Home / Blog / Editing

Watch Larry Jordan Make the Case for Final Cut Pro X

In this video from IBC, recorded at the Creative Pro User Group's Sixth Annual Amsterdam SuperMeet, Final Cut Pro guru Larry Jordan considers the burning question: "Is Final Cut Pro X Ready for Professional Use?"
 
Spoiler: He says it is.
 
But along the way to that conclusion, he mounts a pretty compelling case, starting by naming examples of FCPX being used in Hollywood. He said Mike Fernandes at NBC Universal recently converted his team to Final Cut Pro X to produce the show George to the Rescue. And he notes that Sam Mestman, chief workflow architect for LumaForge in Los Angeles, is on location with a $100 million Hollywood production that adopted Final Cut Pro X "after six months of testing and with incredible resistance from the studio" because they just thought it would help them work faster. 
 
"If you're not converted to Final Cut [Pro X] by now, it's not because it isn't being used on small-, medium-, and large-budget projects," Jordan told the audience. He suggested resistance comes down to a single factor: "Every single one of us hates change." And then he embarked on a FCP X demo aimed at showing what the program can really do with a little help from the third-party ecosystem that's emerging. For example, he cites Intelligent Assistance, which publishes 7toX, a $10 app that allows you to import FCP 7 projects and media to FCPX, and Producer's Best Friend, a $100 app that creates detailed reports on all the elements in a single FCPX project.
 
"There's no one perfect tool," Jordan concludes. "Adobe makes great stuff. Avid makes great stuff. Autodesk makes great stuff. But the future is not standing still, and we can't stand still with it. We need to change. How soon you change is a personal decision that each one of you gets to make. But when you change, Final Cut X is there."
 
Is the case for Final Cut Pro X convincing? Settle back in your chair, watch Jordan put it through its paces — offering lots of tips and tricks along the way — and make up your own mind.

53 Comments

Categories: Blog, Editing
Tags: , ,

  • Joe Mahma

    There’s no one perfect tool? I’m still about as satisfied with FCP7 as I’ve ever been with any software. Apple can cram X up their arse.

    • Anonymous

      Oh, and
      .
      .
      you forgot your
      .
      .
      usual, childish
      .
      .
      formatting bs.
      (yeah, this is a person’s opinion that clearly counts. LOL!)

      • Joe Mahma

        Go stalk someone else, creep.

    • Joe Mahma

      That’s helpful.

  • Anonymous

    Larry Jordon is being paid by Apple to evangelize this cutsey software. No he doesn’t work for Apple, but his company consults with Apple. Bring back a multitrack AV timeline then we’ll begin to talk. The only way he considers it worthy of professionals is to redefine professional to suit this cartoon software.
    He also insults all of us. Maybe he wasn’t Smart enough” but we are. I know fcp x inside and out. probably better than him. IT STILL SUCKS!!!!!! It’s not fear it is knowing better!!!!!

    • Anonymous

      WOW… that’s one TERRIFIED individual ranting away. Sad.

  • Anonymous

    And for the upgrades they are all minor!!!!

  • Anonymous

    He is clearly not a programmer!!!!!!

  • Michael Towe

    “Is Final Cut Pro X Ready for Professional Use” That’s an interesting title, it poses the question that many of us editors have asked. It certainly is something that’s quite controversial. But in the case of this lecture I think this title is best described as… well… link bait!! This lecture is nothing more than an advert for a few plugin companies, most notably Intelligent Assistants. Now don’t get me wrong here, I think Intelligent Assistants has some brilliant plugins. I have mentioned that to Philip Hodgetts in person before, and I use them every day in my editing. But Larry, you’re doing those of us that are making a living with X a disservice by link baiting articles that promise answers and don’t deliver.

    So is X ready for prime time? For me the answer to that is a resounding yes! And to put it into a bit of perspective I am not some new fresh faced kid that everyone seems to think X is aimed at. My non linear chops go back to the early 90 with a system called Video Machine from Fast Electronics. It was a nightmare and convinced the company I was then working for to buy an Avid. I spent 12 years in the Avid world before moving to Final Cut classic in 2008. I’ve cut mostly corporate production but have broadcast and short film credits as well. In short I am your standard crotchety old editor that doesn’t like change. So if you listen to the noise floor on X then I’m the antitheses of the target market. But yet I have made the switch and I am loving it.

