Is FCP X part of your five year business plan?

[Craig Shamwell]

Sure. It was a Windows computer on steriods specifically built for the software and all of its capabilities. It was a complete capture and editing studio. Its timeline while having lines, was open! You can put anything anywhere. Slide media around the timeline and drop it where you needed. It would not move parts around intuitively like FCPX, you had to manually select a group of clips and move them or grab a single clip. You had controls of each clips behaviors and could add filters and effects to clips or multiples of clips. I only worked with it for a short time, but today’s Tricaster Series of Productions Work Stations which are really robust, use the same “open” timeline workspace.
And strangely after using it, going back to FCP7 and Premiere, it didn’t seem right anymore to edit with tracks.

[Craig Shamwell]

https://i1.creativecow.net/u-upload.php#

Here is a photo of the Tricaster editing Window.

[Craig Shamwell]

new00102cgpost.jpg

Ok so I am dumb when it comes to getting a pic on here!!!??
See if this works.

[Timothy Auld]

Lenses? Really? Lenses? What? What present lenses can capture is so far beyond what is normally projected. Lenses? Jesus? Really? Again, Jeez? Lenses?

Tim

[Timothy Auld]

Indeed.

Tim

[Timothy Auld]

You know – and I’m quite surprised that you guys didn’t know this – but I bought and have been wearing that hat for sometime. And with that knowledge I decree that Premiere CC is the winner – uh, unless your have to use its ancillary software. OK – the I decree FCPX the winner – unless you have to deliver to broadcast (and without audio problems.) then X is the winner – or, if you don’t have to use Avid Media Access, then Avid is the winner. Case closed.

Tim

[Craig Shamwell]

I think many will agree, it’s time for people to stop saying Final Cut Pro X is not a professional product. At this point it’s almost become laughable. I would much rather see or hear the particular situation that people edit in that Final Cut Pro X may not be suitable for as opposed to saying that it is not a professional product. In the old days it was film or television that all editors pretty much worked in and then came Video Tape, which Porn exploited to the fullest. Seen a video store lately? Today that paradigm has changed. Producing content for the web far outweighs any film and television production. And FCPX makes the whole process clean and fast, albeit not without its quirks at times. So let’s all grow up and realize that FCPX is here to stay.

[Shawn Miller]

[Craig Shamwell] “Producing content for the web far outweighs any film and television production.”

I’m not sure I understand what you mean, Craig. Are you saying that web production is more common, or more important?

Thanks,

Shawn

[Chris Conlee]

I think he’s merely saying that internet content can no longer be considered “non-professional” in general. And he’s right. If you’re making content and you’re getting paid for it, then it’s professional work. There are certainly MANY projects that FCP X is the perfect tool for. There are also many projects that I wouldn’t use it for. Like a carpenter’s toolbox, there are special tools for special needs.

Chris

[Shawn Miller]

[Chris Conlee] “I think he’s merely saying that internet content can no longer be considered “non-professional” in general.”

Fair enough, I think I’m still a little hung up on the terms “outweighs” though. I’m still not sure if he’s alluding to mass or importance. I.E. there’s more content on the web, vs web distribution is more desirable. 🙂 Also, if most paid web content originates from traditional post production workflows, how is FCPX better positioned to produce content bound for that medium?

Shawn