An amusing backstory is they bought a bunch (1000?) copies of 7 about a mouth before it was deleted.
I guess that kind of makes X the standard in the UK now.
S
That quote sums it up as I would consider the source. 1000 seats and a few years later you change? Somebody in purchasing didn't do their homework, or Apple didn't tell them what was coming.
(Probably the later).
Every time I hear one of these fcp X announcements I think of those press releases that read Jenson Button uses Mobil 1 in his formula one car.
Of course, but don't think it was his decision, it was a "get a sponsor" decision. I doubt seriously if Jenson drives by every night to fill up his formula car with oil.
For the recorded I'm not a fcp X hater, but I surely not a fan, just like most production companies are not rushing hand over fist to convert all of their projects to fcp x. If they're moving it's to Premiere Pro some we're already Avid based so they just stick with Avid.
It's a straw poll, but of every production company, editorial house I work with from large to small, all use FCP 7, most use Avid, only 1 has a grasp of fcp X. (this was of last november).
You also have to consider the source as fcp.com is full of seminar and training "professionals" all rooting for you to join up with them and learn how to work fcpX (for a price).
Now the upside is FCP X probably is "ok" for a news gathering organization as it does work multiple codecs fairly well, it's green screen function is pretty good and it syncs multi-cam footage . . . pretty well.
Those things are all a plus, but what it doesn't do is allow layer based timeline effects easily and key framing is at best non intuitive.
I did a test where I brought a fcp X expert on site to see if I was missing something and she showed me the buttons, workflow etc. . . . and after a reset of my brain, it's a almost understandable program, just not very logical, though I get it, at least I sort of get it.
Then I loaded some of our recent fcp 7 edits and said now do this with X and after about 30 minutes of explaining how fcp x works, we came to the conclusion that we would still have to go back to fcp 7 for some of the edited scenes, then burn them out and
insert them into fcp X.
So . . . I when I see headlines like this I:
1. Consider to source.
2. Consider who made the decision
3. Consider the content they produce.
When It comes to me moving our workflow and our studios in a different direction I look at costs but I also wonder how long Apple will support fcpx or for that matter any of their pro apps.
Remember they just killed Aperture which had about the same professional acceptance as final cut pro X and we all know that Apple is now a consumer based company with their pro apps at the bottom of the earnings chart.
__________
Recently we've moved our color correction from resolve 9 to 11 and I gave myself about 1 hour to learn the simple editing functions of resolve 11 which follows the same basic layout of every non linear editor (except fcpX).
In all honesty it's snap, allows easy key framing, compositing of clips, bin (folder based) organization.
I did a quick 3 minute long edit of rushes from our current project and inserted RED Taw, prorezz and h26 clips and wince it's 64 bit it took them all with ease, I did quick none based color correction and sent out multiple conforms as fast as anything I could use, even fcpx with much more functionality.
I'll admit resolve 11 isn't a pure editorial program, but in reality it's closer to professional use of editing, color correction and layer based time line use than fcpX is and doesn't take a week or two relearn of the whole process. Imagine if BM design had half the resource and advertising budget of fcpX?
P.S. on the same fcp.com site they pulled a google search of nle's and the results were that fcp 7 is still the most used nle in the world", which is interesting considering it's been orphaned by Apple for 6 years or more.
IMO
BC
