This was a great article at the time – but that was 5 years ago! And they are talking about a lot technical stuff and a lot of specs. Theorising about the advent of the "new Mac Pro" (meaning the trash-can). Half the article is badly dated so it's a bit strange posting it on the front page...
Well first off, the industry standard is still AVID for feature films, both in Hollywood and elsewhere. Things might change, but currently it is what producers are familiar with, pipelines are constructed around and what makes everyone feel at ease at the top level.
As for the differences between the other programs, as I see it:
PROS: Tons of features, integration with other Adobe programs, widely used, familiar to people who learned editing on AVID or old Final Cut.
CONS: Buggy and quirky, middling performance-to-hardware ratio, cluttered and constructed with a more-is-more mentality.
PROS: Beautiful colour integration, good sound and vfx integration too, with rapid development by an ambitious developer. Plays well with most other programs, and smokes these other editors as a finishing tool. Free!
CONS: Rapid development means growing pains; bugs and design gaffes, very demanding on hardware (though that is improving), not widely used as an editor yet.
FINAL CUT PRO X
PROS: By far the biggest benefit to those who use it, is the altered paradigm – designed with a desire to change digital editing from the ground-up, from the organisation of data to the magnetic timeline, this is different. Those who like it LOVE it. It's also streamlined and sleek, and runs better than anything else on a Mac. Steady development and a mature and robust eco-system of plug-ins.
CONS: Strange blind-spots and missing features, sometimes things have been simplified to a fault (typical Apple). Requires expensive plug-ins to do basic things and bumpy integration into established vfx, color and especially audio pipelines. Hard adjustment for people raised on the previous paradigm.
I myself have drunk the FCPX kool-aid, but use Resolve to finish my more high stakes one-man jobs. I have edited two feature films on FCPX now, and find the thought of going back to Premiere/AVID style editing simply depressing.
It's basically a 24-70mm – the most common full-frame mid-range zoom lens across all brands. Sure, those 4mm on the wide end will be missed, but calling it a useless focal range is... a niche opinion.
Hmm, this just looks like the Devin Graham Glidecam rebranded (or de-branded, I guess). Not that it's a bad thing, fantastic product.
In a strange way, this sounds like the opposite of films like Victoria or Russian Ark, where you have EXTREME levels of planning and rehearsing and blocking to ensure there is always something worthwhile in frame and never a dull moment. This actually sounds much more like a cost-cutting decision, to just finish all the shooting in real time, one night. Which, if it's a sort of ambling, rambling, conversation of a movie, might serve the story.
"By choosing a flexible, future-proof" do-everything-on-any-mount" lens, you may be getting better lens performance than by going for a dedicated tool that only has one job and does it well."
Is that supposed to read "...you may be getting _worse_ lens performance..." ?