![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, that's a shame.
Jun. 27th, 2011 06:08 amEver since Final Cut Pro X was announced a few months ago, I'd been eagerly awaiting it - I wanted to get back into vidding, I needed decent NLE software, Final Cut Pro Studio was $1600, and all the editors who'd got a first look at FCPX thought it looked like the bee's knees. Awesome. Great.
It released this week, and I blew 2/3 of my little get-new-software savings fund on it, and I'm kind of sad. I like it, personally - a lot. I think it's great for what I want, it's a great price point, and the learning curve is pleasantly un-steep (although there are some quirks around media management that I don't like, but hey, nothing's perfect).
But it's been absolutely panned by the professional video editing community, and from the sounds of it, justifiably so. It's just fundamentally lacking a lot of features that professional post editors absolutely have to have - and further, there are design decisions that are antithetical to what pro editors need, which implies they're conscious choices and unlikely to be improved-on later. This piece by Jeffery Harrell sums it up nicely.
So I can't blame the pro editors for being pretty upset about the state of things right now. I'm just... sad, I guess, that this thing that made me happy is being criticised as being utterly useless. And sad that it probably means it'll go the way of the dinosaurs - being committed to and/or invested in a dead-end piece of software is frustrating, as you never get the third-party support bigger products enjoy.
Bleh. I can't work out why the negative reaction is bothering me so much - I'm not a pro editor, why should I care? But it is, and I do. Hmph.
-
Worth noting, though, that it may be weak for pro editors, but FCPX is a rather nice NLE for a vidder. And cheap. Cheap is good.
It released this week, and I blew 2/3 of my little get-new-software savings fund on it, and I'm kind of sad. I like it, personally - a lot. I think it's great for what I want, it's a great price point, and the learning curve is pleasantly un-steep (although there are some quirks around media management that I don't like, but hey, nothing's perfect).
But it's been absolutely panned by the professional video editing community, and from the sounds of it, justifiably so. It's just fundamentally lacking a lot of features that professional post editors absolutely have to have - and further, there are design decisions that are antithetical to what pro editors need, which implies they're conscious choices and unlikely to be improved-on later. This piece by Jeffery Harrell sums it up nicely.
So I can't blame the pro editors for being pretty upset about the state of things right now. I'm just... sad, I guess, that this thing that made me happy is being criticised as being utterly useless. And sad that it probably means it'll go the way of the dinosaurs - being committed to and/or invested in a dead-end piece of software is frustrating, as you never get the third-party support bigger products enjoy.
Bleh. I can't work out why the negative reaction is bothering me so much - I'm not a pro editor, why should I care? But it is, and I do. Hmph.
-
Worth noting, though, that it may be weak for pro editors, but FCPX is a rather nice NLE for a vidder. And cheap. Cheap is good.