in terms of what the program was capable of doing. I don't mean to imply that this was universal amongst the students, but that creative, engaged students were able to gain a substantial mastery of the program in a short time. That being said, the interface still seems like it perhaps has a limit in terms of a pro workflow - one in which separate programs and technicians are utilized for sound design and VFX. Sound controls are probably the most perplexing part of FCPX. Although you can utilize ALL of the plugins from Logic and access their interfaces from within FCPX, there is not a true mixing panel - meaning I can apply compression, EQ, reverb, etc, but I can't really do a final mix. And, to add insult to injury, without a 3rd party program, you can't bounce to ProTools (or even Logic) to accomplish this. However, there are some clunky workarounds such as utilizing the roles function. OK, after that long explanation of some specifics, if I were rebooting the workflow of a program, and area specialization was part of department's pedagogy, I would choose Premiere. I don't think my Intro students have had substantial trouble learning it, it interfaces with other programs seamlessly, and most of the advantages of FCPX (real-time rendering, variety of plugins, ability to generate your own VFX) are there - or at least nearly there. FCPX is trying to be an almost All-In-One program, where you never have to utilize anything else in the creation of your video. Premiere is an editing program, with built in limitations designed for leaving higher level functions to other programs - much like FCP 7 was. -Jason Halprin On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:55 AM, Scott Dorsey klu...@panix.com wrote: FCP X feels like it's intended for assembling TV news programs instead of feature films. That's probably fine for some things, but it depends what you're trying to teach. --scott ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
One view: I work in the television industry. I think if everyone is starting fresh, you should teach them at least two editing systems, and Avid should be one, if they are interested in working in the professional world. Avid Premiere, or Avid and at least one FCP version. I think FCP X is fine for anyone who hasn¹t already become accustomed to anything else, but most people who have already become proficient in FCP 7 resent the changes. I actually haven¹t ever learned either. (I really should learn FCP7 because I have it and could then edit with it.) I think it does affect whether you are doing separate onlines or not. But for students who might not know any system yet, they could just as well learn FCP X and Avid. I don¹t know any company that has gone to FCP X yet, but I don¹t know every company. And if they are just going to do their own films and are not interested in Hollywood or professional gigs, and they are learning from scratch, then it doesn¹t really matter. Students will adapt to the flaws of any particular system. But professionally...My current company is on Avid; the last company I worked at was on FCP 7 and converted to Avid while I was there. Adobe going to all online will make it prohibitively expensive to people just out of school, more likely) But students who are interested in working ³in the industry² will find much more work available if they know After Effects and Photoshop. And if they are learning those, might as well learn Premiere. So teach them Avid, Premiere, and FCP. :-) On 4/18/14 6:48 AM, Jason Halprin jihalp...@yahoo.com wrote: I think I'd like to second what Scot has said here: it depends on what you're trying to teach. Over the last three years, I've taught at three different schools and have instructed with FCP 7, FCPX, and Premiere. I've had good results using all three, and I've had unimaginative, lazy projects in all three. With FCP X, I definitley had to design some assignment that demanded students explore the different interfaces, and specifically that they mix sound and tweak the presets on all of the effects. After doing this, however, I saw video newbies grow very quickly in terms of their comfort with the program, and they started thinking in terms of how to generate the images in their imagination, and not in terms of what the program was capable of doing. I don't mean to imply that this was universal amongst the students, but that creative, engaged students were able to gain a substantial mastery of the program in a short time. That being said, the interface still seems like it perhaps has a limit in terms of a pro workflow - one in which separate programs and technicians are utilized for sound design and VFX. Sound controls are probably the most perplexing part of FCPX. Although you can utilize ALL of the plugins from Logic and access their interfaces from within FCPX, there is not a true mixing panel - meaning I can apply compression, EQ, reverb, etc, but I can't really do a final mix. And, to add insult to injury, without a 3rd party program, you can't bounce to ProTools (or even Logic) to accomplish this. However, there are some clunky workarounds such as utilizing the roles function. OK, after that long explanation of some specifics, if I were rebooting the workflow of a program, and area specialization was part of department's pedagogy, I would choose Premiere. I don't think my Intro students have had substantial trouble learning it, it interfaces with other programs seamlessly, and most of the advantages of FCPX (real-time rendering, variety of plugins, ability to generate your own VFX) are there - or at least nearly there. FCPX is trying to be an almost All-In-One program, where you never have to utilize anything else in the creation of your video. Premiere is an editing program, with built in limitations designed for leaving higher level functions to other programs - much like FCP 7 was. -Jason Halprin ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
I had found it interesting that no one had mentioned Avid yet. In our program, we made the switch to Avid (just as FCPX was introduced) mainly because FCPX was largely being rejected by most post houses and we wanted to make sure our students had *some* kind of industry standard software experience. Our first choice was Premiere, but as of now Adobe's pricing structure for Creative Cloud in academic labs is beyond prohibitive. We simply could not negotiate a deal with them that we could afford. It's outrageous, really. So we went with Avid. Mostly, it's been fine, but I find that it's not ideal for more experimental work or work that involves lots of different kinds of media. We spend a lot of time with the learning curve of the software, and not as much time as I'd like with the conceptual aspect of creative work. And, frankly, we've had a nightmare set of problems getting it to work in our Mac labs together with our intranet. So it's not ideal, but until Adobe makes its educational pricing for labs reasonable, it's what we got. Jen On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Adam Hyman a...