-
FCPX is not used by professionals and only suitable for editing home movies!
-
[Scott Witthaus] ” The technology needs to “get out of the way”
The technology never gets out of the way. Any more that the paint gets out of the way.
Tim
-
This is a good example of the miscommunication at the heart of this thread. The article is meant for mercenary broadcast-feature-spot editors who walk into facilities houses, ask for a cup of tea (yes im in the UK) and start cutting. The point the article was making: you will be sat in front of an Avid. Maybe Premiere but that has never happened to me. FCP7 was edging in for a long time, at it’s peak maybe a third of my work. Now almost none. There are a few FCPL setups still around but mostly in-house suites with plans to switch to avid or premiere next cycle.
Maybe FCPX will become a viable option for post houses when the unofficial open beta they’ve been running is complete. Whether anyone would be crazy enough to put their multi-million dollar eggs in Apples basket again I seriously doubt.
Even if, as a little bird told me, the new FCPX has audio tracks.. -
[Don Scioli] “If these candidates, municipalities and the state of California trust FCPX with their respective fates and $, I believe we can deduce that it is a pro app.
“Considering the state of the State I’m not sure that’s a ringing endorsement. 😉
-
LA is a niche market, when you think about the total of “professional” visual communications. What might be dominant or favored in LA can no way be treated as an accurate statement for the industry as a whole.
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
I have been particularly interested in Andy and Oliver’s discussion within this thread, as Oliver is quintessential as to the “misconception” that FCPX is some how only suitable for home movies and those who edit using FCPX are somehow not “Professional Editors”! Furthermore, Kevin P McAuliffe, the original Author of article this thread is based on, is just flat out wrong…ten ways till Sunday!!
He starts out with “if the question has to be asked, “is FCPX ready for professional editors”, then the answer has to be NO!” This is arrogance at its very finest! And I mean no disrespect to anyone. But this is just absurd. FCPX is trully revolutionary in so many ways, and still growing!
Right now for Editors like Oliver and Kevin, being a Professional Editor means spending thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours learning that expensive software. Along with knowing elements of editing that many editors will never use in any of their projects. I myself was very frustrated at the “Uniqueness” of FCPX along with how “Buggy” it was in its initial release. In that respect, it was “NOT” ready for professionals. But as many are beginning to post, along with many more editing job descriptions asking for FCPX experience, FCPX is now being recognized as the one editor that can do what it does better than any other……SAVE THE EDITOR A LOT OF TIME!!! The Multi-Cam editor is absolutely wonderful! What’s pissing people off like Kevin is, Apple have re-branded what is available to People with Creative Vision making video creation much more affordable and possible by providing a tool that is very inexpensive, very powerful, with ton of third party Plug-In support. Folks like Oliver feel that if an Editor is not using or doing what he is doing that somehow they are not Professional. The reality is, what makes an editor truly Professional is this: That when all is said and done, what they produce has seamless edits, footage is matched and graded and meets the clients criteria, no typos, and deadlines and budgets are met. This criteria is all encompassing no matter how big or small the project is. FCPX is a Professional Editor, there is no doubt about that as I use it to produce all kinds of work weekly. This past week and half I finished 3 :30 spots with alternative “auditions” included for the client to view which saved me a ton of time. Many have talked about the lack of Audio controls in FCPX…they are all there! I can edit Audio in the FCPX timeline very fast and sweeten it at the same time. You can export any part of the timeline to Motion as well as any Plug-In, Effect or Type, edit and save and its back in FCPX! Kevin’s original post that so may responded to has so many statements that are not true! Which is why so many were pissed, as they should be!!
Its time to put this issue to rest and start looking at what FCPX brings to the table of Professional as well as Amateur editors! -
[Andy Branner] “Mmmmh. Sure. Not the least bit unsubstantiated conjecture or a mere reflection of your little world. A world I’m sure is the revolving point of an entire global industry, which makes that claim completely credible sight unseen. We clearly have to take that as pure fact, because… well… because… you’re… hmmm… erm…”
Dan was quite clear that he was talking anecdotally about his own small section of the industry, a segment he defined quite clearly –
“The article (Kevin’s) is meant for mercenary broadcast-feature-spot editors who walk into facilities houses.”
Show me where in his post he claimed that this part of the industry is more important than any other. Apparently your defensiveness is still showing.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
Thanks Herb.. I was about to post a reply that we would all have regretted 🙂
-
[Craig Shamwell] ” as Oliver is quintessential as to the “misconception” that FCPX is some how only suitable for home movies and those who edit using FCPX are somehow not “Professional Editors”!”
I had tried to go away from this thread because it’s become incredibly boring and generally does not speak well for the FCP X community. However, I find this last comment directed at me quite insulting, grossly misrepresenting what I actually wrote and completely uninformed. So it begs for a response.
I’m not sure where you think my misconceptions are. Clearly you haven’t read much of what I wrote in this or the other similar thread over the weekend. You certainly haven’t read much of anything I’ve written about X over the past two years here or anyplace else. Having used it on a near-exclsuive basis since 10.0.0 for two years, I’ll put my professional “seat time” with X up against anyone. Period.
[Craig Shamwell] “Right now for Editors like Oliver and Kevin, being a Professional Editor means spending thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours learning that expensive software.”
Maybe you should get your facts straight. I never said anything about thousands of dollars and if you think having hundreds of hours of experience with software is not essential, then I beg to differ. It’s not hundreds – it’s thousands, before you can even consider yourself any good. From the POV of a client, that’s incredibly important. After all, full-time for a year as a working editor is about 2,000. Just a starting point.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[TImothy Auld] “The technology never gets out of the way.”
True, never totally, but as much as possible it should not impede the creative process.
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
“It’s not hundreds – it’s thousands, before you can even consider yourself any good” Herein lies the the Crux of why many “Professional” editors don’t like FCPX! Because its easy to learn! Because you can achieve “professional” results without the thousands of hours you speak of. That is the whole point Oliver that I and others are trying to make with what makes FCPX more than ready for Professional Editors! The Paradigm of what a Professional Editor has changed. Your description is no longer valid that so many hours is needed to produce great looking results! The two easiest tools to use in all of creativity are probably the pencil and paper. What goes on that canvas is at the hands of the artist. Its the same for Video Editing! FCPX is a much easier tool to use and yes it looks very different. But what makes an Editor an artist is his gift for timing, symmetry, continuity and storytelling. What makes an Editor a Professional is one who makes a living doing it. Period…and that does not mean “thousands” of hours. And no, once an individual learns the language of Editing, keyframing and such, they can become quite good in a very short period of time, especially using an editor that makes editing much more intuitive. Again, sorry if you feel I disrespected you, but your response is just what I meant. My belief is Apple is looking at Video as the future of communication. So why not make the tools for doing such…easier, more intuitive. While many have called FCPX, iMovie Pro…many a professional has used iMovie for capturing and rough cutting video. Its actually a very good program and many make a lot of money just using it! But you would probably not call them “Professional” And that my friend where we disagree. Some of the best editors did not go to school for it. And everything you know isn’t needed by many of the editors of today. That just makes you a more knowledgeable Editor, not anymore talented or Professional. There is a thousand times more footage being edited today than 15 years ago, and its not film and TV work either! Things have changed dramatically and so has the “Professional” Editor, both in body and in software.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up