August 19, 2019

Why I Switched to Final Cut Pro X After 25 Years of Working on Avid

I spent a quarter of a century editing on Avid and several years on Premiere Pro, so why did I decide to ditch them both and go with Final Cut Pro X? I'll tell ya.

I hate arguments from authority. "I’ve done this, so do what I say."

It’s a crutch, a fallacy that expects you to take the speaker’s word because they say it’s so, not because they have evidence to back up their point.

For instance, I could open my argument with this: 

"I’ve been editing professionally for over 25 years, most of those as an Avid editor. I’ve edited hundreds of hours of television, commercials, music videos. I was the lead editor for six seasons of Criss Angel Mindfreak, and I recently wrapped a 13-season stint as an editor on SyFy channel’s Face Off series. And in the past year, I edited four indie films–two of them on Avid, one on Premiere (I was the polish editor on that one), and one on Final Cut Pro X.  

So, I speak from real-world experience when I say after 25 years on Avid, and several years on Premiere, I’ve switched to Final Cut Pro X because it’s years ahead of the competition."

See? I set up my experience level. And then I used that soapbox to preach a conclusion. But I’ve offered zero evidence for a pretty big claim. I just publicly claimed that Avid–which clearly rules the roost in professional editing environments–and Premiere–which is working hard to grab as much market share as it can–are secondary choices to Final Cut Pro X.  

Why I switched to Final Cut Pro X 1

Switching to Final Cut Pro X

If you’re a professional editor, I can actually hear you rolling your eyes through the screen. Seriously, the rattle has whisked through the internet tubes and erupted out of my speakers. 

So, I’m going to cede my authority here and state my case with evidence. The only argument from authority I’ll intentionally use is this: the evidence I present will be based on real-world applications. That is actual day-to-day editing. Nothing academic, but “from the trenches” reporting.

So again, I say this:

After 25 years as an Avid editor, I’ve switched to Final Cut Pro X... and I’m not alone.

There’s a small but growing number of editors who have made the jump. The process is fairly predictable.  Surprise when we first hear a fellow editor rave about FCPX. Followed by a willingness to give it a shot.  And then two weeks of massive discouragement and frustration, because it’s unlike any other edit system we’ve used before. And finally, the lightbulb moment, the “NOW I get it” realization that comes with understanding the radically different workflow. (Have I mentioned that Final Cut Pro X doesn’t use tracks?)  

Why I switched to Final Cut Pro X 3

It’s not the perfect solution for everything, and it does have its limitations, as all NLE options do, but as a general rule, it has become my first-choice system. And the process is so much more efficient than anything else out there that I now get frustrated every time I have to return to a track-based workflow. I’ve seen the light, and working with tracks feels like going from a self-driving Tesla to an underpowered minivan.

Sure, you’ll eventually get to the same destination, but it’s going to take a lot more work on your end.

How this is going to work:

  • Option 1 - The whole enchilada: The full video is about 35-minutes long, but if you’ve got the time, I've got you covered.
  • Option 2 - Bite-sized morsels: I’ll break the long video down into discrete segments. You can choose the ones you’re interested in or watch them all. It’s the same material that’s in the full video but in chapter form.

Note that neither of these are tutorials. I will not be teaching you how to do any of this; it’s merely meant as a broad overview. The summary section will offer tutorial resources if you choose to dive deeper.  

So, let’s get started. Time to back up my claims!

Check out the full video below. For segments, scroll down.

Segment 1:  Searching Through Footage

Avid and Premiere are far more similar than they are different. When it comes to organizing footage, both use bin structures and clips in the bins. And if you want to scan through a series of clips, you’d better be prepared to double click to load each and every one. When I brought this up to a colleague, he asked me if FCPX can load clips with just one click? I said it goes one step further in film-strip view, you need zero clicks, and you see everything!

Add powerful keywording and favoriting tools, and it’s the fastest system out there for organizing and combing through footage. Documentary filmmakers? You’re definitely gonna wanna see this.

Segment 2: Compound Clips

A last-minute addition, but a powerful tool deserving of its own section. Think of it as nesting born on Krypton and sent to Earth to be powered by our yellow sun, and now it can leap buildings and is frequently confused for an airplane. 