    So what made me dive into X in the first place? For me the crack was keywording. When I first saw it I recognized the infinite power of organizing footage that was hidden in keywords. If anything at that moment I was pissed at Apple for botching the release. Kewording was such a huge step in the right direction, but then they placed it into an edit system that was 15 steps in the wrong direction. No multicam, no cutting and pasting of attributes, no way to get out to a broadcast monitor. The list went on and on! Apple flat screwed the pooch.

    But I kept thinking about that keywording, and I kept going back to X after each update. Then at 10.0.6 I made the switch. My crotchety old editor brain protested!! “This magnetic timeline makes no sense!” But slowly my brain wrapped around it and slowly as I learned a new way to do things I became faster and faster at how I edit. And now that I have a decent grasp of X I can honestly say that I can edit much faster. But more importantly I can make revisions faster! Remember how I said I do a lot of corporate? In the corporate world you’re doing revisions after revisions of an edit, and anything that can speed that process is a win in my book.

    So is X ready for the professional world? yes! I do corporate spots on it that I get paid rather well for. I currently have a campaign of commercial spots in my bay that is editing on it. I have finished two sort films recently that were part of a 48 hour film project, where speed is of the essences, and both were cut in X. One of them won best picture in the Los Angeles festival.

    For me it works, and it works rather well. And for other old crotchety editors out there I would encourage you to see for yourself if all the evil things you have heard about X are really true. Spend a little time with it. It will help to keep that wetware between your ears pliable and you may just find a few things that you like about it.

    • Anonymous

      Bravo. Nice write-up. I can echo pretty much everything to the t. Even the career part. Only I even started a few years earlier and didn’t spend that long on Avid because I found (and still find) its handling and interface a painful, convoluted mess. And it merely has a few technical advantages and feature’s that are barely even still relevant to the <2% of the market it's geared towards. I give them 12 months max.

      There are a LOT of high profile "pros" (however that's even defined anymore today) that are now using X and speak highly of it. Yes, because they ACTUALLY used it. What a concept, huh? I'm not going to do any gratuitous name dropping, since they're all very well known and can easily be googled. And we have been using it for a well known major network TV series for over a year now and have never looked back.

      I can only chuckle at the usual ad hominem drivel here. All from people that clearly have NEVER even used it for an actual production like you and me (the huge gap of opinion will hinge on that fact 99.9% of the time), let alone went to the trouble of actually LEARNING the differences to know how to use it effectively. Painfully pathetic. Just the usual horde of blathering wannabe "pros" that are scared shitless of SOFTWARE that takes away their self-given "expert pro" status. Given only because they were some of the few in the 90's that at some point could actually AFFORD and make sense of the usual convoluted, bloated NLEs of yesteryear. OVERPRICED and COMPLEX are the two hallmarks of "pro" software for them, and X is neither. But it still packs MORE punch than others and is in the hands of anyone that wants it, which could quickly expose them for the frauds they are, from any number of "noobs"… and that's SCARY as hell. Better rant it down every chance you get! :-D

      They'll keep their solipsistic little "pro" fist in the air, all the way to the unemployment office. :-D

      • Michael Towe

        Well hold on, I don’t want to insinuate that other edit systems aren’t capable, or that editors that chose a different system are somehow inferior. I personally think that Avid and Adobe are great edit systems. Both have arenas where they shine and there are times when I use them. I recently edited an 8 spot vignette campaign for the local NBC station and it was all done with Adobe. Why? because there was going to be a lot of After Effects work to blur things in the background as well as removing some things that were in shots. The workflow back and forth with AE was phenomenal and it would have taken longer had I been editing in X and exporting to AE.

        Look, my point is that to ask if X is ready for professional use is a question that has already been answered by those of us using it in a professional environment. It is ready and has been for a while now. And while asking the question over and over in link bait headlines may be good for your hit count, It does a disservice to the software as asking the question perpetuates the myth that it might not be.

        The other point I was hoping to get across is that if you haven’t spent the time to learn how FCPX works then you loose your I get to bitch about it card. Take some time and learn it so you can make an educated decision on if it makes your job easier and faster. I have yet to have someone that I have asked this of comeback and not have something good to say about X. I spoke as part of a post production panel the other night at the San Diego Media Pros meeting and ran into a friend that I had mentioned X to. This editor has been in local broadcast for at least 20 years. He’s edited at network stations, cable and PBS. He told me he’s loving working in X. So there ya go, another data point of a crotchety old editor like me that’s liking the new way of doing things.

