or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Final Cut Pro X named PCMag's Editors Choice for high-end video editing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Final Cut Pro X named PCMag's Editors Choice for high-end video editing

post #1 of 64
Thread Starter 
After its third minor update, Final Cut Pro X has been awarded "Editors Choice" for high-end video editing by PCMag for "loads of power, ease-of-use, and no-wait performance" and its "highly usable and precise interface."

After its initial launch last summer, the new Final Cut Pro X met with vocal resistance from a series of seasoned editors who targeted specific feature omissions compared to the previous Final Cut Pro 7 release, along with a variety of interface changes.




Over the past six months, a series of reports, some apparently driven by competitive public relations by Avid and Adobe seeking to exploit the situation to win back market share, have derided the new version of Final Cut Pro by calling it "iMovie Pro" and playing up a massive migration away from the video editing package.

Despite incorporating a powerful new 64-bit foundation and simplified workflow, Final Cut Pro X was missing several features the previous version had and which many editors needed, including XML import, multicam editing and broadcast monitor support.




The latest 10.0.3 update addresses the last of these major request, but as PCMag notes in its review, "with each feature restoration, Apple has not just brought parity with earlier support, but has rethought it, making it both more powerful and easier to use."

The review points out that XML 1.1 enhancements in the latest update provide "even more detail, to the point that it has enabled a new plugin, 7toX (from Intelligent Assistance), to import projects from Final Cut Pro 7—addressing a huge concern of the existing user base."

The review highlighted differences with competing high end video editing packages, including Corel VideoStudio Pro X4, Adobe Premiere Pro and Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD, noting both pros and cons to using Apple's latest version of Final Cut Pro.

It concluded, "the gains made in the rewrite far outweigh the subtractions in what is, in effect, a completely new application. Thanks to both performance and ease-of-use features, pros may find that the same tasks take a fraction of the time they took in previous versions.

"Final Cut Pro X is a delight to work in compared with other serious video editing software. Final Cut Pro X brings the prosumer loads of power, ease-of-use, and no-wait performance."

The reviews "bottom line" predicted that professionals will "eventually be won over by Final Cut Pro X's significant speed and usability advances."



[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 64
Gag me with a spoon. Final Cut Pro X still blows and as a professional editor you'll never catch me using it. People in this town are switching back to Avid in droves.
post #3 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdub View Post

Gag me with a spoon. Final Cut Pro X still blows and as a professional editor you'll never catch me using it. People in this town are switching back to Avid in droves.

Yup. Apple could turn FCPX completely around, though the damage is done, it was a big f-you to the industry.

Unfortunately Apple's "pro" wing is pretty much dead, the mass appeal and $$$ of the prosumer is just too enticing for them.
post #4 of 64
No wait performance?

Have the editors actually used FCP X? It can suffer from quite a bit of lag, even on high end Mac Pros. Try keeping more than a few events or projects open. Try exporting to Compressor. Try using compound clips liberally.

No wait, my ***.

Ps I like the software quite a bit and its multicam implementation is the best around but apple still has some real performance issues to address.
post #5 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdub View Post

Gag me with a spoon. Final Cut Pro X still blows and as a professional editor you'll never catch me using it. People in this town are switching back to Avid in droves.

It's £199, avid is thousands, it hope it's better than FCPX at that price.

Pricing for Media Composer 6 starts at $2499, with upgrade pricing from $299. Pricing for Symphony 6 starts at $5,999, with upgrade pricing from $499. An academic version of Media Composer 6 starts at $295 for educational institutions and students. Final Cut Pro (excluding Final Cut Pro X) users can purchase Media Composer with free online training for $1499.

The new Avid Vantage Program will be available during the fourth quarter of 2011 to Media Composer, Symphony, and Pro Tools users for $149 per year.
post #6 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

It's £199, avid is thousands, it hope it's better than FCPX at that price.

That's nothing when you're cutting $800k+ commercials let alone multi-million dollar features...
post #7 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by quamb View Post

That's nothing when you're cutting $800k+ commercials let alone multi-million dollar features...

Maybe that's why FCPX is a prosumer application now and has a price tag to match.
post #8 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by quamb View Post

That's nothing when you're cutting $800k+ commercials let alone multi-million dollar features...

Exactly. Huge professional post-houses have always used Avid.

Avid's install-base was always bigger than FCP, too.
post #9 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

It's £199, avid is thousands, it hope it's better than FCPX at that price.