Segment 3: Trackless Workflow

This biggest kahuna of them all! Just like all roads lead to Rome, all tracks lead to…uh…inferior editing systems? OK, the analogy needs some work, but if you’re just going to watch one segment, this is the one.  

Segment 4: Audio Components

You’re working on a scene with lots of speaking characters—that means lots of mics. A boom mic.  Perhaps five lavs.  A couple of plant mics hidden in the corner.  Plus the stereo mixed tracks from the production. That’s 10 channels of audio, which means 10 tracks on your timeline. Just for production sound! And you’ve taken the time to label each of your tracks by character name, but that means if you start getting rid of unused audio and sliding the audio up a track or two to condense it all, the track labels are useless and you have to guess which clip belongs to which microphone, because the labels are not on the clips themselves. And once you add another 15 audio tracks between music and sound effects, any time you need to add new layers, you’re playing the track juggling game. That’s life on Avid and Premiere.

On FCPX, your 10 channels of production audio are collapsed into one single container. All easily accessible and editable. Turn them on or off as needed. Music and sound effects are equally easy to keep track of—errr, to manage (can’t keep track, when there ARE no tracks!). And yes, the mic names can also be shown on the clips themselves, for true ease-of-use.

Segment 5: Staying in Sync

Here I compare keeping multiple video and audio layers in sync Final Cut Pro X style versus Premiere and Avid style. Spoiler alert: Final Cut wins. By a lot.

Segment 6: Summary

Here I go into Final Cut’s limitations. It is not perfect for all scenarios, and I go over the downsides. I also mention several third-party solutions that work beautifully with FCPX, and list some tutorial options if you want to give it a shot for yourself.

And I reiterate the most important thing to keep in mind, especially if you’ve been editing for a long time. If you’re a seasoned editor, you need to give Final Cut Pro X a solid two weeks. It’s significantly different and the magnetic timeline takes a lot of getting used to. But if you are willing to put in the time and open your mind to learning a new workflow, it will pay off.

The video gives just a taste of some of the massive timesavers Final Cut has to offer in day-to-day editing. There are many more, but I figure 35-minutes of me is enough for any mortal.  

Feel free to add your comments down below, and if you have any questions, I’ll try to answer as many as I can in a follow-up article or video. 

And as a final note, I’m once again putting my money where my mouth is. As of this writing, I start editing another feature film in four days.  And guess what? I’ll be using FCPX.      

Your Comment

48 Comments

I've been using FCPX since it came out back in 2011. I really don't get why FCPX gets so much backlash from editors. Every linear editing software does basically the same thing, only FCPX will do everything faster. saving you time and money. Why is it that almost every job posting for editors is always looking for either Avid or Adobe editors? When FCPX is 10X faster and not to mention no headaches while editing

August 19, 2019 at 2:50PM, Edited August 19, 2:50PM

127
Reply

I'm right there with you, but it's come a looooong way since 2011, it definitely had it's limitations at first but the updates have made it better and better. And no other NLE screams on a Mac system as much as FCP. People were just put off by the fact that it looked similar to iMovie initially. It was weird at first but as soon as I realized I could just hit "P" and effectively turn off the magnetic timeline it was a joy to use.

August 20, 2019 at 7:08PM

0
Reply

The reason it looks like iMovie, is because Apple used iMovie to test out the new features planned for FCPX, while they were still officially backing FCP7.

August 21, 2019 at 8:10AM

3
Reply

Great case study.....if I were just cutting/editing I'd switch too as the workflow IS next level.

"not the perfect thing for everything".....I'm still more a part of that 'everything' unfortunately, the sort of work I do requires an After Effects...... where I can do 'anything' creatively vs 'some' things in FCP X

August 19, 2019 at 9:55PM

2
Reply

It’s a valid point, but I didn’t want to get into the After Effects workflow, because it’s not something I really use. I know Motion is an option with FCP X, but again... I have no experience in it. The projects I work on, if there’s After Effects work... well it’s just exported as a layer with an alpha channel, or the vfx artist will composite it and send me the composited image. Works on every NLE. And I think it may be a usable workflow for some who rely heavily on AE, but it won’t be right for everyone. There’s no one perfect tool out there yet.

August 20, 2019 at 12:55AM

0
Reply
Michael Yanovich
Editor
152

After Effects is the biggest reason I won't move to anything else. At this point it'd be tough to leave the Adobe Suite as I use Premiere Pro and AE daily, and Photoshop/Illustrator on a weekly basis.

