I love that Apple replaced these devices? ?but let's not pretend it was a selfless act on their behalf.
The fact that they didn't have to do it at all (and wouldn't have without class action litigation if they were another company) sort of makes Dick's argument more appealing.
Apple is making a huge mistake in blowing off the professional level of their product slate. It's a very short-sighted approach because that's where all the innovation comes from which eventually makes to a consumer level. If it weren't for Final Cut Pro we wouldn't have iMovie, and if it wasn't for Pro Tools and Logic, we wouldn't have Garageband.
Where did the innovation that created the original Final Cut Pro come from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by polyh3dron
Apple is making a huge mistake in blowing off the professional level of their product slate. It's a very short-sighted approach because that's where all the innovation comes from which eventually makes to a consumer level. If it weren't for Final Cut Pro we wouldn't have iMovie, and if it wasn't for Pro Tools and Logic, we wouldn't have Garageband.
Where did the innovation that created the original Final Cut Pro come from?
Apple bought a pro-level editing company, I believe. Shake was the same way. Apple took the price of Shake from $10,000 to $500 by the time of its discontinuation. That's big.
Apple bought a pro-level editing company, I believe. Shake was the same way. Apple took the price of Shake from $10,000 to $500 by the time of its discontinuation. That's big.
Macromedia developed Final.cut. And not big, pathetic. Shake is what is was when Apple bought it and that was so last decade.
The fact that they didn't have to do it at all (and wouldn't have without class action litigation if they were another company) sort of makes Dick's argument more appealing.
I want some of what you're smoking!!!
Apple didn't recall the Nano's simply because the product was faulty (often companies will shirk that responsibility as you mention) but because it was a "safety risk" (Apple's words, not mine).
As in, those specific Nano's could self combust and burn your house to the ground, killing you and your entire family.
Not only is there a long history of products getting recalled due to a "safety risk", but there is also a history of other companies recalling products due to the same self-combusting-battery-burn-your-house-down-kill-your-family problem as the Nano has.
Granted, it's nice of them to give me a 6G replacement for my 1G although I'm sure if they didn't exhaust their 1G stock with the recall they wouldn't have done that either.
Do tell. I know of Cold Mountain, Jar Head maybe a few others but nothing blockbuster.
I've used it for 30 min shows and it was a real struggle. I can only imagine the frustration for something feature length.
I just watched the remake of True Grit by the Coen brothers and they actually list that the movie was edited in Final Cut in the credits at the end of the movie. I found that a bit odd because I can't remember ever seeing that in the movie credits.
I think the only shortsighted thing here is people's reactions to Final Cut Pro X.
People keep saying this because they don't want to hear Apple being criticised for making a mistake. The critics include people who have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in Final Cut Pro and the same in supporting hardware and their job is to get up every day and sit in front of one of Apple's workstations. You can't dismiss their criticism as short-sighted when they describe the requirements of the jobs they get paid a high salary to do and the shortcomings of the product Apple expects them to use to do it.
The same thing happened with the iPhone antenna. There has been a perception built up that Apple is flawless and so anything that goes wrong can't be their fault, it must be the editors to blame or AT&T or the users. Then Apple comes out and apologises for the antenna saying they screwed up and still people say there wasn't a problem, even after they said they screwed up and redesigned the antenna in the 4S.
Apple posted an FAQ detailing the shortcomings of Final Cut Pro X, they started selling extra licenses of the old software, they introduced volume licensing on the App Store and within a couple of months they released an update detailing major new features as well as what's coming next:
where they even resort to telling little white lies about FCP:
"In Final Cut Pro 7, the Export QuickTime Movie option provided many simple choices for exporting a sequence at lower quality for low-bandwidth scenarios. In Final Cut Pro X, choosing options within the Export Using Compressor Settings window offers all those choices and more at 10-bit quality."
The Export Quicktime Movie provided many advanced options for exporting clips at any frame size, rate, codec and even applying filters and they removed it so that you now have to pass exports that you want to change advanced settings on through a batch compressor. I should add, a batch compressor that is probably one of the least stable and least reliable Apple products every built with the same UI it had with FCP Studio.
