Forum Replies Created

Page 43 of 426
  • Steve Connor

    October 4, 2017 at 2:52 pm in reply to: Why FCPX?

    [greg janza] “This is just my opinion but among the industry professionals that I personally speak with in my area, the abandonment of the company is definitely a trend on the rise.

    and in every facility and Production Office I go to in my area there are Mac’s everywhere, I do a lot of video work with tech companies including IBM and I see MacBook Pros everywhere there too.

    [greg janza] “They’ve shown over and over and over again that they will do absolutely anything they deem necessary to streamline or reinvent their products. “

    and Adobe FORCED their users to move to a subscription model and yet people still use Adobe software ☺

    Apple’s Mac’s may not be as fast as some of the competitors, but they certainly last longer and the combined ecosystem of hardware and software is unmatched.

    I’ve only recently stopped editing on my 2008 Mac Pro which has served me solidly for over 8 years!

  • Steve Connor

    October 4, 2017 at 2:15 pm in reply to: Why FCPX?

    [Oliver Peters] “I look at various workflow articles and quite frankly see how the same things can be done to save money and time with Premiere or Avid. Maybe not quite as much, but in the grand scheme of things, close enough. The tools in FCPX that people who use it love, like the magnetic timeline or lack of tracks, is a ‘take it or leave it’ thing for others.”

    I think there’s probably a few other things beyond the magnetic timeline and lack of tracks that people love about it

    [Oliver Peters] “I’m not quite sure how you change that, but Apple’s seeming indifference to publicizing effective users stories can’t help.”

    I wonder how Apple view their Products that aren’t part of their hardware line like FCPX, perhaps if they do “well enough” and sales or influence on hardware sales justify the development cost internally, then Apple Marketing don’t really get involved.

  • Steve Connor

    October 4, 2017 at 1:49 pm in reply to: Why FCPX?

    [Michael Hancock] “I may not like the cupholders in a Tesla, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to drive one. ☺

    We always drop back to car analogies ☺ Although I’d say the magnetic timeline was more like the engine than the cupholders!

  • Steve Connor

    October 4, 2017 at 11:45 am in reply to: Why FCPX?

    [Michael Hancock] “Video tracks, for me, give me better visual organization/structure and allow me tweak an edit from my keyboard (particularly trim mode) much faster. With tracks I can limit what I’m trimming to just V2 or V3 and V5, for example. In FCPX it requires a lot more mousing.”

    Probably shouldn’t be using FCPX then?

  • Steve Connor

    October 4, 2017 at 6:02 am in reply to: Why FCPX?

    [greg janza] “But all the more reason to no longer consider them a computer company.”

    Although they sell more computers than a lot of “computer companies”?

  • Steve Connor

    October 3, 2017 at 7:47 pm in reply to: Why FCPX?

    [Oliver Peters] “Funny. I’m in central Florida and have the same general problem of finding other experienced editors”

    Very happy to fly out to sunny Florida any time Oliver ☺

  • Steve Connor

    October 3, 2017 at 6:57 pm in reply to: Why FCPX?

    [greg janza] “Apple is a phone company and so the idea of putting real effort into developing a larger presence in tv and film is pointless. The tv and movie industry isn’t going to move the needle for Apple’s bottom line.

    Not true at all, Why do they bother with anything than phones then? Apple are an ecosystem and they are rapidly realising the value of content as well. Having content creation tools available fits into this ecosystem.

  • Steve Connor

    October 3, 2017 at 4:44 pm in reply to: Why FCPX?

    [Oliver Peters] “They seem to be more than happy to use the publicity when it’s there ☺

    Of course, why wouldn’t they, but perhaps they don’t want to spend the time and effort to get FCPX into studio feature editing that Adobe does.

    Just speculating really, FCPX users already know that it’s perfectly possible to cut Features with it 🙂

  • Steve Connor

    October 3, 2017 at 3:52 pm in reply to: Why FCPX?

    [Oliver Peters] ” but articulating those is a function of PR, which is something Apple is woefully deficient about. The result is a general attitude among key influencers that it’s not the tool to use.

    Or perhaps Apple are like me and don’t care in the slightest whether the tiny fraction of Editors who are “Hollywood A Listers” or “key influencers” use it.

    It seems to have sold quite well without them 🙂

  • Steve Connor

    October 2, 2017 at 9:13 pm in reply to: Why FCPX?

    [Bill Davis] “And no, neither I nor anyone else has the time or interest to interpret all that for specific others”

    They can always subscribe to xintwo.com if they want to find out more 🙂

Page 43 of 426

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