Heavily Slanted Crap of the Highest order from Pro Video Coalition

65 here and have been using FCP from 3 to X. Premiere looks confusing to me. If Mac and FCPX are just toys, then I am glad to be playing. Now if I can get the boss to buy me a new MacPro to go with the Pegasus R6 I received today I will be one happy editor.

I have no plans to read the article, don't need to ruin my weekend for something that was only written to be click bait.

In the sake of completeness. Read at your own risk.

provideocoalition.com/kmcauliffe/story/d...anymore-the-backlash

A couple of quick points-

Why is the fact that Apple's business doesn't rely on Final Cut considered a horrible sin? Apple's business has NEVER relied on the success or failure of Final Cut since it was debuted in 1999. The suggestion that Apple company-wide is incapable of doing more than one thing at at time is ludicrous. Apple is known as an organization of small teams. Why would the FCPX dev team be worried about what's going on with iOS devices? They don't. They're a small but horribly dedicated team who work on FCPX and that's it.

It's like saying that you can't be a great editor and love your kids too.


Second thing was Kevin called out the number of FCPX installs surpassing FCP7 installs as baseless. Well...

www.philiphodgetts.com/2012/04/some-fina...t-pro-x-data-points/

FCPX installs superseded FCP7 installs by April of 2012. That's over a year and a half ago. And since then FCPX has consistently been in the top 20 paid apps on the Mac appStore.

Fucking idiot.

Let's see it the other way around: Kevin is doing Premiere and AFX training (his tutorials on the Holy Cow have helped me a lot so far - thank you, Kevin). Therefore, the more Adobe sells, the better Kevin's position in the trainer circuit (if he indeed does paid training or gets sponsored in any way).

I wonder how much Premiere installs the break into the servers had cost Adobe (I was close to subscribe just a couple of days before it happens). Adobe is strengthening their PR efforts again. One way is to send out their shills and badmouth FCPX.

Even though Kevin never seemed elitist to me, Ben has a point about the editing elite.

A thought to Larry's training: I think Larry's style is confusing Kevin greatly. To me it seems Larry conducts his sessions in a rather distanced way. He seems not to as closely "married" to the software as Rippletraining is. Steve and Mark fool around with the software, trying to figure things and find some cool stuff - something I've never seen from Larry.

And that Larry is also offering training for other software now is simply natural: There is more competition in the training market now, so he has to broaden his program.

Whatever the hidden reasons behind this "article" may be, the only thing that is important is the credibility of the author. And this author has made himself absolutely ridiculous with his foolish and unfounded statement. I am happy a large number of people on that website have already fiercely reacted against this crap, pushing him into the defense with a second article where he desperately tries to get out of the mess he has created. To no avail, I'm afraid. His professional credibility has been severely crushed and I feel sorry for him.

And what's even more ridiculous: this same guy who publicly says about FCPX (quote) "the times I've used it have been few and far between." is posing as a Master in the FCPX Techniques forum at the Cow. I guess that says it all... LMAO!!!

- Ronny

These are his four gripes summed up in his rebuttal:

1. Ability to open FCP7 projects in FCPX.
2. Proper Roundtripping to Motion 5.
3. Proper OMF support for post audio.
4. The Color Board.

1. I don't care about FCP7. I spent my $10, moved the last remaining FCP7 projects to X, and I'm done with it. Who cares that I can't go back to it? I don't want to go back to it. Tried it again yesterday, and it truly sucks.

2. Roundtripping would be nice, but Motion is now an engine for FCP effects. Before it was a roundtrip, take material from this project, process it in Motion, bring it back to this project. Now it's make it in Motion and use it in every project again and again. That's much more powerful. Still want roundtripping though.

3. I went to Pro Tools a few times from 7. So what? If I need to go to Pro Tools again, I can buy a way to it. If I never have to go to Pro Tools I won't. I'll go to Logic Pro X, a better platform for music integration with effects, sweetening, and mixing.

4. Does he use a round monitor? What is the point of a wheel? Look at every single three wheel layout and look at the huge dead spaces around the wheels. What's the point? To reduce the amount of tracking space available to the user? The only point of the wheel is because it's the traditional display for showing the relationships between primaries and secondaries. That is the SOLE purpose of the wheel. If you know these relationships then there is ZERO point in using a round shape on a rectangular screen.

Just to add a PS and sum up: Basically his gripes are that it isn't like it used to be and doesn't work with other applications. Three of his four gripes are about its relationship to other applications, and one is they changed something from the way he's used to. Aside from his not liking the color board because it's different, there is absolutely nothing that he has said about the application itself, no claim that the application does not do what an editor and producer need to do. The complaints are about obsolete software, and about other people who use other applications.

