-
FCPX or Not…
-
[Craig Seeman] “Granted it has some severe limitations but “Professional” means many things to many people”
As an often frustrated professional producer using FCPX, I’d say Craig nails the X conundrum with this statement.
My frustration with Apple is specifically because I have a hard time balancing the “professional” aspects and the “severe limitations” in day to day use.
A new iteration of FCP should have hit it out of the park.
It didn’t.So many of us are ambivalent toward FCPX because Apple delivered an ambivalent product.
As the most profitable and visionary company of it’s kind, in history, Apple should be way beyond half-baked, works for some people, products.
-
[Jim Giberti] “So many of us are ambivalent toward FCPX because Apple delivered an ambivalent product.”
I have my bouts with it as well. I’m dealing with another round of dual mono blues. Basically the feature set is “uneven” it would seem. I do trust the progress they seem to be making though. I don’t these issues are because it’s a half baked Apple pie errr product. I suspect it may have to do with a combination of their direction their heading with it and what they can get out the door first.
-
Lump all professional use together? Horse Patties. That’s not what you meant by using the word ‘majors’. Split hairs if you must. Split infinitives, ok by me. Split your analogy up after the fact? Who do you think you’re fooling 🙂
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
It’s being used for broadcast. That’s professional.
Outside the USA I know of one broadcaster that moved their operation to FCPX.
I’ve offered to interview him. He says he doesn’t have the time but he also thinks all these debates are foolish. He’s using it, despite some issues, and it’s working fine for their facility and he has no intention of changing.
You don’t have sole control over what professional means. It’s being used. -
[Craig Seeman] “ou don’t have sole control over what professional means. It’s being used.”
Craig, I’m not trying to define professional, but you’re trying to define what’s major league.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
[David Cherniack] “but you’re trying to define what’s major league.”
Yes, I provide a definition rather than others who make blanket statements about “professional”
Broadcast is one such definition. One could argue corporate may be major league as well. -
[Craig Seeman] “One could argue corporate may be major league as well.”
You could but I doubt many would agree with such a blanket ststement.
I always use the term “high end” instead of “professional”. It can include everything from features to YouTube, depending on the complexity, creativity, and production values. It’s sufficiently vague, unlike “major league” which is pretty definite, in baseball anyway.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
[David Cherniack] “I always use the term “high end” instead of “professional”.”
What’s high end? Heavy FX? That needs a definition as well.
If one is using it with RED or Arri sources is that “high end” (yes I know there’s no direct RED codec support yet) -
[Craig Seeman] “What’s high end? Heavy FX? That needs a definition as well.”
High end is high end. If you wish to define it I suggest that the definition will only be suitable to you…which is precisely why it’s intentionally vague.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
[David Cherniack] “High end is high end”
Assertions like that kill any kind of intelligent discussion. To talk about suitable for various market or workflow definitions. While we may each have different definitions, being able to state them can give us each an idea about where our perceptions come from. Saying something like “High end is high end” is near pointless. If you want to make assertions like that, there’s no point in discussing because discussion involves language and definition. When I make statements I try to define them in some form.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up