I like it

[Pete Cofrancesco]

How FCP X turned out in the context of Apples decision over the past few years shouldn't be that surprising. Mainly gearing their products to the consumer aka iphone, ipad, ipod etc. I bet the thinking was we've got loads of iMovie users, why re-write FCP from scratch grab iMovie code base and interface, add a few features and walla we have FCP X. iMovie users will be able to make the transition easier so they'll more likely buy it. But what about the professionals? Well, they have to get with the new. I'm surprised they even sell DVDSP anymore, I mean only old times use DVDs. lol Its pretty clear that the professional video editors are not a high priority to Apple, numbers and money are on the consumer side.

Its not a bunch of old grumpy guys clinging to the past, its professional (who make a living doing video) who have invested a lot of time and money into FCP that are getting the rug pulled out from underneath us. It's not a knock against enthusiasts and average consumers more about giving little thought about FCP user base and the features they rely on to make their living.

[Ryan Douthit]

On the other hand, Pete, FCP X will be a goldmine for pros working in fast-turnaround sports production for TV and web, like me. It's like it's custom made for my specialty. I can, quite literally, log clips, drag and drop an entire timeline with a mix based on keyword attributes and order then add a little spit-and-polish. I'll be able to produce twice as fast in the field. Need a different athlete? Different keywords.Really, it's pretty amazing. Sure, not perfect for every pro, but I don't care about the theoretical users, I only care about my business. I don't do a ton of TV work, but when I do I have yet to need to submit tape. It's always a digital file.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

I'm curious in TV and Sports do they ever film with more than one camera at once? Or maybe want to open something that was edited in the previous version of the software or do they redo the entire project from scratch? I'm glad it works for you, but there might be tiny possibility that the features that were previously offered might actually be important to current users.

[Ryan Douthit]

I simply said that in my case - and for many others that do *what I do* - the new features are more significant gains then the missing features are losses. Is that so hard to understand? And, the topic of this thread is "I like it" not "let's beat a dead horse."

[David Tamés]

I've been very critical about Final Cut Pro X, but there's one aspect that I really like, and that's how metadata is handled. I've spent time working with the keywords and keywords based on select ranges and it's spectacular, it provides a clean way of doing what used to require kludgy machinations with ye olde markers in Final Cut Pro Classic. I like to keep my media files organized in a folder hierarchy and I love how in one simple import into Final Cut Pro X all of the folder names became keywords, instantly showing me the meaningful hierarchy I've created for the original media.

Take a look at Philip Hodgetts' new e-book (also available from Amazon): Conquering the metadata foundations of Final Cut Pro X | The present and future of post production business and technology for a detailed discussion of the metadata features in Final Cut Pro X.

What's still missing are the tools to get this data in and out of the program and perhaps even manipulate it via a third party tool, but I think we can be pretty sure this is coming. There's never been a more interesting time to continue with business as usual (Final Cut Pro Classic) and contemplate what the next generation toolkit will bring while having time to prepare for it (Final Cut Pro X).

[Heath McKnight]

I think the metadata is key.

I made a nice living with FCP for many years, and consciously left production full-time to focus on writing. I'm excited about FCP X, but I'm still hesitant with some issues (mostly importing old projects).

heath