Re: Todays FCP X announcement

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "I think that a major issue here is the language. Regardless of how similar things might be in reality, it is a new language, new steps, new methods, and only FCPX people will understand."

I'm sorry to disagree with you Matthew, but you're just wrong about that. There is no language barrier with FCPX except inside the program itself. If an audio engineer accesses my media, it's no different than then the media he/she accesses from any other NLE. You think if you edit in FCPX you have to translate everything to everyone else, but that's just not the case. If I export OMFs or AAFs out of X for a pro tools session, they show up as organized tracks (organized by role).

[Matthew Sonnenfeld] "As for the automation of assigned roles, sorry for being a skeptic but I don't trust it. When I hand over a project to do my mix in Pro Tools, I will have spent more time double checking to make sure it got than automation right than I would have had I just placed the audio in the track I want from the start."

This is because you don't understand what it's doing. It's very easy to understand how FCPX assigns roles. I'm convinced that if you took the time to understand the roles feature, you would be just as comfortable as I am using it. I've been in this game for over a decade. I'm very comfortable editing in the traditional mode. I also was not a fan of FCPX's paradigm at the beginning. But after practice, I found that there are several aspects of editing in FCPX that are quite a bit faster than the traditional way. Roles is one of those aspects.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything; the past months on these boards have cured me of that. I just want to make sure that incorrect information regarding FCPX doesn't get spread as gospel to those who haven't yet made up their mind. And your concerns about the roles feature with regards to outside collaborators are unfounded. Roles are neither difficult nor time-consuming.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com