Those aren't indicators that the industry was archaic and couldn't cope with Final Cut Pro for-the-rest-of-us?, those are indicators that Apple released their product prematurely. It would be like shipping an iPhone without wifi:
Apple's innovation, legacy and commitment to quality are undeniable but we should hold them to the same standards we expect from anyone else and not use their achievements to excuse their mistakes. They are a company which prides itself on being a place where excellence is expected, if they operate contrary to the ideals that put them where they are today they won't be the same company and this will show through their products and their actions.
I agree with the statement about short-sightedness when it comes to claims of Apple abandoning professionals when they have stated that isn't their intention (nor to redefine what it means) but editors have to make their concerns heard and ensure they are rectified to prevent this happening. They have to make it clear that Apple cannot dictate the toolset for a job they know better than anyone. People will then say, well let the short-sighted 'professionals' go elsewhere and lets have a scenario where consumers get a decent editor but this goes against Apple's stated intentions and the reality is consumers edit in iMovie. The people who spend even $300 on software are people who aspire to do this for a living or people who spend a long time editing.
In both cases, you will at some stage require a collaborative workflow between software and between users that FCPX largely failed to deliver by design. If they don't fix this adequately, the software will no longer be used by people who aspire to do this for a living and there will be a knock-on effect. I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention FCPX in a positive light and that's not the Apple I respect. With MobileMe, nobody really cares because it's not that important. Movie editing is as much a part of Apple's identity now as the iPod and they should handle it with care.
You do realize FCP has a long list of Hollywood feature films its been used for?
Yawn. Not this again. The urban legend of the "long list of Hollywood feature films its been used for"... LOL. Must see this list some time as an actual list.
None from top to bottom except for a VERY small handful. To say it's "been used for" is completely different than saying "done on".
I'm a total Apple apologist, but please, stop with this line. Ain't true. FCP and FCPX have a huge user base and is a great piece of software, but it could disappear tomorrow and Hollywood is one place that wouldn't miss a beat.
This is the future of the mac line if Apple doesn't step up their game for the professionals.
If Apple doesn't support the Mac Pro, it too will get dropped by the pros, then the laptop, then the phone, then Apple will be right back where it was in the 90s, except, it won't have the professionals at it's core.
Well, here's the thing, and I'm glad you mentioned the Mac Pro, because no one else is in these FCPX discussions yet it's a key factor.
To wit, the capabilities of FCPX relative to the other options available to pro editors of all varieties is only one side of the coin of FCPX. The other is that you have to run it on Macs. That's not a terrible thing, I love Macs and OSX, and as an Aperture user who needs snappier performance I can always get a Mac, any model, that will kick it up for me. But even if, hypothetically, FCPX works well for 80% of Joe the editor's gigs, his MBP might only be suitable for 70% of those. The rest he needs his long-in-the-tooth Mac Pro desktop. Apple can Thunderbolt until the cows come home for interfacing, but that won't do anything for the motherboard and the chips, and the horsepower and MHz. There are LOTS of jobs where the software is fine but last years top level laptop isn't, and the biggest abandoning among Apple users by far has been of their over-priced and under-powered desktops, because now most users don't need them anymore.
But some of my video friends laugh at this, as they show me their Windows workstations that they make their livings on, and their racks for rendering and etc in the machine room that they upgrade whenever they need to, not whenever Apple springs a sudden secret new machine on them. They add some twist to their arsenal that requires doubling the horsepower at their fingertips? They just spend a few hundred and do it. Swap something out, add something else and blammo.
Where FCPX users are screwed is NOT by FCPX but by Apple's hardware getting slimmer and Airier and Pad-ier (love them for what they do, absolutely) but without the bulkier, chunkier boxes than sit under the desk or in the other room Apple is either saying "Trust us, you don't need it." or "We simply can't make a powerful desktop worth buying". Either way, I'm not crazy about the prospects. I can't remember the last Apple desktop update that I thought signified they had a handle on how to service the users that needed the hardware horsepower.
Not talking about working in a cubicle, talking about running a facility. If you have a Mac at home but have to outfit your studio with PCs, it doesn't really matter what features they left out. You'll be shopping for a Windows editing rig.
Yawn. Not this again. The urban legend of the "long list of Hollywood feature films its been used for"... LOL. Must see this list some time as an actual list.
