Re: FCPX metadata--how significant is it? And why?

[Chris Harlan] "Can't agree. First, you don't get "multiple physical copies." "

OK. But if you drag the clips out of the "results" bin and in to a new bin, they then leave their original position. So now you ether have to duplicate, copy/paste which makes it an affiliate clip of the original master clip (unless you choose to make it a new master which causes more confusion), or accept that these clips have a new home. To me, it is not an illusion.

FCPX allows a clip to be in multiple places at once without that mess. Some find this stupid/limiting, I find it smart and more flexible.

[Chris Harlan] "Now, Jeremy, the few extra keystrokes required to copy all of the contents of one bin and paste them in another is hardly "no where near as useful and fluid as FCPX.""

It's not about the keystrokes, it's about how FCP7 tracks the media. FCPX clips are always in the Event, no matter what, you single click the event, there's all your clips. With FCP7, clips are only in the place that you specifically put it. To use an analogy, with FCPX the footage is always in a big bucket that is easily searchable by the tags that are hanging off of it, once you are done you can simply throw it back in the bucket, or add a new tag to help find it by sight later. FCP7 puts things in compartments which you have to find, open, look for the tag, close back up, open another, etc and so forth. You cannot simply write "Broll" AND "Irvine, CA" on a tag and add to the pile, you have to split the clip and put it in a "Broll" compartment and a "Irvine, CA" compartment. Those two clips which are identical may or may not have a relationship to the clip in the timeline. It depends on which one you used. I personally think FCPX is way more highly flexible in this regard. I don't have to keep track of two clips. That one clip can be defined multiple ways, which is the very strength of metadata.