Wanna big surprise?

Ignacio Rodriguez · March 16th, 2005, 11:59 AM

> Apple doesn't like to support anything they
> don't own, or so it seems.

Uhh-- I don't know whether they like it or not. But FCP supports plug-ins in Premiere and After Effects formats, that is a BIG number of plug-ins from many parties, none of them Apple-owned. In the audio front it also runs AU plugs and, through an adapter, can use VST. I guess Vegas can run plug-ins made for other apps, too, right? No? I asked once here and I think nobody answered.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · March 16th, 2005, 03:01 PM

Vegas currently can run audio DX or VST with a DX wrapper. In terms of video effects, Vegas can only run plugs made compatible with Vegas.
To rephrase my comment, Apple isn't apparently thrilled to help with the development of anything they don't own. If someone wants to acquire their SDK and develop without access to Apple's people...then they are surely capable of building what they want. We're a small group with a broad offering, and plugins is a very small, and mostly matter of convenience, offering we have. The Sony folks are very, very enthusiastic about third-party products. Apple is great stuff, not knocking it. Just wish they'd offer a little more support to those that support them.

Graeme Nattress · March 16th, 2005, 03:08 PM

Couldn't agree more! Apple should realy embrace the independent developer community. They'd certainly reap the benefits.

Graeme

Jon Fordham · March 17th, 2005, 01:09 PM

Client: I am sure glad I hired my DP...he is so talented!!!"
Shannon: "Your DP??? lol. Umm, ok sir"

Wow Shannon, glad to know the DP had nothing to do with acquiring quality footage. I guess I can go ahead and start searching for a new career now that anyone with a Z1 can get "Conrad Hall Footage" at the push of a button.

Just out of curiousity, does my Gaffer need to start looking for a new career as well? I guess the Z1 just hovers around by itself lighting the set while the crew eats donuts and then beeps when it's got the shot lit and perfectly framed up, right?

Maybe my Gaffer and I could buy a couple Z1's and just be a rental house from now on.

Luis Caffesse · March 17th, 2005, 01:22 PM

"Maybe my Gaffer and I could buy a couple Z1's and just be a rental house from now on."

Now you're talking!
It's a brave new world Jon, but I'm glad to see you're taking it well. No one said this transition would be easy.

(by the way, in case there was any question I am being sarcastic)

:)

In Shannon's defense, I'm pretty sure he was being a bit extreme in that post just to prove a point. In many other posts of his, he has hammered the point home that these camera's are no more than 'tools,' and that it is not the quality of the tool as much as the talent of the person using it that matters.

It may have come out wrong, but I seriously doubt he meant to undervalue the importance of a DP to any production.

Jon Fordham · March 17th, 2005, 02:19 PM

Luis,

I know my post was plenty sarcastic. And I don't mean any disrespect to Shannon. I'm trying to illustrate a point.

I too constantly fight to make people understand that cameras are tools. I guess I'm just not sure what "the point" of Shannon's post was.

>Client: "So can your camera do 24p?"
>Shannon: "It sure can!"

Really?! I've shot with this camera and know for a fact that the camera cannot shoot 24 Progressive frames per second.

>Shannon: Remember, it's how YOU direct as well.

What does the director's direction have to do with the ability of the camera?

>Shannon: Also the lighting. There's no camera in the world that you can just flip a switch and 'instant panavision' comes out of it."

That's what I thought until I read that the DP had nothing to do with acquiring quality footage.

>Client: "I heard it can't do 24p"
>Shannon: "From who?"
>Client: "Ummmmmmmmmmmmm, i don't remember, i read it on the internet."
>Shannon: "did you see it for yourself?"
>Client: "Uhhh, no."

Now that's a conversation I've had way to many times. I've been advising a colleague of mine who is in pre-production on an upcoming HD feature this summer regarding cameras and workflow. And I've spent more time correcting other peoples misinformation and rumor than anything else.

