This one probably won’t make the “In Action” page, but an interesting read…

[David Mathis]

Thanks for posting! Very interesting read and it looks like X is finally getting some of the credit it deserves. Now if they can only bring “Send To Motion”, things would be great. Until then, just going to wait for the next update. Perhaps that feature will be in 10.2?

My Final Cut Studio:

Core Software
Final Cut Pro X
Motion 5
Resolve
Pixelmator

Plug-ins
Red Giant Universe

Utilities
7 to X
Clip Exporter
Ultrascope

Cameras
Black Magic Cinema Camera
Canon (consumer model)

[Bill Davis]

The fact that it’s successfully completing work of this caliber – with this much MONEY on the line – is all the “street cred” that the software needs.

Has anyone else noticed that the “de facto” way to write about X is still to make SURE you avoid the “fanboy” label by making certain to point out a handful of things that aren’t perfect about how it works so as to seem “balanced.”

Note to self. Stop weaseling when I write and speak about X. What’s great about it IS, in fact, great. It’s flaws are no more or less than those of any other modern software product.

LOVED the line about how the big wigs were once again stuck in the old mindset right until they watch X in operation in the hands of a well qualified user – then suddenly it’s all smiles and champagne.

Enjoyed the work displayed. And the notes on how easy it appears being able to follow a workflow from set to office to finished product.

Nice find, Charlie.

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.

[Oliver Peters]

“Has anyone else noticed that the “de facto” way to write about X is still to make SURE you avoid the “fanboy” label by making certain to point out a handful of things that aren’t perfect about how it works so as to seem “balanced.””

Don’t you think people here actually prefer the honest approach? Warts and all?

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Darren Roark]

[Oliver Peters] “Don’t you think people here actually prefer the honest approach? Warts and all?”

Bill did have a point about that. I don’t talk about it in the same way other editor friends who enthusiastically and unconditionally love Avid.

I do have to qualify it with an “It’s not perfect, but I really like it the best.” If I don’t the worry is that person will think I’m crazy.

[Charlie Austin]

[Oliver Peters] “Don’t you think people here actually prefer the honest approach? Warts and all?”

Exactly. I’m as big a fan of X as anyone, but it’s far from perfect. It’s getting there though. lol. As Darren points out, it’s sometimes hard for aficionados of any NLE to admit that anything about their choice sucks. 🙂

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Oliver Peters]

Truthfully, I get producers turning up their noses when I mention Premiere Pro, too. In fact, I’ve been on a project for the past week and a half that I would have done using PPro CS6 on the client’s machine, but he gave me dirty looks when I mentioned Premiere. So I’ve been using FCP7. FCP X was there but only an expired trial.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Charlie Austin]

[Oliver Peters] “Truthfully, I get producers turning up their noses when I mention Premiere Pro, too. In fact, I’ve been on a project for the past week and a half that I would have done using PPro CS6 on the client’s machine, but he gave me dirty looks when I mentioned Premiere. So I’ve been using FCP7. FCP X was there but only an expired trial.”

People can be very foolish that way. 🙂 Good old FCP 7 just keeps grinding away. Warts and all… 🙂

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Bill Davis]

[Oliver Peters] “Don’t you think people here actually prefer the honest approach? Warts and all?”

Sure Oliver, but one man’s wart is anothers’ beauty mark!

I think there’s a real tendency for X supporters to pre-apologize. To make sure EVERYONE knows that just because we enjoy working with it – we must NOT leave the impression that we are unmindful of it’s potential shortcomings – even if IN FACT it might be a flawless tool for the workflow that a particular editor needs to accomplish.

So here’s a question for the peanut gallery.

Fill in the blank. “I think (editing program) is suitable for about XX% of the projects that the market can throw at it.

I’ll start.

I think X is suitable for about 80% of the editing tasks out there – primarily because it’s too complex for some simple uses where iMovie or Windows Movie Maker would be a more suitable option – and also a modest (and dwindling) slice at the top end where it lacks specific workflow integrations that would make it a proper choice.

Now if I’m even in the ballpark – then what’s there to apologize about? If MOST editors can employ it to do the work they need (even if it’s NO more “perfect” than it’s competitors for any specific job – then why is is important to stress what it does NOT do in every single post?

Remember, I’m NOT saying it’s flaws should not be discussed. Of COURSE they should. What I’m saying is that there’s absolutely NO reason to apologize for software that meets the needs of that large a swath of the overall market.

Unless I’m wrong.

Anyone want to play?

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.

[Andrew Kimery]

I think FCP X, PPro, FCP 7 and Avid MC are suitable for 80% of the editing tasks out there (some people really love Vegas, and Lightworks has pedigree but I don’t know enough about either to really comment). Smoke would probably be fine too though pricey and overkill from an effects perspective. DaVinci 11 might be there (or maybe we’ll have to wait for 12).

To me, with so many choices that are ‘good enough’ for 80% of the work out there, knowing what the software can’t do becomes more important than what it can do.

[Bill Davis] “Remember, I’m NOT saying it’s flaws should not be discussed. Of COURSE they should. What I’m saying is that there’s absolutely NO reason to apologize for software that meets the needs of that large a swath of the overall market.”

I didn’t read anything in the OP’s link that made me think that he’s apologizing for using the software (all he listed were a few non-show stopping quibbles at the end).

If I’m reading someone’s account of actually using the software (not a corporate puff piece or a specific example of how to do a certain workflow) then I expect the account to include what worked, what could have worked better and what didn’t work because nothing ever goes perfectly.

FCP being used on Cold Mountain is seen as a watershed moment for the program but FCP barely made it across the finish line. If you read Murch’s account of the experience (the book “Behind the Scene”) it was one struggle after another and only a great team effort by Murch’s team and Digital Film Tree allowed them to succeed. Depending on your perspective you could read that book and go “See, that’s why you shouldn’t use FCP on a major motion picture.” or “See, FCP can be used on a major motion picture!”

As to why people might be talking about X’s short comings as well as it’s strengths… If I had to venture a guess I’d say it’s a reaction to the fanboys that poisoned the well by proclaiming X to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and that if you weren’t using X it meant you were a dinosaur that feared change and were destined to failure. Apparently someone realized that an NLE flamewar wasn’t the most productive way to go about things so they started presenting X as a tool that has some upsides and some downsides as opposed to a little bundle of awesome created by the Almighty Apple and delivered to the unwashed masses in hopes of showing them the error of their ways.

[Walter Soyka]

[Andrew Kimery] “To me, with so many choices that are ‘good enough’ for 80% of the work out there, knowing what the software can’t do becomes more important than what it can do. “

So well said.

It’s like buying a warranty or insurance: what’s covered is often less important than what’s excluded.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]