FORUMS: list search recent posts

If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
James Clark
If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:05:35 pm

It's being dubbed imovie pro and I was going based on reports in many places and especially by horrified freelance editors I've spoken to that Apple have clearly seen that it will be more lucrative for them to more or less ditch the pro market and try and sell to ordinary consumers but something just occurred to me. i-movie comes with Mac OS, so anyone that wants to edit a wedding video or movies of their pets or even shorts that require only basic cutting abilities and which will guide you through the process as much as possible already can using bundled imovie. What does FCPX offer the non-professional market?

I have to admit I haven't used FCPX yet, but it seems the complaints levelled against it are that it has basically eschewed all the features considered as required for professional editing and that people therefore assume it's a move to simplify it for a non-professional consumer to operate it. But could a non-professional really use it all that easily? Is it as easy as imovie? If it isn't then that leaves only a smaller section of the market who would be interested in it and able to use it. With that in mind does it really make sense to think that Apple isn't aiming FCPX at professionals anymore?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:47:33 pm

Basically this is most of the core debate in this forum, a quick browse through will give you an idea of peoples opinions on this.

My take is that FCPX is unsuitable for the higher ends of the Professional market as it stands, some of the issues that are preventing it being unsuitable will be fixed over the coming months, then it's down to personal choice whether you like the interface or not.

Having said that I'm currently cutting a show for the Discovery Channel and a low budget movie on it. I will however have to transition back to FCP7 on these for grading and mastering.

It is a fallacy that FCPX is only aimed at the domestic market.

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

James Clark
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 12:52:23 pm

well yes, I've seen that much of the debate on this forum centres around if FCPX is really suitable for professional video editing, but taking that assumption as given for the sake of argument. What then is it suited for? Could a consumer pick it up and use it and why would they want it in place of imovie?


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 1:02:16 pm

Not sure why a consumer would want to pay the money for it when iMovie is all but free and easier to use.

I've already had a Producer use FCPX for a rough cut and he seem to find it easy enough to use though.

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 1:26:09 pm

If you know iMovie, then moving up to FCPX is very straightforward, as Apple explain here:

http://www.apple.com/uk/finalcutpro/imovie-to-finalcutpro/

I have seen several users make the transition very quickly and easily indeed, whereas it is clear that users coming from traditional NLE backgrounds find it all much more mystifying, as evidenced throughout these forums.

Essentially FCPX unlocks most of the limitations of iMovie and hence makes a great deal of sense for those who want a bit more out of their editing app.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 1:14:20 pm

The term "professional" is a little too broad here. Plenty of 'pros' are using it... at least, that's what I'm guessing, since I've never actually met someone who is using it. I've met two professionals (both do weddings/corporate) who bought and then returned it.

That being said, the "broadcast" industry is the primary group that has rejected FCPX.

I think Apple aimed FCPX at all professionals, but simply failed to consider the real needs of the broadcast sector, which caused all this backlash.


Return to posts index


James Clark
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 1:22:24 pm

I guess that's definitely what it appears like, but it seems strange to me that such a miscalculation could occur, the broadcast industry had adopted Final Cut Pro to an extent so it was usable, where as FCPX has taken features out which has caused the complaints, this means a deliberate decision not to include things presumably some users needed rather than a case of building a program from scratch and not adequately anticipating the needs of the consumer. It's interesting, I can't quite figure out the decisions making process that has lead to the program as it is, it doesn't seem to be right for anyone.


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 1:30:01 pm

We will never know the real decision making process here. I saw a funny conspiracy theory on the macrumors website that Ubillos is secretly planning to move back to Adobe and released FCPX as a final "screw you" to Apple for not giving him the funding he deserved, heh.

Personally I just think that they over estimated their influence in the broadcast market.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:01:32 pm

I think it's as simple as they want to increase market share. I think they want it both ways, they want broadcast AND people who are in a transition of moving from basic cutting to a higher level of cutting.

You mentioned that you have not used FCP X yet. Try it out and see how you like it.

It looks like a toy on the surface but get with someone that knows how to unlock the power of it.

Like I have said before on here, one of it's strong points is it's ability to keyword search and help you find clips that you are looking for.

This only helps people who have a ton of footage to plow through.

If you have a ton of footage, you most likely are working on something kind of big.


