My ambivalence about FCP-X

[arniepix]

For anyone who's interested:
http://www.arniepix.com/index.php?op...&id=5&Itemid=5

To sum it up:
I am not my tools. I am a creative professional, regardless of the tools I choose to use. I should choose those tools for reasons that make sense to me.

And, BTW, if you're interested in working with emerging, indie film makers in the near future, you should learn FCP-X and Lightworks because many of them will be attracted to them by price and FCP-X's ease of use.

[David Saraceno]

Agree with most of what you have written there.

Thanks for sharing it with us.

[draven4]

Ha, not true.

And you're confusing the situation. There are so many threads on this already but I'll sum it up for you.

The pro post world is not using Final Cut X at the moment because they took out the features (technical not talking about creative) that they need to do things like move a cut to another post house for mixing, color grading, picture conforming, ect. Things like EDLs and support for higher end gear like the Kona capture card, AAF, OMF ect.

Non Pro's (or a better term the general editing public) will not be bothered by Final Cut X's lack of these features because they simply do not need them to get edits done. Especially if they do everything in one computer.


Dude, this is not a creative debate. Progress is good, innovation is good.

Apple can innovate all it wants but if it takes away the pro features then the pro post houses can't and I repeat can't use the software. Not by choice.


I work at a post production trailer house and was talking to the tech department and they mentioned that even if they wanted to use Final Cut X they can't use it for their 50 plus networked editing systems.


People don't get the "whining". It has nothing to do with the theory of innovation itself but with Apple's innovation taking away some features the pro's used. That's it plain and simple.

There'a another thread on this which goes into detail, kind of wish you didn't start this thread. I'm sure all the same things that are going to be mentioned here will HAVE BEEN MENTIONED in this other thread.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...ess-standpoint.

[Vultch]

+1

[kwoff]

Ha, not true.

And you're confusing the situation. There are so many threads on this already but I'll sum it up for you.

The pro post world is not using Final Cut X at the moment because they took out the features (technical not talking about creative) that they need to do things like move a cut to another post house for mixing, color grading, picture conforming, ect. Things like EDLs and support for higher end gear like the Kona capture card, AAF, OMF ect.

Non Pro's (or a better term the general editing public) will not be bothered by Final Cut X's lack of these features because they simply do not need them to get edits done. Especially if they do everything in one computer.


Dude, this is not a creative debate. Progress is good, innovation is good.

Apple can innovate all it wants but if it takes away the pro features then the pro post houses can't and I repeat can't use the software. Not by choice.


I work at a post production trailer house and was talking to the tech department and they mentioned that even if they wanted to use Final Cut X they can't use it for their 50 plus networked editing systems.


People don't get the "whining". It has nothing to do with the theory of innovation itself but with Apple's innovation taking away some features the pro's used. That's it plain and simple.

There'a another thread on this which goes into detail, kind of wish you didn't start this thread. I'm sure all the same things that are going to be mentioned here will HAVE BEEN MENTIONED in this other thread.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...ess-standpoint.

+1

[milksac]

We, the editors, are in much the same spot as those taxi drivers.

Not at all. You mentioned, the cab drivers had no choice in picking the cab. Editors have multiple choices.

If we're really professionals, we should, like a cab driver, be able to sit down behind the wheel of any model of NLE and drive it from raw footage to finished edit.

I agree that an editor that desires to earn a decent income as a freelancer should know more than one NLE. Most of the freelancers I work with know both FCP7 and Media Composer.

[blackcat]

I hope that Lightworks makes it. It would be nice to have a powerful and open source editor. Time will tell on that one.

[arniepix]

If you only define "pro" as someone who works on studio features, TV shows, commercials, trailers or in post houses, then, yes FCP-X is missing many "pro" features.

If you define "pro" as someone who makes a sizable chunk of their income making or posting video, though, most of these people don't rely on capture cards, and many are cutting with iMacs or MacBook Pros. FCP-X probably has all of the features that most of these people need, and they outnumber us by a wide margin. These are the people who are working on industrials, events, web series, even indie films.

[Rolf Silber]

There is one problem in this discussion: It's not about us defining who is a pro and who is not. It is about defining or finding out if a software meets all or most of the standards pros in different work fields need. And here FCPX seems to fail.

[dustylense]

There is one problem in this discussion: It's not about us defining who is a pro and who is not. It is about defining or finding out if a software meets all or most of the standards pros in different work fields need. And here FCPX seems to fail.

That's what they said about FCP 1.0.