        In short, stop just parroting what you have heard about X. You all are smarter than that. Take that wonderful editor brain you have and put it to work learning how X works. Understand how powerful keywording can be. See if the Magnetic Timeline can make your editing faster. See what YOU think of it, not what you have just been told to think of it. Even if after you do this you deiced X is not for you, I will guarantee you will find some things in it that you wish were in your other edit system.

        • Anonymous

          Another annoying feature of FCPX is that it isn’t integrated with apples own motion graphics program MOTION. You have to export a clip, bring the clip into motion, do your effects and render it out. Then you have to bring it back into FCPX. That roundtripping is a big waste of time.
          I understand Adobe’s After Effects (which runs circles around MOTION) is tightly integrated with Premier so that you don’t have to roundtrip.

          • Anonymous

            Again… you have ZERO clue what you’re talking about.

            Wow. Those that are blessed with the highest level of ignorance are apparently equally equipped with large mouths and a keyboard to go with it. Fascinating.

          • Anonymous

            Hi Andie
            You really should get some professional help. I think you are starting to crack.

          • Anonymous

            LOL… yeah, that’s what you’re reduced to. Thanks for proving my point.

    • Anonymous

      “So is X ready for the professional world? yes! I do corporate spots on it that I get paid rather well for.”
      Yeah exactly, FCP X is ideal for boilerplate formulaic small projects involving little to no interaction roundtripping with many professionals and parallel workflows. Sure you can almost edit with keywords and automated assemblies are probably not far off. But you won’t be a well compensated pro for long when that happens. FCP X forces a singular editing paradigm. It also forces a type of editing style.

      • Anonymous

        Ah yes… yet another clueless pundit proving nothing other than his utter, painful ignorance of the topic at hand. We applaud you. Just keep proving our point over and over and over… lol

      • Michael Towe

        “Yeah exactly, FCP X is ideal for boilerplate formulaic small projects…”

        I am not quite sure what you mean by this? I can only assume that you mean formulaic being corporate talking heads and b-roll spots. If that is your augment then one could argue that 75% of things produced these days are formulaic. As for boilerplate I can guarantee you that corporate is far from boilerplate. I do work for some hi tech companies that have very complex messages to convey, you can’t boilerplate that.

        “FCP X forces a singular editing paradigm. It also forces a type of editing style.”

        Again I am confused at this. What is the singular editing paradigm that you are referring to? I have cut broadcast spots, corporate and narrative in it. Just as I have cut those in Premier and Avid.

        As for the style of editing it forces a new approach to editing, but I am not sure what you mean by “style.”

        I will concede to your argument on parallel workflows as I don’t have the knowledge of it to say other wise. It does seem to me that this is a flaw in X. And to be honest if you live in that world I would suggest that you look at nothing other than Avid. I have worked in Avids in a shared environment and it’s rock solid.

        I guess the issue I have with your argument is that you have labeled X as a bad thing with only a couple very generic accusations of it’s flawed workflow.

        “FCP X is ideal for boilerplate formulaic small projects” – Please explain what you mean by this?

        “FCP X forces a singular editing paradigm. It also forces a type of editing style.” – Again please explain? What is the singular paradigm? And what editing style does it force one into?

        In closing I will add that I really am not trying to troll you on this. I am curious what these things you’re referring to are. You may be right and I may have my eyes opened. Or I may be able to open your eyes to what may be a perceived prejudice of a new way of doing things.

  • Editorguy

    Our company switched from FCP7 to Adobe Premiere Pro CS6, and we love it….no more Final Cut for us!

    • Anonymous

      Yes, shout it from the rooftops!! You’re a regular HERO!!!

      LOL
      [facepalm]

      • Anonymous

        And you are an Apple Fanboy syncophant. Doing any kind of big project collaborative editing requires workarounds and third party tools that don’t always work as advertised. The traditional timeline is the score of a production. “Roles” for audio elements is a joke.

        • Anonymous

          It’s so PAINFULLY clear that you have absolutely ZERO CLUE what Roles are or how they work. Wow. But the mouth of a big boy. LOL!

          Someone’s obviously scared senseless by a simple piece of software. Poor thing.

          • dave

            We know precisely how roles work. We have used them. There’s no reason you couldn’t have roles AND multiple tracks. Roles are just data tags. They don’t help with visualization.

