Is It Time To Reconsider Final Cut Pro X?

[Oliver Peters]

Thanks for the kind words. Hope you are having a great weekend.

(EDIT 5/5: A bit more content, clarification, and a bunch of links added today.)

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Douglas K. dempsey]

Link not working

Doug D

[Craig Seeman]

This link should work
It is time to reconsider Final Cut Pro X?

[Gerry Fraiberg]

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2019/05/04/it-is-time-to-reconsider-final-cut-pro-x/

How’s that one? I haven’t posted for a while, so I’m a little rusty on links. 🙂

– Gerry Fraiberg
Videographer | Editor | Photographer | Voice Over Artist.
______________________________________________
http://www.visionandvoice.ca
❖ ❖ ❖

[Ronny Courtens]

[Gerry Fraiberg] “Factual and objective writing is why I’ve been following Oliver for years.”

+10 to this! Thank you for this article, Oliver. Couldn’t agree more.

– Ronny

[Douglas K. dempsey]

Thanks!

Doug D

[Douglas K. dempsey]

Works, thanks for posting this. Kudos Oliver, a good overview of where FCPX fits in your “toolset.”

Doug D

[Brett Sherman]

I too am perplexed by lack of adoption in local broadcast and news production in the U.S. Speed is paramount to them and their budgets have been decimated by lower and declining ad revenue. Except for big markets, salaries are low – leading to less experienced employees.

[Oliver Peters]

Ronny, Doug – thanks.

Brett – I would agree. Whatever I feel about X’s suitability for certain projects, I’m unequivocal about its speed in fast turnaround projects like news stories. Whenever I’ve cut onsite on projects (usually corporate conferences and recaps), FCPX is my go-to tool. There’s no comparison in speed to delivery between X and Premiere (or MC) in these situations.

The basic timeline structure of A-roll with soundbites and VO and then cutaway B-roll shots above is perfectly designed for news packages IMHO.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Mark Suszko]

While I’m an FCPX devotee and an Apple fan, I wanted to point out that the workflow of creating templated effects and graphics and publishing them to FCPX can be mirrored, more or less, by doing those things in AfterEffects and Premiere with dynamic linking. So I don’t know that that particular argument is all that strong.

I’m working with both, these days, and maybe it’s because I’m less experienced in the Premiere world, but I find the workflows in FCPX and Motion much more simple and intuitive. I prefer it. I’m a surgeon with those tools. Many things I’m doing in Prem and AE seem like they take a lot more steps and menu trips to do.

But the bean counters have the last word on things here; they won’t listen to us and they hate dealing with Apple, and I anticipate the day is coming when the IT staff yank all of our iMacs and tell us to get over it and use Premiere/AE exclusively. That will not be fun.