Forum Replies Created

Page 101 of 282
  • John, I’d like to second what Mark is saying here. I’d love to hear about your workflow.

    of how FCPX fits into the ever changing NLE environment. And that means looking at both the positives and negatives in the debate.

    Like many others visiting this forum I’ve been using FCPX since it’s launch but that is not to say that I’m open to listening to those who still see this software as being deeply flawed.

    Despite all the updates and improvements FCPX still has a long way to go before it attains the position that FCP 7 held, or still holds.

    Not posting positive FCPX experiences on this forum will diminish the debate but as most people participate on both forums it’s not such a big deal.

  • Chris Harlan

    January 9, 2013 at 3:00 am in reply to: Boris Continuum Complete for FCPX/Motion

    That’s some good news. Good for Boris!

  • Chris Harlan

    January 8, 2013 at 4:43 pm in reply to: Understanding FCPX under the hood.

    [Shawn Miller] “saving a few minutes per frame can add up to hours of valuable project time saved (over the life of the project).”

    And fewer jitters because of that much less coffee. Or in my case, Diet Pepsi.

  • Yup.

  • Chris Harlan

    January 7, 2013 at 7:38 pm in reply to: Understanding FCPX under the hood.

    [Chris Harlan] “[Jeremy Garchow] “You can add monitors to an iMac just like everyone else.”

    Seriously? You’re gonna go with that?

    It occurs to me that I misunderstood. Perhaps you mean video monitoring as opposed to adding another computer monitor to replace the GLOSSY one. Probably my bad.

  • Chris Harlan

    January 7, 2013 at 7:35 pm in reply to: Understanding FCPX under the hood.

    [Jeremy Garchow] “You can add monitors to an iMac just like everyone else.”

    Seriously? You’re gonna go with that?

  • Chris Harlan

    January 7, 2013 at 6:57 pm in reply to: Understanding FCPX under the hood.

    [Jeremy Garchow] “You can add monitors to an iMac just like everyone else.”

    Seriously? You’re gonna go with that? C’mon. Stop kidding around.

  • Chris Harlan

    January 7, 2013 at 6:11 pm in reply to: Understanding FCPX under the hood.

    [Jeremy Garchow] “It really boils down to being able to swap the GPU, and that’s about it.”

    And monitors.

  • Chris Harlan

    January 7, 2013 at 6:06 pm in reply to: Understanding FCPX under the hood.

    [Walter Soyka] “I’m with you here. I think it’s nice that you can build your own PC, but I’m glad I don’t have to do that.”

    Hear, hear!

  • Chris Harlan

    January 7, 2013 at 6:01 pm in reply to: Understanding FCPX under the hood.

    [Walter Soyka] “That’d be like the GTX285 in had in my Mac Pro for Resolve f”

    FWIW, the 285 I have in my 2008 MacPro has always performed well. Why mine and not yours? Some build or software reason on the Mac or the version of the 285 or something having to do with Resolve, perhaps. Or the driver versions. Or… Or… As you so correctly point out, component flakiness is not limited by OSs or to DIY PCs.

Page 101 of 282

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy