I looked at FCPX right at the beginning and it was not fit for (my) purpose. Over time it has improved - a lot. For news? I think it is a fair fit, especially for non-specialist users ( and many news packages are cut by journos - I know, I trained many in the UK, on Avid NewsCutter). I wonder where this leaves Avid in BBC newsrooms? Many UK newsrooms use NewsCutter+ISIS+Interplay.
With best wishes,
With best wishes,
Roger Shufflebottom
+44 7973 543660
Scott,
I for one have never called FCPX "unprofessional". I have said, and still maintain, that it doesn't work for certain workflows, and primarily the ones in which most of our work is done.
That said, I am not a stalwart believer in the Avid track record either. Do I hope they will improve the editor and finishing tools? Yes. And that is for a purely selfish reason in that I won't have to reinvest in all new architecture throughout my studio (Apple is all Thunderbolt), I won't have to reinvest tons of learning hours for myself and my staff (for what guaranteed return on that investment?) and I won't have to figure out all new workarounds for shortcomings. (All software options have shortcomings)
Do I believe Avid will actually improve? Color me skeptical based on the past. But I can say that about Apple also. Avid has more of an incentive to keep an NLE going forward than Apple does. And I am not saying Apple is going to dump FCPX, merely that it is a much smaller piece of their business model than MC is for Avid.
__._,_.___
Posted by: Roger Shufflebottom <rogershuff@yahoo.co.uk>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (24) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment