Re: On Luddites and the Use of Machines: Apropos of FCPX

[Walter Soyka] "Unless FCPX develops some sort of metadata portability, will it ever be more than this?"

I've been laying low in these forums lately, but I see it, thusly.

Those who are using FCPX, and generally like it, they can "see" the potentials of it. I'm with Bill. The Event side of the program is awesome. I've talked about it before, so no reason to again, but it really performs functions (in a good way) that no other NLE can do in the way the FCPX performs. CatDV can do much more than FCPX, but there are certain things that only FCPX can do. Is the metadata portable yet? No. But then again, there's a lot of metadata in NLEs that is an after thought. FCP Legacy was Ok at it, and definitely had some capability but few used it as it wasn't very straightforward, and it didn't allow user control manipulation as FCPX does. So, if Apple keeps developing this idea in a way that seems logical from what is evident the program today, then it certainly will make work different in the post industry for those people that choose to use it. Not to mention, the FCPXML structure doesn't allow for much metadata yet, so therefore, you can't use it. But if you look at how FCPX will be able to harness metadata that comes in to the program, it seems like there's a bunch of potential there (just check out the metadata browser).

There are those who have used FCPX, don't like it or it doesn't fit their workflow, and can only see it for what it is today in the here and now. That's fine, as it is much easier to talk about/bash something for it's capabilities today than what it might do tomorrow depending on Apple's motivation and recent history. So, I'm with you Walter.

So, yes, you are all right. FCPX is simultaneously kludgedly amazing, and not working.

Jeremy