-
Is FCPX really worth it?
-
[Bill Davis] “And if the ADOBE clan (who, BTW were the ones pre-empted at the eleventh hour that night) ended up a bit pissed and that gave them any extra impetus look gleefully on any narrative that FCP-X is deeply flawed OVERALL rather than in a very narrow range at the top end of the user base – well, it’s a competitive world – and that’s how business has always been played at a certain level.”
Ahh…Bill…I do believe it was Avid, not Adobe that Apple pushed out of the Las Vegas meet. I also don’t think that Avid, or for that matter Adobe, is gleeful that Apple may have laid a turd with the release of X. I think, as you say, they’re both just happy to see their bottom line increase.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
Why is FCPX more future proof than the competition? It’s all very well to throw out the past but if you’re not bringing something that is superior then why will people pick it up?
[Gerald Baria] ” And dont even think it will require a whole new hardware overhaul cause it wont. FCPX is designed to be as processor efficient as possible so that even laptops can run it well.”
Compared to FCP7 it might be efficent and fast. But not necessarily compared to the competition. Check out the speed and effeciency of Edius. I can chuck files of any format, high or standard definition on the same timeline, colour grade, then watch the results back in before/after split screen in real time all without any rendering at any point. On a laptop. Plus I’ve got all the export options, viewers, multi-cam, options for external monitors etc that you expect from a professional piece of software.
Why is this less future proof than FCPX? More importantly why would you purchase your professional editing gear from a company who has shown they are happy to EOL professional software overnight and damn the consequences?
-
[Daniel Frome] “The difference here is that DSLRs, despite the many shortcomings, have some strengths that are so irresistible that there ends up being a net-gain to using them.
“Net gain to who? To which aspect of the production from buyer, to labor, to seller, to distributor?
[Daniel Frome] “FCPX, however, does not have this irresistible “gotta have it” item. I think that’s what they were hoping the magnetic timeline to be.”
I have no idea what “they” were hoping the magnetic timeline to be in the greater sense, except for a tool to use that supported a method of editing that fcp users are unfamiliar with. After having a decent go at fcpx recently for educational fun, and having waves of changes come back to current fcp7 projects over the past few days, I kept laughing at myself when realizing how much easier my edits would have been in the x format. This is a project that has been slowly crawling along for the better part of a year. It’s been a while since I revisisted it and I had to refamiliarize myself with it. I have no less then 12 sequences of selects (so I had 13 tabs open at a timeactor a total of 18 sequences as I had 6 programs to update). The problem is, my string of selects is half used, 1/4 useless/rejected, 1/8 not used and 1/8 questionable across all sequences. There is no question fcpx organization capabilities would have helped me focus on where I need to be with less of a re-ramp-up. When untangling the 6 programs I had to update, I noticed how much easier, faster and less mechanical the process would have been in x. Truthfully.
Also, the timeline index would have helped help a lot.
So to me (the labor) the organization qualities of fcpx help me go home earlier, and more importantly, keep me more organized at a glance when the clients decide it’s go time.
The timeline is a flexible idea that will change. The organizational structure of fcpx is a very welcome notion of a back bone. Something to rely on. I don’t know if I “gotta have it”, but it is certainly way more valuable to me than overtly compressed footage with disconnected double system sound requiring third party sync and a decent gamma curve that only holds up until asked to move.
-
[Oliver Peters] “A big difference, too, is that Zoom, Canon and Nikon never promoted these as professional video products for film and TV.”
I love you man, but I call bullsh*t. (Or B*llocks)
What was this shot(s) heard around the world supposed to be?: https://www.learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/galleries/sample_videos/reverie.shtml
Read this whole thing: https://www.slashgear.com/canon-5d-mark-ii-video-capture-is-comparable-to-500k-pro-video-equipment-2116819/
Seems to be pretty much a promotional effort to me. I haven’t seen an AP story like that anywhere. Ever!
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Seems to be pretty much a promotional effort to me. I haven’t seen an AP story like that anywhere. Ever”
This is PR after the camera was out and after Laforet did Reverie. Remember he was first and foremost a photojournalist at that time. The AP story has been pretty well mentioned all along and has been stated publicly a number of times by Canon officials. Once Reverie was out, the situation changed, because everyone had a clear idea of the possibilities.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Jeremy Garchow] “[Oliver Peters] “A big difference, too, is that Zoom, Canon and Nikon never promoted these as professional video products for film and TV.”
I love you man, but I call bullsh*t. (Or B*llocks)”
I love you man, but I call selective quoting 😛
[Oliver Peters] “A big difference, too, is that Zoom, Canon and Nikon never promoted these as professional video products for film and TV. Canon specifically developed the 5D video features in reponse to requests by the AP and other photojournalists to have one camera that could do both stills and video for the web. Inventive folks like Vincent Laforet, Philip Bloom, Stu Maschqitz and others took the concept much further.“
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
Regarding Canon and the AP, how about this?
https://photocinenews.com/2009/12/07/more-info-on-canon-5d-mk2-firmware/
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[David Lawrence] “[Jeremy Garchow] “[Oliver Peters] “A big difference, too, is that Zoom, Canon and Nikon never promoted these as professional video products for film and TV.”
I love you man, but I call bullsh*t. (Or B*llocks)”
I love you man, but I call selective quoting 😛
[Oliver Peters] “A big difference, too, is that Zoom, Canon and Nikon never promoted these as professional video products for film and TV. Canon specifically developed the 5D video features in reponse to requests by the AP and other photojournalists to have one camera that could do both stills and video for the web. Inventive folks like Vincent Laforet, Philip Bloom, Stu Maschqitz and others took the concept much further.””
I love you man, but I call bullsh*t. (Or B*llocks)
What was this shot(s) heard around the world supposed to be?: https://www.learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/galleries/sample_videos/reverie.sh...
Read this whole thing: https://www.slashgear.com/canon-5d-mark-ii-video-capture-is-comparable-to-50...
Seems to be pretty much a promotional effort to me. I haven’t seen an AP story like that anywhere. Ever!
-
I understand that Canon was listening to the dwindling photojournalism segment. Good on them, they kept trying to sell still cameras and subsequent lenses in an increasingly motionful world. I guess that worked.
[Oliver Peters] “This is PR after the camera was out and after Laforet did Reverie.”
So they only lent it to him for 72 hours to take some pictures? Come on….
Oh wait, crap. Sorry, here’s what you said:
[Oliver Peters] “This is PR after the camera was out and after Laforet did Reverie. Remember he was first and foremost a photojournalist at that time. The AP story has been pretty well mentioned all along and has been stated publicly a number of times by Canon officials. Once Reverie was out, the situation changed, because everyone had a clear idea of the possibilities.”
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “So they only lent it to him for 72 hours to take some pictures? Come on….”
What’s your point? And did you watch the video I just linked? I think it explains it pretty clearly. Also the events as discussed – the design for AP and then Laforet testing out a beta version of the camera – were also personally reiterated to me by both Laforet and Maschwitz in interviews. So I take them at their word.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up