6 months later, and the "discussion" of FCPX has still not quieted down. A recent ep of "That Post Show", as well as a post by Philip Hodgetts, has thrown some fuel into the fire. I was going to post on Philips post, but that has already turned into a god awful mess.
Heres my take, heading into the new year:
It was stated in the "That Post Show" podcast, and it is so true. "The relationship with an editor and his software has to be based on trust." You need to trust Apple and their ideals and philosophies moving forward. No matter what your feelings on FCPX, even Philip admits it is not there, "yet". That is insinuating that the software will eventually get there, meaning he trusts Apple. Thats a big level of trust.
If you are just learning the craft, just getting out of college/filmschool, you have a decision to make. Are you going the "apple" way, or the "traditional" way. (By traditional, I am now referring to any NLE not written by Apple). It is in my opinion, if you lay your cards on the table and learn the new FCPX way of editing, you will be limited. In making that point, I am not even just referring to the fact that technically you cannot get your work in/out of FCPX to go to other software packages. While that is currently the truth, that can ultimately be fixed. XML, OMF, EDL, etc can easily be taken care of in a software update, and I fully expect Apple to add that to FCPX in the future. The bigger issue is the design philosophy of the program itself. Having FCPX on your resume is not getting you into any post house, network TV, or feature film set anytime soon. By choosing that route, you have already capped what you are capable of doing, and for what reason? read more...