>Client: "Ok, im going to talk to my DP about this. See what he says.
>Shannon: "*sigh*"because you liked your buddies movie, and want to follow your DP's advice,

What's wrong with consulting with his DP, the guy who actually has to use the camera and is responsible for delivering the images that the director desires? He just made the point to believe what you know first hand and not what you've heard. Then he turns around and tells him to just trust him and ignore what he's seen with his own eyes and what his DP has worked with and knows to be capable of delivering what he wants.

I'm not discounting the capabilities of the FX1/Z1. But I think there is alot more misinformation and rumor being created by passionate internet posts and profit driven owner/operators than anything else. And Shannon's post seems to be the type of post that is adding to that list of misinformation and rumor. So what was point of the post? That the camera can do 24P? That the DP is unnescesary now that HDV is here? That clients should listen only to him? I'm confused.

Off topic:

I see you're in Austin, Luis. Have you had a chance to take in some films at SXSW? If you're interested and have the opportunity, check out the Feature Film, Four Eyed Monsters tomorrow. Four Eyed Monsters premiered in competition at the 2005 Slamdance Film Festival, and made its regional premiere last week at the 2005 SXSW Film Festival.

The last screening at SXSW will be this Friday, March 18th at 4:30 P.M. at the Alamo S. Lamar theater.

You can read the Film Threat Review here.

I'd love to hear feedback from anyone who gets a chance to see the film.

Luis Caffesse · March 17th, 2005, 02:43 PM

Jon,

I figured you were being tongue in cheek with your post as well, just wanted to make sure no one took me too seriously.

What I got from Shannon's post was that he felt people should test things out and see the results with their own eyes before making judgements on them.
He may have missed the mark on some of those points that you brought up, but overall that's what I took from it.

I'll step aside on this one now, seeing as Shannon should probably address this himself.

Yes, I have gotten the chance to see some of the SXSW films here, and I saw your post in the other forum about Four Eyed Monsters. I'm going to try to make it tomorrow, but I have a commercial shoot tomorrow starting at 10am, and I'm not sure how long it's going to run.

If I get out in time, I'll be there, and I'll be sure to let you know my 2 cents if I get a chance to see it.

Shannon Rawls · March 17th, 2005, 05:58 PM

*sigh*

For me to address Jon's total mutlilation of my post and misquaoting me and selectively copying/pasting what I said in this ficticious made-up-as-i-typed conversation to illustrate a point, would be to assume that Jon really didn't get my point.

But since i know damn well he did get my point and is just challenging his abilities to kick up some dust on the internet vs. my internet dust kicking skills......

AhhhhHHhhhhh, i won't address it. *smile*

Thanks Luis, you and everyone else AND JON got my point. *CHEESE* Stop picking on people Jon!

- ShannonRawls.com

Jon Fordham · March 17th, 2005, 09:34 PM

Shannon,

I did not misquote you.

I was not aware that the conversation that was presented was fictious.

I am not, nor have I ever been interested in "kicking up dust".

I am not, nor have I ever "picked on people".

I apologize for having interupted the party with my interest in correct information.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · March 17th, 2005, 09:46 PM

OK guys, let's leave this one where she lays....aside from us getting off topic, the "can't read expressions in a forum" flu is close at hand...
Unless you know the person posting reasonably well, either John or Shannon's post could be taken in the incorrect context....let's move on.

Surprised I've not heard more comment on the cadence of the images...?

Shannon Rawls · March 17th, 2005, 11:26 PM

DSE, I'll reply in a new thread called "The reason CF24 is ugly....."

Joe Carney · March 21st, 2005, 02:17 PM

>>DSE, I'll reply in a new thread called "The reason CF24 is ugly....."<<
And Shannon, don't forget to quote Mr Benny and Rochester again, ok?