None from top to bottom except for a VERY small handful. To say it's "been used for" is completely different than saying "done on".
I'm a total Apple apologist, but please, stop with this line. Ain't true. FCP and FCPX have a huge user base and is a great piece of software, but it could disappear tomorrow and Hollywood is one place that wouldn't miss a beat.
I know where Apple got FCP from. Since polyhedron feels Apple's innovation is tied to its pro apps, I wanted him to acknowledge where FCP came from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Apple bought a pro-level editing company, I believe. Shake was the same way. Apple took the price of Shake from $10,000 to $500 by the time of its discontinuation. That's big.
But some of my video friends laugh at this, as they show me their Windows workstations that they make their livings on, and their racks for rendering and etc in the machine room that they upgrade whenever they need to, not whenever Apple springs a sudden secret new machine on them. They add some twist to their arsenal that requires doubling the horsepower at their fingertips? They just spend a few hundred and do it. Swap something out, add something else and blammo.
None of the post production facilities I know of operate in this fashion. Perpetually tweaking hardware is risky. Most facilities build their machines. That is the way the machine is until they decide to upgrade it to something new.
Facilities need their machines to be stable and always working. Its way too risky to constantly switch out hardware components.
Quote:
Where FCPX users are screwed is NOT by FCPX but by Apple's hardware getting slimmer and Airier
Haven't you noticed the picture of FCP X in all of its marketing materials? What computer is it running on?
That should give you a clear sign where Apple's priorities lie.
None of the post production facilities I know of operate in this fashion. Perpetually tweaking hardware is risky.
Didn't say anything about perpetually tweaking. When they need more power they add more power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Most facilities build their machines.
You just made my point
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
That is the way the machine is until they decide to upgrade it to something new.
Nonsense. Complete foolishness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Facilities need their machines to be stable and always working. Its way too risky to constantly switch out hardware components.
You're adding words like "constantly" and "perpetually" that don't belong. Facilities have staffs that keep the the machines stable and always working, and they don't do it by never opening the cases.
I wasn't going to do it, but you made me go and do it.
Also note FCP was used to edit four films that were nominated for Academy Awards in Best Editing and won Award for Best Editing.
The Rules of Attraction (2002)[11]
Full Frontal (2002)[11]
The Ring (2002)
Cold Mountain (2003) (Academy Award nominee for Best Editing ? Walter Murch)[11]
Intolerable Cruelty (2003)
Open Water (2003)
Red vs. Blue (2003)
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
The Ladykillers (2004)
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)
Super Size Me (2004)
Corpse Bride (2005)
Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story (2005)
Happy Endings (2005)
Jarhead (2005)
Little Manhattan (2005)
Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)
300 (2007)[11]
Black Snake Moan (2006)
Happy Feet (2006)
Zodiac (2007)
The Simpsons Movie (2007)
No Country for Old Men (2007) (Academy Award nominee for Best Editing ? Roderick Jaynes)
Reign Over Me (2007)
Youth Without Youth (2007)
Balls of Fury (2007)
Gabriel (2007)
Enchanted (2007)
Traitor (2008)
Burn After Reading (2008)
The X-Files: I Want to Believe (2008)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) (Academy Award nominee for Best Editing - Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
(500) Days of Summer (2009)
Where the Wild Things Are (2009)[11]
A Serious Man (2009)
Tetro (2009)
By the People: The Election of Barack Obama (2009)
Gamer (2009)
Eat, Pray, Love (2010)
True Grit (2010)
The Social Network (2010) (Academy Award winner for Best Editing - Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall)
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
John Carter (2012)
Hemingway & Gellhorn (2012)
LOL. That's a cut and paste from the FCP wiki page. You don't know anything about these movies. Look into every one of those movies and find out which were done top to bottom in FCP only, or if FCP was one of the many workstations used. Was it pieced together in FCP but not anything else? Was all of the compositing done in FCP or did they send it to get done elsewhere?
The point you missed from my other post is that: FCP has been used a lot; FCP has NOT been used much in major films as "the" major tool through the life of the production; FCP's name gets attached to a lot of films where it was indeed used and used happily no doubt, but hardly at all enough to say it was "Made in FCP".