Pricing for Media Composer 6 starts at $2499, with upgrade pricing from $299. Pricing for Symphony 6 starts at $5,999, with upgrade pricing from $499. An academic version of Media Composer 6 starts at $295 for educational institutions and students. Final Cut Pro (excluding Final Cut Pro X) users can purchase Media Composer with free online training for $1499.

The new Avid Vantage Program will be available during the fourth quarter of 2011 to Media Composer, Symphony, and Pro Tools users for $149 per year.

You'll more than make up for the extra purchase price based on the time it saves you in the edit bay from a workflow standpoint.

It's currently impossible in FCPX to have multiple editors working on the same project at the same time. This is a MUST in the real world.
post #10 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by quamb View Post

That's nothing when you're cutting $800k+ commercials let alone multi-million dollar features...

The price of FCPX is Apple passing the savings on to you not an indication of its relative value.

The reason Avid and the other pro software makers are so expensive is that their business plan is to sell a few copies at a really high price. Apple on the other hand has the opposite model - sell millions of copies at a really low price. Either way each company covers their expenes and hopefully makes a small profit.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #11 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdub View Post

Final Cut Pro X still blows and as a professional editor you'll never catch me using it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quamb View Post

Yup. Apple could turn FCPX completely around, though the damage is done, it was a big f-you to the industry.

Enjoy not even bothering to download the free trial and see just how wrong you are. Ignorance is bliss, it seems.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #12 of 64
Regardless of whether you prefer one program over another, Apple did a p*ss poor job of transitioning to FCPX and bringing the needed missing pieces on board. However, if some of the posters on this thread are right, Apple is looking more toward the prosumer down the road with this product and their hardware as well.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #13 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

Avid's install-base was always bigger than FCP, too.

Are their any reputable stats for this claim or is it just speculation? I'm curious.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #14 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Are their any reputable stats for this claim or is it just speculation? I'm curious.

Avid's PROFESSIONAL install base was and is now more than ever bigger.
post #15 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Are their any reputable stats for this claim or is it just speculation? I'm curious.

I thought it was common knowledge.

Avid has had the professional market for years. Hollywood movies and TV shows typically use Avid.

Remember when it was a big when the first Hollywood movie was cut on FCP?

That only proves that Hollywood uses Avid.

FCP made inroads into the pro-market... but Avid has had it locked up for quite some time.
post #16 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdub View Post

Avid's PROFESSIONAL install base was and is now more than ever bigger.

Again, reputable stats of this claim?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #17 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

if some of the posters on this thread are right, Apple is looking more toward the prosumer down the road with this product and their hardware as well.

Some people including myself have questioned whether Apple intends to continue the Mac Pro line. One thing to consider is that Apple added 4K resolution capabilities to FCPX. I have not tried it, but I'm guessing running 4K on an iMac or MBP might be a bit sluggish. Unless the consumer computers are capable of smoothly editing and playing 4K I think Apple will continue to sell the Mac Pro and hopefully release a TB version soon.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #18 of 64
Since there are obviously some editors here, I wonder if you could answer a question for me? I can't find a decent answer anywhere on the web.

Basically, if you develop a project in something like Avid, if you chose to switch to FCPX, is it possible to import the part finished project from Avid? I guess in the same way you can open a Microsoft Word document in Pages (albeit with some errors more often than not).

What I'm wondering is, if Apple do fix the perceived problems with FCPX (and even make it better than Avid, though with the price difference it would seem the target market is very different), is it possible for users to swap back in?

Thanks in advance, and apologies if this is an overly basic question.
post #19 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

I thought it was common knowledge.

Avid has had the professional market for years. Hollywood movies and TV shows typically use Avid.

Remember when it was a big when the first Hollywood movie was cut on FCP?

That only proves that Hollywood uses Avid.

FCP made inroads into the pro-market... but Avid has had it locked up for quite some time.


Just show me the numbers. I don't necessarily disagree, I just think it would be pretty close. I have both Avid and FCP but never cut a Hollywood film however do a fair amount of FCP commercial video work. I think there may a rather large number of other similar users who are part of the installed base.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #20 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

I thought it was common knowledge.

Avid has had the professional market for years. Hollywood movies and TV shows typically use Avid.

Remember when it was a big when the first Hollywood movie was cut on FCP?

That only proves that Hollywood uses Avid.

FCP made inroads into the pro-market... but Avid has had it locked up for quite some time.

This is indeed true. Even when Final Cut was on its prime, Hollywood still used AMC mostly.