@lafilmforum.org wrote: One view: I work in the television industry. I think if everyone is starting fresh, you should teach them at least two editing systems, and Avid should be one, if they are interested in working in the professional world. Avid Premiere, or Avid and at least one FCP version. I think FCP X is fine for anyone who hasn’t already become accustomed to anything else, but most people who have already become proficient in FCP 7 resent the changes. I actually haven’t ever learned either. (I really should learn FCP7 because I have it and could then edit with it.) I think it does affect whether you are doing separate onlines or not. But for students who might not know any system yet, they could just as well learn FCP X and Avid. I don’t know any company that has gone to FCP X yet, but I don’t know every company. And if they are just going to do their own films and are not interested in Hollywood or professional gigs, and they are learning from scratch, then it doesn’t really matter. Students will adapt to the flaws of any particular system. But professionally...My current company is on Avid; the last company I worked at was on FCP 7 and converted to Avid while I was there. Adobe going to all online will make it prohibitively expensive to people just out of school, more likely) But students who are interested in working “in the industry” will find much more work available if they know After Effects and Photoshop. And if they are learning those, might as well learn Premiere. So teach them Avid, Premiere, and FCP. :-) On 4/18/14 6:48 AM, Jason Halprin jihalp...@yahoo.com wrote: I think I'd like to second what Scot has said here: it depends on what you're trying to teach. Over the last three years, I've taught at three different schools and have instructed with FCP 7, FCPX, and Premiere. I've had good results using all three, and I've had unimaginative, lazy projects in all three. With FCP X, I definitley had to design some assignment that demanded students explore the different interfaces, and specifically that they mix sound and tweak the presets on all of the effects. After doing this, however, I saw video newbies grow very quickly in terms of their comfort with the program, and they started thinking in terms of how to generate the images in their imagination, and not in terms of what the program was capable of doing. I don't mean to imply that this was universal amongst the students, but that creative, engaged students were able to gain a substantial mastery of the program in a short time. That being said, the interface still seems like it perhaps has a limit in terms of a pro workflow - one in which separate programs and technicians are utilized for sound design and VFX. Sound controls are probably the most perplexing part of FCPX. Although you can utilize ALL of the plugins from Logic and access their interfaces from within FCPX, there is not a true mixing panel - meaning I can apply compression, EQ, reverb, etc, but I can't really do a final mix. And, to add insult to injury, without a 3rd party program, you can't bounce to ProTools (or even Logic) to accomplish this. However, there are some clunky workarounds such as utilizing the roles function. OK, after that long explanation of some specifics, if I were rebooting the workflow of a program, and area specialization was part of department's pedagogy, I would choose Premiere. I don't think my Intro students have had substantial trouble learning it, it interfaces with other programs seamlessly, and most of the advantages of FCPX (real-time rendering, variety of plugins, ability to generate your own VFX) are there - or at least nearly there. FCPX is trying to be an almost All-In-One program, where you never have to utilize anything else in the creation of your video. Premiere is
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
After considerable discussion at my institution we chose to migrate to Premiere. While there were some amongst us who were quite comfortable and enthusiastic about FCPX, the consensus was that it was not flexible enough to accommodate the experimental work we wanted to support nor compatible with much of what the industry was doing. I started with an early version of Premiere, quite loved it, resented FCP until I grew to quite like it, and am now quite comfortable with the newest version of Premiere. Our students have had no trouble picking it up, indeed there are some fine tutorials on Lynda.com that are designed for users of FCP7. (Students, in general, have no trouble picking just about anything up.) Advantages- Premiere ingests just about everything- no need to fret about converting H.264's, or MTO's; it handles multi-layered structures without the need for rendering (on a decent machine); much of the interface is similar to FCP7. Disadvantages: CS6 has some very annoying ways of handling markers and nested sequences, but these seem to have been addressed in the Creative Cloud version. And this leads to the major factor, elicited by an earlier respondent: the pricing structure for the Creative Cloud version. You can no longer just buy the software; you have to lease it, an addiction every bit as nefarious as smack. The argument is that one doesn't have to constantly upgrade to resolve software issues- but this comes at the considerable cost of a demoralizing dependency. We managed to get some kind of institutional deal from Adobe, but i don't know the details on this. I know of a number of other artists who bought their own copies of FCP7 or CS6 and are just sticking with them, but that won't work if you've got an IT department that insists, as they all do, on making maintenance the primary consideration.. Peter Rose ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
not flexible enough to accommodate the experimental work we wanted to support this doesn't mean anything either. is a steenbeck flexible? Is a guillotine splicer and rewinds flexible? Do you really think experimental work has not been made on FCP X? On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Esorp es...@aol.com wrote: After considerable discussion at my institution we chose to migrate to Premiere. While there were some amongst us who were quite comfortable and enthusiastic about FCPX, the consensus was that it was not flexible enough to accommodate the experimental work we wanted to support nor compatible with much of what the industry was doing. I started with an early version of Premiere, quite loved it, resented FCP until I grew to quite like it, and am now quite comfortable with the newest version of Premiere. Our students have had no trouble picking it up, indeed there are some fine tutorials on Lynda.com that are designed for users of FCP7. (Students, in general, have no trouble picking just about anything up.) Advantages- Premiere ingests just about everything- no need to fret about converting H.264's, or MTO's; it handles multi-layered structures without the need for rendering (on a decent machine); much of the interface is similar to FCP7. Disadvantages: CS6 has some very annoying ways of handling markers and nested sequences, but these seem to have been addressed in the Creative Cloud version. And this leads to the major factor, elicited by an earlier respondent: the pricing structure for the Creative Cloud version. You can no longer just buy the software; you have to lease it, an addiction every bit as nefarious as smack. The argument is that one doesn't have to constantly upgrade to resolve software issues- but this comes at the considerable cost of a demoralizing dependency. We managed to get some kind of institutional deal from Adobe, but i don't know the details on this. I know of a number of other artists who bought their own copies of FCP7 or CS6 and are just sticking with them, but that won't work if you've got an IT department that insists, as they all do, on making maintenance the primary consideration.. Peter Rose ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