Return to posts index


Frank Gothmann
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:10:52 pm

I think the problem is indeed that Apple wants to have it both way: powerful tool but super-simplified ui. That just doesn't work and form should function functionality, not the other way round. Unfortuantely, in Apple's book simplifying things means more and more often simply dropping features rather than making them understandable and usable for those who want to knowa nd those who know what they are doing and need them.
Just take a look at Compressor. Virtually zero ability to tweak codec settings. Compare this with the settings of Mainconcept or high-end tools such as Cinevision. So, potentially powerful tools that lack the depth and control that a lot of the high-end users simply need. The desired result is a "one-click" solution that simply doesn't fly for certain markets - and sometimes delivers inferior results.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 4:58:30 pm

These are good points Frank, and if it can't cut it, the product won't last.

I for one like that there is more than one option. It makes them compete against each other.

Avid came out with a nice new product and many will use that and Apple will take note and make adjustments.

As long as there are options I'm fine. It's when someone get's a monopoly that I can't concerned.


Return to posts index

Nick Toth
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:09:48 pm

I have been editing for nearly 30 years and I have edited with FCP since version 1.25. Any time I tried to use iMovie I couldn't do it. It made no sense to me at all.

FCP X however made a lot of sense to me, especially once I learned where everything was and how it worked. It didn't really take that long to get up to speed with it. As far as a "non-pro" using it? Sure, some will be able to and some won't. That's true of any editing software. My son did several videos in high school on FCP 7 and all I did was show him how to make titles and spent about 5 minutes on how to trim and edit footage on the timeline. It's not the software, it's the person using it.

Since X came out I have been bouncing between X and 7. Does X annoy me sometimes? Sure! But so does 7. I do legacy SD projects in 7 just as a timesaver. I do new projects in X usually in HD and I prefer it to 7. However, it all comes down to using what I feel is appropriate for the job. I lean toward X going forward while using 7 for the convenience of working on existing projects (at least for the time being).

I recently made a good deal of money editing on a client's system.

The software? FCP-HD 4.5. Guess what? It still works and I got paid...

NT


Return to posts index


tony west
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 5:04:20 pm

"The software? FCP-HD 4.5. Guess what? It still works and I got paid."

At the end of the day that's what matters Nick. We need to be able to earn a living$


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:00:09 pm

We all naturally shoehorn our opinion of any tool into the kind of editing we personally need to do.

I'm more fascinated about whether Apple simply took a broader view and started with the essential question of what the entire classification of "people who edit" might look like today compared to what that looked like in the past.

In the past, it was a very specialized occupation. if you couldn't talk yourself into a room with enough economic clout to be full of Grass Valley and Ikigami toys, you couldn't play. Period.

But today? Totally different picture. So given that reality - what does the landscape of "all editors" look like? If you distributed them on a "line of needs" from simple to complex, with someone doing their first home video at one end, and Walter Murch (top experience, top budget) at the other - what does "the middle" of that line look like? With 2,000.000 paid FCP-legacy seats out there what does the AVERAGE existing FCP editor need to empower successful work?

I don't know if it was by design, but I suspect that something like this methodical approach was a part of the X design discussion. What's the point of starting out with a tool that is focused on the needs of the top 10% of the users requirements? It makes NO sense. What does make sense, is to understand that middle. Build a great core tool that satisfies the broadest range of people on both sides of the mid point - then grow outward over time.

Right now, FCP-X does an absolutely superb job for nearly all kinds of the editing tasks required by a very broad swath of that middle. From Corporate videos to Web videos to Digital Signage and beyond, it's a fresh new tool with huge and exciting and growing capabilities.

If you've used it yourself, you quickly see that it can satisfy the MAJORITY of video editing tasks in the broad middle of the market today. As those needs get more specialized at the top and more esoteric end, it shows that it's not fully developed. And that frustrates some. Which is perfectly fair. The development team obviously de-emphasized the top tier esoteric stuff like ProTools Exchange or Broadcast specific tools - precisely because only a small fraction of the people along the use curve line NEED those tools.

The funny thing is that the MIDDLE of the line is also where virtually ALL the growth is in modern video editing. There aren't massive numbers of editing seats expanding in Broadcast, OR in "movie making." Broadcast is increasingly LOSING eyeballs to the net. And in movie making, there are so many people who want each seat at the table, that the odds of anyone getting one are pretty long.

Yet at the same time, there are new venues CRYING for video content. The whole web is starting to look like the TV industry in 1952 - way more demand than supply when it comes to quality work. Same with the corporate space. Every boardroom in the US is talking about corporate communications - because communications is how you teach, train, motivate and inspire teams. And video is truly a "killer app" in that space.

A PRO is someone with PRO knowledge. The tool is just the enabler.

I believe FCP-X is an amazing enabler of visual communications - among others - as it stands - right now.