I'm also not a MAC user so I don't even have the option to switch without converting my PC to a hackintosh or buying a Mac.

August 20, 2019 at 9:26AM

1
Reply
Alex Everingham
Video Editor
657

I often use After Effects within Final Cut projects – Just exporting from AE with the same file-name, means it updates in FCPX. Not dynamic-link level of connection, but a very smooth easy workflow (with none of the rendering and re-rendering headaches of the adobe integration).

August 20, 2019 at 9:31AM

3
Reply

I'll bet you $1000 that you don't do ANYTHING that isn't just as easily doable, only exponentially FASTER(!) in Motion. You're just too lazy to LEARN. Even though the learning curve is as shallow as can be if you already know your way around AE!

But go ahead and keep shooting yourself in the foot for the mere sake of laziness. Never mind that Motion is also integrated *exponentially* deeper into FCP than AE ever will be in PPro! "Dynamic Link" my ass!

August 25, 2019 at 10:05AM, Edited August 25, 10:05AM

1
Reply

Now, if only BRAW could be added to FPCx... I am unfortunately seeing my self moving to Resolve just for that... FCPx has the best workflow as far as I am concerned...

August 19, 2019 at 10:06PM

58
Reply

I have zero inside information, I don’t work for Apple, and they had no idea I was writing this until after it was published earlier today. But the rumor mill is implying that we may saw that support with the next update this fall. Again, that is just the going rumor. But I think it’d be a logical next step for their so-far-annual major update.

August 20, 2019 at 12:56AM

1
Reply
Michael Yanovich
Editor
152

This makes sense, Apple and BMD seem to have a good working relationship (them co-designing the BMD external GPU as an example), I'm sure BMD has had convos with the Apple Pro Apps team about how well the Pocket 4k has been selling and that BRAW support in FCPx would be a progressive step forward for both companies. Maybe it comes with the 10.5 release, which the FCPx community is hoping is the largest updated we've had in 2-3 years. We'll see

August 20, 2019 at 11:20AM

3
Reply
avatar
Charles C.
Editor/ Director/ Director of Photography/ Wannabe Thinker
1201

I would LOVE this indeed. I sent a Feedback a long time ago (as soon as I had my BMPCC4K, hope it help them in a small way to consider BRAW

August 20, 2019 at 7:52PM

1
Reply

If FCPX and Davinci just did a ProRes RAW / BRAW trade agreement, that would be sweet.

August 20, 2019 at 7:34AM

0
Reply

So if you look at other RAW workflows in FCPx (R3D support & Canon Cinema RAW support) Apple leaves it to the manufactures to create a "workflow' that works within FCPx. My guess is this allows the manufacture (RED/Canon/BMD) to ensure their RAW codecs work as intended in FCPx. So BRAW in FCPx is likely up to BMD to implement not Apple. As an FCPx editor who's investing into a Pocket 6k soon I'd love to see this happen, was always annoying not being able to shoot RAW on the OG 1080p Pocket because cDNG never properly worked in FCPx, prores is still great though.

August 20, 2019 at 11:15AM

2
Reply
avatar
Charles C.
Editor/ Director/ Director of Photography/ Wannabe Thinker
1201

How about BMD just give up on their FAKE RAW and simply adapt ProRes RAW?? That's the whole point behind PRraw, that not everyone and their mom make their own, lame, half-baked RAW format. How is it always APPLE'S job to do stuff for others? You'd think developing a far superior RAW format that anyone can license would have been enough.

But then… that's going to happen sooner or later anyway, since certainly no other camera OEM is ever going to adapt BRAW. Therefore it will never proliferate outside of BMD's niche market. Just the fact that pretty much NO ONE has even adopted it for their NLE, even though it's "Open Source" (which it in fact ISN'T btw) and "free" tells you how interested everyone is. Other than to make a buck, such as with Premiere.

Once Apple wins their petition against RED, every camera OEM from here till Tuesday will adopt PRraw for internal recording. Mark my words. After that BRAW can just go the way of Cinepak.

