Transition
June 30, 2011 8:55 AM Subscribe
In film moving from one shot to another is a transition. Walter Biscardi Jr. explores the transition from FCP to Premiere Pro and eventually Avid. He includes posts about imports, workflow, and external monitors, among other things.
In light of Apple's recent Final Cut Pro X FAQ (Biscardi's response) and the controversy surrounding its release, some professional editors are looking to switch. Chief candidates are Avid and Premiere Pro.
In light of Apple's recent Final Cut Pro X FAQ (Biscardi's response) and the controversy surrounding its release, some professional editors are looking to switch. Chief candidates are Avid and Premiere Pro.
This post was deleted for the following reason: open thread from a week ago seems to still be moving along okay. -- jessamyn
I think apple is making assumptions about how professionals work with video based on what they've learned about how consumers work with video, and that was a huge, huge mistake. Making FCPX incompatible with FCP7 projects is just mind-blowingly stupid.
The inability to transfer projects from FCP7 to FCPX is indeed a problem, because many editors use elements of old projects in new projects for years and years. But I don't blame Apple for making FCPX incompatible with FCP7, because if you're going to make radical architectural changes, you may not have the option of compatibility - and that's what Apple claims has happened; I don't know if the claim is truthful, or whether you might have retained backward compatibility with heroic measures and a lot of resources poured in, which Apple may not have done, but it's also true that there are simply advantages to move forward without worrying about legacy cruft (from a simple code point of view - see Microsoft as a sad counterexample).
The mistake Apple made is in EOLing FCP7. Instead, they should have come out simultaneously with FCP8, a nicely updated FCP7 (which has had only minor changes compared to 2 years ago), and then FCPX and made clear that eventually FCPX will be king (once it achieves feature parity) and the FCP8 will be EOL'd.
posted by VikingSword at 9:19 AM on June 30, 2011 [1 favorite]
The inability to transfer projects from FCP7 to FCPX is indeed a problem, because many editors use elements of old projects in new projects for years and years. But I don't blame Apple for making FCPX incompatible with FCP7, because if you're going to make radical architectural changes, you may not have the option of compatibility - and that's what Apple claims has happened; I don't know if the claim is truthful, or whether you might have retained backward compatibility with heroic measures and a lot of resources poured in, which Apple may not have done, but it's also true that there are simply advantages to move forward without worrying about legacy cruft (from a simple code point of view - see Microsoft as a sad counterexample).
The mistake Apple made is in EOLing FCP7. Instead, they should have come out simultaneously with FCP8, a nicely updated FCP7 (which has had only minor changes compared to 2 years ago), and then FCPX and made clear that eventually FCPX will be king (once it achieves feature parity) and the FCP8 will be EOL'd.
posted by VikingSword at 9:19 AM on June 30, 2011 [1 favorite]
There's an open thread on this.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:47 AM on June 30, 2011
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:47 AM on June 30, 2011
« Older A veritable balloon menagerie | "Too much violence, not enough humanity." Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Huck500 at 9:04 AM on June 30, 2011 [1 favorite]