iMovie isn't dumb either. In 2000-2001 ish there was a major move away from FCP 3 (at the time) to iMovie, and a lot of "professional editors" edited exclusively on iMovie, including Zach Stiglitz and Art Jones, I believe. So, yeah, the iMovie as derogatory slur doesn't make much sense to me either. And who cares about the professional market anyway? So your evidence that FCP X is "dumb" is that because post house refuse to edit car commercials on it. Yeah, that's not dumb at all.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Richard Sylvarnes <[email protected]>wrote: > Apple is very direct in their intention to make FCPX more favorable to the > consumer and IMovie user. They recognize that the professional market is > too small for their bottom line. Therefore, yes, they are dumbing it down. > Why, otherwise, is every professional editor I know either switching or > have otherwise switched already or are still working with FCP7? > > On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:51 PM, chris bravo wrote: > > I really don't get this idea that FCP X is "dumb"? What do people mean by > that? FCP X is obviously not dumb, are you referring to features? Clip > tagging with keywords, for example, is totally innovative and forward > thinking (it seems to me) and allows an editor to navigate through more > footage more quickly and organize it more intuitively and > idiosyncratically. (Intuitively I think means in a way that makes obvious > sense to the editor). Comparatively Premiere and AVID are way behind on > that front. Magnetic timeline the same, once you become comfortable with > the behaviors, its a much more stable timeline than the normal sequence > strucutre and allows you to edit sections of a long cut with much greater > confidence that you aren't fucking up the sequence by rippling tracks in > ways that aren't obvious. Timeline inspector the same. In one window you > can quickly get an overview of everything that appears in the timeline and > quickly naviagte to specific clips and monitor their states. (Oh, wait, you > don't know about that feature? Please continue expressing ill-informed > opinions, though.). XML exporting the same, FCP X exports far and away the > most detailed xml of any editing software and allows incredible flexibility > moving projects into audio and online software. And anyways do people > really think that somehow Apple is maliciously contributing to the > stupidification of media production rather than, say, ADOBE? that is an > insane position to take. Use whatever program you like, but this > witch-hunting is tiresome. > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Beebe, Roger W. <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On the original topic of editing software, I’d throw my weight behind >> switching to Premiere. At the University of Florida, I experimented for a >> semester with FCPX, and I found it buggy & dumbed down in ways that made it >> hard to do things that I’ve come to expect from my editing systems. The >> magnetic timeline is one of the worst innovations I’ve ever encountered, >> and the commingling of audio and video tracks just makes everything look >> chaotic. I’m sure I could’ve applied myself & gotten more familiar with >> the quirks of this system, but I preferred instead to switch over to >> Premiere, which had much more of the feel of FCP 7 and also had the >> advantage of integrating seamlessly with Premiere and After Effects. >> >> I’m also on the UFVA list and this discussion has come up frequently. >> FCPX does have a few defenders, but it has produced much more >> dissatisfaction. >> >> I’ve just relocated to Ohio State, and we’ve started anew in Premiere. >> The person who had been teaching the video classes here was teaching FCPX, >> but he seemed excited to switch over after the troubles he’s had with FCP. >> >> As for hardware, here at Ohio State, our labs all have iMacs. The older >> ones really do slow down when you attempt to do anything slightly complex; >> even the newer ones are noticeably slower than the Mac Pros I left behind >> in Florida. It is a great cost savings though, and if you only have to pay >> with your time, it just depends on how much you’ll hate having to go make a >> pot of tea while you render a sequence. It’s certainly not impossible to >> do interesting, layered work on an iMac though. >> >> 2 cents, >> R. >> >> On Apr 17, 2014, at 9:42 PM, Aaron F. Ross <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > I would steer clear of iMacs for video editing, they are underpowered. >> If you want to render HD video, it's going to be slow and painful on even >> the high end iMacs. The Mac Pro is very fast, but very expensive. It is >> only available with small solid state drives, so you have to buy additional >> external hard drives. >> > >> > Aaron >> > >> > >> >> I disagree with $4000. A 21" iMac - what a school would likely be >> running Final Cut on - starts at $1299. I assume there are bulk discounts >> for schools, but they likely already have the computers. >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > Aaron F. Ross, artist and educator >> > http://dr-yo.com >> > http://digitalartsguild.com >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > FrameWorks mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FrameWorks mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >> > > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > > > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > >
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
