-
Philip Bloom Asks Seven Editors to Share Their FCP X Experiences
-
C’mon… this is hater central. Do you have a mirror in your edit bay?
Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California -
[Bill Davis] “My central contention has always been that most of the angst was generated by those who simply never took the time to look at the reality of the program – but merely got stuck on what they “thought” was missing – and how it that alone made them feel… What’s changing isn’t the program. It’s peoples’ understanding of it.”
But Bill — people didn’t just think things were missing. There were actually features missing when comparing FCPX to its namesake. Major, important features that underpinned entire workflows.
I don’t think you’re giving the ProApps team nearly enough credit for the work they’ve accomplished since June of last year, and I don’t think you’re giving your fellow colleagues here enough credit for knowing what they need in order to do their jobs.
XML. Multicam. Video monitoring (in beta). On the third-party side, 7toX.
All these things address major shortcomings of the original release, making it more suitable for more workflows. There are now a lot of editors (for whom it frankly would have been irresponsible to consider FCPX in June) who can now properly evaluate the app for the first time.
If 10.0.3 had been the first release of FCPX, we could have had a much purer discussion about the difference in editorial mechanics between FCP7 and FCPX.
Instead, Apple botched the release and alienated a huge swath of the high-end FCP users, some of whom had tied their own reputations to Apple’s by supporting FCP Classic’s rise to prominence in the first place. Because of this, the debate couldn’t be limited to the things Apple has tried to improve on.
[Bill Davis] “Essentially, I’m arguing that anyone who didn’t spend SIGNIFICANT time using it – was simply unable to make informed judgements about it’s capabilities. But that didn’t stop most people from popping up here and doing so.”
I have to disagree (and I’m sure you’re shocked).
Think back to last June. If you had to deliver an EDL to a colorist, finish an edit, work with tape, or support legacy projects, I think you could make a very informed judgment that FCPX wasn’t for you without ever opening the app.
I believe in testing workflows, but I believe there are hard limits on what you can learn in testing. Actual production use is the best way to evaluate, and with 10.0.3, for the first time, many users can now do just that.
People on both sides of the debate are generalizing from their own experience, and that’s where I think the most division has occurred.
It doesn’t work for me (because I actually need FCP7’s XYZ feature for my workflow), so it’s bad — or it does work for me (because I can use FCPX’s ABC feature in my workflow), so it’s good.
As we’ve argued, we’ve just polarized each other even more, going from “it’s bad” to “it’s totally unsuitable for professional use,” or going from “it’s good” to “it’s the future of all editorial.”
Hopefully Apple will continue to add needed features, the app will continue to improve, and more editors will be able to properly evaluate it. In the short term, I think the biggest contribution FCPX has made to the post community has been asking us all to re-evaluate how we work. I’m still curious to see if long-term contributions will include a new timeline metaphor and more emphasis on metadata in more workflows.
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 -
[Bill Davis] “I won’t take this as a ham-fisted attempt to cast aspersions on me, tempting as that is.
Instead, I’ll treat it as a legit question. “
I’m not sure what you mean by “casting aspersions.” I certainly wasn’t. You were reacting to the term as if it isn’t used in common conversation about structure, so I was asking. Here, the state of story’s backbone or spine is fairly common parlance. I’m just surprised it isn’t everywhere.
-
[Chris Harlan] “the reports I’m reading say it is still seriously flawed”
Just curious why you are reading reports rather than testing it yourself?
-
[Lance Bachelder] “C’mon… this is hater central. Do you have a mirror in your edit bay?”
Geez, and I thought it was fanboy central, and I’m certain your never far from a reflecting surface.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Lance Bachelder] “C’mon… this is hater central. Do you have a mirror in your edit bay?
“God forbid you ever become in charge of things. Man, you have a myopic view of the world. When you pulled in here, you were one of the loudest “haters” of them all. I had to calm YOU down because your vitriol got personal against reasonable people who liked the program. Now that you have religion, anybody with any qualms or issues that you don’t agree with is a “hater.” I think you’re the only one in the above conversation who approaches this with anything resembling hate. Talk about needing a mirror.
-
[Lance Bachelder] “C’mon… this is hater central. Do you have a mirror in your edit bay?”
You do throw around an incredible amount of innuendo, Lance, and with this response to Chris, you just threw some at one of the most thoughtful contributors here (who just happens to be on the fence about FCPX).
I’m glad that FCPX is working for you, but maybe you could spend more of your energy outlining how FCPX fits in your feature workflows instead of continuously suggesting that other posters are unprofessional, one-dimensional, or incapable of critical thought.
Failing that, you can at least have the decency to insult us to our faces and give people the opportunity to defend themselves. You really think it bothers anyone here to see FCPX improving?
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 -
[Richard Herd] “[Chris Harlan] “the reports I’m reading say it is still seriously flawed”
Just curious why you are reading reports rather than testing it yourself?
“
I’ve tested it, and I’m hoping someday to use it. I have a relatively intense, deadline driven workflow, which I have to integrate with a team. Right now, there are still too many issues to consider–both in coordinating delivery, and with the program itself–to try to integrate it into the workflow. Frankly, its a no brainer not to. This recent update suggests that it might be possible for me to try it when my flow decreases a bit and monitoring is out of Beta. I’ve been wishing I could do with FCP X what I’m currently doing with Avid to get my cutting fingers back, which are rough cuts that I then finish off in FCP 7, and X to 7 seems like it might let me do that. Of course, I can’t do any of this at the expense of my clients, so probably after UpFronts–sometime in early summer–I’ll work a few projects through.
-
[Herb Sevush] “some with conditions, like you would for your crazy uncle. “
OK. That’s too good. I’m going to have to steal it some time 😉 But seriously, it sounds like a branding line that Apple marketing should embrace!
“FCP X, editing software designed by your crazy uncle.”
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up