Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?

And Tony this is where different styles have different needs. I agree that FCPX seems to work well for a pretty straingt forward cut. A series of actions where one just cuts from one shot to the next with simple foley and sync sound.

However, in my more experimental work I will use multi-layered video that doesn't always work on a one to one length with the several other shots of whict it overlays . A certain piece of video may run through out a segment, over several other shots, and I will vary its opacity using key frames. I often have multiple layers of video working all at once. At the same time I may have several tracks of sound. I do use sync, but it is often only a small part of my overall sound design.

For this FCPX seems ill-suited. I have seen where folks have come up with various byzantine work-arounds in FCPX to achieve the same results. However, I am never going to remember all of those. And the fact is I would have to spend A LOT of time in X to get to the point I am now in Legacy (and my time to experiment in a new NLE is limited). I moved from a flatbed to tape-based linear editing to NLE over the years and the basics of intercutting and montage have not really changed. I've had to learn new stuff sure, but FCPX is the first time in the process I feel that I would come in further behind the game than when I made a changeover.

That said, I know this is only me with my very specialized workflow. There are a lot of people I think may benefit from FCPX and are resisting for all the wrong reasons. They stay away not because it doesn't work for them, but because of negative (admittedly some deserved)feedback. But there are others --particularly in higher end production -- that FCPX's editing paradigm as it now stands will never work IMO. I think apple is going to have to makes some major changes in X to entice those folks.