[Alban Egger]

[Greg Jones] ” That being said, if I had a client who was adamant about a project needing to be done in X, I would not hesitate to do it.”

Ha, yeah, as if you could just turn it on and fly with it. I played with PP and have the same way the other way…it lacks features that I have in FCPX or let it put it this way: it does things different. But if a client wanted me to edit in PP, I doubt I would dare to take the job, because I am just too slow on it.

I expect more and more companies to move into the FCPX world (and if it is only a financial decision) and in a few months there will be freelancers that are used to it and then the market will be split.

[Alban Egger]

[Neil Goodman] “The fact that secondary storyline and connected clips need to be edited differently than the primary is a turn off, and the magnetism still bothers me. I feel like the program doesnt think your smart enough to make your own editorial decisions and im constantly fumbling around to avoid it”

Fitst of all the SECONDARY storyline behaves exactly like the PRIMARY. It only cannot have connected clips of its own. Otherwise it is a storyline, not a compound clip.

Your other worries sound more like a simple getting used to; but in a good way 😉

[Alban Egger]

Top 3 “not so obvious” features of the update:

1. Export happens in the background. When you export, doesn´t´matter to what format, FCPX will not have an export dialogue, but it will start in the background. You can work on the project or open another one. FCPX just got faster again….
1a: Bundle export. You can create bundles for different clients! One wants youtube/XDcam and a DVD, the other one wants vimeo, BluRay and an e-mail for confirmation……all in one button.

2. Dual viewers can have their own scopes
2b: While we are at the UI: the dividerlines between window-regions can be grabbed easier. I constantly had problems resizing the event library around…works MUCH better now

3. Flexible anchoring keeps the connected clips in place no matter what. When go to “Position Mode” and take a clip from the primary away, the connected clips stay and are now connected to a gap-clip. This is very close to what traditional editing was like, for those who can´t get their head around ripple modes and connected clips.

[Alban Egger]

[Michael Sanders] “It only remembers the last points from that clip, so if you have an long I/V and use three bites – it will only remember the in and outs of the last bite.”

You can CMD-drag to get a second I/O range.

I have also set a modifier-command CTRL-I and CTRL-O to be more precise with additional ranges.

[Alban Egger]

[Gary Huff] “I think a far more likely scenario is that, if anything, Apple drops OSX and moves over solely to iOS.”

They are already half way there…..but if it is a bad thing is the other question, because we don´t know what a desktop-iOS is capable of. And in 1970 nobody could imagine doing anything with a little grey plastic-thingy with two buttons called mouse, let alone a trackpad….so maybe touchscreen editing will be superior to our conventional current ways.
I couldn´t even imagine a phone without buttons in 2005, even 2007 when I saw the first iPhone…and now I couldn´t leave home without one.

[Alban Egger]

[Baz Leffler] “1. Release FCPX as iMovie Pro

2. Continued development of Final Cut Pro”

1. They could alsio have called it Edius/Liquid/Filemaker pro

2. They did. And when they saw the media-world is going somewhere else, they adapted.

The one HUGE mistake they made was EOL-ing FCP. Had they kept FCP7 officially alive and given users time to switch, it would have been different. They opted to go the tough way for everyone. I have no idea what their reasoning was (licensing of FCP? manpower?), but I guess they are typically american: once a project is failing, drop it and put 100% into the new. That is how they handle products, be it hardware, software or even tv-series. If you don´t reach your sales you are dropped.

So is FCPX in danger? Of course, once they would see it doesn´t´sell they might drop it.But I doubt it will ever sell low, given its features to an extremely good price.

[Alban Egger]

I can do it for FCPX on a Macbook 2011 and a Mac Pro with 4870 card. Since a MacPro is involved external FW 800 is best to keep results even.

[Alban Egger]

Haha Aindreas you are the Rhino charging through the house.
I have said this before and say it again: I have the feeling some of you who are charging by the hour maybe don’t like FCPX, because you would use less hours?! You seem like the coaldiggers on electrictrains.

Secondly….I simply don’t see the point in your post. There have been tons of discussions all ending up the same way.

We use FCPX and yes we are a small team, but we have gotten our few freelancers to use FCPX and we even have directors who now bought FCPX so they can review rushes, roughcuts etc, and they all LOVE it once they get a decent training with me. Who we are? Very small but we use FCPX and Motion (and AFX and ProTools and Resolve) for clients like Red Bull, Swarovski, Garmin etc. So stop calling us amateurs and yourself soooo professional. You start pissing me off with your biased trolling.

I also wonder if you all get paid by the hour how come so many here have time to be active in dozens of threads with dozens of lengthy FCPX-bash-posts……are your machines rendering so much to give you time for trolling? I have too much work to do in FCPX….and since it never renders…..or never stops me while rendering….

Haven’t you been the guy who said there was no FCPX at the Olympics? Well by now I know of several networks using it there. Belgian national TV comes to my mind and a few agencies who made nice promotional stuff. So what is your agenda being the Rhino? Paid for it?

Can’t you just understand that FCPX is a tool that works for many? If I am a cab-driver who has a BMW I don’t go to the Mercedes forums and tell them their cars are unusable. But why do some here do this? I just don’t get it.

[Alban Egger]

Depends what you mean by export. Export to ProRes422, or 4:4:4 or h.264? In the same size in a different size?

In FcPX export to ProRes422 is using mostly the GPU and when you stay in the same resolution/size it basically takes as long as it takes to copy the renderfiles together. So harddrivespeed is important too.

[Alban Egger]

Yep, looks like Edius and the astonishing is: it was like that already in 2007 with 720p editing like butter on a duo-core.

Fcpx on a 2011 Macbook pretty much does this in 1080 as well. So Edius is not alone on the moving-playhead-front anymore.