-
I can’t believe how fast can work in FCP X already.
-
[Daniel Rutledge] “I feel like on these forums people often just see parts of a post and zero in on statements in isolation, ignoring context.”
Dude, I’m sorry you feel that way. You might want to rethink that, though. My guess is that it is generally the result of people responding to the items they have something to respond to. In other cases it might have to do with vague or mixed statements on the part of the original poster.
[Daniel Rutledge] “The Wacom Cintiq already does a lot of these things.”
Yeah, I’ve been using a Cintiq for about four years now. Its okay. Not quite as handy as I thought it would be, but I get use out of it.
[Daniel Rutledge] “My point is, things used to be one way and they changed, then they changed again and again. “
Yeah, most of us who have been doing this for a living for a long time are well aware of that. Most of us work on multiple NLE’s and, for many of us FCP was our 3rd or 4th NLE. We’re pretty used to change. Some of us even thrive on it. Doesn’t mean that we have to accept it blindly, however.
[Daniel Rutledge] “I’m not trying to talk anyone into liking FCP X, I’m just saying that you shouldn’t be close minded about it and try to talk other people into not liking it.”
Who exactly am I trying to talk into not liking it? I think that one’s in your head. I can imagine a lot of things it would be useful for. I’m always interested in hearing stories about how it works for people. But I do like specifics and not vagaries. When I talk about reasons that it doesn’t work for me, I try to be very specific. I like that same specificity in reports of well it works for folks. In general, the people who debate things on this forum are neither pro nor con, but are, instead, engaged in a lengthy discussion of editorial process.
[Daniel Rutledge] “FCP X isn’t just looking at next year. It is designed as a foundation for the next ten years, just like FCP 1 was. “
I’m really not interested in ten years from now, and won’t be for another six. My window is from next week to maybe three years out. For me, the rest is pretty much armchair piffle. Also, personally, I believe you attribute too much power to the Professional Apps division within Apple. It drove the company–or at least had shotgun–for a number of years, but is now in the trunk.
[Daniel Rutledge] “I wasn’t being facetious when I asked if you thought that editors would be working just as we have been for the last 20 years, 100 years from now. I really want to know what you think.”
Sorry, mate. That–to me–is an absurd question, other than to say “of course not.”
[Daniel Rutledge] “You said “never” in reference to changing interface design. I was assuming that your “never” was figurative, and I was asking what you really thought.”
I have no idea what you are talking about. I’ve scanned my above posts and can not find any usage of “never.” Nor can I find any reference to changing interface design. The only thing that remotely fits in that area at all is my mentioning that I didn’t believe that the consumer App that Avid just released will be developed much beyond what it is now. To go from that to “You said “never” in reference to changing interface design” is a bit of a stretch, so perhaps you meant something else.
-
Sorry, Michael Hancock wrote “never” and you quoted him in one of you posts. To be fair you were agreeing with him, but you didn’t actually write it yourself.
If you don’t like Fcp x and you only care about the next three weeks, then there’s really nothing to discuss. I must have written a half dozen times that I agree that there are some workflows that FCP X isn’t suited to. Yours is one of them. In that we are in agreement. I am sure that Avid and Adobe will continue to make products that are familiar to us all for at least the next several years.
I’m glad that you like your current setup.
-
[Daniel Rutledge] “FCP X isn’t just looking at next year. It is designed as a foundation for the next ten years, just like FCP 1 was. “
And you know this on exactly what authority?
-
[Daniel Rutledge] “If you don’t like Fcp x and you only care about the next three weeks, then there’s really nothing to discuss. “
I believe you are misquoting me. The timeframe I mentioned was substantially larger. The point is that ten years out is numerous investment cycles away, and that trying to determine what might be usable then doesn’t in any way help me make a living now. Trying to look forward two and three years in regards to equipment and platforms is useful.
I don’t dislike FCP X; in fact, there are elements that I find quite intriguing. It is entirely possible that in the next three years I will find some uses for it. It seems to me that there is plenty to discuss.
[Daniel Rutledge] “I’m glad that you like your current setup.
“I would be happier with an FCP 8, but I’m adjusting nicely.
-
My point isn’t that FCP X will be useful in ten years. In ten years there will be some guy on creative cow lamenting the demise of the seemingly iriplaceable magnetic timeline. In ten years X will be ready for retirement.
FCP 8 isn’t coming. X isn’t what I was expecting either, but I have enough respect for the substantial investment it took to develop it to give it a chance to succeed on its own merits.
-
[Daniel Rutledge] “My point isn’t that FCP X will be useful in ten years. In ten years there will be some guy on creative cow lamenting the demise of the seemingly iriplaceable magnetic timeline. In ten years X will be ready for retirement.”
I guess that’s a possibility.
[Daniel Rutledge] “FCP 8 isn’t coming. X isn’t what I was expecting either, but I have enough respect for the substantial investment it took to develop it to give it a chance to succeed on its own merits.”
It’s succeeding already. A number of people are happy with it. For me, and the community I work in, it would be a poor choice. Whether Apple has any interest getting that community back is a matter of much debate. My guess is that it doesn’t particularly care. Of course, I’d love to be shown that I’m wrong.
-
Uh, David-
It was Apple Senior Director of Marketing Richard Townhill:
“We are giving people the opportunity to see for themselves how powerful, amazing and revolutionary Final Cut Pro is,” Townhill said, adding that the updated suite offers a modern foundation that will last “for the next 10 years.”“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Uh, David-
It was Apple Senior Director of Marketing Richard Townhill:
“We are giving people the opportunity to see for themselves how powerful, amazing and revolutionary Final Cut Pro is,” Townhill said, adding that the updated suite offers a modern foundation that will last “for the next 10 years.”“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Chris, I don’t want to go back and forth about this indefinitely. I feel like we have been in 98% agreement the whole time and that this has gotten to be be more about semantics. If you look at my OP it was specific about certain things that I liked about working in X for the first time on a real world job. My post was simply a review of the program that contracted my experience against my previous concerns as well as unfair criticisms leveled by the editing community at large. It seems like you took it to mean that any criticism was wrong and that even though you had legitimate criticisms, I was dismissing them as invalid. Although I may not share all of your points of view, I never called any of your concerns illegitimate. The only thing that we seem to disagree about is what the future of editing tools will be. Since it is all opinion, then it is impossible to resolve.
I guess we’ll just have to wait until the future happens to see what occurs.
-
*contrasted*
I was writing from my phone.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up