And it's only going to get better.

My 2 cents, anyway.

"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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 16, 2011 at 4:06:58 am

"Right now, FCP-X does an absolutely superb job for nearly all kinds of the editing tasks required by a very broad swath of that middle. From Corporate videos to Web videos to Digital Signage and beyond, it's a fresh new tool with huge and exciting and growing capabilities."

First off, I believe this to be true, give or take an adjective or two.

But the same can be said, with the exception of the word "new", of many other editing apps out there, such as PPro. The difference being that PPro can handle corporate and web videos, and also handle more complex work flows.

What's the advantage to a mid level user of buying software that doesn't let him move up in complexity if the job comes his way? Why choose software that limits you to the work you are doing right now?

That was always one of Legacy's strong suits, it's ability to handle any editing task. You seem to be promoting FCPX's limitations as a strength, and I don't see it.

It's like the old marketing trick of not fixing a bug and then calling it a feature.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 16, 2011 at 5:25:19 am

[Herb Sevush] "But the same can be said, with the exception of the word "new", of many other editing apps out there, such as PPro. The difference being that PPro can handle corporate and web videos, and also handle more complex work flows.

What's the advantage to a mid level user of buying software that doesn't let him move up in complexity if the job comes his way? Why choose software that limits you to the work you are doing right now?

That was always one of Legacy's strong suits, it's ability to handle any editing task. You seem to be promoting FCPX's limitations as a strength, and I don't see it.

It's like the old marketing trick of not fixing a bug and then calling it a feature.
"


Herb,

First, you're right about PPro and other apps. They are perfectly capable of competing and even besting FCP-X in a variety of areas today. (tho, to my mind, not in any areas that affect it's use as a GENERAL purpose editing tool, but clearly in quite a few well-discussed specialized areas.) FCP-Xs competitors may not have quite the same kind of relational database structure (as far as I understand things, anyway) but it's not like they can't create all these kinds of videos your mention - they certainly can.

So that's not a separator today. Those legacy interface approaches do MORE than the six month old FCP-X approach does right now. Call that a given. The question that remains is what all the players in the overall category of NLE programs can reasonably be expected to do in such a fast evolving future?

I'm surely not qualified to speak on the financial fitness, the future plans, or the evolution path of any other editing platform because I don't use or study them. So for all I know, they might remain in the battle forever. But I also know that while PPro did a pretty major re-write a few years back, I don't' believe that any other NLE has done BOTH as deep a teardown AND as radical a functional re-build as APPLE did with X. I think the proof of it is that no other product revision has caused such a stir. Incrementalism is always largely palatable to most observers. It seldom upsets anyone.

Apple upset EVERYONE with X. I think that's great. It reminded me to look at WHY - and that helped me realize that things wouldn't be the same in the future and that I'd better start my own changes to remain relevant.

Some think the "BIG CHANGE" strategy was a mistake. I think it was a bold bet that will pay off big time. The REASON I say that is because Apples big changes to FCP mirror so many systemic changes in how content is consumed and used today. I think the other video tools were designed for the era of movies and TV. And that FCP-X was clearly purpose designed for a kind of "post tv" era. (that's not to say "TV" will go away. Just that VIDEO content is clearly increasingly likely to be something downloaded and used by individuals rather than broadcast or even projected in a theatre.

Those trends are pretty clear.

It also appears pretty clear to me that most of the major angst about Apple having RUINED FCP was pure BS. I say that with confidence because I use it every day now and it's a solid, well functioning general purpose video editing tool right now. It has particular strengths and weaknesses like all other NLEs. But it does ALL the general editing tasks very well. (just like it's competitors.)

Underneath that, it has an extraordinary team of seasoned NLE code craftspeople working inside the richest company in the world backstopping it's development effort. In uncertain financial times, that counts for quite a bit in my mind.

So that's my view.

Essentially the BUGS (to use your subjective term since I'm seeing nearly no actual software bugs in the program day to day) are more artifacts of the fact that the industry's needs are moving rapidly from an old content distribution model to a new one. Today, only a tiny fraction of the video produced around the world ends up on TV. If in the long run, FCP-X ends up doing NONE of that work (something I doubt VERY much) it will won't prevent it from succeeding wildly as a tool for the other 90% of the videos that people will pay to have made.

That's the real game going on here, I believe.

More simply put, FCP-X is good right now. With the resources and backing in place at Apple, it is very likely to become GREAT over time. It will always (in my guesstimate) be pointed at where Apple feels video is going in terms of creation, distribution, and development - and it had to jettison some compatibility with what video creation USED TO BE like in order to become that.

