"Program" as in a course?

Did he atleast say why he had the idea that you could only edit in FCPX?

Seems pretty stupid to just demand without saying why.

Of the three I would say FCP is the weakest. And the PR / AE setup will loose ground once Resolve 15 is out of beta. It will incorporate Fusion in this release and the editing suite is powerful enough now for most people's use.

I have already left PR behind. It doesn't make sense anymore, and it's colorgrading tools are weak compared to DR.

So... if you are indeed going edit it from start to finish and export and deliver yourself, I see no sound reason that your client "demands" you use a specific tool. Your best tool is the one that makes you works the fastest without the fewest hickups.

I would politely tell my own client that while they may have used FCPX themselves, I will not.

Worth mentioning... you need a US bank account to sign up for this.

The Fujinon MK lenses can be altered to have a MFT mount instead of the E-mount.
They are really really great lenses, albeit not inexpensive.

I wonder if the same is possible with the Sony lens, but it would probably cost the electronic function if you did.

Nope, I think the exfat is in regards to the file structure on the x7 or dji units. ProRes is ProRes.

Apple will never sell out to the pc market, which is stupid. A lot of major workflows go the pc route... not the overpriced apple route.

But... PCs can still read the ProRes files, and if you want to spit out prores from a pc, you just need to buy Davinci Resolve full license.

So basically they want you to sign on to that you can't NDA them?

Backwards world it is :S I personally would have a hard time NOT thinking about how many time they have done this before and prospered from it.

Does it ever happen that a writer pitches something, which conincidently is the same thing as something someone else in said company created? And therefore by coincidence the company would be affraid of law suit? What are the odds of that?