We spend a lot of time with the learning curve of the software, and not as much time as I'd like with the conceptual aspect of creative work. BINGO!! Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would abandon FCP7. When Bolex stopped making the H16, schools using film didn't rush out and buy Arri SRs. A 40 year old Bolex still does what it always did: is still an excellent tool for shooting 16mm MOS. By the same token, a 5 year old FCP7 system still does what it always did: edit digital video in a powerful yet easy to learn interface at a reasonable cost. It can handle any SD or HD codec used in the current cameras a school would have or buy now, and no new camera technology that promises to leave FCP7 behind is on the horizen. And so what if one does show up? Truth be told, good ol' SD DV is a perfectly excellent tool for teaching filmmaking. If that was all you had available, you could still teach students every important creative aspect of motion picture work, and the output looks very nice. HD is just gravy pedagogically, and the HD codecs FCP7 can handle aren't going away, AVCHD in particular. (Heck, if I was still teaching, I'd be holding onto HDV, because tape offers a benefit to beginning students: The stock is so cheap, you have them use it like film. Record a tape, capture the footage to a hard drive, then put the tape away in a box. That way, when someone's hard drive crashes, as it invariably will at least once a semester, they just fire up a batch re-capture from FCP, and voila, the project is restored and they don't have to start over. With solid state media, you're not going to be able the kids to do that -- put their full SD cards (or, God forbid, P2 cards) away in a box. They're going to re-use them. Then, when their drive crashes, they're screwed, and you're screwed too because you have to put in extra time and effort to help them get back on their feet and make extra accommodations for the fact they've fallen behind schedule. Of course, that wouldn't be an issue if every student had TWO hard drives, and kept rigorous backups of all their captured media, but that's not going to happen either.) But I digress from the key issue. When I was teaching, I INSISTED on minimizing the time students spent learning the technology, in order to maximize the class time devoted to the conceptual skills of filmmaking. FCP was perfect for this. I would spend two class sessions in Intro showing the students how to edit in FCP, and then turn them loose to figure the rest out for themselves. Which they all did, and these were liberal arts students who were generally utter noobs to any kind of production. Try that with Avid, (make me laugh...). For my own work, I'll give up FCP7 when they pry it out of my cold dead hand -- or when some Mac developer sees what kind of significant market hole is left by the Hobson's choice between Avid, Premiere, and FCPX, and creates a sort of FCP7 clone in pure 64-bit code and offers it at a reasonable price -- which, alas, I don't see happening in the current state of consolidation in the software biz. If I was still teaching, I would be even more adamant about my program holding onto FCP7 (well, the whole Final Cut Studio actually) and all the other tech stuff that goes with it: last generation Mac Pro towers, Mountain Lion, AVCHD, etc. USB 3 is nice, but you can get a USB 3 card for a PCIe Mac Pro for $15, so no problem there. They say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I say If it ain't broke don't replace it with something that is some combination of less useful, harder to learn, buggier, more expensive, and/or loathed by huge segments of the creative and professional communities... One thing I wrote to Irene off-list that none of the posts here so far seem to get goes back to her schools current dilemma of having different sets of instructors using different software in their classes in a kind of free-for-all. This is pedagogically unconscionable for most 4-year college programs. We're not supposed to be training students in the range of professional software packages they'll need to master in order to get jobs as online edit technicians. We're supposed to be teaching the art of motion picture making. Forcing students to keep learning new editing programs each time they take a different class is like a Creative Writing program forcing students to learn a new word processing program every time they take a new class (well, it's worse, since word processing programs aren't that hard to learn). In order to have students and faculty concentrate precious time in class and out of class on the things that really matter, using a common set of tools is essential. And that effectively makes FCPX a non-starter. No group of experienced faculty will ever agree to standardize around it. And if they did, the next time a position opened if the job description included must use FCPX that would seriously bugger the applicant
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
Thanks for the query, Irene. I am also interested to see what is happening at other institutions. I teach at two schools in Nashville that were both using FCP7 a couple of years ago, and they have adopted two different solutions. At the Watkins College of Art, Design Film, they have largely migrated to Avid, but all of the school's computers also have FCPX, so that gets used by students and sometimes taught as well. I also teach at Vanderbilt University in the Art department (where i teach experimental video) and in the Cinema Media Arts program (where i teach an intro-level 16mm course), and both departments have switched from FCP7 to Adobe Premiere. It's ideal for my art class, where we also do some compositing work in After Effects. The interface of Premiere should be familiar to anyone who has worked with FCP7. And i love that you do not need to transcode footage. I only wish i could implement Pip's super 8 filmmaking model at either school. peace, jw -- John Warren 213.458.1650 www.johnwarrenfilms.com On Apr 18, 2014, at 7:01 AM, frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com wrote: Dear Frameworks, This isn't strictly an experimental film query, but I know many people who teach read this listerve. My department has delayed for years the decision about what to do about the transition away from teaching Final Cut Pro 7, and result has been increasingly chaotic and unsustainable (we've developed a messy do-whatever-you-want solution where individual faculty members choose which editing platform to teach, so some of our students only know FCPX, some are still using FCP7, a handful are learning Premiere on their own, and it's all a bit of a mess). I'd love to hear from as many instructors as possible about what your program has done about teaching editing post-FCP7, how you reached your decision, what your reasons were for teaching or not teaching FCPX, and how things have been working out. Please reply off-list if it seems more appropriate: this may or not be a public discussion topic of interest to others and is maybe a bit off-Frameworks-topic but it would be very helpful for me to compile some information about what others are doing. Thanks so much in advance for your help. Best, Irene Lusztig Assistant Professor, Film and Digital Media University of California, Santa Cruz ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
