-
Larry Jordan dishes some FCPX gossip at IBC
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “AT ?!?!?11/
“They’re right Jeremy.
It’s gramathematically incorrect to use three “?” symbols and two “1” symbols in a virtualized cursebomb without including at least a couple of “conjunctivizing” asterisks and percent signs.
Follow the rules, you silly &*()@#$%
; )
BTW, Yes I do realize that “Virtualized Cursebomb” would be a solid punk rock band name. So many ideas, so little time…
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Erik Lindahl] “He however never touched FCPX’s major short-coming for many and that is actually editing in the application… :)”
Uhm…..he also didn´t mention the shortcomings of AVID and Premiere and Smoke. None of them are perfect. But FCPX at least has some upside to it.
And I wonder what “shortcomings” you mean that ALL the others don´t have? I guess we FCPX users can count just as many missing features on the others. In fact Larry Jordan listed a few tools that make a difference. But IMO it might be possible to create the same for other NLEs that have XML workflows….
-
Sorry for the late reply, been swamped with work. The presentation was about if FCPX is ready for prime-time as an professional editor / tool which for me tends to include editing. One could compare it to other apps or simply focus on what makes this app good or unique. Larry focused on some neat tools which is great. It’s however interesting that the whole speech was about tools outside of FCPX. The guy next to me at the show actually said what I was thinking “cool tools, but can you actually edit in FCPX?”.
I think FCPX has it’s share of brilliance but I also think it’s biggest shortcoming is traditional editing. It could be a learning / getting used to “thing” but I find every time I do an edit in the app I feel lack of control and lack of material oversight. And I tend to do short form editing. I’ve mentioned it before but things like proper time code support, sequence handling, viewer / canvas handling, HUD information, lack of of mini-timelines and GUI customization – the list goes on are things not there yet or at all.
Not ment to be a “bash the new kid in the block” comment. Just found it very amusing.
-
I also found it a bit odd that Larry’s presentation was so heavily weighed on 3rd party tools. The tools he showed were great, and definitely DO mean that FCPX it a better fit for certain workflows now than it was before.
To your other points Erik, I think Larry could have gone a long way by including some cutting in a complex sequence, showing how the connected clip and magnetic timeline structure can be a big time saver- cause regardless of what “heavy features” this next big update brings, I definitely don’t want to those two things to go away. But extra depth in info and some better GUI customization will be absolutely welcome.
-
[Marcus Moore] “I also found it a bit odd that Larry’s presentation was so heavily weighed on 3rd party tools. The tools he showed were great, and definitely DO mean that FCPX it a better fit for certain workflows now than it was before.”
Fcpx demos can be found for free, in spades, almost anywhere.
The people who like where fcpx is going, already get all of the methodology.
When X first came out, it was slammed for not playing nice with anything else and everyone was right. Larry’s demo shows that isn’t quite true anymore. He is saying that X, if you choose to use it, can interface with the rest of the world.
The process, of course, is quite different from what fcp legend offered, and is also different from other NLEs.
This demo does a good job of showing that FCPXML has matured.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up