That's one of the actual arguments that supports Apple's decision to move forward this way. Final Cut Pro was never as feature complete as AMC. It was only cheaper and for most of the work, it was enough. But for the highest end work, it wasn't.

So Apple again does what they do best, release a software, which is weaker than the best of the best out there, but sell it for the fraction of the price. That's what they did with the first Final Cut, and that's how Final Cut gained traction in the first place.
post #21 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

Since there are obviously some editors here, I wonder if you could answer a question for me? I can't find a decent answer anywhere on the web.

Basically, if you develop a project in something like Avid, if you chose to switch to FCPX, is it possible to import the part finished project from Avid? I guess in the same way you can open a Microsoft Word document in Pages (albeit with some errors more often than not).

What I'm wondering is, if Apple do fix the perceived problems with FCPX (and even make it better than Avid, though with the price difference it would seem the target market is very different), is it possible for users to swap back in?

Thanks in advance, and apologies if this is an overly basic question.

Why the heck would you want to... but no you can't. You'd probably have to do it from scratch. It was semi possible to switch between the two with Automatic Duck before (a third party app) - but there were always headaches which brought me back to to the original thought of why the hell would you want to..
post #22 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdub View Post

Why the heck would you want to... but no you can't. You'd probably have to do it from scratch. It was semi possible to switch between the two with Automatic Duck before (a third party app) - but there were always headaches which brought me back to to the original thought of why the hell would you want to..

I see, thank you.

I guess the other way is something I could imagine happening, however unlikely. I.e. you start a project on FCPX, find there is something you can't do so decide to buy Avid, are you starting from scratch, and it seems the answer is yes.
post #23 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tails View Post

It was only cheaper and for most of the work, it was enough. But for the highest end work, it wasn't.

The higher end the work gets, the less important the non-linerar editing platform becomes, because ultimately it is just doing the simplest task of all, cuts and transitions. All the high end stuff gets done in other applications. There is a certain amount of snobbery in Hollywood and people feel proud of themselves to pay a lot of money for their projects.

Personally I feel, FCP, Aftereffects and Pro Logic will take you a quite a ways. It is a poor craftsperson who blames their tools. I was critical of FCP X at first because it didn't do two of the main things I needed. But now it does those two things.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #24 of 64
I find that the AVID vs FCP world is just as complex and full of arrogance as Mac vs. Windows. I have been a broadcast editor for 10 years, and started cutting on an Avid MCA, and for the last three years I have been exclusively FCP.

I know editors, both freelance and in large post facilities that use both systems. I know people who joke arrogantly about FCP as a kids tool, or a cheap version of the real thing. I know FCP users who laugh back at them and say that they are missing out on serious benefits.

These are all professionals, working in pro environments and workflows. Interchanging project materials, footage, XML and edls, omf, HDcam and r3d footage and everything in-between. The true pro workflow requires that you can do it all, work with other shops, and get your own part done efficiently, and without problems. Both FCP and AVID systems do this, with varying strengths and weaknesses.

I have been talking to other shops about the FCPX debacle and NOBODY has heard of anyone or any studio changing their software because of FCPX. It is a joke to suggest otherwise. Anyone who has changed, was either already in the market for serious upgrades, or they are not in a professional environment, connected to edit servers, or otherwise concerned about managing big picture, large scope projects.

My only point with this post is that I'm absolutely sick of hearing the naysayers comments on FCPX every time there is an article that mentions it. No it didn't make you switch, and if it did, you are not even close to typical, and are likely not what I would consider a professional. There is nothing wrong with FCP7, in fact it is far more capable than most shops will ever need it to be (I'm looking at you, 4k editing), and absolutely no reason for anyone (freelance, large studio, or otherwise) to leave FCP7 because of the release of FCP X. If anything, these new updates to FCPX will begin to see edit houses play with it. Nobody is rushing to switch, as upgrade paths are always mapped out in terms of years (4 is typical), not weeks or months.

All that said. AVID is far bigger in the film editing world, but in the digital, video, HD, and broadcast world, I would be surprised to hear if they are much bigger, if not smaller than FCP. Adobe Premiere is not even a consideration for most video shops, although quite viable for animation houses.

The end.
post #25 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

I thought it was common knowledge.

Avid has had the professional market for years. Hollywood movies and TV shows typically use Avid.
Remember when it was a big when the first Hollywood movie was cut on FCP?
That only proves that Hollywood uses Avid.
FCP made inroads into the pro-market... but Avid has had it locked up for quite some time.