for what it's worth, FAVA (a film and video coop based in Edmonton, Alberta) recently switched over all digital editing systems to premiere with external drives ready and loaded with FCP7 and FCP X should any user prefer or require what those programs offer. i think even AVID is still available. with so many users and so many different ideas about what works and what is best, it made sense for us to have them all still available, however all the students who go through the video courses now all learn premiere exclusively and it has been working well. it should be noted, however, that all the students who go through the film courses still learn how to edit by cutting on a steenbeck and they each make a 16mm film complete with negative conform and optical tracks with that work flow. in terms of teaching those basic concepts, especially to begin with, i would put my vote behind pip's S8 model any day of the week. lindsay mcintyre On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:05 AM, John Warren johnwar...@alum.calarts.edu wrote: Thanks for the query, Irene. I am also interested to see what is happening at other institutions. I teach at two schools in Nashville that were both using FCP7 a couple of years ago, and they have adopted two different solutions. At the Watkins College of Art, Design Film, they have largely migrated to Avid, but all of the school's computers also have FCPX, so that gets used by students and sometimes taught as well. I also teach at Vanderbilt University in the Art department (where i teach experimental video) and in the Cinema Media Arts program (where i teach an intro-level 16mm course), and both departments have switched from FCP7 to Adobe Premiere. It's ideal for my art class, where we also do some compositing work in After Effects. The interface of Premiere should be familiar to anyone who has worked with FCP7. And i love that you do not need to transcode footage. I only wish i could implement Pip's super 8 filmmaking model at either school. peace, jw -- John Warren 213.458.1650 www.johnwarrenfilms.com On Apr 18, 2014, at 7:01 AM, frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com wrote: Dear Frameworks, This isn't strictly an experimental film query, but I know many people who teach read this listerve. My department has delayed for years the decision about what to do about the transition away from teaching Final Cut Pro 7, and result has been increasingly chaotic and unsustainable (we've developed a messy do-whatever-you-want solution where individual faculty members choose which editing platform to teach, so some of our students only know FCPX, some are still using FCP7, a handful are learning Premiere on their own, and it's all a bit of a mess). I'd love to hear from as many instructors as possible about what your program has done about teaching editing post-FCP7, how you reached your decision, what your reasons were for teaching or not teaching FCPX, and how things have been working out. Please reply off-list if it seems more appropriate: this may or not be a public discussion topic of interest to others and is maybe a bit off-Frameworks-topic but it would be very helpful for me to compile some information about what others are doing. Thanks so much in advance for your help. Best, Irene Lusztig Assistant Professor, Film and Digital Media University of California, Santa Cruz ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
David, all your arguments are reasonable (and I always love reading your posts) but gear wears out, updates break things, and cameras and tape break down. I've seen whole computer labs lose firewire because one person plugged a shazzed-up cable into all ten cameras in a single day. That's the sad technical reason to eventually leave FCP7. But more importantly, for creative reasons: We are only catching up right now in video land to the power of cinematic lenses for no-budget filmmaking a la Pip's Super-8 program - i.e. DSLR video. 64-bit editing is what we need now to make best use of that. If you want to shoot DSLR video, then you shouldn't be using an old computer with FCP 7. The overlap of those technologies was too short, the file sizes of DSLR footage too big, and the memory-space of 32-bit software is too small. FCP7 will sloow you down, and that's bad creatively. Nevermind the more-intuitive interface, and the ease of capture and file management if you let FCPX handle everything, which can get students up and cutting faster without messing up their codecs, formats etc. With Premiere or FCPX, you can edit DSLR footage properly. I worked on a feature on FCP7 last year and only when I transferred the whole thing to Premiere did I see the actual frame rate it was shot at in full resolution; FCP7 just couldn't play it properly, on the same exact computer, rendering or no. SO that's a solid reason to leave FCP7 behind. The other is general rendering / speediness. I think I get more creative when I can scrub through potential effects in the FX browser than throwing them into my timeline, tweaking them, and watching it render before I can even see what it will look like. I HATE planned obsolescence for all the same reasons you do, and I am NOT an early-adoption evangelist, quite the opposite. I read recently that social uses of any technology only become interesting when the technology itself has become boring. And I agree for the most part. As for putting tape on a shelf; I burn the camera card to Blu-Ray the same time I capture it to disk, or for FCP I archive projects like this: http://blog.flickharrison.com/2014/02/long-term-archiving-projects-for-final-cut-pro-x/ Video is not film; a 50-year-old camcorder will probably not power up or connect to working equipment. If it did you would find no video tape available, or that your old tapes had crumbled to dust. We don't control these things, any more than we can control the disappearance of 16mm film stock, technicians and projectors. Experimental artists are a sideshow in the industries of the world. I left FCP7 for Premiere as soon as I saw the writing on the wall. I prefer to abandon ship when I have time to do so smoothly, rather than in a panic when an update breaks something I relied on. Here's two articles I wrote as to why: http://blog.flickharrison.com/2011/07/software-of-the-spectacle/ http://blog.flickharrison.com/2013/04/switch-to-premiere-pro/ But after a few years, I started to see that FCPX had surpassed Premiere for me as an experimental / media artist: http://blog.flickharrison.com/2014/03/fcp-the-once-and-future-king-of-editing-software/ I wrote lots on those articles so I'll pass the mic now and shut up... - Flick -- * WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD? http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison * FLICK's WEBSITE: http://www.flickharrison.com ↑ Grab this Headline Animator ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
Slow=bad?! Bah. Tim Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Flick Harrison fl...@flickharrison.com wrote: ...will sloow you down, and that's bad creatively... - Flick ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
[Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
