yeah, FPX is so fake. it can 'only' do 99-101% of what avid can do. what a waste of time, money, and use of talents. sure must suck for all those people who make triple digits per year using FPX. cause according to you, it isn't 'real'.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Showcases Final Cut Pro X Usage in Production of Hollywood Film 'Focus'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yeah, FPX is so fake. it can 'only' do 99-101% of what avid can do. what a waste of time, money, and use of talents. sure must suck for all those people who make triple digits per year using FPX. cause according to you, it isn't 'real'.
I think this is the best line of sight into the future.
A year ago I wanted a MacBook Pro, but then Apertuure was eliminated. I wasn't necessarily planning to hang my whole future on Aperture, but this is a lot more than some misplaced love of a mere single software title. It goes to the ready willingness of Apple to throw their users under the bus. I already have enough tire tracks across my belly, thank you very much!
So now I'm no longer craving the MBP quite so much. Burn your customers, and future customers start looking for a cooler climate.
you are probably a sony vegas user lol FCPX not being pro bwhahahahahahahhaha troll on. it has been used on many film sets that have multi million dollar budgets unlike your $20buck skateboard movie lol oh and it has been 64 bit from the start day one bwhahahahahahhahahaha Adobe premeire is used less for movies then FCPX but it is starting to make head way. AVID lead the pack in editing in user base, then it was FCP7 and then WAY behind it was Premiere, then FCPX. installed userbase of FCPX is now ahead of premiere but hey
Last edited:
If FCPX is good for you workflow, you probably not working right
I assume it's good for their requirement because something in their workflow is not like other features.
Do you really want to tell me that just because they could move material between to location and the editing suites that make them chose this over other solutions?
It's like 'Gone Girl' that was edited on Adobe Premiere, obviously someone paid for the PR.
I assume it's good for their requirement because something in their workflow is not like other features.
Do you really want to tell me that just because they could move material between to location and the editing suites that make them chose this over other solutions?
It's like 'Gone Girl' that was edited on Adobe Premiere, obviously someone paid for the PR.
Apple's secrecy is warranted when it comes to their consumer products, but I really think it kind of hurts them in the "pro" realm. It's the constant uncertainty that has had me questioning their commitment to this market. FCPX was a trainwreck at first, from the lack of features to the abandonment of FCP7. It has certainly come into its own, but at what cost? Same situation on the hardware end too. I have my own hang-ups with Avid, and to a lesser extent Premiere, but I do appreciate more of the openness those companies provide in this area.
I'm not all that surprised. The introduction to FCPX was a mess at first, at least in the realm of higher end production. Also, consider it's still a fairly new platform. It's not like studios, post houses, etc. just adopt new workflows overnight. And even then, despite the strides FCP made in the industry, the amount of big Hollywood films cut on it was still a drop in the bucket compared to Avid.
----------
Citation please. You're making **** up.
geez - you seem easy to work with
I'm as easy going as it gets, but if someone who's a "professional" is going to call me out in public in an emotional outburst it crosses the line. I get the job done at a high level and deliver the right stuff to everyone who needs it, there's no need for childish public tirades in ANY case.
The moral is that the results speak for themselves, people who rail against FCPX are living in the past, and its an UGLY look.
Yeah, Will Smith movies never do serious cash at the box office. Your sister must have a million dollar laugh.
There's no way professional films could be edited on Final Cut X. This is Will Smith's home movie, right?
The launch of FCPX was poorly handled but even in the early version I could see Apple were right in ditching old tape-based metaphors and once I'd got used to the workflow it was a joy to use.
The launch of FCPX was poorly handled but even in the early version I could see Apple were right in ditching old tape-based metaphors and once I'd got used to the workflow it was a joy to use.
Last edited:
Apple has nothing - Proof: The piece of junk named Photos.app. Don't know hwat the guys at Apple are smoking, but it appears to be bad stuff...
Don't be butt hurt about the fact that FCPX is a great NLE used by some of the top professionals making some of the top movies.
This thread is muddied by idiots claiming FCPX isn't "cool enough" and you get bent out of shape about a "humble brag"?
You make it sound as if online content is nothing. TV viewing figures are falling while people watch more and more online content. If FCPX has traction there that's hardly something to pooh-pooh.
Major films or commercial projects aren't apples target market.
It's the youtube, the amateur or the simpleton. That's great and will be installed on more systems as a result. It sure is suitable for major films but you can't expect one version to change everyone's opinion overnight.
There is a similar issue with logic pro x. The basic functionality is enhanced but there is push back from users of older versions when 99% of its main uses are unchanged.
It's the youtube, the amateur or the simpleton. That's great and will be installed on more systems as a result. It sure is suitable for major films but you can't expect one version to change everyone's opinion overnight.
There is a similar issue with logic pro x. The basic functionality is enhanced but there is push back from users of older versions when 99% of its main uses are unchanged.
Not true.
It's used at Trim Editing (www.trimediting.com) by a lot of the editors on huge commercials. I used it to cut this www.hondatheotherside.com
here's a write up.
http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/art...-the-other-side-was-edited-in-final-cut-pro-x
We like it because it's the best editor we've ever used (coming from avid and Final Cut 7).
Here's load of other work cut on it.
My point is not to show off, but to demonstrate that the claim it's not used on big professional work is wholly untrue.
Cut with what you like. It's all about the quality of the work at the end of the day.
Last edited by a moderator:
To tell you the truth, it's just Pages that's garbage. I'm guessing since a word processor is the most common app for most people, the associate the entire sweet with it.
You obviously don't keep up with who's using it professionally do you?
----------
Would be nice if you educated yourself about the "truth" instead of ranting mindlessly. NBC/Universal is using it, BBC is using it, lots of big production houses are using it. As for Logic Pro x, lots of places use it, too. Lots of famous musicians love it.
To tell you the truth, my wife and I run 3 major businesses on Pages, Number, Contacts, Calendar. And 50% of that office work is done in the field on iPads. We run businesses, serious business, I think Pages is wonderful, easy, fast, powerful, as is Numbers and the rest. Maybe you should learn how to use the app before you trash it.
That's ********. Logic Pro X since its inception opened old projects without complaining. And nothing fundamentally changed (and i literally mean nothing), they just fixed stability and added functionality, and there was about 90% less people complaining when LPX came out compared to FCPX.
The UI, much like Premiere, for me isn't clean enough: I want to focus on the video, have a well-organized Bins and have a responsive timeline that doesn't get in my way during the job. I found the X timeline very frustrating, the magnetic thing, the hard frame by frame cuts etc, scrolling hours of clips when sometimes you have nothing more than a Macbook screen.
Most of the times editing is not cool for all the amount of pressure, but it surely it's satisfying at the end of the day.
Before writing all my frustration and pleasure in editing in AVID, and also i do edit on FC7 and premiere on the fly, I've done a job for Mazda purely on FCX, and truly understood how important is that the program must suits your workflow and process of editing, and for me FCX actually does it only stylish, but not confortable.
Relaxed editors work better, harder, faster, and slimmier
By the way, I add a music video edited on FCX to add to some more i saw on top
Last edited by a moderator: