And the lightbulb goes on…

[Steve Connor]

I’ve had a couple of major event videos that I’ve been editing every year for the last 18 years so I have a very good handle on how long each show takes, using FCPX has certainly been faster and easier for me.

Steve Connor

There’s nothing we can’t argue about on the FCPX COW Forum

[Charlie Austin]

[Craig Seeman] “FCPX forces a rethink and, for a time, one may be slower…. until “the lightbulb goes on…” There’s no “lightbulb” for most people switching to the other NLEs because there’s only minor changes in circuitry.”

In a weird way, cutting mostly in X has made me faster in legacy. 😉 I find myself using shortcuts I didn’t really use before I “discovered” them in X. Despite the popular wisdom, and setting aside magnetism, X and 7 work in very similar ways. That said, X lets me work faster. No patching, skimming and clip skimming are the biggies, but certainly not the only reasons. I also ring that it’s much easier to layer tons of audio and keep track of it in X. I’ve built sound beds I wouldn’t have kept much simpler in 7 or Pr. I just had to move a project from X to 7. In X, it was… deep, but manageable. In 7? Lets just say that 40+ tracks of audio made up of mostly little 1 second or less SFX is uh… hard to keep track of sometimes… 😉

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Jason Jenkins]

[Craig Seeman] “I don’t think you can count keystrokes or even “clock” compare specific functions in many cases.”

I found that picking out selects in Premiere requires a substantially greater number of keystrokes than it does in FCPX. When you know you don’t have to be working that hard, it gets old really quick.

Jason Jenkins
Flowmotion Media
Video production… with style!

Check out my Mormon.org profile.

[Charlie Austin]

[Jason Jenkins] “When you know you don’t have to be working that hard, it gets old really quick.”

I share that sentiment. 🙂 There are myriad things that, once you get use to doing them in X with way less effort/clicking/dragging etc, become quite tiresome when done in other NLE’s. Not an indictment of other NLE’s by the way. There are things they do better than X. For me, the X timeline is just more fluid, warts and all…

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Neil Sadwelkar]

Actually after working in FCP X, when one has to go to Avid MC (even ver 7)… That feels really sluggish.

———————————–
Neil Sadwelkar
neilsadwelkar.blogspot.com
twitter: fcpguru
FCP Editor, Edit systems consultant
Mumbai India

[Andre Van berlo]

I find it interesting to see an experienced editor feels the same as I do (not so experienced). I had to learn editing to create videos for my students because I don’t have the $$ to have someone edit for me. I’ve spent years learning and started in Premiere Pro Cs5. Once FCPX came out i gave it a try for a month, going back to premiere was funny enough like going back in time. It felt unnatural to me suddenly eventhough it was where I started.
Premiere Pro feels very technical and eventhough I’m not stupid in that regard I just don’t have the time to learn all of it. I felt that X was partially made for people like me, it works really intuitive. At the moment I fly through my timeline, what used to take 4hrs now takes 1,5-2hrs… quelle difference…

[Craig Shields]

[Jason Jenkins] “I found that picking out selects in Premiere requires a substantially greater number of keystrokes than it does in FCPX.”

How so? Just curious. Can you describe how you go about the process in FCPX?

[Tim Wilson]

I think that the idea of looking for objective quantification of how much faster X is by counting keystrokes or putting up a timer somewhat misses the point. Even if “faster” means nothing more than “it feels faster and it drives me less crazy,” wow, wouldn’t you take that trade-off in a heartbeat? That your work FEELS faster?

Maybe even more fun? I know that I often choose driving routes that are longer, just because I feel better when I get where I’m going. Qualitative measures can at least as important as quantitative ones, no?

And hey, sounds like maybe it objectively too. Thanks for the reports. 🙂

[Charlie Austin]

[Tim Wilson] “it feels faster and it drives me less crazy,”

I think that’s it really. Who knows if it’s quantifiable, and really… who cares? When I go from X to 7 or Pr, especially if it’s the same sequence, I find myself cursing the app a lot. That’s not to say I don’t curse X… I do. I just curse it less. 😉

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Tim Wilson] “Maybe even more fun? “

Or more creative.

In creative cuts, it allows you to swap things around and back on the timeline with near zero penalty. It also, with some of the editing functions like Auditions, allow you to store many more options of clips in the timeline itself, and when you want to review those options, you simply flip the Audition and a new take presents itself. Because of the magnetic timeline, you don’t lose your relative timings, and if you need to go back to the original cut, you simply chose the previous clip in the Audition. You don’t have to duplicate a timeline three times to see three different options. And if you ever want to see those options again, perhaps days and weeks from now, those options are still there, in time, in your timeline inside of the Audition clip.

This feature alone is quantifiably faster, and much less destructive and redundant.