Dear Frameworks, This isn't strictly an experimental film query, but I know many people who teach read this listerve. My department has delayed for years the decision about what to do about the transition away from teaching Final Cut Pro 7, and result has been increasingly chaotic and unsustainable (we've developed a messy do-whatever-you-want solution where individual faculty members choose which editing platform to teach, so some of our students only know FCPX, some are still using FCP7, a handful are learning Premiere on their own, and it's all a bit of a mess). I'd love to hear from as many instructors as possible about what your program has done about teaching editing post-FCP7, how you reached your decision, what your reasons were for teaching or not teaching FCPX, and how things have been working out. Please reply off-list if it seems more appropriate: this may or not be a public discussion topic of interest to others and is maybe a bit off-Frameworks-topic but it would be very helpful for me to compile some information about what others are doing. Thanks so much in advance for your help. Best, Irene Lusztig Assistant Professor, Film and Digital Media University of California, Santa Cruz ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
I disagree with $4000. A 21 iMac - what a school would likely be running Final Cut on - starts at $1299. I assume there are bulk discounts for schools, but they likely already have the computers. I'm not a teacher, but I graduated four years ago and kept in touch with teachers at my old school. They bit the bullet and upgraded to FCPX in 2012. The teachers I've kept in touch with say it's easier to deal with and to teach it compared to old Final Cut. For example, if you've got 20 students using 20 different cameras, plus appropriated footage from the web, FCPX is more likely to be able to deal with all of those file types - so there's less MPEG Streamclip or Compressor converting and fewer fires to put out in class. I've also heard the interface is more intuitive to students coming from iMovie or who have no video editing experience. On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.comwrote: My advice is to abandon FCP entirely. This is the rational response due to the fact that Apple has essentially abandoned the educational and professional markets. Nowadays for a decent OS X system you have to drop nearly $4000, not including software. Take a look at their alleged educational discounts, it's a joke. And the whole FCP X debacle caused many users to switch to Premiere. Premiere used to suck, but that was ten years ago. Now it's totally viable, and I would recommend going that route. It's not perfect, but it's far better than FCP X. Plus, it's cross-platform, if you're into that sort of thing. Please don't flame me because I alluded to Windows. ;) Aaron At 4/17/2014, you wrote: Dear Frameworks, This isn't strictly an experimental film query, but I know many people who teach read this listerve. My department has delayed for years the decision about what to do about the transition away from teaching Final Cut Pro 7, and result has been increasingly chaotic and unsustainable (we've developed a messy do-whatever-you-want solution where individual faculty members choose which editing platform to teach, so some of our students only know FCPX, some are still using FCP7, a handful are learning Premiere on their own, and it's all a bit of a mess). I'd love to hear from as many instructors as possible about what your program has done about teaching editing post-FCP7, how you reached your decision, what your reasons were for teaching or not teaching FCPX, and how things have been working out. Please reply off-list if it seems more appropriate: this may or not be a public discussion topic of interest to others and is maybe a bit off-Frameworks-topic but it would be very helpful for me to compile some information about what others are doing. Thanks so much in advance for your help. Best, Irene Lusztig Assistant Professor, Film and Digital Media University of California, Santa Cruz ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5. webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator http://dr-yo.com http://digitalartsguild.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
As a general rule of thumb, don't listen to anyone's opinion on Final Cut X unless they've actually taken the time learn and understand it... Same advice should be used for most things in life ;-) On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Chris Freeman christopherbriggsfree...@gmail.com wrote: I disagree with $4000. A 21 iMac - what a school would likely be running Final Cut on - starts at $1299. I assume there are bulk discounts for schools, but they likely already have the computers. I'm not a teacher, but I graduated four years ago and kept in touch with teachers at my old school. They bit the bullet and upgraded to FCPX in 2012. The teachers I've kept in touch with say it's easier to deal with and to teach it compared to old Final Cut. For example, if you've got 20 students using 20 different cameras, plus appropriated footage from the web, FCPX is more likely to be able to deal with all of those file types - so there's less MPEG Streamclip or Compressor converting and fewer fires to put out in class. I've also heard the interface is more intuitive to students coming from iMovie or who have no video editing experience. On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com wrote: My advice is to abandon FCP entirely. This is the rational response due to the fact that Apple has essentially abandoned the educational and professional markets. Nowadays for a decent OS X system you have to drop nearly $4000, not including software. Take a look at their alleged educational discounts, it's a joke. And the whole FCP X debacle caused many users to switch to Premiere. Premiere used to suck, but that was ten years ago. Now it's totally viable, and I would recommend going that route. It's not perfect, but it's far better than FCP X. Plus, it's cross-platform, if you're into that sort of thing. Please don't flame me because I alluded to Windows. ;) Aaron At 4/17/2014, you wrote: Dear Frameworks, This isn't strictly an experimental film query, but I know many people who teach read this listerve. My department has delayed for years the decision about what to do about the transition away from teaching Final Cut Pro 7, and result has been increasingly chaotic and unsustainable (we've developed a messy do-whatever-you-want solution where individual faculty members choose which editing platform to teach, so some of our students only know FCPX, some are still using FCP7, a handful are learning Premiere on their own, and it's all a bit of a mess). I'd love to hear from as many instructors as possible about what your program has done about teaching editing post-FCP7, how you reached your decision, what your reasons were for teaching or not teaching FCPX, and how things have been working out. Please reply off-list if it seems more appropriate: this may or not be a public discussion topic of interest to others and is maybe a bit off-Frameworks-topic but it would be very helpful for me to compile some information about what others are doing. Thanks so much in advance for your help. Best, Irene Lusztig Assistant Professor, Film and Digital Media University of California, Santa Cruz ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5. webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator http://dr-yo.com http://digitalartsguild.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
