Previous 1 2 Next 19 Replies Latest reply: Dec 24, 2013 4:29 PM by TeoTheHoly Go to original post
  • PeterTheta Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    I can't help wondering if app store economics have simply made volume pricing worth the loss of niche markup in the corporate space.

  • Luis Sequeira1 Level 5 Level 5 (6,805 points)

    PeterTheta wrote:

     

    The app's interface chrome is simply inappropriate. Apple's own iOS is embracing 'flat design' which acknowledges that performance means removing distractions from users' sight. With its heightened dependence on dynamic, gilt-edged UI elements, FCPX is a step backwards. Maybe it looks nice in a trade show booth but it's distracting to both my CPU and the stories in my head that i'm trying to express.

     

    Just curious about what you mean here. What parts of the interface are extraneous?

    Can you give just an example of "form over function" in FCP X? I feel the interface has just the right elements, can be mostly keyboard driven, and many of the components can be hidden if not needed. I had to look up the meaning of "gilt-edged", and frankly I'd take that as a compliment - something does not have to look unpolished to be "professional"...

  • aNoori Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    The New UI philosophy is simple. I have the opposite opinion and moving on.

    I don't have time and brain to look back to avid, neither waist $999 for it.

    AVID is good, but I'm out and wouldn't go to it as there is really no advantage.

    I don't have habits and wouldn't call my use of AVID as good habit.

    I'm moving on, and in love in metadata and other help tools.

  • TeoTheHoly Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    I'm switching to AVID right now... I've edited in final cut for 4 years, when I was a student, and I loved it (both X and legacy), but now I'm starting working for broadcast television and I found that FCPX is definitely not ready to fit in the workflow. Main problem is the "not full" compatibility with SONY XDCAM discs and systems that they are actually the de-facto standard in broadcast. It has to be said that in every-day TV productions AVID is definitely faster, more solid and works better with remote storages and with all the broadcast equipment.

     

    I'm still using final cut in little "weekend productions" when I have to shoot with DSLR and produce videos for YouTube. It's fantastic when I have to do that kind of works. But in broadcast... No, FCPX is still too much young. A giant step has been done with FCPX 10.1 but, apple, there are still things to do.

  • TeoTheHoly Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)

    To me it seems that's obvious that apple has some priorities. They feed first the long-tail of consumers and prosumers, because they give the major incoming and, in a second time (maybe), they feed (or they will feed) the pro users.


    So, in my modest opinion:

     

    Final Cut X has a nice concept behind and a cool user interface, but needs more development.

     

    AVID is developed "only" for the pros that works in complex environments. And it simply does its job.

     

    Premiere eats without problems every kind of video format and it's also quite solid.

     

    In the end I had to learn all the set of three. And every different occurrence has it's different best NLE.

Previous 1 2 Next