[Steve Connor]

[Oliver Peters] “At worst, the client is completely taken out of it and will have lots of comments over things that shouldn’t be an issue, like basic color correction.”

In my experience, even if you tell clients exactly what stage the edit is at and what they shouldn’t comment on, a lot of time they still comment on it anyway.

Wherever possible I try to deliver edits that look as finished as possible, even if it involves rough grades that will be removed before final grading.

Fortunately modern NLE’s make simple grading very easy

[Steve Connor]

[andy patterson] “A quick video tutorial might help demonstrate why the FCPX method is better for color correction.”

Cool your jets Andy, no video tutorials needed here. Bill didn’t actually say that the FCPX method is better than PPro, he’s just talking about his own personal workflow.

Not everything on here is a sleight against PPro that you have to add balance to 🙂

[Steve Connor]

[Andrew Kimery] “The rare times I work with collaborators that can actually understand the rough cut process I’m nearly brought to tears.
“

For me those times are VERY rare!

[Steve Connor]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Again the condescension. Honestly, Bill, take it elsewhere. I don’t know what a FAR far far more professional editor is and how they differ from the people that show up here. “

I was assuming he meant more, as in amount of.

[Steve Connor]

[Bill Davis] “It just bums me out that instead of this, my traditional longtime FCP X forum, following X’s robust ongoing growth – it’s more likely morphing into that neighborhood garage that only the locals much care about.

By rights we could have dozens or even hundreds of new voices participating here.
“

Having read many of the other forums, apart from the “invite only” ones that only true FCPX believers get invited to, I have to say I’m pretty happy with what goes on here. The only thing that grates really is your constant whingeing about the content of the forum! perhaps it’s time you moved on for good, then you wouldn’t be so “bummed out” about it.

There’s plenty of good discussion both FCPX and non-FCPX related that goes on here, I think you just choose to ONLY concentrate on any posts that point out areas where FCPX could be improved or any slight criticism of it. You also seem to still be referencing the sort of comments that simply don’t happen here anymore.

[Steve Connor]

[Bill Davis] “I’ve been harping here for a while about how the wider worlds lack of as much resistance to X as a tool – was causing literacy in it to spread elsewhere faster than in the US.
“

That’s true, you only have to look at all the Facebook groups to see how people of many different nationalities are asking questions.

[Steve Connor]

“Who knows where they could have been had they went on with Final Cut 8.” ?

No wonder they didn’t put their name to it 🙂

[Steve Connor]

[Bill Davis] “Once again, if you try to drive X using non-magnetic prep thinking and expectations (the “the edit happens only on a timeline) approach) X will probably slow down to about the efficiency of any other NLE.

It’s only when you embrace its complete gestalt – that things start to really fly.
“

Not true at all Bill

[Bill Davis] “Every traditional editor I’ve ever walked through X has this same bias. They don’t think their edit has commenced until they have clips on a timeline. It’s maddening since I’ve been talking about this for six years now.
“

It might be maddening for you Bill, it’s a great system that works for you and a lot of people I’m sure, but a LOT of Editors simply don’t work that way and FCPX has many speed advantages even if you don’t use your “database” style of editing.

[Bill Davis] “Once again, if you try to drive X using non-magnetic prep thinking and expectations (the “the edit happens only on a timeline) approach) X will probably slow down to about the efficiency of any other NLE.”

So if you don’t use YOUR method it makes FCPX no better than other NLEs?? Rubbish – I hardly use tagging in FCPX and I find it much faster than other NLE’s In fact I would argue that the speed of the skimmer and it’s ability to get through rushes really quickly can actually negate the need for tagging at all in some edits.

And before Andy chips in, you can do many of the same organisational tasks in Premiere Pro while it’s audio conforming as well 🙂

[Steve Connor]

[Tom Sefton] “However, once the files are imported into fcpx (sometimes an overnighter) it has been waaaaay faster and snappier than premiere for us – mostly due to the issues that premiere has when working on projects with large libraries of r3d and high resolution material.”

I’d happily trade a slower import time for the responsiveness I get with large projects now, it’s a major improvement

[Steve Connor]

[Jeremy Garchow] “It seems to be audio related, as importing video only clips allows editing access immediately.”

Really! hadn’t looked for that. I’d noticed the slowdown as well.

Still better than waiting for PPro do do it’s thing though, which seems to take just as long!