Re: FCPX from an Editor who used it on Iditarod 2012 (long again!, sorry!)

[Walter Soyka] "One-click upload doesn't impress me, because the manual process isn't daunting at all. Native no-transcode editing doesn't impress me, because both PrP and MC (to an extent) can do it. Portable editorial doesn't impress me, because you could do it with FCP1 on a PowerBook G3 twelve years ago.

Once we look over these, I think there are many real cases where FCPX can win because of a specific advantage no one else has. I'm sure you have some of those stories to tell yourself. Those are the ones I'd love to hear about and learn from."

Walter,

I get your perspective. But in this, your view and mine simply don't dovetail. I wrote for so long for a general video editing audience, so I tend to try to "universalize" what I post. While I know it's going to be read and critiqued by you and many other working professionals here, it's also going to be read by a large audience that isn't working at the top level of production.

My writing orientation has always been not to get so caught up in my interest in the "high level features" that I forget that others might not know as much about the software's more basic capabilities as you and I.

And if other packages have similar capabilities so what? Does that make a discussion of how they're implemented in X less useful in a forum where the Software's name is right up front?

Let's not forget that these basic capabilities are often precisely the ones that make a particular software approach more productive for a particular user.

X is a program for a LOT of different kinds of editors. And for every one of you who is only marginally interested in Share - I bet there are a large number of people reading here who knew very little about that particular capability in X before my post - and will be a bit more able to see if the tool might appeal to them if they can better understand what X offers in this area.

I get that you and others here are at a level where "share" represents a lot of duplication of what you already do in your sophisticated workflows. And if "top level pros" was the exclusive target audience for X, I'd agree with you. But its not. Just like Legacy, X has, from the beginning, been promoted by Apple as a "general purpose" professional video editing tool for the modern editing era. Not one exclusively built for large shops with traditional model workflows.

I suspect that as many come here to explore what FCP-X can do as continue to come here exclusively to crow about what it can't. And particularly, since this forum seems to keep getting almost weekly "promotional announcements" about it's competitors capabilities, I think providing the audience with discussions about what it can is every bit as germane to these discussions.

So that I took the time to post about some of the areas where it's designers built-in some "non-traditional" workflow enhancements purpose built for the new connected era - and that's worth noting.

Fair is fair, after all.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor