Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 28th Jun 2011 22:28 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 478985
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: FCP X is good, but it hasn't smart managers
by Delgarde on Wed 29th Jun 2011 00:18
in reply to "FCP X is good, but it hasn't smart managers"
RE: FCP X is good, but it hasn't smart managers
by arpan on Wed 29th Jun 2011 08:37
in reply to "FCP X is good, but it hasn't smart managers"
RE: FCP X is good, but it hasn't smart managers
by Neolander on Wed 29th Jun 2011 10:05
in reply to "FCP X is good, but it hasn't smart managers"
It actually surprised me that Apple would do such an easy mistake, in terms of a pro product evolution/market.
What if it wasn't a mistake, but simply a not-so-subtle way of saying "Frankly, we don't care about you anymore" to the pro Mac community ?
I mean, what are professional products worth once you are at the center of the mainstream market ? They require more work, and they generate less benefits as a whole, although more benefits per head...
It may simply be the case that this category of Mac users have had their use, and now Apple doesn't need them anymore. So they get deprecated, so to speak.




Member since:
2005-06-28
FCP X is actually a *good*, modern editor if you think of it from the point of view of a stand-alone, modern videographer. It does everything you would need it to do at that price range, again, for an editor who has just started his foray into professional or prosumer video editing, and has modern hardware/cameras.
But where FCP X really sucks and fails, is in the way it supports its previous professional users. Its inability to import/export OMF/EDL/XML/FCP-projects, multicamera support, good DV/HDV tape and RED support etc, are all Hollywood-class or older-prosumer-(weddings)class professionals. These features are indeed a must-have for these kinds of pros, and they are RIGHT to shout at Apple for the lack of these features. Apple's managers should have looked at history (e.g. Lotus 1-2-3 to Excel), to see how important backwards compatibility and interoperability feature support is to OLDER users. It actually surprised me that Apple would do such an easy mistake, in terms of a pro product evolution/market.
But as I said, if you're a new videographer, stand-alone person in the post production of things (e.g. a dSLR user who shoots official music videos, or shooting short movies -- like myself), then FCPX is good enough for what it does. I don't need multi-camera support, I don't need older compatibility or interoperability with others. I can do everything on my own, and FCPX offers most of the features I need.
But yeah, if you're in a STUDIO, sharing projects with others, e.g. colorists or 3D people, then FCPX is a toy.
Edited 2011-06-28 23:24 UTC