          • Anonymous

            Wow… that was clearly the dumbest thing yet.
            LOL now even trying to COMBINE the two?? :-D As if that made ANY sense in any universe. Hilarious.

            I’m sure he appreciates your proving his point.

          • Anonymous

            :-)))), yeah, I am. Whereby the “they don’t help with visualization” is the most painful part by far. Ouch.

  • PhillyPhil

    Nonsense!

  • reader

    So what he’s saying is FCP-X is definitely ready for “prime time”, if you buy a dozen other plugins to make it usable and follow their precise production specifications and do everything how they require or the entire process collapses. Oh, and just like they made a major change between 7 and X, they could, and have, just as easily trash the entire thing next year (see Color, Shake, etc)

    Yeah… no thanks.

    • Anonymous

      I agree. I downloaded FCPX and edited with it for a month or so. I found it’s “projects” and “events” concept confusing. Plus it always wanted me to copy all my media files so I ended up using twice as much disk space as I would have in FCP7.

      So I finally gave up and reinstalled FCP7…but I’ll be looking at Adobe and Avid since apple will no longer support 7

      • Anonymous

        Wow… “it wanted me to copy all my media files”… OUCH. The fact that you don’t even know that THAT is completely optional, shows that you are lightyears away from even the most BASIC knowledge of X, are clearly in no position to even consider uttering anything on the subject and with that have made a complete fool of yourself. We salute you.

        You might want to stick to subjects you actually know SOMETHING about.

  • Er-nay

    I am an actual editor who has used virtually every system known to man (going back to 35mm film and the upright Moviola, 3/4 tape to tape (if you don’t know, don’t ask. It was miserable), and then, joyfully to Avid in the early 1990’s ) I have to say that yes, there is room for FCPX. I have happily completed two recent projects on it and then went back to FCP7 for another. They both work well – – for different things.

    For the most part, I would not use FCPX for a feature or documentary.
    The major problem lies with the routing of audio. It seems that in Apple’s push for innovation, it neglected to realize that films are made up of Picture AND Sound. The development team of FCPX forgot the audio!

    It’s virtually impossible to mix anything more complex that a simple music and elementary production track on FCPX. If that is all you are doing, FCPX is fine — maybe even better, faster AND, with more tools. I actually like it for some things.

    But, if you have to really mix audio (ProTools), forget it. Work in FCP7 and get your work done.

    If Apple could somehow figure out how to “expand” the audio issue ( and I’m not talking about the simplistic assignment to “roles”) and offer a path to OMF exports, then FCPX might be a full solution. Until then, keep using FCP7. Remarkably, It still works fine for software that is 4 or 5 years old.

    I only wish that Apple had somehow released something that might have been called FCP8 and not messed with something that was working well.

    • Michael Towe

      Excellent post and I agree completely. If there is an Achilles heel in X right now it’s Audio. Some are using X2Pro to get things over to ProTools but I haven’t been down that route so I can comment on it. I was very much hoping for smooth round tripping to LogicX but that didn’t come to fruition. Apple, if you’re listening, fix the audio!!

      • John

        I’ve used X2Pro on multiple projects with great success. It creates a very neat ProTools project by converting audio roles to tracks. Being an AAF it even applies labels to the tracks (based on roles) and adds any markers I may have in my FCPX timeline. LogicX definitely needs to have complete round tripping integration, plus an FCPX audio mixer would be wonderful. I remember waiting to get one in FCP classic but it wasn’t until version 3.

        • Michael Towe

          Thanks for posting on this John. I have been over at Lynda.com watching a few tutorials on the X2Pro workflow. So far it looks pretty clean and simple.

          Completely agree on the Logic round tripping. I am hoping that is in the works and the next release. A mixer in X is also a must, let’s see what the next release brings. So far Apple has be on the money with the functionality added back in since the botched release.

        • Anonymous

          It assumes that editors are not creative. How do you handle audio that serves many “roles”? It forces you into a singular mode paradigm for mixing. Not creative at all. Certainly can’t be used, without a multitrack timeline for visually representing a multiscreen multi channel presentaton.

          • Anonymous

            “singular mode paradigm for mixing”
            LOL… invent your own incoherent ramblings yourself, or do you look them up and pick what SOUNDS interesting with zero regard for actual substance? :-D

            What a crock.

