FCPX The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

[Scot Yount]

Whenever I read stuff like this I just don't know what to think, it's like people are nostalgic for an Apple that never existed, iPhones are popular but so what? Before that it was iPods and before that it was something else that doesn't mean that they have abandoned the professional and blah blah for money etc.
Apple could have just made a minor revamp of Final Cut Pro slapped it on the App store and left it at that but they didn't, they rewrote the app from the ground up to make it faster and do something that no one else had the balls to do which is rethink editing, that's not marketing BS it was the goal of whats his face who ran the Final Cut devision before he retired recently then they launched it for a low price and have been updating it free of charge ever since.

People rolled their eyes at the new Mac Pro too but people love the thing, I haven't got one myself but I just don't have the money for it.

You don't trust Apple? To What!? They're probably actually better then they used to be and spirit? What spirit? They still have the same "spirit" I've always seen in them in that they want to make great stuff.

Extremely well said.

For the record, I have been editing since 1985. That's right, 1985, which means 1 inch machines, CMX and U-Matic. If you count audio tape, I have been editing since 1977 when I worked in a recording studio. I have used all the major NLEs and some not so major. I got my first Apple computer in 1982. When FCPX came out, I dove in. I don't care about Apple's PR. I wanted to see what they were up to. I have made 100s of thousands of dollars editing on FCPX since then, and am pretty sure no matter what anyone on this thread says, I am a very fast editor, and a good one. Hardly clueless.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

POST 1/3

A lot of work you are talking about: putting it on a timeline for later use, is what you do in the browser now. A lot of people used to make random timelines with stuff they wanted to use later. I notice that with FCPX, with all the organisation tools, you do a lot more work up front with favorites, and keywords, that are all searchable btw (on a normal timeline, it isn't!) and you find that 'piece' you were looking for.

You don't get it.
It's about intuitive, think-less digging of few shots from the cut and rearranging them. Not googling them inside your working desk right in front of your nose.
If I'd have to google a shot on my timeline I'd choose another profession.

Instead of making a timeline with the bits you want to use, you do all that stuff in the browser because you finally have the tools for it.

Yes, that's the approach based on the assumption that ideas and requests typically come as prioritized in Cupertino.

And if you want to try out stuff already, you could make compound clips or put stuff later in the timeline connected to a custom generator.
It's just a way of working, and I don't see FCPX any less capable here then another NLE.

Because this is completely redundant and analogous to using a pair of pliers to hold a pencil to be able to scratch your nose.

Again, compound clips are a great way of working with a group of clips. I do this a lot. Test something in a compound, adjust it, re-use it, put it wherever I want in a timeline, break it apart if I think it's better, etc. ...

Yes that sounds great until there are clients and you need to go back and make changes x100, which are interrelated to other people and applications, while meeting a deadline, and wanting to a have life outside the studio.

Besides, normal timeline could use this feature for practical pre-composing in circumstances when this is useful.

The thing is: when you talk about a tracked NLE, you say you can use the timeline in a ton of ways. But you have to be aware of the limitations.
FCPX is not different. You can have a lot of different ways of using the timeline, but you have to be aware of how it works.

I just wrote a bunch of factors which tons of folks including me are not willing to give up on,
because:

a) those factors have an important and useful purpose, not projected by an editor but used by an editor,
b) someone's creative whim motivated by desire to make more money is nowhere near a decisive factor to choose a professional tool.

In FCP 7 tagging is unnecessary? You had just a couple of labels to put on clips. That was it. I had to put them in one folder.

Yes it is unecessary unless you are doing a large project with huge database.
Because a video editor should posses at least some level of visual faculties if working with visual content.

You don't have to put it in one folder, it can be anywhere and you can recconect and find original location whenever if needed. Besides folders, your benefit is having independent bins where you can group things by your choice and perceive the clips thorugh thumbnails immediately.
If you are doing a large project which has a clapper on a first frame you probably have a person in charge of handling clips, which should give you information what is where or just tag/label them themself.

