[Andrew Richards] “That may be, but that doesn’t mean the capabilities won’t be there. And again with the “consumer-based” canard; if superficial UI similarities to iMovie are where you stopped evaluating FCPX, then you really gave it short shrift. I won’t argue it is ready for broadcast/film/tape workflows today. It isn’t. But it has a very solid base on which it can rapidly eclipse the feature set of FCP7, and that seems to pass the “pro” litmus test, don’t you think? FCP7 was a hodgepodge of archaic code for deprecated APIs all based on a media playback architecture (QuickTime) that was built for event-based media and not time-based media. Hardly the platform to continue developing if you want to compete in a world of multiple cores and 64-bit OSes.
Also, it did not take ten years for FCP to get respect. It took more like 4 or 5. Ten years would have meant no one took FCP seriously till FCP7. It was a serious player at v4.5 in 2004, and Murch cut Cold Mountain on v3 in 2003. FCPX, if Apple follows through with it, will be ready for prime time in a much shorter interval. If the jilted FCP users of today want to hold a grudge after FCPX matures, that is their (and your) prerogative.
Do you remember the “tucker” a car that was made in the 50’s it was safer, cheaper and better than allot of current cars out at the time, but then you remember what happened to it. This is how I personally see FCPX i dont think its bad program by any means, Its actually very different and intuitive, but….After using it for 2 weeks, I wouldn’t/Can’t use on any of my 3 current gigs. it just isn’t ready like you said it will take time to mature. And hey I might be wrong and people may start using it on a professional basis and if so I’ll learn it better.
I wear many hats.
http://www.gregburkepost.com