I'm sorry, Michael... That's just not true. Why do you think the high end cameras like ARRI Alexa produced ProRes footage? Now, with the advent of FCX, they're switching over to Avid DNX media.

Many movies and commercials and music videos and television shows were cut on Final Cut Pro. Often shows that were cut on Avids were then finished in FCP. That's changing now. But until the advent of FCX and Apple's downfall in the broadcast professional market, FCP kinda owned that market.
post #26 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Sheffield View Post

I'm sorry, Michael... That's just not true. Why do you think the high end cameras like ARRI Alexa produced ProRes footage? Now, with the advent of FCX, they're switching over to Avid DNX media.

Many movies and commercials and music videos and television shows were cut on Final Cut Pro. Often shows that were cut on Avids were then finished in FCP. That's changing now. But until the advent of FCX and Apple's downfall in the broadcast professional market, FCP kinda owned that market.

Many? At least 51% ?

I thought Avid was bigger than FCP.
post #27 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Sheffield View Post

...with the advent of FCX, they're switching... ...Apple's downfall...

I'm sorry, this is abject nonsense. That's all there is to it.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #28 of 64
No one seems to have picked up on this ...

"... Final Cut Pro X brings the prosumer loads of power, ease-of-use, and no-wait performance."

This glowing write up is aimed at the prosumers which is what the professional multi-seat edit suits were worried about. For me as a one man band it's great and hopefully the new updates will solve all the issues, I truly hope it does but this accolade isn't aimed at those pro studio, as stated in their own words, it's a prosumer award.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #29 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdub View Post

Gag me with a spoon. Final Cut Pro X still blows and as a professional editor you'll never catch me using it. People in this town are switching back to Avid in droves.

Really I tire of these so called professionals that can't use the tools common to their business. It would be like a CNC machinist saying he can't use a CNC mill, or a Mac programmer saying he doesn't understand Objective C. It is unadulterated Bull C*&p.
post #30 of 64
http://philipbloom.net/2012/02/07/fcpxeditors/

This is a very well written article.
post #31 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdub View Post

Avid's PROFESSIONAL install base was and is now more than ever bigger.

From what I read there are approximately 20,000 top "pro" editors out there...

So, Avid, Adobe, Apple and others are serving/satisfying a very small number (albeit, very influential) "pros".
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #32 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

The higher end the work gets, the less important the non-linerar editing platform becomes, because ultimately it is just doing the simplest task of all, cuts and transitions. All the high end stuff gets done in other applications. There is a certain amount of snobbery in Hollywood and people feel proud of themselves to pay a lot of money for their projects.

Personally I feel, FCP, Aftereffects and Pro Logic will take you a quite a ways. It is a poor craftsperson who blames their tools. I was critical of FCP X at first because it didn't do two of the main things I needed. But now it does those two things.

+++ QFT

In the words of Norman Hollyn: "just let me do my cuts"'
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #33 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdub View Post

Gag me with a spoon. Final Cut Pro X still blows and as a professional editor you'll never catch me using it. People in this town are switching back to Avid in droves.

What absolute nonsense from the whining few who apparently can't see past the ends of their noses what a dramatic change FCP makes to the editing process for pros. Small mindedness seems to abound in our market.
post #34 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

The higher end the work gets, the less important the non-linerar editing platform becomes, because ultimately it is just doing the simplest task of all, cuts and transitions. All the high end stuff gets done in other applications. There is a certain amount of snobbery in Hollywood and people feel proud of themselves to pay a lot of money for their projects.

Personally I feel, FCP, Aftereffects and Pro Logic will take you a quite a ways. It is a poor craftsperson who blames their tools. I was critical of FCP X at first because it didn't do two of the main things I needed. But now it does those two things.

Yeah, they definitely suffer from "really small penis complex".
Aw hell, doesn't matter in the end. Eventually all these people will all be gone, along with their blinded vision of what they think constitutes "Professional" work. And they'll be replaced with younger more open minded, visionary editors.
ps, I do tech support for some commercial editing houses. I've seen what passes for "professional".
post #35 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coluch View Post

I find that the AVID vs FCP world is just as complex and full of arrogance as Mac vs. Windows. I have been a broadcast editor for 10 years, and started cutting on an Avid MCA, and for the last three years I have been exclusively FCP.

I know editors, both freelance and in large post facilities that use both systems. I know people who joke arrogantly about FCP as a kids tool, or a cheap version of the real thing. I know FCP users who laugh back at them and say that they are missing out on serious benefits.