Don't use ad copy and wiki pages of the product to prove a point. Even if this list was a great example of films made entirely in FCP (which it isn't), I hardly think a list of 25 (or whatever) spanning TEN YEARS adds up to anything except a list I've seen all over the net which is notable mostly for the fact that it, um, numbers around 25 over a ten year span : )
Comments
I love that Apple replaced these devices? ?but let's not pretend it was a selfless act on their behalf.
The fact that they didn't have to do it at all (and wouldn't have without class action litigation if they were another company) sort of makes Dick's argument more appealing.
It's a very short-sighted approach?
I think the only shortsighted thing here is people's reactions to Final Cut Pro X.
i think the only shortsighted thing here is people's reactions to final cut pro x.
+++ qft
Apple is making a huge mistake in blowing off the professional level of their product slate. It's a very short-sighted approach because that's where all the innovation comes from which eventually makes to a consumer level. If it weren't for Final Cut Pro we wouldn't have iMovie, and if it wasn't for Pro Tools and Logic, we wouldn't have Garageband.
Where did the innovation that created the original Final Cut Pro come from?
Apple bought a pro-level editing company, I believe. Shake was the same way. Apple took the price of Shake from $10,000 to $500 by the time of its discontinuation. That's big.
You do realize FCP has a long list of Hollywood feature films its been used for?
Do tell. I know of Cold Mountain, Jar Head maybe a few others but nothing blockbuster.
I've used it for 30 min shows and it was a real struggle. I can only imagine the frustration for something feature length.
Apple bought a pro-level editing company, I believe. Shake was the same way. Apple took the price of Shake from $10,000 to $500 by the time of its discontinuation. That's big.
Macromedia developed Final.cut. And not big, pathetic. Shake is what is was when Apple bought it and that was so last decade.
The fact that they didn't have to do it at all (and wouldn't have without class action litigation if they were another company) sort of makes Dick's argument more appealing.
I want some of what you're smoking!!!
Apple didn't recall the Nano's simply because the product was faulty (often companies will shirk that responsibility as you mention) but because it was a "safety risk" (Apple's words, not mine).
As in, those specific Nano's could self combust and burn your house to the ground, killing you and your entire family.
Not only is there a long history of products getting recalled due to a "safety risk", but there is also a history of other companies recalling products due to the same self-combusting-battery-burn-your-house-down-kill-your-family problem as the Nano has.
(e.g. from HP, Dell, Lenovo and Sony)
Granted, it's nice of them to give me a 6G replacement for my 1G although I'm sure if they didn't exhaust their 1G stock with the recall they wouldn't have done that either.
Do tell. I know of Cold Mountain, Jar Head maybe a few others but nothing blockbuster.
I've used it for 30 min shows and it was a real struggle. I can only imagine the frustration for something feature length.
I just watched the remake of True Grit by the Coen brothers and they actually list that the movie was edited in Final Cut in the credits at the end of the movie. I found that a bit odd because I can't remember ever seeing that in the movie credits.
PS Wasn't the LOTR series edited in Final Cut?
Do tell. I know of Cold Mountain, Jar Head maybe a few others but nothing blockbuster.
I've used it for 30 min shows and it was a real struggle. I can only imagine the frustration for something feature length.
You can find a list of movies it's been used in at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro
I think the only shortsighted thing here is people's reactions to Final Cut Pro X.
People keep saying this because they don't want to hear Apple being criticised for making a mistake. The critics include people who have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in Final Cut Pro and the same in supporting hardware and their job is to get up every day and sit in front of one of Apple's workstations. You can't dismiss their criticism as short-sighted when they describe the requirements of the jobs they get paid a high salary to do and the shortcomings of the product Apple expects them to use to do it.
The same thing happened with the iPhone antenna. There has been a perception built up that Apple is flawless and so anything that goes wrong can't be their fault, it must be the editors to blame or AT&T or the users. Then Apple comes out and apologises for the antenna saying they screwed up and still people say there wasn't a problem, even after they said they screwed up and redesigned the antenna in the 4S.