I still use FCP myself but advised the faculty to move everything to FCPX 2 or 3 years ago. FCP just couldn’t keep up with Apple’s persistent OSX changes (Lion, Mountain Lion now Maverick) which left video editing way back in the pre-Raphaelite doldrums. FCPX is a clunker, consumer grade nonsense that tries to redefine operating mannerisms that has many believing that ‘dumb’ has been given fresh credibility (as it’s now called ‘intuitive’). It’s just dumb, no two ways about it. The loss has been compounded by losing that slick inter-relationship with SoundtrackPro, DVD Studio Pro, Motion, Live Type (etc). Most of my students elect to work with Premiere as a result – if anything FCPX has forced everyone to become more literate with other vocabularies in order to avoid it. But the work has suffered enormously – creative promise certainly hasn’t benefitted by Apple’s dumbing down of everything. So, to answer your question – my department shifted to FCPX but provides Premiere as well in the student labs. Both are capable of making dumb, unadventurous constructions and the students seem to be happy making dumb things easily and with little complaint. Great upload capacity to YouTube, smooth as silk. Apple’s decision must rate as one of technology’s worst. Kind of reflects the state of art nowadays and (I guess) the state of the world. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining – everyone seems real happy doing stupid things in a dumb way. Peter (Perth) From: Chris Freeman christopherbriggsfree...@gmail.commailto:christopherbriggsfree...@gmail.com Reply-To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.commailto:frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com To: Experimental Film Discussion List frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.commailto:frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking I disagree with $4000. A 21 iMac - what a school would likely be running Final Cut on - starts at $1299. I assume there are bulk discounts for schools, but they likely already have the computers. I'm not a teacher, but I graduated four years ago and kept in touch with teachers at my old school. They bit the bullet and upgraded to FCPX in 2012. The teachers I've kept in touch with say it's easier to deal with and to teach it compared to old Final Cut. For example, if you've got 20 students using 20 different cameras, plus appropriated footage from the web, FCPX is more likely to be able to deal with all of those file types - so there's less MPEG Streamclip or Compressor converting and fewer fires to put out in class. I've also heard the interface is more intuitive to students coming from iMovie or who have no video editing experience. On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.commailto:aa...@digitalartsguild.com wrote: My advice is to abandon FCP entirely. This is the rational response due to the fact that Apple has essentially abandoned the educational and professional markets. Nowadays for a decent OS X system you have to drop nearly $4000, not including software. Take a look at their alleged educational discounts, it's a joke. And the whole FCP X debacle caused many users to switch to Premiere. Premiere used to suck, but that was ten years ago. Now it's totally viable, and I would recommend going that route. It's not perfect, but it's far better than FCP X. Plus, it's cross-platform, if you're into that sort of thing. Please don't flame me because I alluded to Windows. ;) Aaron At 4/17/2014, you wrote: Dear Frameworks, This isn't strictly an experimental film query, but I know many people who teach read this listerve. My department has delayed for years the decision about what to do about the transition away from teaching Final Cut Pro 7, and result has been increasingly chaotic and unsustainable (we've developed a messy do-whatever-you-want solution where individual faculty members choose which editing platform to teach, so some of our students only know FCPX, some are still using FCP7, a handful are learning Premiere on their own, and it's all a bit of a mess). I'd love to hear from as many instructors as possible about what your program has done about teaching editing post-FCP7, how you reached your decision, what your reasons were for teaching or not teaching FCPX, and how things have been working out. Please reply off-list if it seems more appropriate: this may or not be a public discussion topic of interest to others and is maybe a bit off-Frameworks-topic but it would be very helpful for me to compile some information about what others are doing. Thanks so much in advance for your help. Best, Irene Lusztig Assistant Professor, Film and Digital Media University of California, Santa Cruz ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.commailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
I am teaching at Dongguk University in Seoul now. I brought over eight super-8 cameras and all the raw products needed to mix together BW reversal chemicals, 60 rolls of Tri-X, a few viewers and splicers. The school switched to digital five years ago, but they still have a couple of Arriflexes in reserve. The freshman students seem really happy running around with the Nizos, working in the darkroom, projecting their rushes each week and cutting with scissors and tape. The school provided $600 which covered one roll of film per student. Each student paid $8 for darkroom costs for the semester, and they can buy extra rolls of film for $12 a roll. I think this is a cheaper solution that really teaches the basics of filmmaking in a very sensible and direct way that will inform them handily for the rest of their careers. -Pip Chodorov At 4/17/2014, Irene Lusztig wrote: Dear Frameworks, This isn't strictly an experimental film query, but I know many people who teach read this listerve. My department has delayed for years the decision about what to do about the transition away from teaching Final Cut Pro 7, and result has been increasingly chaotic and unsustainable (we've developed a messy___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
I would steer clear of iMacs for video editing, they are underpowered. If you want to render HD video, it's going to be slow and painful on even the high end iMacs. The Mac Pro is very fast, but very expensive. It is only available with small solid state drives, so you have to buy additional external hard drives. Aaron I disagree with $4000. A 21 iMac - what a school would likely be running Final Cut on - starts at $1299. I assume there are bulk discounts for schools, but they likely already have the computers. -- Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator http://dr-yo.com http://digitalartsguild.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