August 25, 2019 at 6:33AM, Edited August 25, 6:40AM

0
Reply

really nice info

August 20, 2019 at 7:52AM, Edited August 20, 7:52AM

1
Reply

This is the kind of step-by-step article/breakdown I've been itching to write myself, because the core innovations of FCPX are just so good that they turn you into an FCPX evangelist. The trackless, magnetic, easy-scrubbing, keyword goodness of FCPX is the future, whether it's in Final Cut or some future software.

And while I agree that an appeal to authority is not a true logical argument, it can get you a hearing with people. So before people call me a youtube editor, I've edited feature length films on FCP7, FCPX, Premiere, and been an AVID assistant. FCPX is my one true love.

August 20, 2019 at 7:58AM

4
Reply

Looked at the "searching' video and I was very disappointed, there is nothing I was shown about visually searching through clips that is any faster than using timelines and pancake editing in Ppro. Why use bins when you can layout your assembly on a timeline, why use keywords when you can use markers, why use selections when you can use both tracks and select reels to condense and focus your searches? There is absolutely nothing I was shown that I can't accomplish in Ppro without loading individual clips into a viewer.

August 20, 2019 at 7:59AM

0
Reply

That is a strange comparison. Select-reels are inherently one-dimensional, that is, only operating on one search criteria – and once they reach a certain length, searching through the select-reel becomes its own headache. Whereas keywords can be combined into searches –  exterior / character-name / interview / GOOD – and then you instantly get everything at that particular search-intersection. It is frankly an obviously superior, metadata approach to organization. And much cleaner looking.

Also, what you are describing requires an added layer of refinement, of pre-selection, which not every project has the time or need for. Sometimes you just need to edit the clips that you've got – and then FCPX is miles ahead. The FCPX film-strips are just so much more visual and immediate and "tactile" than scrubbing through a (pancake) timeline. FCPX excels at giving you a (scalable) overview of your footage.

August 20, 2019 at 9:27AM

2
Reply

Herb.... "interesting" comment .... it appears you missed the whole point

August 20, 2019 at 11:39AM

1
Reply

Exactly! And painfully so.

August 25, 2019 at 6:44AM

0
Reply

Ah yes, good ol' HERB! Not grasping even the most BASIC concepts and willing to prove it. Just here to indulge his usual old-man confirmation bias. The COW is packed with his nonsense.

"that is any faster than using timelines and pancake editing in Ppro"

OUCH. That in itself speaks volumes. No clue how anyone can be so UTTERLY in denial. :-)))))))) Cringeworthingly hilarious.

August 25, 2019 at 6:44AM

0
Reply

As a Premiere Pro and Final Cut Pro editor, I can say - both softwares offers advantages and disadvantages. For you, the search functionality inside of FCPX may not be as strong or stronger than using pancake scrubbing and markers. What I can say is, the advantages that Final Cut Pro does offer over Premiere allow myself to be as great without as much effort. But I had to really want to learn FCPX to get over my bias towards Adobe. In the end, I respect both.

September 12, 2019 at 12:00PM

0
Reply

Excellent summary. I started cutting just after FCP X came out and never used Avid or Premier, so didn't have to unlearn anything. I just love it! Also love the FCP X Community, so helpful.

August 20, 2019 at 8:57AM

0
Reply
Paul Nofilmschool
Video Production
110

As a FCP X user I just bought DaVinci Resolve to round out my tool set.

As it works as a pretty good intermediary in-between NLE software programs (AKA how I get Premier files to work on FCP X without using shady stuff) And also has the 3D stuff that Apple has yet to fully embrace yet. I get the best of both worlds as FCPX is the best NLE right now and DaVinci is really great for color grading and DIT processing.

What I love about both of them is that the companies that made them continue to work on them and release updates for free, which is amazing and I will always support that over a yearly subscription.

August 20, 2019 at 9:42AM

2
Reply
Kyle Dockum
Videographer and Editor
899

Agreed, I’m not a finisher, never been my area of interest, but 95% of the projects I cut in FCPX are finished in Resolve. And I truly love how well they work together. I’m a big fan of Resolve, just not so much as an NLE. But for the rest? It’s awesome.

August 20, 2019 at 11:30AM

1
Reply
Michael Yanovich
Editor
152

well information for people who learning new skills about Final Cut Pro X.

August 20, 2019 at 11:09AM

3
Reply
avatar
Agmus Media
Digital Advertiser
70

After using FCPX on several projects in a row I couldn't go back to the old systems. JUST. TOO. SLOW.
FCPX really supports my creativity and fast decisions. It's truly brilliant. It took me a few years to realize that.

