FCP 10.1.2 Where are you?

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Marcus Moore] “… I think people have an over inflated sense of the size of our industry.”

Marcus,

Agreed. And this concedes the point that FCP X competes for users in “our industry”.

Franz.

[Marcus Moore]

Possibly. Or it might just be that as I said it’s a measure of total net benefit.

Here’s some numbers I’m pulling out of my ass.

If working with tracks slows means your picture cutting is 30% slower but your audio is 100% efficient.

But in FCPX your cutting is 100% but your audio is only 15% slower, then the net benefit is that your job gets done faster.

It’s just inverting the compromise in workflow, not necessarily that audio is any less important to the overall job. 😉

[Marcus Moore]

I don’t think 10.1 should be considered a different application than 10.0.9. They’re not different enough to merit that distinction. And while you’re right Legacy FCP is an entirely different NLE, those are still Apple and FCP users until they upgrade or migrate to something else.

If we’re going to get that specific, how many premier users that are in the middle of productions aren’t updated to the latest version either?

[Charlie Austin]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “Charlie,

One way to assess a tool is how readily it adapts to different needs.”

Totally agree. But that doesn’t mean one tool is “better” than the other right? The extremely ridiculous auto analogy would be Ferrari > Audio Quattro > Jeep. Use what you need. 🙂

————————————————————-

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

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Charlie Austin] “I find it limiting that I have to open up some big old mixing pane to adjust my audio.”

Charlie,

Here’s my prediction: when the iPad integration comes for FCPX, everyone will be raving about how important touch and immediate feed-back are.

Franz.

[Charlie Austin]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “Charlie,

Here’s my prediction: when the iPad integration comes for FCPX, everyone will be raving about how important touch and immediate feed-back are.”

lol. probably correct. I don’t think anyone is saying touch and immediate feedback aren’t important… At least I’m not. I just don’t personally care if FCP X has a “mixer” or not. In truth, I’d actually prefer an analog control surface if I’m using faders. My trusty MCU is collecting dust in the corner… 🙂

————————————————————-

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

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Charlie Austin] “In truth, I’d actually prefer an analog control surface if I’m using faders.”

Charlie,

… and Adobe and Avid have these options implemented right now. You can use a control surface, an iPad, or choose not to use the mixer at all and keyframe as much as you like.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Marcus Moore] “… the more tedious results from key framing.”

Marcus,

One way to think of the mixer is as a less-tedious way of keyframing.

Franz.

[Jeremy Garchow]

In all my years of attending ProTools sessions, very very rarely do I see the engineer hot mix audio post.

Recording and input has more hot mixing of course, but hot mixing playback is a rare occurrence.

[Charlie Austin]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “Charlie,

… and Adobe and Avid have these options implemented right now. You can use a control surface, an iPad, or choose not to use the mixer at all and keyframe as much as you like.”

Of course… I guess if I were being more clear, I’d note that my MCU was collecting dust long before FCP X was released. I used it with STP and Logic occasionally, but never in an NLE. To be fair, I also rarely “finish” anything out of my NLE, so that makes a difference I guess… On the occasions that I have though, I never used the faders even in NLE’s that had them. Totally personal preference though…

————————————————————-

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