March 16th, 2005, 11:59 AM	#46
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> Apple doesn't like to support anything they > don't own, or so it seems. Uhh-- I don't know whether they like it or not. But FCP supports plug-ins in Premiere and After Effects formats, that is a BIG number of plug-ins from many parties, none of them Apple-owned. In the audio front it also runs AU plugs and, through an adapter, can use VST. I guess Vegas can run plug-ins made for other apps, too, right? No? I asked once here and I think nobody answered. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

March 16th, 2005, 03:01 PM	#47
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	Vegas currently can run audio DX or VST with a DX wrapper. In terms of video effects, Vegas can only run plugs made compatible with Vegas. To rephrase my comment, Apple isn't apparently thrilled to help with the development of anything they don't own. If someone wants to acquire their SDK and develop without access to Apple's people...then they are surely capable of building what they want. We're a small group with a broad offering, and plugins is a very small, and mostly matter of convenience, offering we have. The Sony folks are very, very enthusiastic about third-party products. Apple is great stuff, not knocking it. Just wish they'd offer a little more support to those that support them. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

March 16th, 2005, 03:08 PM	#48
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Couldn't agree more! Apple should realy embrace the independent developer community. They'd certainly reap the benefits. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

March 17th, 2005, 01:09 PM	#49
Jon Fordham Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 242	Client: I am sure glad I hired my DP...he is so talented!!!" Shannon: "Your DP??? lol. Umm, ok sir" Wow Shannon, glad to know the DP had nothing to do with acquiring quality footage. I guess I can go ahead and start searching for a new career now that anyone with a Z1 can get "Conrad Hall Footage" at the push of a button. Just out of curiousity, does my Gaffer need to start looking for a new career as well? I guess the Z1 just hovers around by itself lighting the set while the crew eats donuts and then beeps when it's got the shot lit and perfectly framed up, right? Maybe my Gaffer and I could buy a couple Z1's and just be a rental house from now on. __________________ Jon Fordham Director of Photography www.jonfordham.com

March 17th, 2005, 01:22 PM	#50
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	"Maybe my Gaffer and I could buy a couple Z1's and just be a rental house from now on." Now you're talking! It's a brave new world Jon, but I'm glad to see you're taking it well. No one said this transition would be easy. (by the way, in case there was any question I am being sarcastic) :) In Shannon's defense, I'm pretty sure he was being a bit extreme in that post just to prove a point. In many other posts of his, he has hammered the point home that these camera's are no more than 'tools,' and that it is not the quality of the tool as much as the talent of the person using it that matters. It may have come out wrong, but I seriously doubt he meant to undervalue the importance of a DP to any production. __________________ Luis Caffesse Pitch Productions Austin, Texas