August 20, 2019 at 12:41PM

2
Reply
avatar
Jan Becker
DP, Director, Producer
460

I've been a Final Cut editor since 1.0 now through X. I've used Media 100, Imix VideoCube, PremierePro and I've stumbled around in AVID. I even have a current subscription to AVID and Premiere. I'm jealous that you have been able to get jobs using FCPX. So many say Premiere or AVID as you know. Are you convincing them otherwise or what?

August 20, 2019 at 1:48PM

1
Reply
avatar
Phillip Allen
Documentary / Film Editor
13

You may be the only person I know who has used the Imix VideoCube aside from myself! Blast from the past. Yes, I am getting jobs on FCPX. I’ve done a handful of indie features, several short films (including paid ones), some commercials, and I just wrapped up a 10-minute documentary.

Most of them have required the producers wanting to hire me, and me wanting to use FCPX. And if I’m the only editor on the project, it’s a pretty straightforward process to get them to agree. Especially since they know it’s not because I’m unfamiliar with Avid or Premiere. So when I tell them there are many reasons to use FCP, it doesn’t take a lot of convincing.

Now, if it’s project requiring many editors, then I’ve gotta suck it up and work on Avid, but that’s been thankfully rare lately.

August 23, 2019 at 4:50AM

3
Reply
Michael Yanovich
Editor
152

You zeroed in on pretty much every thing I love about FCP X and makes me wish I had more control in what I got to cut in.

August 20, 2019 at 7:00PM

3
Reply

Two weeks. That's what I gave FCPX in the months after it was released. Maybe because I had edited with FCP legacy the previous 10 years or so that it was hard to bend my mind to edit differently. Especially given at the time FCPX couldn't handle basic stuff like multicam...yet. But running a full time wedding film company I didn't have time to play any further and went to Premiere and never looked back.

Well, to say I never looked back would be not entirely true. Premiere often have bugs that drive me insane. But I was surprised how much I enjoyed the PC and my flexibility to update components over time to keep my computer faster than the lastest Mac Pro or iMac. My style of editing weddings isn't the same as when I cut films. For weddings we use an extensive amount of cross dissolves and warp stabilizer. As in hundreds per project. How is FCPX's stabilizer these days? Again, we use it hundreds of times per project. Again, our weddings aren't the typical style of straight cuts and excessive slider and gimbal work. Its handheld but looks like we use those tools. 12 years of practice.

I've looked back at FCPX and admire it's ground up new vision approach. For new editors who's brains aren't yet trained it must be awesome. And obviously for you, it was a bit of a matrix mind bend at first but then...wow. No doubt that if I tried FCPX now, 7/8 years later...it's come a long way. And I appreciate this article. But I'm on a supped up PC and don't have much downtime to play. So as frustrated as I am by bugs and inconsistent performance of Premiere even on today's latest specs, I don't know how I could give it another 2 weeks. But I won't lie that this article makes me want to. Read something recently about Dissolve and made me eager to try that as well.

For weddings, we shoot everything at 60p (soon to be 4k60p) and then edit on a 24p timeline. Premiere drops the extra frames and it looks much more cinematic and we can pull anything for slowmo...which there's a lot of. Cutting compressed xavcs footage at 4k at a higher frame rate on a 24p timeline (and lots of multicam) is taxing in the CPU with Premiere I often wonder how FCPX would handle that nowadays.

I'd give it a try of course but there's the whole Mac/PC obstacle in my way. Not about to go spend $4k on a kickass Mac just to test another system.

August 21, 2019 at 12:12PM, Edited August 21, 12:12PM

0
Reply
Jamie H.
Editor/DP
1

Yeah, there's been a ton of progress since FCP X 10.0. To answer your questions, yes FCP X can definitely handle 4K60 footage on a 4K24 timeline, and it's simple to play 60fps footage at 24fps — look for Automatic Speed in the Retime menu. The stabiliser in FCP X is reliable and fast, and there are third party options like Lock and Load too.

