Have conclusions? Please add. Also, please disagree.

[Herb Sevush]

Nayeli –

Yours is the most reasonable, well thought out and articulated posting I have read.

Thank you.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Chris Harlan]

Craig, I totally agree with you that in the right circumstances it offers a great deal of power, and that that power has yet to be tapped. I certainly wouldn’t argue with that. But, many workflows are based on the notion of in/out, done, gone. Mine, particularly.

[Nayeli Garci-crespo]

“Yours is the most reasonable, well thought out and articulated posting I have read.”

*blush*
Thanks, Herb.

-Nayeli

[Chris Harlan]

Well said!

[Jean-françois Robichaud]

I think the main drawback of the FCP X’s Event-based media management is its name, as silly as that sounds. It makes one think of iPhoto type management, but that obscures its real versatility and depth. You get to choose how your media is organised; you don’t have to use the time-based paradigm. There is nothing you could do before in terms of organisation that you can’t do with this. I haven’t hit any limitations so far. It actually saddens me that I’ll have to go back to FCP 7 for my ongoing projects.

The thought of having all of your media (spanning all your projects) available at the same time might seem overwhelming, but they’re really neatly hidden in their own separate hierarchies, so they don’t get in the way of what you’re doing now. Archiving Events to external media can be done from the Event Browser with a simple drag and drop or menu selection.

[Steven Gonzales]

Thanks for the comments about FCP for feature film.

I’ve spent a lot of time convincing people that FCP was a viable and accurate alternative to Avid for feature editing. I’ve had my credibility questioned with sync issues, and strange Aurora Igniter misbehaving drivers. I was thrilled when the crude tool Film Logic was purchased by Apple and rechristened Cinema Tools.

In it’s current form, this FCP X is totally unusuable for feature film work.

I’m sure it’s a great tool for something, but if there’s an emotional tone here on the boards, some of that is due to many of our arguments for this product over the years being voided instantly.

[Chris Harlan]

Jean-Francois, I totally get where you are coming from, and I do understand that I can or will be able to hide pretty much everything. I guess I should clarify that it is the cost of this core element–the displacement or disruption of so many other features that I liked and used–that I find objectionable.

[Nayeli Garci-crespo]

Steven: “I’ve spent a lot of time convincing people that FCP was a viable and accurate alternative to Avid for feature editing.”

Yeah, me too! I would say, listen… maybe it’s not as stable, has a few bugs, etc., but for the price it’s great, and you can successfully get what you need from it. Especially when all you are doing is an offline for a DI and with very limited funds. I knew what to watch out for with CMX3600s, how to make sure they came out with no errors. I kept on pushing for more extensive use of FCP XML in labs. Now all those AVID editors are going “I told you so.”

This wouldn’t have been such a huge deal if they had called it the new Final Cut Xpress and had not discontinued FCS 7 with no warning. They’ve replaced apples with oranges (ugh, pun really not intended). It makes NO sense that it is called Final Cut Pro. It’s like replacing your MS Word with “Text Edit” and calling it the new MS Word, discontinuing all support for previous versions, while simultaneously getting rid of Excel and PowerPoint. It seems underhanded. Saying this is Apple being Apple doesn’t address the real issue.

-Nayeli

[Alex Hawkins]

I couldn’t agree more.

Lovely post.

Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia