Re: FCPX: A Pro Photographer/Video Noob's POV.
 

'' Do not mistake short term advantages for the long term advantage of following a media revolution as it becomes democratized."


I have very simple question regarding this "pro" or "prosumer" use of this software:

My last project was a 7 piece 52 minutes documentary series. We had some 30 000 clips in this project. My next project I am just about to enter is a 12 piece 52 minuted documentary series. With tens of thousands of clips.

Now, given the user interface of FCP X, I do not see how could I organize all this rushes having actually one screen setup. Because FCP X IS one screen setup, regardless the possibility to spread the interface over two monitors. It is meant for laptop, and it is OK fine, as it indicates the target market of this product.

So I commend all this "democratization" of media, but I need a tool that is more preoccupied with what I need to edit, and less with the future of the industry. We shall all meet there anyway, some will cut short stories, some huge projects. Each will choose suitable tool. FCP X is not suitable for me, whatever future brings.

My 2 piaster...

Re: FCPX: A Pro Photographer/Video Noob's POV.
 

Back when I was a student I had an analogue Matrox capture card that was pretty much new. I found to my horror that if I upgraded to Windows XP although there would be display drivers for the card there would be no drivers for the capture portion. Ever.

I don't believe that's the only example of that kind of thing happening with their kit.

Re: FCPX: A Pro Photographer/Video Noob's POV.
 

And THAT is something I can agree with you on whole heartedly.

Re: FCPX: A Pro Photographer/Video Noob's POV.
 

Both Nikon and Canon Nikon still have film cameras, although very much top of the range.

Interestingly Arri seem to have stopped manufacturing film cameras, however, since these cameras can have a working life of 20 years or more I wouldn't get in panic if you want to shoot a movie on film. I gather Paul Thomas Anderson may be shooting "The Master" on 65mm using Arri 765 cameras and these would've been made around the early 1990s.

Re: FCPX: A Pro Photographer/Video Noob's POV.
 

Respectfully, I think these comments are off the mark. This isn't about "people in power" or fear of change. The backlash against FCPX is because it simply removes functionality that is essential in a well rounded editing platform - basic functionality that you need to achieve day to day tasks.

An improved GUI, 64bit, more intuitive user experience, lower price - this is all great, is anyone complaining about the new bells and whistles? The negativity about FCPX is not springing from snobbery. I look forward to faster, simpler ways of doing things and I'm sure the majority of creative professionals are no different.

I'm by no means a high-end, power user. I run a very small (two person) production house. We make fairly straightforward corporate dvds and web videos. Nevertheless, in the course of a month I get a number of little jobs that FCPX (as it stands) either can't handle, or could only navigate with great difficulty. These are bread and butter tasks, things that FCP7 does without breaking a sweat.

When the new UI was revealed and new features promoted, pros were almost unanimously excited about what FCPX would be. We're not, as a community, afraid of change. But when core functionality is removed that affects our ability to work, and thereby our livelihoods, many of us feel our hands are being forced by Apple. I personally don't want to switch to Adobe or Avid - it's a hassle I can do without - but unless a lot of functionality is added to FCPX very soon, I don't see many options.

From Apple's perspective, sure, it's a smart business move. They will make a lot of money from FCPX. They are a corporation: they are about making money. Understood, but many of us who've stuck with FCP over the years naturally feel the rug's been pulled from under us, and we need to reassess our options.