Apple chose to ship a product that innovates while taking huge steps backward in the process. Quite simply, as a working pro, I need to make a living, which means I need software that will meet the needs of my workflow NOW. I can't entrust my livelihood on hope that things will change. Understandably, not everyone is affected by what FCP X lacks, but a lot of us are. Therefore, the those of us who are will respectfully pass on FCP X: either just for now, or indefinitely; that all depends on Apple. Frankly, in the software-based NLE arena, Apple has a lot more competition than they did back in 2001
I'm really not sure how this keeps getting overlooked.
It's weird how some people simultaneously say, "FCP 10 may work great in the future so stop worrying about how it does not work today" and "FCP 7 works great today so stop worrying about how it won't work in the future." There's a gap between "FCP 7 is no longer sufficient" and "FCP 10 is sufficient... we hope" that seems to keep getting over looked.
I'm getting fed up of reading that fcpx isn't a pro app because it doesn't do stuff with tapes. It's a MODERN video editing tool, just because it's left old technologies behind doesnt mean its not pro.
Adobe and Avid have managed to make modern NLEs that have
more support for tapeless workflows than FCP 10 current does
and they did it w/o dropping tape support. It's not an either/or situation.
Production companies should be leaving these things in the past anyway. You can leave fcp7 installed if you need it.
And production companies are, but the entire industry can't drop tape support over night just because in Apple's world tape doesn't exist. Reality gets in the way sometimes.
As gets harped on every other post, your current workflow is still intact, and that is precisely why the problems people have with FCP X are non-issues.
You mean my workflow that could really use an overhaul because FCP 'classic' is based on code over a decade old and hasn't seen a worthwhile update since 2007? If you look at it that way I guess you are right that FCP 10's short comings are non-issues if you don't use the program which is why so many people have said they won't be using the program. Although I'm sure most, if not all of those people, would've preferred Apple release something that was a more suitable replacement for FCP 7 out of the gate.
People will either work with the tools they have, or buy/code new ones.
Exactly. So why the insults and animosity towards people that have moved on?
You mention Automatic Duck; in the user guide for Pro Export, it notes that back in version 3, FCP didn't have XML exporting. FCP 7 does.
So... Apple dropped a pro feature in FCP 10 and that's okay because FCP didn't always have said pro feature and dropping said feature is an illustration of how modern, professional, and forward thinking FCP 10 is. Except that Apple has said that OMF is coming back. So will FCP 10 be better once it adds back this pro feature? Or will it be worse because it supports 'less modern' workflows? It can't be both.
There seems to be a lot of pollyannism with regard to FCPX. I get that people are unhappy with it but how much complaining is enough?
If in a thread made to discuss the pros/cons of FCP 10 you are upset that people are saying negative things?
That's exactly what it is to me, as well. I hope that as FCP X explores its potential I can keep up... I'm no where near a rocket scientist... just a mathematician.
I like FCPX. It's letting me fool around with video clips in ways I never would have in the old version because of how obtuse the layout is.
And here in lies a big difference in how people perceive FCP 10, IMO. If you are someone that depends day in and day out on FCP odds are you aren't going to be happy with FCP 10 as it is and the direction that Apple seems to be going. If you are someone that is not reliant on FCP and is not in the post industry then I can understand not thinking any of this is that big a deal.
I'm sure many people who rarely drive and only have the occasional need for basic transportation would find a manual transmission overly complicated compared to an automatic transmission. They just want to get in their car, drive down to the store and come back home. Quick, easy, simple, done. But that doesn't mean manual transmissions are overcomplicated and unnecessary. It just means a car with a manual transmission probably isn't the best solution for individuals with those types of needs.
Don't you want people taking video? Cutting video? CREATING things?
Or does that lie strictly within the purview of so-called "professional"s who present themselves as individuals more willing to whine about non-issues rather than finding solutions?
Insults born out of ignorance aside, I think that video is becoming a new form of literacy. Instead of e-mailing people about events we are snapping quick videos and sending/posting them instead. There are 'tiers' of video creation just like there are tiers of business and sport and for each tier there is room for appropriate tools catering to those separate markets. There's no reason why all tools and solutions should cater to the lowest common denominator.
It can continue the democratization of video composition, the same way the cell phone did that for photography. (Cell phones vs point-n-shoots would be a different argument we could have later.)
Cell phone vs DSLR or medium format camera would be a little more apt comparison, IMO.
Lethal