To be honest I am shocked to hear Kevin say so much dumb and biased crap. How can he come off the bat saying that because Larry has a business interest in FCPX he doesn't want to rock the boat! Dumb apples! Yes, FCPX is hurting in the PR and workflow realm but, as we all know, this will improve.

FCPX is not being used in Pro-houses? Not here in Taiwan and Hong Kong. I see FCPX along with FCP7 in many a Pro-houses here. I think one of the reasons many editors in Asia didn't get caught up in the FCPX professional debate could be because most of the debates were held in English forums.

Anyway, many Pro-houses here are using and making money very well with FCPX regardless. Moving right along....

I used Premiere Pro at a production house job while using Final Cut Pro X to freelance on the side, so I am extremely familiar with both programs. I have never used Avid (mostly because I don't like thinking in 'modes'). Both programs have their advantages and disadvantages, but I did not edit a single project that I couldn't have done faster in Final Cut Pro X. I now run my own small production company and I continue to use both programs, though 9 times out of 10 I still find myself preferring to cut with Final Cut Pro X. They are both professional tools, and my work as a freelancer is no less professional than the work I had at the production house.

I have three major problems with Kevin's line of reasoning in his articles (both the original and the response):

1) Kevin seems to equate "professional" with large companies. This is an outdated view of the industry. For better or for worse (a little bit of both methinks), the industry is changing, and there are now countless freelancers doing great work on their own. Apple saw this coming and redesigned Final Cut Pro so that it could serve this growing segment of the industry, all of whom are likely offended by the notion that they are not professional simply because they don't work for a large company.

2) In response to a point Larry Jordan made at the Supermeet this year, Kevin wrote: "How we cope with change is really not relevant. What's relevant is how quickly can I learn a new application to get back up to the speed I was editing before the switch, so my clients don't go somewhere else." This is interesting. The video production industry is all about change, and it changes more rapidly every year --being able to cope with this seems relevant to me. Learning to be proficient with Final Cut Pro X is not difficult, but it does require a bit more than editing simple home movies. The overall consensus seems to be that people are editing MUCH faster than they were before using Final Cut Pro X, which means they can either spend more time perfecting each project, or take on more projects.

3) "Would Logic and Aperture users be upset if Apple gave them only GarageBand and iPhoto to work with? I'm pretty sure they would be outraged!" I'm sure they would be. But Apple did NOT give Final Cut Pro 7 users iMovie, they gave us Final Cut Pro X. iPhoto, GarageBand and iMovie are all available for the average user. Aperture, Logic Pro X, and Final Cut Pro X are for power users and professionals. Referring to Final Cut Pro X as iMovie is as infantile today as it was in 2011. Would Premiere Pro users be upset if Adobe only gave them rented software as opposed to software they own? Adobe DID do that. Was anyone upset?

Use the tools that work for you. Any tool you use to make a living is a professional tool. I had to use Sony Vegas on a job and I hated every minute of it. But not once did I post anywhere that it's not a professional tool, it just wasn't the tool I prefer to use. Working in Premiere Pro drives me absolutely nuts sometimes --so does Final Cut Pro X-- but they are still professional tools. What possible benefit could come from provoking Vegas or Premiere Pro users just because I prefer to use something else? I can see none. Besides, I'd prefer to avoid the backlash.

"Use the tools that work for you. Any tool you use to make a living is a professional tool."

BRAVO!

I hope that guy is a better editor than he is a writer. And I hope Pro Video Coalition didn't actually pay him to "write" that.

And what's even more ridiculous: this same guy who publicly says about FCPX (quote) "the times I've used it have been few and far between." is posing as a Master in the FCPX Techniques forum at the Cow. I guess that says it all... LMAO!!!

This is exactly why I left posting at the cow. Not to knock those guys, when when X came out, I was furious because I was trying to learn the software and ask questions and the "help" I received was people like Kevin who called the program childish and in the same sentence told us they had barely used it - and these were supposed to be the moderators!! I was shocked. Thank god for FCP.co!

But back on topic, I was also enraged when I read this, but for much of the same reason I was enraged last with with US Politics: uneducated people getting on their soapbox and spouting lies based on rumors and fear without any evidence to support it. It's the worst part of the internet I think this was clearly just a flame piece to get traffic.

Look, I'm getting tired of having these arguments with people that FCPX is a great program. The thing that sucks is that not a lot of people in my circles are using it (yet). But I just turn in my work and nobody cares what I cut it on. Hell, someone asked me if I shot a project on an Alexa (shot on a Canon T3i - boy did that make me smile - ha!)

It's the talent, not the tools folks. After reading this, I'm sure Kevin's talent is also as bad as his writing, otherwise, why on earth would he have the time or desire to spout such complete nonsense into the world.

** End of Rant **

I freakin' HATE using Media Composer. I left it some time back. And, as a professional writer about post-production, I've NEVER mentioned it in my articles, reviews, and op-ed pieces. I question his motives.