The FCP user group that I’ve been going to has changed its name

[David Eaks]

[James Daugherty] “FCPX is not a pro tool and the people who use it are not as obsessed as professionals”

Oh crap! I better give all my clients from the last year or so their money back. This is going to put me into some serious debt because I have already spent most of that money buying cameras and switchers and Macs, Oh My!

And I should unsubscribe from the plethora of FCPX information that floods my inboxs. Stop using stuff like page2rss and ifttt to feed me email notifications as soon as there are updates to certain FCPX related sites.

*sarcasm off*

[Timothy Auld]

[James Daugherty] “FCPX is not a pro tool”

I am not an FCP lover largely because it doesn’t meet my needs at present. But there is quite
a bit of evidence that there a a number of folks out there whose needs it does meet who are
producing professional work with it. So to refer to as “not a pro tool” is more than a little bit
goofy.

Tim

[Joseph W. bourke]

It still amazes me that this argument is going on about “pro” or “not pro”. The tool you use to make great art is incidental to the talent behind the tool. You could cut a great movie on Microsoft Movie Maker given a good story, good footage, and a talented editor. It’s the person behind the NLE who is “pro” or “not pro”. The tools the editor chooses are a matter of personal choice…

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com

[Walter Soyka]

[Joseph W. Bourke] “It still amazes me that this argument is going on about “pro” or “not pro”. The tool you use to make great art is incidental to the talent behind the tool. You could cut a great movie on Microsoft Movie Maker given a good story, good footage, and a talented editor. It’s the person behind the NLE who is “pro” or “not pro”. The tools the editor chooses are a matter of personal choice…”

I refer to Justice Stewart (can we call this pulling a Potter?) with respect to “pro” software — I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.

There’s a je ne sais quoi that separates something like Windows Movie Maker from something like Media Composer — or maybe even something like FCPX 10.0.0 from more current releases.

I’m not saying you can’t get good work done without “pro” tools, whatever they are, but there is certainly something that separates a tool built for fun from a tool built for work.

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

[Joseph W. bourke]

I’m with you there, Walter, but it’s not the iMovie or Movie Maker software I’m really getting at. Anyone can create a magnum opus with any of the packages we’re talking about – FCPX, FCP7, AVID, PPro. It’s the hair-splitting that’s used when trashing any of the products that gets me. Granted, I haven’t changed NLEs much over the years – Edit* to AVID to PPro in a 16 year span. And I’m an producer/animator/graphic designer more than I am an editor. So maybe the fine points don’t bug me as they do others. My feeling is that there are so many features in any of these packages that there’s always another way to skin the cat…

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com