On the original topic of editing software, I’d throw my weight behind switching to Premiere. At the University of Florida, I experimented for a semester with FCPX, and I found it buggy dumbed down in ways that made it hard to do things that I’ve come to expect from my editing systems. The magnetic timeline is one of the worst innovations I’ve ever encountered, and the commingling of audio and video tracks just makes everything look chaotic. I’m sure I could’ve applied myself gotten more familiar with the quirks of this system, but I preferred instead to switch over to Premiere, which had much more of the feel of FCP 7 and also had the advantage of integrating seamlessly with Premiere and After Effects. I’m also on the UFVA list and this discussion has come up frequently. FCPX does have a few defenders, but it has produced much more dissatisfaction. I’ve just relocated to Ohio State, and we’ve started anew in Premiere. The person who had been teaching the video classes here was teaching FCPX, but he seemed excited to switch over after the troubles he’s had with FCP. As for hardware, here at Ohio State, our labs all have iMacs. The older ones really do slow down when you attempt to do anything slightly complex; even the newer ones are noticeably slower than the Mac Pros I left behind in Florida. It is a great cost savings though, and if you only have to pay with your time, it just depends on how much you’ll hate having to go make a pot of tea while you render a sequence. It’s certainly not impossible to do interesting, layered work on an iMac though. 2 cents, R. On Apr 17, 2014, at 9:42 PM, Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com wrote: I would steer clear of iMacs for video editing, they are underpowered. If you want to render HD video, it's going to be slow and painful on even the high end iMacs. The Mac Pro is very fast, but very expensive. It is only available with small solid state drives, so you have to buy additional external hard drives. Aaron I disagree with $4000. A 21 iMac - what a school would likely be running Final Cut on - starts at $1299. I assume there are bulk discounts for schools, but they likely already have the computers. -- Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator http://dr-yo.com http://digitalartsguild.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
I really don't get this idea that FCP X is dumb? What do people mean by that? FCP X is obviously not dumb, are you referring to features? Clip tagging with keywords, for example, is totally innovative and forward thinking (it seems to me) and allows an editor to navigate through more footage more quickly and organize it more intuitively and idiosyncratically. (Intuitively I think means in a way that makes obvious sense to the editor). Comparatively Premiere and AVID are way behind on that front. Magnetic timeline the same, once you become comfortable with the behaviors, its a much more stable timeline than the normal sequence strucutre and allows you to edit sections of a long cut with much greater confidence that you aren't fucking up the sequence by rippling tracks in ways that aren't obvious. Timeline inspector the same. In one window you can quickly get an overview of everything that appears in the timeline and quickly naviagte to specific clips and monitor their states. (Oh, wait, you don't know about that feature? Please continue expressing ill-informed opinions, though.). XML exporting the same, FCP X exports far and away the most detailed xml of any editing software and allows incredible flexibility moving projects into audio and online software. And anyways do people really think that somehow Apple is maliciously contributing to the stupidification of media production rather than, say, ADOBE? that is an insane position to take. Use whatever program you like, but this witch-hunting is tiresome. On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Beebe, Roger W. beebe...@osu.edu wrote: On the original topic of editing software, I’d throw my weight behind switching to Premiere. At the University of Florida, I experimented for a semester with FCPX, and I found it buggy dumbed down in ways that made it hard to do things that I’ve come to expect from my editing systems. The magnetic timeline is one of the worst innovations I’ve ever encountered, and the commingling of audio and video tracks just makes everything look chaotic. I’m sure I could’ve applied myself gotten more familiar with the quirks of this system, but I preferred instead to switch over to Premiere, which had much more of the feel of FCP 7 and also had the advantage of integrating seamlessly with Premiere and After Effects. I’m also on the UFVA list and this discussion has come up frequently. FCPX does have a few defenders, but it has produced much more dissatisfaction. I’ve just relocated to Ohio State, and we’ve started anew in Premiere. The person who had been teaching the video classes here was teaching FCPX, but he seemed excited to switch over after the troubles he’s had with FCP. As for hardware, here at Ohio State, our labs all have iMacs. The older ones really do slow down when you attempt to do anything slightly complex; even the newer ones are noticeably slower than the Mac Pros I left behind in Florida. It is a great cost savings though, and if you only have to pay with your time, it just depends on how much you’ll hate having to go make a pot of tea while you render a sequence. It’s certainly not impossible to do interesting, layered work on an iMac though. 2 cents, R. On Apr 17, 2014, at 9:42 PM, Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com wrote: I would steer clear of iMacs for video editing, they are underpowered. If you want to render HD video, it's going to be slow and painful on even the high end iMacs. The Mac Pro is very fast, but very expensive. It is only available with small solid state drives, so you have to buy additional external hard drives. Aaron I disagree with $4000. A 21 iMac - what a school would likely be running Final Cut on - starts at $1299. I assume there are bulk discounts for schools, but they likely already have the computers. -- Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator http://dr-yo.com http://digitalartsguild.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
Apple is very direct in their intention to make FCPX more favorable to the consumer and IMovie user. They recognize that the professional market is too small for their bottom line. Therefore, yes, they are dumbing it down. Why, otherwise, is every professional editor I know either switching or have otherwise switched already or are still working with FCP7? On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:51 PM, chris bravo wrote: I really don't get this idea that FCP X is dumb? What do people mean by that? FCP X is obviously not dumb, are you referring to features? Clip tagging with keywords, for example, is totally innovative and forward thinking (it seems to me) and allows an editor to navigate through more footage more quickly and organize it more intuitively and idiosyncratically. (Intuitively I think means in a way that makes obvious sense to the editor). Comparatively Premiere and AVID are way behind on that front. Magnetic timeline the same, once you become comfortable with the behaviors, its a much more stable timeline than the normal sequence strucutre and allows you to edit sections of a long cut with much greater confidence that you aren't fucking up the sequence by rippling tracks in ways that aren't obvious. Timeline inspector the same. In one window you can quickly get an overview of everything that appears in the timeline and quickly naviagte to specific clips and monitor their states. (Oh, wait, you don't know about that feature? Please continue expressing ill-informed opinions, though.). XML exporting the same, FCP X exports far and away the most detailed xml of any editing software and allows incredible flexibility moving projects into audio and online software. And anyways do people really think that somehow Apple is maliciously contributing to the stupidification of media production rather than, say, ADOBE? that is an insane position to take. Use whatever program you like, but this witch-hunting is tiresome. On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Beebe, Roger W. beebe...