3 ms·
You're making an error of fact, I beleive. Nobodies workflow has been uprooted, as the previous versions of Final Cut Pro did not cease to work when FCP X was
by nirvana 15y ago
You're making an error of fact, I beleive. Nobodies workflow has been uprooted, as the previous versions of Final Cut Pro did not cease to work when FCP X was released. If they wish to migrate to the better way of doing things then they can do that at their own pace when they are comfortable migrating their workflow.
It is not at all silly to say that a significant improvement in the UI for editing video is something that everyone who is creative with video will appreciate.
Given the responses (including the ones in this thread) from people who are unhappy with FCPX, it is clear that they are not from people who are creative editors, but from people who are doing a rote job.
IF you are creative, having more creative tools is always going to be a benefit.
Your editor analogy is not appropriate because Emacs and Vim are comparable.
A better analogy would be "its like saying that anyone who's a creative person would rather work with paint brushes, canvas and oil paint than dirt, fingers and a similarly colored rock wall."
- alexqgb 15y agoActually, the previous versions of FCP 7 did stop working in one very important way; a multi-seat system built around FCP 7 could no longer be expanded legally. Sure, you could finish what you were doing, provided you needed no additional resources. But you couldn't switch to FCP X without cutting yourself off from audio post, effects pipelines, and so on. If you wanted to grow your operation in the "who knows when support for interchange will appear" window, you'd have to abandon FCP altogether, and re-invest in Avid or Adobe. That's the epitome of a broken product.