Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?

[Michael Gissing] "Please don't confuse their combined reticence as a failure to embrace change. It just isn't in spite of your constant harping that it must be the reason.
"

Then let me be specific.

I do NOT believe that editors who don't like X are in any way "resistant to change." Far from it. In order to be a modern editor of any quality, the singular attribute I've witnessed is curiosity and agility of mind.

You can't do the work without those qualities. So I'm NOT dissing editors who don't like X.

I'm arguing that the pace of overall technological change in society is so rapid and so pervasive, that it's simply too easy to overlook wider forces that might be harbingers of change that will affect our industry like they are affecting all others.

My "harping" as you put it, is a reaction to the many, many people who show up here (like the post that started this thread) that PRESUME that the change to X was some kind of disaster and can only be seen as such.

I think that's rubbish.

It's only a "disaster" if it didn't work for a particular editor.

And I firmly believe that MOST editors fall outside the class for whom it's fatally flawed.

NOT most professional "seat in a post house" editors. For that class, it's a major issue, and I've acknowledged that many times here.

It's probably a "world view" thing - similar to the recent stories about how self-described republicans and democrats look at the same facts and come to startlingly different, and mutually inconsistent conclusions.

If ones "world view" is that editing is what happens in a Seat at Bunim Murray - then X can easily be seen as a big step backwards compared to Legacy.

If one's "world view", however, is that editing is how you get your vision in front of the largest possible audience regardless of the fact that you don't have a 100-seat post house at your disposal, it might be the finest editing tool the world has ever seen.

BOTH these subjective views can be argued against intelligently - and that's the whole point.

I argue most often for the "non facility" view, in part because the former views is extremely well represented here and that's where most of my personal experience is.

I'm not employed in a big shop. And X has been a great tool for me and is getting better month by month.

I'm admittedly 'invested" in it's success for very personal reasons. I want to see it grow and succeed because it's working really, really well for me.

So I feel it's appropriate to push back when I read something that besmirches it from someone who doesn't actually USE it on a day to day basis, as I do.

It's a great and very unique editing tool. It's not prefect. It's not for everyone. But it's excellent editing software for most editing purposes right now.

That's the truth of it.

And it's a truth I'm willing to stand up for.

Nothing more than that.

If I get passionately "heavy handed" in my arguments, everyone here must expect some of that from me by now. And at least I'm consistent! ; )

"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