I think Apple took the correct approach. I also believe they will add in a lot of what's missing over time, not because the "pros" are making noise about it, but rather because they always look to meet their customers needs. I suspect that they want to add back in Multi-Cam not JUST to satisfy some mega-budget rock stars music video needs, but ALSO because cameras are so affordable now that LOTS of people want multi-cam for LOTS of general video purposes. If they make something that works well for the Stadium concert video crowd, they will likely also have something that works really well for someone who only has access to multiple iPhones covering an event somewhere and ALSO wants to do a multi-cam video of that.

If there's a market for higher level tools, they'll get added into the code. Either by Apple or the third party guys - but in ALL cases that stuff will be developed only if there's a large enough need to make such development profitable. I do think the days of Apple building in capability just to gain "cache" with a splinter group like Hollywood is pretty much over. After all, how much more "cache" does Apple really need?

Just my 2 cents.

"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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 16, 2011 at 3:07:59 pm

"I don't' believe that any other NLE has done BOTH as deep a teardown AND as radical a functional re-build as APPLE did with X"

Agreed. But not every tear down is well advised. They tore down Penn Station in NY to build Madison Square Garden and New Yorkers have been regretting it ever since. Many a wonderful home has been torn down and re-built as a modern monstrosity. New does not equal better. Ask the Russians if being revolutionary is always a step forward, or else try to buy a DeLorean.

"Today, only a tiny fraction of the video produced around the world ends up on TV. If in the long run, FCP-X ends up doing NONE of that work (something I doubt VERY much) it will won't prevent it from succeeding wildly as a tool for the other 90% of the videos that people will pay to have made."

So you think it a wise business decision to jettison 10% of your potential customer base? I envy the kind of margins you must have that you don't find that a dangerous policy. You're dumping 10% of your market and, as of now, providing a tool to the remainder that is 10% less functional than your competitors.

"Underneath that, it has an extraordinary team of seasoned NLE code craftspeople working inside the richest company in the world backstopping it's development effort. In uncertain financial times, that counts for quite a bit in my mind. "

I'd be a little careful about that. Apple has demonstrated that it will turn on a dime and dump any aspect of it's business line with no notification. Everyone agrees that Pro App software is a tiny slice of a slice of their revenue. You are no more safe in the behemoth that is Apple than you would be with Avid - the risk with Avid is that the company fails, the risk with Apple is that they change market strategy. As far as risk goes I find them equivalent.

"If there's a market for higher level tools, they'll get added into the code. Either by Apple or the third party guys - but in ALL cases that stuff will be developed only if there's a large enough need to make such development profitable."

You can say that and believe that but it still doesn't make it so. Apple made a commitment to the magnetic timeline that could well make solving some of these issues very difficult, if not practically impossible. They've chosen a path and I don't see how they can walk it all back, nor do I believe they will want to. Third parties are not going to be able to provide you with tracks in the timeline. I believe X will be improved, but I also think it is what it is.

"I do think the days of Apple building in capability just to gain "cache" with a splinter group like Hollywood is pretty much over. After all, how much more "cache" does Apple really need?"

Better a splinter than a sphincter.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Don Walker
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:17:05 pm

I think that FCPX was released before it was ready, and Apple knew it, but because of pressure from the outside and inside, pushed forward with a good program that wasn't "done". if you are cooking something great in the oven, but you take it out early, (because people are clamoring for food) it's not going to get rave reviews, some people won't eat it, but some will see the potential, and say to the chef, put it back in the oven for a while.

The majority of the FCP user base was hungry for a solid 64 bit update that looked and acted like the FCP we all know and love. Apple, either because of panic, ego or some combination of both, seeing that Avid, and Adobe were getting all the attention, pushed the product out before it was ready.

Bottom line, I think Apple has lost some ground (users) to Adobe and Avid, but in the end, will develop X (or XI ) into something really useful for all.
IMHO

don walker
texarkana, texas

John 3:16


Return to posts index

Chris Conlee
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:34:10 pm

I've been saying since they launched it, that I think they made a serious marketing mistake -- which is uncommon for Apple. For exactly the reasons you mentioned, I don't think they're going to find a market for this piece of software, which is why I said on the first day I expect the price to fall to $79 and they'll market it as a more professional version of iMovie for people who need "just a little more" from their editing application.

It doesn't have the features that "pros" in the broadcast sense of the word need, so they're not going to spend on it, and it doesn't differentiate itself enough from iMovie to make amateurs absolutely HAVE to splurge on it to the tune of $400 (with compressor and motion).