These are all professionals, working in pro environments and workflows. Interchanging project materials, footage, XML and edls, omf, HDcam and r3d footage and everything in-between. The true pro workflow requires that you can do it all, work with other shops, and get your own part done efficiently, and without problems. Both FCP and AVID systems do this, with varying strengths and weaknesses.

I have been talking to other shops about the FCPX debacle and NOBODY has heard of anyone or any studio changing their software because of FCPX. It is a joke to suggest otherwise. Anyone who has changed, was either already in the market for serious upgrades, or they are not in a professional environment, connected to edit servers, or otherwise concerned about managing big picture, large scope projects.

My only point with this post is that I'm absolutely sick of hearing the naysayers comments on FCPX every time there is an article that mentions it. No it didn't make you switch, and if it did, you are not even close to typical, and are likely not what I would consider a professional. There is nothing wrong with FCP7, in fact it is far more capable than most shops will ever need it to be (I'm looking at you, 4k editing), and absolutely no reason for anyone (freelance, large studio, or otherwise) to leave FCP7 because of the release of FCP X. If anything, these new updates to FCPX will begin to see edit houses play with it. Nobody is rushing to switch, as upgrade paths are always mapped out in terms of years (4 is typical), not weeks or months.

All that said. AVID is far bigger in the film editing world, but in the digital, video, HD, and broadcast world, I would be surprised to hear if they are much bigger, if not smaller than FCP. Adobe Premiere is not even a consideration for most video shops, although quite viable for animation houses.

The end.

Beautifully put. Thank you for bringing some rational perspective and discourse to the discussion. For those of us now using it with the most recent updates, FCP X is a dream to work with.
post #36 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

Beautifully put. Thank you for bringing some rational perspective and discourse to the discussion. For those of us now using it with the most recent updates, FCP X is a dream to work with.

For us prosumers who were comfortable with FCP7, but struggling and really wanting to like FCP X - is there a good guide I've missed on how to transition? Just basic operations I'm having issues with. I don't use it much but when I do its for work and I'd like to get to know it better. I end up jus using FCP 7 because I know it whereas I go into FCP X and futz around like an idiot for 10 minutes.
post #37 of 64
Call me a radical, but we're using Magix Video ProX in our studio.
(Great audio editing features as well).

Carry on...

G
post #38 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdub View Post

Gag me with a spoon.

You know Valley Girl expression had an expiration date. "Best before Dec 31, 1989"

But, I find it mildly amusing that "PC Magazine" should be telling pros what NLE to use. It's not usually the source for pros, unless they define pros and "prosumer."

I do hope Apple grow FCPX back into something that pros can use without hesitation. I view it as a botched "1.0" release.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #39 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

http://philipbloom.net/2012/02/07/fcpxeditors/

This is a very well written article.

Thanks for the link.

As I posted previously, it's…Interesting that not all the pros were so-closed minded as portrayed here.

Quote:
"This release checks of few of the last enormous boxes that let us as a company genuinely do the deep dive and try it on a massive project," Evan Schechtman, CTO of New York-based post-production studio Radical Media. Schechtman made no bones about having reservations when Final Cut Pro X was initially launched: "It gave us pause and concern." But he was still impressed from the get-go with the app's philosophy, "Even from the first day, the core editing, story-telling engine, the media management, and the timeline, we've actually been in love with." And with its performance: "It's probably the best performance of any NLE on the same hardware; it's night and day compared with Final Cut Pro 7."

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399599,00.asp

And Radical Media is no slouch in the industry.

P.S. For those who have yet to read the Thoughts on Final Cut Pro X article…

Quote:
"I have asked 7 professional editors (yes seven!) who are using FCP X why they are using it and to share their thoughts about it and the recent update which gave us, finally, multicam and various other features. Why settle for one when you can have a diverse group like this offering up their thoughts? Sit back with coffee in hand and see what these guys think! Big thanks to all the contributors!!

perhaps you should before you endorse the idea that it is as unworthy as some contend.
post #40 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Sheffield View Post

...with the advent of FCX, they're switching over to Avid DNX media...

I'm sorry, this is abject nonsense. That's all there is to it.

Dude... on what do you base this? I saw a demo last week in Hollywood. Why would ARRI continue to support a platform that doesn't mesh with their workflow? Granted I don't own an Alexa myself, but that's what the folks at Moviola said... that ARRI are switching their cameras over to Avid Media from ProRes. I mean, they may have been lying, but the move makes sense.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Final Cut Pro X named PCMag's Editors Choice for high-end video editing