          • John

            I’ll assume you’re actually interested in the discussion for the moment while I give out some information that will be informative for this whole thread and whoever stumbles across this and is truly interested in learning FCPX in the future. Roles, particularly audio roles, are assigned by the user in order to easily manage the editing process and subsequent (inevitable) output. The built-in audio roles inherent to FCPX are ‘Dialogue’ and ‘Music’. The user can add whatever roles and sub-roles they see fit for the piece they’re working on. For instance – in a short film I’m editing right now, I’ve tagged my audio with ‘Dialogue’, ‘Effects’, ‘Nats’ and ‘ADR’ roles. I can also add sub-roles as needed. For instance I could create a ‘Wind’ or ‘Footsteps’ subrole inside ‘Effects’. I can see the roles in my timeline index then disable or minimize clips on the timeline – much like soloing or muting a track. Upon export, I also have the option of making a multi-channel QuickTime or exporting multiple audio files based on roles and subroles. It is an incredibly useful and powerful way to work – especially when looking at video roles. For instance – when I need to export a clean QuickTime with no titles or lower thirds, I don’t need to create a separate timeline or disable/delete the clips. I simply choose which roles to export and I’ve got my clean QuickTime. I even save certain export setups as presets. FCPX gets its stuff out of my way to allow me to be more creative.

          • Michael Towe

            John – You just spurred a workflow thought in my brain. I have a client that I do commercial spots for that go to English and Spanish speaking stations. When they get sent to the Spanish stations I need to strip off the text so the stations can recreate in spanish. The text is usually assigned a video roll as it comes from AE as a Quicktime with alpha. I never thought to assign that track a role and just disable it for output. I was doing a duplicate project and stripping off the text layer.

            Thanks for updating my workflow with a great idea!

          • John

            That’s awesome. Those epiphanies are the kinds of things that make FCPX editing so much fun. It’s just gettin started.

    • Anonymous

      First off, you clearly have yet to discover “Audio Components” which have been there since 10.0.6. Look it up. Since, again, here’s someone criticizing X based on mere lack of knowledge not on *actual* usability. The thing we’ve been talking about here extensively.

      And aside from X2Pro (which is in fact extremely well done, yes) there is also the route of Logic Pro X to which you can send your project with a click of a button and back, which easily makes up for any and every shortcoming that FCP X (you believe) may have. It’s not yet perfect, but it is there, and clearly just needs fine-tuning (obviously one of the drawbacks of the two teams sitting on different continents). And that for the ridiculous price of $199.

      I for one only used the “Mixer” in legacy FCP all of maybe THREE times in all of FOURTEEN years, and then merely for overall master audio. I also know of no one that ever did use it (as opposed to simple key framing, which is FAR more precise and controllable), so it can stay away for all I care and leave real audio mixing up to a proper DAW not an NLE as one should.

      The entire file structure/management will be changed in the next version btw.

      • Anonymous

        You just going by price? I’ll take Lightworks over FCPX

        • Anonymous

          LOL… yeah, I’m sure you would!! :-D

    • Joe Mahma

      “I only wish that Apple had somehow released something that might have been called FCP8 and not messed with something that was working well.”

      Yes, please.

  • Anonymous

    Hmmm… because you don’t get it?

    What functionality that you and 90+% of X editors actually NEED is missing exactly and therefore EVERYONE should be paying for anyway? EDLs?? LOL… yeah, gotta have that, right? And what of those things can’t actually be done either for FREE or even for less than 10 bucks?

    Your training was clearly extremely sloppy. Maybe talk about things you actually understand instead.

    • Joe Mahma

      It’s a good thing you have online forums to vent on because surely you must have chewed your tongue off by now.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah. That’s the kind of drivel you’re reduced to. Shows what realm your “argumentation” lives in. No surprise. Thanks for proving my point.

        • Joe Mahma

          How are you even able to type on a keyboard with your fists?

          • Anonymous

            Just keep digging. Thanks for the repeated confirmations though.

  • Anonymous

    So… Intelligent Assistance publishes 7toX, a $10 app that allows you to import FCP 7 projects and media to FCPX”

    Then why didn’t this application come included with FCPX???

    Surely any intelligent software designer’s first thought is to make sure customers moving up the next step will be able to bring their old projects in with them.
    Yet that’s exactly what Apple failed to do.
    They touted the new FCPX ,,,but warned existing FCP7 users that they weren’t going to be able to open any of their old projects in the new software.