August 22, 2019 at 2:28AM

0
Reply

M100 2.6, Avid MC, FCP 3-7, Prem before it was Pro, Smoke, Resolve, FCP X. I use FCP X for rough cutting all the time because it fast, but the Cut panel in Resolve does a lot of what FCP X does, w/o the screaming. FCP X's handling of audio is abysmal to say the least. The #1 thing is simply opening, removing Ch's you don't need on a clip. They are always attached to the V clip. When you export to resolve for grading, they all come back. You then have to play around with moving everything into the right track, deleting the dead audio, again. FCP X also lacks a role AKA wanna be tracks mixer to apply global processing like eq and compression. So that leaves X pretty much dead for any audio mixing because trying to do it clip based is a trip into madness of both kinds. FCP X is a great rough cut tool, but its not for finishing by any stretch.

August 23, 2019 at 4:06PM, Edited August 23, 4:06PM

0
Reply
avatar
Steve Oakley
DP • Audio Mixer • Colorist • VFX Artist
497

You are clearly missing a LOT of basics! Wow. Guess what? If you're running into those ridiculous issues, it's not FCP, it's YOU!

But thanks for confirming for everyone that the only one's NOT using FCP on a Mac are the ones that DON'T GET IT. Cheers.

August 25, 2019 at 6:53AM, Edited August 25, 6:54AM

1
Reply

I'm not missing anything. there is NO role based mixer in FCP X, at least not in any public release. I know how to "remove" unused audio in X, or its version of it. However when you export XML those tracks come back because they really aren't removed from the clip, they are simply disabled. there are some bugs in the XML exporter which make conforms in resolve a bit painful with redundant work. If you don't have to deliver anything beyond a simple stereo mix in X, then it is you don't have the experience to know why X is very very short on audio. Yes there are painful ways to do some of it, but why ? just because ? no productive. When you have to deliver very specific track mixes, track elements, mix minus 4ch, translations and other variations you'll quickly find out X isn't up to the task. Its not really intended to do that. X doesn't exchange well with other apps and if you believe that you can do *real* grading working X....

August 27, 2019 at 11:16PM

0
Reply
avatar
Steve Oakley
DP • Audio Mixer • Colorist • VFX Artist
497

If you don't even grasp that there are no "bugs in the XML exporter" but rather, if anything, a bug IN RESOLVES (abysmal) XML PARSER, then you can't be helped either way.

Never mind that no one with HALF a clue is even going TO RESOLVE for any type of AUDIO mixing or mastering. :-)))))))) You'll go to Logic Pro or ProTools in which case, again, if you have any clue what you're doing, you'll use X2Pro for AN AAF! So you're merely arguing from utter ignorance.

Oh and yeah, FCPX's color tools are SO inefficient, hm?? Pretentious much? *double-facepalm*

September 10, 2019 at 9:18AM, Edited September 10, 9:18AM

0
Reply

Any commercial production that has to keep an eye on its budget should be cutting in Final Cut. Everyone works so much faster and gets more done.
I'm currently working on a reality series that uses 29 cameras. FCPX works extremely well for multicam shoots. The roles feature is a concept that takes awhile to understand as other NLEs don't have it but once you get it and use it, you really appreciate it. Lately I've been working designing smart collections that semi-automate things for the editor.
I also work in Avid and Premiere at other companies and it's like going back to another century in software design. It amazes me that people are still working in old ways like that. I understand that many are pissed off at Apple for the launch and the sudden discontinuing of FCP7 (and of Aperture before Photos was ready, etc.) but it's time to get over that and see the advantages that the latest FCP now gives producers.

August 25, 2019 at 6:16PM

0
Reply
Clark N. Henderson
Assistant Editor
6

Why, after all this time, do people still post to Vimeo? I stopped going there, but I figure it must have improved if industry types use it. But no!The videos just sputter along, start and stop, and I end up having to refresh the page....

August 26, 2019 at 3:21PM

0
Reply
Dan Horne
364

The real mystery is because you did not change to Davinci Resolve, or failing that to Premier. Final cut is dead

August 26, 2019 at 10:26PM

0
Reply
julian
6

Because Resolve is track based, and I go into the issues with tracks in the article and video. As for Premiere, I just made a 30 minute video showing exactly why I don't use Premiere. Because FCP X blows it away. You can disagree with my conclusion, but if you're asking THAT question, it means you jumped straight to the comments without reading the article or watching the videos. If you want to stick with Premiere, go ahead. If you want to open your mind to see what I prefer in FCP over Premiere, watch the video.