Apple posted an FAQ detailing the shortcomings of Final Cut Pro X, they started selling extra licenses of the old software, they introduced volume licensing on the App Store and within a couple of months they released an update detailing major new features as well as what's coming next:
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/software-update.html
When has Apple ever announced what features are coming in future releases? They have a migration guide for moving from FCP to FCPX:
http://images.apple.com/finalcutpro/...tors_final.pdf
where they even resort to telling little white lies about FCP:
"In Final Cut Pro 7, the Export QuickTime Movie option provided many simple choices for exporting a sequence at lower quality for low-bandwidth scenarios. In Final Cut Pro X, choosing options within the Export Using Compressor Settings window offers all those choices and more at 10-bit quality."
The Export Quicktime Movie provided many advanced options for exporting clips at any frame size, rate, codec and even applying filters and they removed it so that you now have to pass exports that you want to change advanced settings on through a batch compressor. I should add, a batch compressor that is probably one of the least stable and least reliable Apple products every built with the same UI it had with FCP Studio.
Those aren't indicators that the industry was archaic and couldn't cope with Final Cut Pro for-the-rest-of-us?, those are indicators that Apple released their product prematurely. It would be like shipping an iPhone without wifi:
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/03/...-since-launch/
The phrase to keep in mind going forward would be 'we're not perfect':
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...t-perfect.html
Apple's innovation, legacy and commitment to quality are undeniable but we should hold them to the same standards we expect from anyone else and not use their achievements to excuse their mistakes. They are a company which prides itself on being a place where excellence is expected, if they operate contrary to the ideals that put them where they are today they won't be the same company and this will show through their products and their actions.
I agree with the statement about short-sightedness when it comes to claims of Apple abandoning professionals when they have stated that isn't their intention (nor to redefine what it means) but editors have to make their concerns heard and ensure they are rectified to prevent this happening. They have to make it clear that Apple cannot dictate the toolset for a job they know better than anyone. People will then say, well let the short-sighted 'professionals' go elsewhere and lets have a scenario where consumers get a decent editor but this goes against Apple's stated intentions and the reality is consumers edit in iMovie. The people who spend even $300 on software are people who aspire to do this for a living or people who spend a long time editing.
In both cases, you will at some stage require a collaborative workflow between software and between users that FCPX largely failed to deliver by design. If they don't fix this adequately, the software will no longer be used by people who aspire to do this for a living and there will be a knock-on effect. I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention FCPX in a positive light and that's not the Apple I respect. With MobileMe, nobody really cares because it's not that important. Movie editing is as much a part of Apple's identity now as the iPod and they should handle it with care.
You do realize FCP has a long list of Hollywood feature films its been used for?
Yawn. Not this again. The urban legend of the "long list of Hollywood feature films its been used for"... LOL. Must see this list some time as an actual list.
None from top to bottom except for a VERY small handful. To say it's "been used for" is completely different than saying "done on".
I'm a total Apple apologist, but please, stop with this line. Ain't true. FCP and FCPX have a huge user base and is a great piece of software, but it could disappear tomorrow and Hollywood is one place that wouldn't miss a beat.
This is the future of the mac line if Apple doesn't step up their game for the professionals.
If Apple doesn't support the Mac Pro, it too will get dropped by the pros, then the laptop, then the phone, then Apple will be right back where it was in the 90s, except, it won't have the professionals at it's core.
Well, here's the thing, and I'm glad you mentioned the Mac Pro, because no one else is in these FCPX discussions yet it's a key factor.
To wit, the capabilities of FCPX relative to the other options available to pro editors of all varieties is only one side of the coin of FCPX. The other is that you have to run it on Macs. That's not a terrible thing, I love Macs and OSX, and as an Aperture user who needs snappier performance I can always get a Mac, any model, that will kick it up for me. But even if, hypothetically, FCPX works well for 80% of Joe the editor's gigs, his MBP might only be suitable for 70% of those. The rest he needs his long-in-the-tooth Mac Pro desktop. Apple can Thunderbolt until the cows come home for interfacing, but that won't do anything for the motherboard and the chips, and the horsepower and MHz. There are LOTS of jobs where the software is fine but last years top level laptop isn't, and the biggest abandoning among Apple users by far has been of their over-priced and under-powered desktops, because now most users don't need them anymore.