@osu.edu wrote: On the original topic of editing software, I’d throw my weight behind switching to Premiere. At the University of Florida, I experimented for a semester with FCPX, and I found it buggy dumbed down in ways that made it hard to do things that I’ve come to expect from my editing systems. The magnetic timeline is one of the worst innovations I’ve ever encountered, and the commingling of audio and video tracks just makes everything look chaotic. I’m sure I could’ve applied myself gotten more familiar with the quirks of this system, but I preferred instead to switch over to Premiere, which had much more of the feel of FCP 7 and also had the advantage of integrating seamlessly with Premiere and After Effects. I’m also on the UFVA list and this discussion has come up frequently. FCPX does have a few defenders, but it has produced much more dissatisfaction. I’ve just relocated to Ohio State, and we’ve started anew in Premiere. The person who had been teaching the video classes here was teaching FCPX, but he seemed excited to switch over after the troubles he’s had with FCP. As for hardware, here at Ohio State, our labs all have iMacs. The older ones really do slow down when you attempt to do anything slightly complex; even the newer ones are noticeably slower than the Mac Pros I left behind in Florida. It is a great cost savings though, and if you only have to pay with your time, it just depends on how much you’ll hate having to go make a pot of tea while you render a sequence. It’s certainly not impossible to do interesting, layered work on an iMac though. 2 cents, R. On Apr 17, 2014, at 9:42 PM, Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com wrote: I would steer clear of iMacs for video editing, they are underpowered. If you want to render HD video, it's going to be slow and painful on even the high end iMacs. The Mac Pro is very fast, but very expensive. It is only available with small solid state drives, so you have to buy additional external hard drives. Aaron I disagree with $4000. A 21 iMac - what a school would likely be running Final Cut on - starts at $1299. I assume there are bulk discounts for schools, but they likely already have the computers. -- Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator http://dr-yo.com http://digitalartsguild.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] query for those who teach filmmaking
iMovie isn't dumb either. In 2000-2001 ish there was a major move away from FCP 3 (at the time) to iMovie, and a lot of professional editors edited exclusively on iMovie, including Zach Stiglitz and Art Jones, I believe. So, yeah, the iMovie as derogatory slur doesn't make much sense to me either. And who cares about the professional market anyway? So your evidence that FCP X is dumb is that because post house refuse to edit car commercials on it. Yeah, that's not dumb at all. On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Richard Sylvarnes rsylvar...@gmail.comwrote: Apple is very direct in their intention to make FCPX more favorable to the consumer and IMovie user. They recognize that the professional market is too small for their bottom line. Therefore, yes, they are dumbing it down. Why, otherwise, is every professional editor I know either switching or have otherwise switched already or are still working with FCP7? On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:51 PM, chris bravo wrote: I really don't get this idea that FCP X is dumb? What do people mean by that? FCP X is obviously not dumb, are you referring to features? Clip tagging with keywords, for example, is totally innovative and forward thinking (it seems to me) and allows an editor to navigate through more footage more quickly and organize it more intuitively and idiosyncratically. (Intuitively I think means in a way that makes obvious sense to the editor). Comparatively Premiere and AVID are way behind on that front. Magnetic timeline the same, once you become comfortable with the behaviors, its a much more stable timeline than the normal sequence strucutre and allows you to edit sections of a long cut with much greater confidence that you aren't fucking up the sequence by rippling tracks in ways that aren't obvious. Timeline inspector the same. In one window you can quickly get an overview of everything that appears in the timeline and quickly naviagte to specific clips and monitor their states. (Oh, wait, you don't know about that feature? Please continue expressing ill-informed opinions, though.). XML exporting the same, FCP X exports far and away the most detailed xml of any editing software and allows incredible flexibility moving projects into audio and online software. And anyways do people really think that somehow Apple is maliciously contributing to the stupidification of media production rather than, say, ADOBE? that is an insane position to take. Use whatever program you like, but this witch-hunting is tiresome. On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Beebe, Roger W. beebe...@osu.edu wrote: On the original topic of editing software, I’d throw my weight behind switching to Premiere. At the University of Florida, I experimented for a semester with FCPX, and I found it buggy dumbed down in ways that made it hard to do things that I’ve come to expect from my editing systems. The magnetic timeline is one of the worst innovations I’ve ever encountered, and the commingling of audio and video tracks just makes everything look chaotic. I’m sure I could’ve applied myself gotten more familiar with the quirks of this system, but I preferred instead to switch over to Premiere, which had much more of the feel of FCP 7 and also had the advantage of integrating seamlessly with Premiere and After Effects. I’m also on the UFVA list and this discussion has come up frequently. FCPX does have a few defenders, but it has produced much more dissatisfaction. I’ve just relocated to Ohio State, and we’ve started anew in Premiere. The person who had been teaching the video classes here was teaching FCPX, but he seemed excited to switch over after the troubles he’s had with FCP. As for hardware, here at Ohio State, our labs all have iMacs. The older ones really do slow down when you attempt to do anything slightly complex; even the newer ones are noticeably slower than the Mac Pros I left behind in Florida. It is a great cost savings though, and if you only have to pay with your time, it just depends on how much you’ll hate having to go make a pot of tea while you render a sequence. It’s certainly not impossible to do interesting, layered work on an iMac though. 2 cents, R. On Apr 17, 2014, at 9:42 PM, Aaron F. Ross aa...@digitalartsguild.com wrote: I would steer clear of iMacs for video editing, they are underpowered. If you want to render HD video, it's going to be slow and painful on even the high end iMacs. The Mac Pro is very fast, but very expensive. It is only available with small solid state drives, so you have to buy additional external hard drives. Aaron I disagree with $4000. A 21 iMac - what a school would likely be running Final Cut on - starts at $1299. I assume there are bulk discounts for schools, but they likely already have the computers. -- Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator http://dr-yo.com
