-
Is the name clouding our judgement?
-
[Bill Davis] “Yes rafael, we get that it’s not “intuitive” for you.
But your “intuition” and mine may just be different.”
You are a tooooo clever and intelligent guy but is supposed that FCPX is not aimed only for highly brained people like you but also for short brained intuitionless people like me.If you say that FCPX is INTUITIVE you are taking the piss of everybody man.
FCPX can be fast, precise, smart, futuristic or whatever, everything except INTUITIVE.Beside un intuitive, has a shit of GUI where nobody except the editor would be able to understand what’s going on over there.
With FCP, anybody could fallow and understand a sequence that somebody else has started. That do not happens with FCPX at all.
rafael -
[dermot shane] “Given Steve Bayes background and the pre-release hype – i was thinking it might give DS & Smack a run for their money.”
That’s exactly what I was thinking, too. My initial disappointment with FCPX was specifically that I was hoping for a finishing tool and didn’t get one.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “[dermot shane] “Given Steve Bayes background and the pre-release hype – i was thinking it might give DS & Smack a run for their money.”
That’s exactly what I was thinking, too. My initial disappointment with FCPX was specifically that I was hoping for a finishing tool and didn’t get one.”
I was looking forward forward to FCP giving Smack a run for it’s money too. 🙂
Sorry, editing a difficult piece at the moment. I need a laugh break.
-
[Oliver Peters] “It’s been said a number of times by a number of folks, but would we be trying so hard to make FCP X work for everything, if Apple had, in fact, named it “iMovie Pro”? (I’m not meaning this as a pejorative.) Or if they had released it as an “editing assistant” application? Sort of a good “pre-editor” or maybe even just a “rough cut editor”?”
But what would FCPX assist? Once you finished the rough cut, what would you do next?
[Oliver Peters] “FCP X is a good tool for SOME things, but not all. Because it is called Final Cut Pro, I think a lot of us are trying to MAKE it work, when often it isn’t the right choice. Hence, a lot of frustration. Thoughts?”
I think that FCPX was launched in rough shape, and without consideration for industry standards. Since it didn’t interchange, it was neither a good standalone tool for rough cut, nor a good standalone tool for finishing.
In other words, if you couldn’t do your entire job on FCPX, you couldn’t do any of the job on FCPX.
If 10.0.0 had supported EDL/OMF/AAF interchange (or maybe if 10.0.3 had been the launch), we’d be having difference conversations about FCPX: we could have been talking about what it does, instead of what it doesn’t do.
With interchange, FCPX could have still satisfied everyone using it today, but wouldn’t have alienated so many editors with more complex or collaborative workflows. Instead, Apple could have positioned FCPX as a strong all-around editor for the broad middle as well as a serious offline tool for collaboration.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “But what would FCPX assist? Once you finished the rough cut, what would you do next?”
Presumably as a companion to a more advanced finishing editor.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Walter Soyka] “But what would FCPX assist? Once you finished the rough cut, what would you do next?”
[Oliver Peters] “Presumably as a companion to a more advanced finishing editor.”
There’s a rumor (which I think Craig S. brought to our attention here) that iMovie ’08 was originally going to be a product called “First Cut” [link] and was specifically intended to make it easy to sort through mountains of footage before sending to FCP for finishing.
It’s possible that FCPX would have been the more advanced finishing editor.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
Would have?
I’d say will be, and headed there fast.
———
Don’t live your life in a secondary storyline.Mark Morache
FCPX/FCP7/Xpri/Avid
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
https://fcpx.wordpress.com -
[Oliver] … Or if they had released it as an “editing assistant” application? Sort of a good “pre-editor” or maybe even just a “rough cut editor”?
None of that would have made sense. An “editing assistant” or a “pre-editor” implies to have good interfaces, exchange options. This is not given at the current state and hadn’t been there on launch[Oliver] … FCP X is a good tool for SOME things, but not all. Because it is called Final Cut Pro, I think a lot of us are trying to MAKE it work, when often it isn’t the right choice. Hence, a lot of frustration.
I agree. There are a lot of attempting features in there which can make some productions work like a charm. But there are are other – especially when you need to work in a collaborative environment – which don’t work or are missing and in so far for many people it’s a no go.[Oliver]Thoughts?
Some.
FCP and FCPX both are data base driven. FCP has a bad interface to access the underlying databases especially using the so called “metadata” (hype word at this time). These metadata always had been there and I don’t understand those people claiming that this is really new.
As always with any NLE you have to know what you do and have to understand the approach of the NLE (which quite often does not match your way of thinking).Personally I think FCPX was released at a bad point of time and too much focused on a single user.
Maybe it would be interesting to see how many of the “lovers” do work in collaborative environments when creating their projects.No doubt FCPX will involve – but that’s finally true for every app.
In the meantime we can spent/waste time working with the app – and learn.– Andreas
Spherico
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools -
[Andreas Kiel] ” FCP has a bad interface to access the underlying databases especially using the so called “metadata” (hype word at this time). “
How good is FCPX interface for accessing the actually useful metadata, for instance TC, reel, Scene and Take embedded in BWF files from modern production sound recorders? How bad is FCP7?
-
[Andreas Kiel] “Personally I think FCPX was released at a bad point of time and too much focused on a single user.
Maybe it would be interesting to see how many of the “lovers” do work in collaborative environments when creating their projects.”Well I’m a “lover” and I’ve been collaborating with a colour grader using DaVinci and I’ve also just sent out some audio tracks, via roles export, to a sound editor. Early days for this sort of thing and I understand that it absolutely doesn’t fit into most standard collaborative workflows, but it’s getting there slowly.
Steve Connor
“FCPX Agitator”
Adrenalin Television
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up