But some of my video friends laugh at this, as they show me their Windows workstations that they make their livings on, and their racks for rendering and etc in the machine room that they upgrade whenever they need to, not whenever Apple springs a sudden secret new machine on them. They add some twist to their arsenal that requires doubling the horsepower at their fingertips? They just spend a few hundred and do it. Swap something out, add something else and blammo.
Where FCPX users are screwed is NOT by FCPX but by Apple's hardware getting slimmer and Airier and Pad-ier (love them for what they do, absolutely) but without the bulkier, chunkier boxes than sit under the desk or in the other room Apple is either saying "Trust us, you don't need it." or "We simply can't make a powerful desktop worth buying". Either way, I'm not crazy about the prospects. I can't remember the last Apple desktop update that I thought signified they had a handle on how to service the users that needed the hardware horsepower.
Not talking about working in a cubicle, talking about running a facility. If you have a Mac at home but have to outfit your studio with PCs, it doesn't really matter what features they left out. You'll be shopping for a Windows editing rig.
Do tell. I know of Cold Mountain, Jar Head maybe a few others but nothing blockbuster.
I've used it for 30 min shows and it was a real struggle. I can only imagine the frustration for something feature length.
I wasn't going to do it, but you made me go and do it.
Also note FCP was used to edit four films that were nominated for Academy Awards in Best Editing and won Award for Best Editing.
Yawn. Not this again. The urban legend of the "long list of Hollywood feature films its been used for"... LOL. Must see this list some time as an actual list.
None from top to bottom except for a VERY small handful. To say it's "been used for" is completely different than saying "done on".
I'm a total Apple apologist, but please, stop with this line. Ain't true. FCP and FCPX have a huge user base and is a great piece of software, but it could disappear tomorrow and Hollywood is one place that wouldn't miss a beat.
Apple bought a pro-level editing company, I believe. Shake was the same way. Apple took the price of Shake from $10,000 to $500 by the time of its discontinuation. That's big.
But some of my video friends laugh at this, as they show me their Windows workstations that they make their livings on, and their racks for rendering and etc in the machine room that they upgrade whenever they need to, not whenever Apple springs a sudden secret new machine on them. They add some twist to their arsenal that requires doubling the horsepower at their fingertips? They just spend a few hundred and do it. Swap something out, add something else and blammo.
None of the post production facilities I know of operate in this fashion. Perpetually tweaking hardware is risky. Most facilities build their machines. That is the way the machine is until they decide to upgrade it to something new.
Facilities need their machines to be stable and always working. Its way too risky to constantly switch out hardware components.
Where FCPX users are screwed is NOT by FCPX but by Apple's hardware getting slimmer and Airier
Haven't you noticed the picture of FCP X in all of its marketing materials? What computer is it running on?
That should give you a clear sign where Apple's priorities lie.
None of the post production facilities I know of operate in this fashion. Perpetually tweaking hardware is risky.
Didn't say anything about perpetually tweaking. When they need more power they add more power.
Most facilities build their machines.
You just made my point
That is the way the machine is until they decide to upgrade it to something new.
Nonsense. Complete foolishness.
Facilities need their machines to be stable and always working. Its way too risky to constantly switch out hardware components.
You're adding words like "constantly" and "perpetually" that don't belong. Facilities have staffs that keep the the machines stable and always working, and they don't do it by never opening the cases.
I wasn't going to do it, but you made me go and do it.
Also note FCP was used to edit four films that were nominated for Academy Awards in Best Editing and won Award for Best Editing.
LOL. That's a cut and paste from the FCP wiki page. You don't know anything about these movies. Look into every one of those movies and find out which were done top to bottom in FCP only, or if FCP was one of the many workstations used. Was it pieced together in FCP but not anything else? Was all of the compositing done in FCP or did they send it to get done elsewhere?
The point you missed from my other post is that: FCP has been used a lot; FCP has NOT been used much in major films as "the" major tool through the life of the production; FCP's name gets attached to a lot of films where it was indeed used and used happily no doubt, but hardly at all enough to say it was "Made in FCP".
Don't use ad copy and wiki pages of the product to prove a point. Even if this list was a great example of films made entirely in FCP (which it isn't), I hardly think a list of 25 (or whatever) spanning TEN YEARS adds up to anything except a list I've seen all over the net which is notable mostly for the fact that it, um, numbers around 25 over a ten year span : )