Re: FCPX or Not...

[Jim Giberti] "My frustration with Apple is specifically because I have a hard time balancing the "professional" aspects and the "severe limitations" in day to day use."

Seems to me, the reason these discussions about whether FCPX is "professional" or not keep getting bogged down is because they mix up two very different "professional" needs:

1) technical
2) workflow

FCPX incorporates many high-end technical specs. 4K playback, broadcast monitoring, multi-cam, etc. are all features that exceed the needs of typical consumers.

In terms of specs, FCPX is clearly "professional".

On the other hand, FCPX's workflow flexibility is currently very limited. The timeline model is rigid and incompatible with every other professional system on the market. The audio UI feels like an afterthought at best. Exchange with other programs is improving thru 3rd party tools but there are still many holes.

In terms of workflow, FCPX is has a long way to go before it can call itself "professional" in terms of collaborative workflow and industry standards.

This to me is the crux of why FCPX seems so ambivalent -- it wraps high-end professional technical specs in an oversimplified package that doesn't give advanced editors the control and flexibility they need to do their jobs.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl