-
FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012
More specific about FCPX than Iditarod workflow with it but one can infer that his information came from the workflow (likes/problems). Also important is that he used it on a major project such as Iditarod and also why. Also note his conclusion.
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Vimeo framework” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
90 Replies
-
Craig,
He seems to be impressed with the speed of X, background processes, the fact that raylight works, and auto white balance. He also outlines issues with audio and plug-ins. Was there something else you thought was interesting or insightful?
Franz.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Was there something else you thought was interesting or insightful?”
Primarily that this came from what I suspect was a challenging situation, editing and delivering in the field while covering Iditarod, rather than just playing around or working with projects which might have less pressure.
His evaluation might not sound much different than many others, give or take, but knowing from what circumstance it was coming from is, in itself interesting to me. That he concludes after this real world use and real world issues, he’d still prefer it over FCP7 (which may well be an admission to how badly FCP7 aged rather than how great FCPX is on its own, admittedly).
I think many of, even those who like FCPX, would acknowledge that Audio is FCPX’s Achilles heel at the moment.
Personally I think the background processing may be an issue in a lot of cases. It may well be the cause of much beach balling. Others have pointed out that it’s often better to turn it off entirely and do the render on export.
Overall though he certainly found it worthy on what I suspect was a high pressure short turnaround professional project . . . at least preferred over the aging FCP7.
-
Appears he has had nearly exactly the same experience that I and others have had.
Not easy to come to grips with the changes.
Lots of annoyances that need to be overcome when you’re learning the new thinking.
Frustrations (large and small) along the way.
But once you do get comfortable with the new process – almost nobody I’ve talked to who’ve used X to deliver real work find it acceptable to considering going back to editing the way we did before we dug in and learned enough to really appreciate it’s strengths.
Either we’re all crazy – or there is something different about it that makes so many feel that once we’ve made the full transition – fully jettisoning X and going back to the way we used to edit is the one thing we simply won’t seriously consider.
Which mirrors my experience very well.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
I watched this whole thing. Are you kidding me?
Tim
-
[Bill Davis] “Either we’re all crazy – or there is something different about it that makes so many feel that once we’ve made the full transition – fully jettisoning X and going back to the way we used to edit is the one thing we simply won’t seriously consider.”
I don’t think anyone is crazy in this discussion Bill.
I’m continuing to work with it because I like so many things about it.
The speed of grading and unlimited secondaries built into each track.
The speed of adjusting audio waveforms in realtime in the timeline.
The speed of organizing and compiling with the Keyword Editor and Event Browser.
But I’m not going to stop clamoring for important improvements that would expand it’s capabilities.I’ve created a workaround for one that’s bothered me a lot, but the memory and performance issues are big issues for me.
-
And just to put a finer point on it if your supposed partners have decided to call your product by a different name then I, as a user, would be very worried. And I am.
Tim
-
[Jim Giberti] “But I’m not going to stop clamoring for important improvements that would expand it’s capabilities.
I’ve created a workaround for one that’s bothered me a lot, but the memory and performance issues are big issues for me.”
Given it’s 1.0.x nature, I think the performance issues will be addressed as, at the moment, performance (where and when it does work) is one of its biggest current selling points.
-
[Craig Seeman] “Given it’s 1.0.x nature, I think the performance issues will be addressed as, at the moment, performance (where and when it does work) is one of its biggest current selling points.
“Right, but I don’t think it’s just me…why did 1.0.3 go the other way with performance?
I was becoming a big fan, warts and all, because of performance and features, but I’m convinced that they made a boo boo with the update.
-
[Bill Davis] “Either we’re all crazy – or there is something different about it that makes so many feel that once we’ve made the full transition – fully jettisoning X and going back to the way we used to edit is the one thing we simply won’t seriously consider.”
I’d add that some of us have used other NLEs as well.
I spent over 10 years on Avid. I knew it well enough to work as the facility engineer at a major broadcast oriented facility and train the editor as well as maintain the systems. The new Avid MC, while a MAJOR improvement, uses a paradigm I do NOT want to go back to after using FCPX.FCPX has answered so much of what I’ve hoped for in an NLE for so many years that, despite its flaws, I have to maintain hope. It is much closer to what I want an NLE to be.
-
And to put an even finer point on it there is nothing in this video that addresses his workflow from beginning to end. Or even from the beginning. What is it other than a house organ?
Tim
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up