    Now someone else has created a workaround plugin to do that.

    And want to charge $10 to do what FCPX developers should have done for free.

    • Anonymous

      Thanks for making it painfully clear that you have no real clue what you’re talking about. 7toX isn’t a PLUGIN for one and it was in fact developed WITH Apple. It’s also functionality that the VAST majority of X users don’t even need, but if they do, then they have 7toX which is maintained FAR better by a 3rd party than Apple could, since their product cycles are far more constrained. So it was in fact a move with THE USER’S best interest in mind. Something I’m sure you’re unable to grasp, seeing you’re bent on hating on X without rhyme nor reason.

      And suggesting that if you have both 7 and X on your disk and a huge load of 7 projects, that you somehow are FORCED to use X for all your old projects all of a sudden (therefore the funtionality is somehow “indispensable”) is just agonizingly stupid. We and many others simply finished any and all old projects in 7 if and when needed and started any NEW ones in X. Big friggen whoop. It’s called “using your brain” and “common sense”. And if there’s a good reason to move old projects to X, we do. It’s a no-brainer. Yeah, and those that actually need it are REALLY pissed off that their NLE suddenly costs three hundred and NINE dollars. LOL!!

      • Anonymous

        “It’s also functionality that the VAST majority of X users don’t even need”

        Hmm. Sorry. I missed your poll of all FCP users. Funny. I think most FCP users did too.

        By the way EVEN ADOBE PREMIER import entire projects, selected clips, or selected
        sequences that you export from Final Cut Pro as XML files. In Premiere
        Pro, bins and clips have the same hierarchies and names that they
        have in the Final Cut Pro source projects. Also, Premiere Pro retains
        the sequence markers, sequence settings, track layout, locked tracks,
        and sequence timecode start points of Final Cut Pro source projects.
        Premiere Pro imports text from the Final Cut Pro Text generators
        into Premiere Pro titles.

        And you don’t have to pay ANY EXTRA.

        You are just trying to defend Apple for their shoddy rollout of a program that wasn’t and isn’t ready for Prime time. And YOU KNOW IT.

        You are just making your money from a second rate program and won’t admit it.

      • Anonymous

        “We and many others simply finished any and all old projects in 7 if and
        when needed and started any NEW ones in X. Big friggen whoop. It’s
        called “using your brain” and “common sense”.

        Of course you aren’t a professional editor. Your old “baby’s first steps” and “dog swims in the pool” movies don;t need to be re edited. I agree. Amateurs seldom have to revisit a project.

        Since you aren’t in editing as a profession you wouldn’t understand why a client would come back 2 years from now and want to re edit a graphic, or edit out a scene because a product has changed in a $10,000 video. You wouldn’t understand why a client would object to running an old video with the old “CEO introduction” at the head of the video.

        If you had a client….You would just tell him to pay you another $10,000 to reshoot and rededit the entire project. I know, You’d just tell him “Big friggen whoop. It’s called “using your brain” and “common sense. you should have thought of that when you wrote the script with the CEO…right?”

        I can tell by your amateurish reply that you don’t edit videos for a living. That’s why you have a hard time wrapping your head around the concept that people would actually need to re edit something one or two years later

      • Anonymous

        YOU SAY “then they have 7toX which is maintained FAR better by a 3rd party than Apple could, since their product cycles are far more constrained. So it was in fact a move with THE USER’S best interest in mind.”

        If Apple had really “had the USER’S best interest in mind” don’t you think they would start working with intelligent design BEFORE they rolled out FCPX??

        Instead 7toX debut about 10 months AFTER FCPX.

        That’s right. For 10 months Final Cut users had to bitch and moan and complain in the press, on public forums, and in software reviews that they had no way to take their existing projects and move “up” to FCPX.

        It finally took a THIRD PARTY to decided “Hey. Apple doesn’t care about this feature…so why don’t we write the program to do it….AND MAKE MONEY OFF THE POOR Final Cut users.

        Apple sure has a funny way of showing IT HAS THE USERS BEST INTEREST IN MIND.

        IF you’re going to claim to understand the thinking of APPLE you need to think think logically BEFORE you comment

  • Anonymous

    FCPX is the only software package that has an entire forum subject dedicated to
    “Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate” on Creative Cow.
    That pretty much sums it all up
    Can you imagine a Cow forum entitled
    “Adobe After Effects or Not: The Debate” ????

Curated By Logo