4 ms·

Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't edi

Now, however, the outcry about FCPX from "professionals" is really about those "professionals" not wanting to learn anything new, because they really aren't editors, they're just cutting things together by rote. Anyone whose an actual editor- that is, a creative person, will find FCPX a vast improvement over FCP, and of course iMovie. That's just like saying 'programmers' don't want to learn Logo because they are programming by rote in Java or whatnot. that is just derogatory towards professional editors out there. Professional editors have tight deadlines, daily editing (most of world's editing) relies on muscle memory, tools which were essential were not existent in FCPX (OMF lack is a showstopper for example). Not to mention that post production is extremely technically inclined area which adopts anything new/easier/streamlined ASAP into their pipelines. Larger shops even have their in-house r&d that has great programmers and solution providers (that's how first NLE even started). FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet. Outcry was not a knee jerk reaction, I can vouch for that. One example would be that after first screening/demo of FCPX was received almost universally with great enthusiasm in editing community. Everybody wanted to see for themselves how they could fit in their workflow what was shown... and then people actually got their hands on it - it went downhill from that.

watsix 15y ago
That's just like saying 'programmers' don't want to learn Logo because they are programming by rote in Java or whatnot. There are many programmers who resist learning another language because it's different than what they originally learned. I believe pg himself wrote an essay about that once. There are absolutely blub video editors. FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet. There are plenty of valid criticisms of FCPX, but this stuff is nonsense: there are plenty of professional editors using it already.
- Keyframe 15y ago
  There are plenty of valid criticisms of FCPX, but this stuff is nonsense: there are plenty of professional editors using it already. Where? I know none and I know hundreds of them, hundreds. Not single television network, production company, post production facility I know uses FCPX. AVID is still the king (and always has been), I see lots of FCP7 still around, and new to the production and post production sphere is Premiere, which is getting a lot of traction recently. I have even seen EDIUS around (especially RTL/Bertelsmann/Fremantle group), but I have yet to see one FCPX suite anywhere.
  - alexqgb 15y ago
    Don't know why you're getting down-voted. This is absolutely true. And the reason that it's true is because post houses can't integrate FCP X with the rest of their workflows even if they want to. Apple inexplicably stopped supporting the exchange format that allows this to happen.
nirvana 15y ago
>FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet. I don't buy the argument hat only non-professional people are creative. I've worked with film and video for 20 years, including professionally. That the outcry comes from people who completely ignore the massive advance in usability that FCPX represents, and instead focus on outdated (output to tape) and things that are supported by third party or FCP suite applications (7 to X migration, output in raw) tells me that this is not an outcry of creative professionals. Sure there are a lot of people cutting together formulaic reality TV shows who want to preserve their workflow. That's fine, stay with FCP 7. If preserving your workflow is your primary concern then you're not the target of this product, yet. FCP 7 didn't stop working. You have failed to mention any serious features that it is missing, yet you say it "might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet." This is exactly the same kind of nonsensical argument I hear from Canon fans. To them, Canon cameras are "professional" and everything else isn't, because they don't have the "Canon" name on them and therefore, can't possibly be "professional." Its circular nonsense. You, not a single person complaining about FCP X here or elsewhere, has named a single creative feature missing from FCP X, or otherwise justified the claim that its not "professional". The references to what "professionals" need is an example of the fallacy of argument from authority. "I'm professional, therefore you're an nitwit if you disagree". Worse, its argument from false authority because nobody here is appointed to decide what is and is not "professional". FCP X has been enthusiastically embraced by the editing community. That's my point. They're not the ones complaining (who I suspect are all on the payroll of Adobe or Avid, or otherwise bought into those systems....) If the outcry were legitimate, the people engaging in it would be able to recognize that FCP X has moved the state of the art of editing forward significantly. They do not, they only talk about what they claim is missing, and often claim things are missing that actually aren't, but are just different (Showing they haven't even used the product enough to give a "professional" opinion.)
- alexqgb 15y ago
  "You, not a single person complaining about FCP X here or elsewhere, has named a single creative feature missing from FCP X" If you've managed to follow this issue at all without seeing (repeated) references to the lack of XML support, then you are mentally retarded. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean that in the clinical sense of not having a properly functioning brain. It is simply not credible that an individual who has got an even passing familiarity with professional post production could miss this, or fail to understand why it's on par with an air-traffic control tower stripped of its radios.

watsix 15y ago

That's just like saying 'programmers' don't want to learn Logo because they are programming by rote in Java or whatnot. There are many programmers who resist learning another language because it's different than what they originally learned. I believe pg himself wrote an essay about that once. There are absolutely blub video editors. FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet. There are plenty of valid criticisms of FCPX, but this stuff is nonsense: there are plenty of professional editors using it already.

Keyframe 15y ago
There are plenty of valid criticisms of FCPX, but this stuff is nonsense: there are plenty of professional editors using it already. Where? I know none and I know hundreds of them, hundreds. Not single television network, production company, post production facility I know uses FCPX. AVID is still the king (and always has been), I see lots of FCP7 still around, and new to the production and post production sphere is Premiere, which is getting a lot of traction recently. I have even seen EDIUS around (especially RTL/Bertelsmann/Fremantle group), but I have yet to see one FCPX suite anywhere.
- alexqgb 15y ago
  Don't know why you're getting down-voted. This is absolutely true. And the reason that it's true is because post houses can't integrate FCP X with the rest of their workflows even if they want to. Apple inexplicably stopped supporting the exchange format that allows this to happen.

nirvana 15y ago

>FCPX might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet. I don't buy the argument hat only non-professional people are creative. I've worked with film and video for 20 years, including professionally. That the outcry comes from people who completely ignore the massive advance in usability that FCPX represents, and instead focus on outdated (output to tape) and things that are supported by third party or FCP suite applications (7 to X migration, output in raw) tells me that this is not an outcry of creative professionals. Sure there are a lot of people cutting together formulaic reality TV shows who want to preserve their workflow. That's fine, stay with FCP 7. If preserving your workflow is your primary concern then you're not the target of this product, yet. FCP 7 didn't stop working. You have failed to mention any serious features that it is missing, yet you say it "might be a good tool for a small time editor that needs an occasional video, but it is not up to professional standards yet." This is exactly the same kind of nonsensical argument I hear from Canon fans. To them, Canon cameras are "professional" and everything else isn't, because they don't have the "Canon" name on them and therefore, can't possibly be "professional." Its circular nonsense. You, not a single person complaining about FCP X here or elsewhere, has named a single creative feature missing from FCP X, or otherwise justified the claim that its not "professional". The references to what "professionals" need is an example of the fallacy of argument from authority. "I'm professional, therefore you're an nitwit if you disagree". Worse, its argument from false authority because nobody here is appointed to decide what is and is not "professional". FCP X has been enthusiastically embraced by the editing community. That's my point. They're not the ones complaining (who I suspect are all on the payroll of Adobe or Avid, or otherwise bought into those systems....) If the outcry were legitimate, the people engaging in it would be able to recognize that FCP X has moved the state of the art of editing forward significantly. They do not, they only talk about what they claim is missing, and often claim things are missing that actually aren't, but are just different (Showing they haven't even used the product enough to give a "professional" opinion.)

alexqgb 15y ago
"You, not a single person complaining about FCP X here or elsewhere, has named a single creative feature missing from FCP X" If you've managed to follow this issue at all without seeing (repeated) references to the lack of XML support, then you are mentally retarded. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean that in the clinical sense of not having a properly functioning brain. It is simply not credible that an individual who has got an even passing familiarity with professional post production could miss this, or fail to understand why it's on par with an air-traffic control tower stripped of its radios.