Of course some alternative media professionals have appreciated the tools, and they'll continue to use the software, but I don't think the market is as big as Apple anticipated. I actually think it's even MORE of a niche software than it was before. Time will tell, I suppose.

Chris


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:42:46 pm

[Chris Conlee] "Of course some alternative media professionals have appreciated the tools,

Alternative Media Professionals?

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Chris Conlee
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:51:52 pm

Well, as somebody else mentioned in this thread, we all tend to look at tools from the perspective of our own needs. I'm in the broadcast and motion picture side of things, so web-based content, in particular, is what I was referring to as "alternative media." I suppose it's not that alternative to many, and I certainly meant NO disrespect, as a paying gig is a paying gig, no matter what the intended distribution is.

Who knows? I just wonder, as the OP pointed out, if the tools are so superior for people doing non-broadcast work that it'll find a market. And if non-pros, doing family videos, will see the benefit in spending somewhere between $300 and $400 when they already have iMovie.

Full disclosure, I'm an Avid guy through and through, and can't really see the need to ever use anything else for any job given my familiarity with it. However, I do own licenses for FCS 3 and CS5.5 just in case somebody walks in the door with a project that I need to fix.

I haven't sprung for FCP X yet, because nobody has yet walked in with a FCP X job that needs help.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 9:12:02 pm

[Chris Conlee] "I haven't sprung for FCP X yet, because nobody has yet walked in with a FCP X job that needs help."

And I doubt they will for a while, Chris.

But just understand that since X is quite plainly NOT the same kind of editing approach as we're all mostly used to - trying to jump over it's learning curve can be a bit disorienting for many people at first.

Which means that if you ever DO need to use it, it might be wise to explore it well before you reach that stage.

Just a suggestion.

Take it for what it's worth.

"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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 9:31:19 pm

Those who never spent any significant time learning iMovie substantially overestimate the supposed complexities of FCPX.

iMovie aficionados on the other hand have found it very easy to make the transition.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 9:57:40 pm

But Simon,

How many people proficient with FCP-Legacy - the group generally hanging in this forum - have ever had any significant experience with iMovie?

Why would they when they already have a significantly more powerful tool that they know how to use that does all the basics and a LOT more.

It's like asking a person who's grown up using a power drill to reach for a hand crank drill for their next project. People DO that, of course, but not very often.

To put down the big power drill and perhaps learn something that presents a new approach to the concept of drilling - a Dremel perhaps? THAT makes sense, particularly if precision is suddenly more valuable than power - but I doubt there is a great cadre of FCP-Legacy/iMovie experts out there who can base their migraine to X on existing iMovie expertise.

But I could be wrong.

"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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 10:17:51 pm

[Bill Davis] "... experts out there who can base their migraine to X ..."

Well, what would Freud say?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 10:48:38 pm

Gotta love auto-spell-correct!

Migration to Migrane? - sounds like unusually lame Lifetime TV movie.

At least this wan't one of those ghastly thumb typing errors that imbues an innocent email with some unintended lechery or the like.

Whew!

"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


Return to posts index

Lemur Hayop
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:59:44 pm

"[Chris Conlee] "I haven't sprung for FCP X yet, because nobody has yet walked in with a FCP X job that needs help.""

There probably won't be any big jobs in FCPX for a while. However, I surmise some "small" or Kickstarter-funded FCPX gigs might appear on the horizon. Nevertheless, the pay will probably be too small to incite any interest among those on this thread.

http://www.k9sound.com


Return to posts index

Adam White
Re: If FCPX isn't really for Pros, who is it for?
on Nov 16, 2011 at 9:06:57 pm

Having downloaded the trial version and attempting to get to grips with it, I came away thinking that the problem was that Apple didn't know who exactly it was aimed at all.

It looks and feels like iMovie+ and it does feel as if they are trying to hold your hand through the editing process. The assumption seems to have been that the editing process as it was/is in FCP 7/Avid/Adobe is really too complicated and needed to be simplified. My experience has been the complete opposite - people new to editing are very quick to pick up the UNmagnetic timeline / multitrack paradigm because it makes perfect sense. FCPX requires you to learn about it's (extensive) assumptions and mode of working before you can get anywhere with it, FCP7 gives you a very limited set of rules to learn and then really just gets out of your way.

But there are clearly some very powerful features under the hood, too. I think it was a botched product that tried to appeal to everyone, and ended up appealing to very few people because it's not sure what it wants to be. At least that's how it appears right now.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]