[Clint Wardlow]

Those are the lucky ones. The fact is, if you look at the statistics of the average YouTube post, it is below 100 views. And the simple fact is that 99.9% of what is posted to youtube is unwatchable crap. If anything, IMHO, the vast proliferation of “homemade” video has made it tougher on independents with little money to get their work recognized.
In a lot of ways, I think the discipline of film making has gone out the window with all these user-friendly computer apps that can add surface gloss to the work of even the most dimwitted “auteur.”
Right now, you have more chance of making money off of youtube with a minute-long video of your cat doing something cute, than planning and executing a well thought-out scenario.
Thus endth the rant.

[Clint Wardlow]

Yeah, because the advent of youtube has so increased the quality of movie making. Those suckers making $100 million movies are losing their shirts and everybody that posts to youtube is rolling in dough.

[Clint Wardlow]

While we are wishing for stuff on the ipad, why not include an Arri-quality HD raw video camera and a Schoepps-quality internal mike. Then all we would need to make movies is an ipad. And instead of just links to Youtube and the like, you could have FCPX link directly to the Sundance or Telluride submission pages.

[Clint Wardlow]

Steve Connor It doesn’t ‘force’ you to edit in a particular way and the only limits to free form creativity are where they have always been – in the hands of the editor.

In a way I feel this is a cop out answer. It seems to assume creativity exists only in the artist noggin. To realize a vision all artists need tools, and the quality of these tools will effect the art produced.

An example of this would be an artist armed with only a box of crayons. Sure he can exercise his craft with those crayons, but what he produces is going to be directly effected by the tools at hand. Take this same artist and give him access to a whole array of brushes, oils, and acrylics. Suddenly his art takes on whole range of possibilities beyond what was possible with the crayons.

Art does not pop fully formed from the artist’s head, but is a marriage between his creativity and the tools he wields. The more possibilities his tools offer, the greater his ability to fully give form to his creativity.

Now I am not saying FCPX is a box of crayons while FCP7 or Avid or PP are a full palate of oils, brushes, and acrylics. What I am saying is that FCPX and its magnetic timeline does look very limiting towards the kind of art I produce. I could be wrong on this. That is what I am trying to determine.

[Clint Wardlow]

Yikes, I was wrong about the FCPX hubbub dying down. Still a lot of anger here.

Jeremy Garchow “What video formats do you usually work with?”

This where Apple and I differ. I love using old technology. I shoot with VHS, Betacam, MiniDV, HDV, Super 8, and rarely 16mm…whatever I can use to get an effect I am looking for. I just purchased a modified Pixelvision video camera (and also got a real deal on a Beaulieu 4008 super8 camera that came with, of all things, an old Super8 Sound full-coat audio recorder!) Obviously I transfer the old analog formats to miniDV using my Sony HDR-FX1 as the deck. Super8 is a more expensive proposition, but I use the pricy services of Super8 Sound to transfer it directly into a prores 422 format.

Currently, most of my digital video is shot in HDV or miniDV, though I am looking to add either the Panasonic AF100 or maybe the cheaper DSLR Canon7D to my arsenal.

I’m not sure if this would be a problem in FCPX as I tend to transcode everything to prores422 (though miniDV and HDV are natively supported in FCP7, prores just plays nicer if you want to do any effects.)

I guess the only real way I am gonna find out if FCPX will work for me, is to try it out at either the Apple Store or find someone who has it. I am nervous which way to go with my NLE future because, unlike many of the other traditional professionals on this site, I don’t have unlimited cash for investment. A bad choice will really sting.

[Clint Wardlow]

Actually my biggest fear is that FCPX is just a “hammer.” That it forces you to edit in a very specific style that isn’t conducive to more free-form creativity. That it is aimed at hammering out product as quickly and painlessly as possible at the cost of hamstringing the more subtle art of editing.

Now I admit that I could be very wrong on this as I haven’t had the chance to give FCPX a turn around the block (unfortunately I don’t make enough money on my projects to be able to afford purchasing every editing system under the sun –when I upgrade or alter what NLE I use it is a sizable outlay in cash for both software and hardware–so, I have to make my decisions very carefully because I will be stuck with them for a long time).

That is why I came here. I haven’t really heard much about how FCPX works for guys like me — only what is lacking for professional mainstream editors or how great it is for people shooting DSLR video. Is FCPX just a “hammer” or a full toolbox? I would really like to know.

[Clint Wardlow]

That is actually a great idea, Tom. Don’t know why I didn’t think of it before. I have looked at many a tutorial and found them more aimed at traditional linear narrative that didn’t answer my questions. I really didn’t want to sink $399 plus the $499 for automatic duck (I do need the ability to send audio to Pro Tools on occasion). I there is an apple store close by, and maybe they well let me take FCPX for a spin. Thanks again….it is really hard to get straight answers with all the emotions flying around FCPX…especially for someone like me with such non-traditional needs and workflow.

[Clint Wardlow]

Been wondering whether I should go with FCPX. I am not a pro in the traditional sense, but more of an experimental filmmaker. I do a lot of projections and non-linear narrative (along with more traditional stuff). However, I currently use tracks extensively to layer audio & video and my biggest fear is that the magnetic timeline will limit my ability to control these elements to the degree I want. Now that you have worked on a real project, I thought I would ask: is FCPX flexible enough to edit audio position with the precision I need or does the automatic functions make this unworkable. Now that all the pro&anti FCPX rhetoric has died down a bit, I was hoping maybe you might be able to give me an answer. Whether I stick with FCP or move to Adobe is a big financial decision for someone like me.