Is that your you in the picture, or your son? Because the comment really feels like it was made by a 12 year old.
> FCPX was written with a mistaken impression of what an editor does. Firstly, the magnetic timeline. A unnecessary piece of eye candy. For professional editors audio and video are separate animals. The mistaken idea that sync needs to always be maintained is erroneous.
I call BS.
You keep using this word "linear". I don't think it means what you think it means.
If anything FCPX has the LESS linear timeline of ANY current "NLE".
> But the question remains: is this enough for you to feel like Apple still cares about filmmakers?
You keep hammering this BS over an over in the article. FCPX the first version had some features cut not because Apple didn't "care", but because they cared so much that they rewrote the app from scratch, to get rid of legacy code and better position the codebase for future updates. They could also have redone an implementation of the same tried and tired editing timeline, but they tried to invent a new one.
Since then, they have added most, if not all, of the missing features back, and improved into lots of areas, with .1, .2. and now .3 (e.g. added great multicam editing).
And while a lot of people, especially change averse people, jumped to the familiar FCP 7 workflow of Premiere, a lot of use stick with FCPX, including lots of editors for major features. And it's one of the best selling apps on the App Store, which means millions of sales.
So, there's that.
It's not that "obvious" at all. Resolution is only ONE aspect of images, color information, contrast, etc is another. If you can trade noisy resolution for clearer color information and less distractive noise, that's a big plus.
And you can blow 1080p to cinema size screen (I know cause I have, and in fact, Philip Bloom has also done that, at the Skywalker ILM studios as a showcase) and it will be totally fine quality wise.
So, sort of like DNG for video color.