August 29, 2019 at 4:27AM

0
Reply
Michael Yanovich
Editor
152

Michael, well done!!
I've edited on Adobe PP, Avid MC, DaVinci Resolve and non of them come close to the ease of use and organizational aspects of FCPX. I just finished a documentary with 7.8TB of 4K DCI media ( Video, Dialog, Music, EFX, Graphics, Stills Etc Etc ) and I could not imagine trying to organize and cut on any other NLE. I started with FCPX at launch and I noticed right away how much it freed me up to be creative and not worry about moving clips, audio, efx, graphics etc. once I had a rough edit in sync. Not to mention, auditioning different takes and camera angles of the same scene.

August 26, 2019 at 10:32PM

0
Reply
Dave Williams
Owner/John Landon Multimedia
94

Nice article, I am yet to watch the video. I was an Avid editor for about 10 years and now on FCPX for about 2.5 years. One question: does anyone understand WHY Final Cut forces the creation of secondary storyline every time I need to add a transition to a clip? It may be a fade on a super or a dissolve between two pieces of b-roll. If there is one beef I have with FCPX (and there are a couple more), than this one is it. Any explanation?

August 26, 2019 at 11:14PM, Edited August 26, 11:14PM

1
Reply

The secondary storyline was the one thing that stopped me getting into FCPX (aside from my iMac being stolen and the cost of replacement). That was quite a few years back, maybe it's better now. But if you cut docs or brand stories, you want to build a sound bed and then a visual story over the top of it. I found I had to make a secondary storyline every time I even wanted to trim it. Couldn't work with that. I did find the selects and organisation and magnetic timeline pretty impressive and time saving.

August 27, 2019 at 2:40AM

0
Reply
Nicholas Lear
Film Editor
1

That's exactly what I don't like. Every time you want to move your super or a couple b-roll clips that may have a transition, you have to remove the transition, lift it from storyline, move it - and then place the transition back. SOOOO many steps!

Also, the other thing that is a real pain is "match frame". Out of memory I think it's Shift-F. It doesn't work very well it's hard to see immediately where the clip is, sometimes it doesn't even bring the matched clip and either way, when you want to go to it, the playhead is all over the map and it's hard to pin point to the exact frame. Oh my... so easily fixable these two things but because Apple "thinks" that they know best what and how people should be working, they rarely listen.

Last, the new MacPro ---- we editors knew when they brough in the garbage can that the form is wrong. How many years did it take them to bring us back what we already had??? (I know, it's better now and so it should... LOL, but essentially it's the 'same' machine as the one we used to have).

August 27, 2019 at 8:12PM

2
Reply

Only does that if the clip is floating over the primary timeline. If it's in the timeline, you can add transitions all you want.

August 29, 2019 at 4:24AM

0
Reply
Michael Yanovich
Editor
152

If it's b-roll or supers it's almost always going to be floating above the main magnetic timeline.

August 30, 2019 at 4:16PM

1
Reply

Thank you for this writeup. It's very frustrating and has been an uphill battle trying to explain the benefits of FCP X. I have been on other online spaces where I consider myself NLE-Shamed (yes I coined that) for using FCP X and building a professional career using it; FCP legacy before that, and AVID MC before that I wish there were more FCP X jobs. SO much of the industry is AVID heavy. I jump to Premiere Pro and frankly any other NLE and they just can't move as quickly as I can work in FCP X. Granted there are features I'd like to have such as better workgroup options and audio options. Sometimes I wonder if FCP X can weather the storm and will continue on considering DaVinci Resolve is free and nipping at it heels taking features and borrowing some operations. It pains me to use tracks. Though I feel like one has to know AVID or Premiere Pro even (setting well-paying jobs aside) if it's against one's best interests in workflow efficiency. Building plugins with Motion is additional bonus. The one thing I keep hearing is that FCP X is designed for the solo editor that has to do everything. I will say this. I sat with and moldy trained an Premiere Pro user who had never used FCP X. Within about ten minutes he was floored at how much I could accomplish with such little effort. He conceded that he he no idea it was that fluid and versatile. Both of us recognized things PPro could do better, but they weren't game changers enough to ditch FCP X.

August 27, 2019 at 1:37PM

2
Reply
Tangier Clarke
Post Supervisor/Motion Picture Editor/ IT Admin
13