March 17th, 2005, 02:19 PM	#51
Jon Fordham Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 242	Luis, I know my post was plenty sarcastic. And I don't mean any disrespect to Shannon. I'm trying to illustrate a point. I too constantly fight to make people understand that cameras are tools. I guess I'm just not sure what "the point" of Shannon's post was. >Client: "So can your camera do 24p?" >Shannon: "It sure can!" Really?! I've shot with this camera and know for a fact that the camera cannot shoot 24 Progressive frames per second. >Shannon: Remember, it's how YOU direct as well. What does the director's direction have to do with the ability of the camera? >Shannon: Also the lighting. There's no camera in the world that you can just flip a switch and 'instant panavision' comes out of it." That's what I thought until I read that the DP had nothing to do with acquiring quality footage. >Client: "I heard it can't do 24p" >Shannon: "From who?" >Client: "Ummmmmmmmmmmmm, i don't remember, i read it on the internet." >Shannon: "did you see it for yourself?" >Client: "Uhhh, no." Now that's a conversation I've had way to many times. I've been advising a colleague of mine who is in pre-production on an upcoming HD feature this summer regarding cameras and workflow. And I've spent more time correcting other peoples misinformation and rumor than anything else. >Client: "Ok, im going to talk to my DP about this. See what he says. >Shannon: "sigh"because you liked your buddies movie, and want to follow your DP's advice, What's wrong with consulting with his DP, the guy who actually has to use the camera and is responsible for delivering the images that the director desires? He just made the point to believe what you know first hand and not what you've heard. Then he turns around and tells him to just trust him and ignore what he's seen with his own eyes and what his DP has worked with and knows to be capable of delivering what he wants. I'm not discounting the capabilities of the FX1/Z1. But I think there is alot more misinformation and rumor being created by passionate internet posts and profit driven owner/operators than anything else. And Shannon's post seems to be the type of post that is adding to that list of misinformation and rumor. So what was point of the post? That the camera can do 24P? That the DP is unnescesary now that HDV is here? That clients should listen only to him? I'm confused. Off topic: I see you're in Austin, Luis. Have you had a chance to take in some films at SXSW? If you're interested and have the opportunity, check out the Feature Film, Four Eyed Monsters tomorrow. Four Eyed Monsters premiered in competition at the 2005 Slamdance Film Festival, and made its regional premiere last week at the 2005 SXSW Film Festival. The last screening at SXSW will be this Friday, March 18th at 4:30 P.M. at the Alamo S. Lamar theater. You can read the Film Threat Review here. I'd love to hear feedback from anyone who gets a chance to see the film. __________________ Jon Fordham Director of Photography www.jonfordham.com

March 17th, 2005, 02:43 PM	#52
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	Jon, I figured you were being tongue in cheek with your post as well, just wanted to make sure no one took me too seriously. What I got from Shannon's post was that he felt people should test things out and see the results with their own eyes before making judgements on them. He may have missed the mark on some of those points that you brought up, but overall that's what I took from it. I'll step aside on this one now, seeing as Shannon should probably address this himself. Yes, I have gotten the chance to see some of the SXSW films here, and I saw your post in the other forum about Four Eyed Monsters. I'm going to try to make it tomorrow, but I have a commercial shoot tomorrow starting at 10am, and I'm not sure how long it's going to run. If I get out in time, I'll be there, and I'll be sure to let you know my 2 cents if I get a chance to see it. __________________ Luis Caffesse Pitch Productions Austin, Texas

March 17th, 2005, 05:58 PM	#53
Shannon Rawls Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 853	sigh For me to address Jon's total mutlilation of my post and misquaoting me and selectively copying/pasting what I said in this ficticious made-up-as-i-typed conversation to illustrate a point, would be to assume that Jon really didn't get my point. But since i know damn well he did get my point and is just challenging his abilities to kick up some dust on the internet vs. my internet dust kicking skills...... AhhhhHHhhhhh, i won't address it. smile Thanks Luis, you and everyone else AND JON got my point. CHEESE Stop picking on people Jon! - ShannonRawls.com

March 17th, 2005, 09:34 PM	#54
Jon Fordham Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 242	Shannon, I did not misquote you. I was not aware that the conversation that was presented was fictious. I am not, nor have I ever been interested in "kicking up dust". I am not, nor have I ever "picked on people". I apologize for having interupted the party with my interest in correct information. __________________ Jon Fordham Director of Photography www.jonfordham.com

March 17th, 2005, 09:46 PM	#55
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	OK guys, let's leave this one where she lays....aside from us getting off topic, the "can't read expressions in a forum" flu is close at hand... Unless you know the person posting reasonably well, either John or Shannon's post could be taken in the incorrect context....let's move on. Surprised I've not heard more comment on the cadence of the images...? __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

March 17th, 2005, 11:26 PM	#56
Shannon Rawls Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 853	DSE, I'll reply in a new thread called "The reason CF24 is ugly....."

March 21st, 2005, 02:17 PM	#57
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	>>DSE, I'll reply in a new thread called "The reason CF24 is ugly....."<< And Shannon, don't forget to quote Mr Benny and Rochester again, ok?