"Headrush Films UK" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"Headrush Films UK" wrote in message
...

snip

I have used FCP, Premiere, Media 100 and Avid and have to say Avid is
the
worsted to use in terms of learning how to do anything! but it does
provide
the learning path we need for our young film makers.

******** ! Are you training film / VT editors or are you training Avid
operatives ?...


Students need to learn how to edit, they don't need to learn how to use
a
software package, and they can do that on anything from Studio9 up to a
fully fledged Avid broadcast suit.

I don't think that's true!

Tell that to the editors that edited film years before the IC chip was even
thought about let alone Avid NLR's, the same principles apply...


I've heard of one department head (in a TV broadcast station) who has
said
to colleges and universities that he wants editors and not just 'machine
operators' - he can train a good *editor* to use the stations chosen
hardware / software but he hasn't the time nor resources to train
editors.

What you say is quite right, but why learn to use one NLE package, then
change to another.
it takes a long time to learn a package well, so why waste three years at
Uni learning one package only to have to start out fresh on a different
package when you start your first job, it's stressful enough already!

Because these days Avid is not the only NLE out there (if ever it was), in
fact the station mentioned above might well not have had Avid's when the
comment was originally made (they still might not have any Avid's), so what
use was there in people going to work there only knowing how to edit in an
Avid suit rather than a solid understanding in the art of editing - be that
crash editing via two VCR's or using a latest wiz-bang Avid unit.

Sorry but the managers in industry expect new graduates to start work
running nowadays, long gone is the apprenticeship.

But a good editor will be able to do that, OK he or she might have to spend
a few days training but they are going to have to do that anyway if the
company doesn't use (say) Avid and that is all the person has ever used.

Whilst it is true, a crap editor will never be any good, you need talent,
equally a talented editor who can use a program, is more employable that
the
same editor who does not know the package. as you pointed out "he hasn't
the
time nor resources to train editors"

Exactly, he accepted that no one can be expected to know all the software
packages out there, but any new editor should be expected to know how to
edit and thus he was prepared to commit resources for 'equipment training'
but not for the 'ability' the person should already have (not that a fresh
out of Uni' editor will be expected to cut the next blockbuster production
anyway).


When I start people off who have never used a NLE package, I get them to
do
a very simple edit on iMovie to show the basics, then get them to move
over
to Avid. Avid works in a quite different way to many other packages, it's
much more like editing the old film way. and the price difference between
Xpress and say FCP is not that significant compared with the other
equipment
required.


But you seem to be teaching then how to use the NLE, not how to edit, ie.
the choice of shot, choice of cuts, choice transition etc. - the look of the
final cut - the hows and why-fors of assembling those choices is irrelevant
to some degree. That same 'simple' edit could be done in a linier suit, in
Studio9, Premiere, FCP or indeed in an Avid suit.

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:35:45 GMT, "Headrush Films UK"
wrote:

I've heard of one department head (in a TV broadcast station) who has said
to colleges and universities that he wants editors and not just 'machine
operators' - he can train a good *editor* to use the stations chosen
hardware / software but he hasn't the time nor resources to train editors.

What you say is quite right, but why learn to use one NLE package, then
change to another.
it takes a long time to learn a package well, so why waste three years at
Uni learning one package only to have to start out fresh on a different
package when you start your first job, it's stressful enough already!

Uh, you're joking right ? The wholle point of university is to get
people to learn the principles, the ability to think for themselves
and *learn* for themselves. Universities should never be churning out
spoon-fed dweebs who cry foul if they encounter something unfamiliar.

The whole point of a university education is to learn how to dissect
newly encountered problems and find a solution which works in the real
world. Or did things move on since I went there in the early 90s ? The
job of the employer is to hand the user a big, thick manual and expect
them to learn the wrinkles of the trade, providing help and the
benefit of their experience where it seems necessary.

My 2c

Cheers - Neil

In message , "Neil Smith
[MVP Digital Media]" writes
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:35:45 GMT, "Headrush Films UK"
wrote:

I've heard of one department head (in a TV broadcast station) who has said
to colleges and universities that he wants editors and not just 'machine
operators' - he can train a good *editor* to use the stations chosen
hardware / software but he hasn't the time nor resources to train editors.

What you say is quite right, but why learn to use one NLE package, then
change to another.
it takes a long time to learn a package well, so why waste three years at
Uni learning one package only to have to start out fresh on a different
package when you start your first job, it's stressful enough already!

Uh, you're joking right ? The wholle point of university is to get
people to learn the principles, the ability to think for themselves
and *learn* for themselves. Universities should never be churning out
spoon-fed dweebs who cry foul if they encounter something unfamiliar.

The whole point of a university education is to learn how to dissect
newly encountered problems and find a solution which works in the real
world. Or did things move on since I went there in the early 90s ? The
job of the employer is to hand the user a big, thick manual and expect
them to learn the wrinkles of the trade, providing help and the
benefit of their experience where it seems necessary.

I not sure I'd subscribe to your views Neil.

After a lifetime working in the electronics, computer, software and
systems fields, I've noticed a reluctance of employers to take on new
graduates in recent years. If you dig to find out why, you'll find many
employers take the view that "why should I pay the salary that a
graduate expects, who can't do the job". I worked for a Rockwell
subsidiary for three years, and there they did take on graduates but
would not let them do anything without close supervision for two years.
They actually had a grade called "student engineers" for such
"probationary" graduates. The larger corporates can afford the time and
money to train graduates to do a job, but the middle and small-sized
companies just can't afford to do so. But the same company took on (as
full engineers) those who had (with or without a degree) a track record
of two or more years in the petro-chemical industry as technicians.

Like a lot of people, I wondered why this situation existed. It became
clear after a little digging. Very few lecturers/tutors at colleges and
unis have ever worked in industry or commerce. In fact you could say
that a lot of them had never left school/college/uni.

Unfortunately, new graduates are rarely able to find solutions that work
in the real world - at least not economically or commercially. I still
remember an R&D manager saying "they'd sooner spend three weeks
developing a smart software solution than fit a capacitor costing 5p
that does the same job". One company I worked for was actually driven
into liquidation through trusting a small team of new graduates. Instead
of adopting and adapting IBM PC hardware and OS infrastructure (as
suggested by some older and wiser heads), they designed a new video
system, a new operating system, and a new communication system. The
product on which the company was depending was three years late. Four
weeks before going into liquidation the company was forced to take on
distribution of a system that was designed around exactly the same
infrastructure that the older and wiser heads had been suggesting. 200
people were made redundant, only getting the minimum that the law
required, and those on company pension schemes were told by the receiver
that they couldn't expect to receive any pensions.
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

In message , David Measor
writes
New Release


http://site.magix.net/index.php?18200

This is the system that professionals use?
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

Sorry can't be bothere with this ****!

"Headrush Films UK" wrote in message
...
Sorry can't be bothere with this ****!


No, I don't expect you can....