fine to disagree- i have been doing this a long time too- i used to edit with real film - back in the day - on steenbecks or similar - you don't even have twin AB rolls on these devices- I'm a film guy - not a video guy - i started on film- not umatic-

I professionally started with video, but I also started with film, not on steenbecks (normally back in the early 90's I was hired to substitute steenbecks! but with moviola on Super8 and 16mm, my father was amateur filmmaker so I was born in between filmstrips! And because of this background I always have loved digital editing in front of video, because computers give me back the freedom of film editing. The freedom to rough cut the whole piece.. to let it "rest" watch and cut, again and again.. trim and move..again and again. what you really need to tell a story.


but i just hit a brick wall trying to use it to edit after around 15 minutes of trying-
so maybe it just doesn't suit my way of editing at all-

Well that's something personal, of course? but new things always take some time to adapt to. Again it's personal, but I don't feel FCPX "that" much different. Maybe is just like driving not he opposite side of the road



editing is an indeterminate thing - its an indeterminate process - you don't know the answer to an edit- whats going to work or not work-

that's totally true.. and I agree? you can learn "tricks" accumulated by the experience.. but those are not mathematics, not always work, there is also the perception of the viewer? your own perception at different moments and, of course, what footage you have.. that's the magic of editing? and it's what a I love of being editor.

editing is like feeling in the dark for the creative solution to creating a meaning - through an intuition - through an emotion - through a connection-
actually the technology is irrelevant - unless it gets in the way

again, I agree? in certain way, technology it's helping and getting in the way, both at same time. I guess that every editor works it's way, but in my case, I "see" the edit almost finished in my head, so perfect technology for me, will be some device to download the edit on my head as some form of XML and then just import it on the editing program ? since this is not possible, for me, one of the biggest pains in the ass while editing it's the access to all the viewed footage, I have very bad memory, so I normally do and extensive work of ingest, renaming, and classifying. File naming it's the key for my editing style..having all the info in the name, as short as possible. That gives me speed of editing. Many colleagues and costumers sometimes get mad with me, because I can take days preparing and classifying the footage, but then I'm so fast working and I know where is everything? and at the end I'm doing the work in less time. So for me the new event and metadata approach of FCPX it's like rain in spring as we say here in the Mediterranean Countries were rain is a precious good.

its the way you feel the cut - or the way the cut works - it doesn't have to be precise-
but you lay it out in a certain way - opening it up- you don't work in one direction creating little sequences- on separate reels - asking questions like - how will these pieces join together-


again I agree, and I work the same way, but the sub-sequences in new FCPX let you do that and even more, so you can have many sequences and arrange them as compound clips, in much more faster and powerful way than the old nested sequences.

For me the new FCPX has finally found a way to break the "tirany" of the Timeline and the tracks, that was a pain precisely to work that way you mention. As a Shake user, I see in FCPX that they have merged the node editing to the timeline editing.. something I call timenode editing. Always when I was doing post on shake I was wondering why the flexibility of the node editing to move that nodes, understanding them as complete "mini-edited" pieces, cannot be applied to the editing.. so et voilÃÂ* here it is! you can move sequences, blocs, titles, etc.. with the faster and convenience of a simple clip and not having to worry to have your tracks and audio out of place in some track somewhere else.
---

but as a tool - they removed many pieces that people still use- and so do my clients.
projects don't develop from 'tasters' thats bullshit - this isn't a way to treat your clients in any industry- you don't throw your 10 year old product in the bin - unless you have an agenda.

They have agenda (I know the about the existence of FCPX since 2009), for sure, but I agree with you, Apple has been SO ARROGANT dropping Final Cut Studio.. "tastes" are okay, as technology preview, to get used to, to learn, to play with.. but don't kill the working tool, specially in a industry where finding the complete workflow it's complicated, has a lot of "collateral" effects and involves so many people.


I'm a developer- there is an agenda here - that isn't obvious.

I'm developer also, I know perfectly you need and agenda or the projects don't succeed.

Jordi.