If you want to work with folders in FCPX it's ALMOST the same. You make a hierarchy of folders, and put in keyword collections in it. Bam.

Yes, it's almost the same minus having to review the clips, making a hierarchy of folders and putting keyword collections in them.
Then you review the clips again for trimming.

And if you are doing a music video, short film, TVC or a company promo for example, all the tagging and keywords are a complete waste of time because all those clips are usable only in one project.

Let me think....I think I'll just stick to using visual and not Excell type of approach and don't care what someone paid to sell stuff says.

In those keyword collections you have your clips like you would have in a folder. You can even have FCPX make it automatically when you drag in folders (it has some differences though, a keyword collection cannot be IN another keyword collection, so you have to resort to folders).
If we are talking about the brain remembering an image more then typing, you should love FCPX. With all the thumbnails, the updating of thumbnails, the skimming you all have. It's much more visual then FCP 7.

It's much more visual within your chosen scope of focus, minus everything I previously wrote about the benefits of a normal timeline.

A good friend/collegua of mine is editing his long feature documentary on X. A good example of why keyword work so much better. He's making a documentary about a village, troughout the seasons, with all it's inhabitants. Let's say he makes a timelapse. With bins, he would have to CHOOSE to put that timelapse in a folder Timelapses... Or the shooting day (and remember that if he searches for a timelapse, he should remember on which day he shot it). Or he should put it in a folder WINTER... With FCPX it can live in all of those things at the same time.
You don't HAVE to use this, but you can, and once you do, it's so liberating. He follows a lot of farmers. Let's say he makes a winter timelapse of a landscape of the guys garden. (and he also makes them in the summer etc.). Now he can connect that clip with a keyword collection of THAT person... of a keyword collection WINTER, and with a keyword collection TIMELAPSES. He can much easily go and find the shot based on CONTENT. What does it CONTAIN, and not only: where did I put the file on the drive?
And if he wants THAT shot... he makes a smart collection that needs to filter on all the parameters of timelapse, winter and that person. No digging, missing, trying another folder.

That sounds great.

If he had organized clips in the folder of the drive he could find them easier regardless of the editor used. Btw you are forgetting that tagging each shots requires reviewing them, typing and checking. x1000.
You are also forgetting that this has nothing to do with messed up UI.

I don't get your argument that a customisable timeline is one where you can avoid clip collission by clearing out the timeline. Customisable means you have a choice. You NEED to clear out the timeline if you want to avoid a clip collission. That's not customisable, that's one way that you need to do something, and the program FORCES you to do it, otherwise you cannot extend your clip.

Yes it forces you for a reason. Because you might mess up something else. And if the algorithm does it for you you have to count in the algorithm factor.
While you could just learn to use the normal editor and craft your skills which are very useful outside of that tool as well, and not ever have to depend on that.

Open more tracks on the timeline... You get a lot of wasted tracks, a lot of wasted space on other tracks. If you have one clip with 8 tracks, and 20 clips with only 2 tracks, suddenly you needed to make an 8 track timeline just to be able to put that one clip with all it's tracks in there. (not speaking about extra sound effects etc). That's not 'freedom to edit'. You NEED to do that.

Yes, ask audio post guys why you NEED to do that.

Not Apple PR.

In FCPX, I can put the clip and not worry about the amount of tracks.

Until you meet the audio post guy.

Even if you don't LIKE editing in FCPX, you have to agree that your example doesn't sound like more freedom?
Your argumentation: then you learn and don't miss later, doesn't go completely. In FCPX: if you make that mistake, it takes you one click to get stuff back. In FCP7 you need to do match frame, patch your tracks, replace again.

I have no idea what you are talking about or where the problem seems to be.
Undo feature has been here for a while.

Another reason why the argument doesn't hold true always: you say: you learn it once and don't make the misstake anymore. But in one clip you can have relevant dialogue on channel 1, in another you can have 4 channels of audio, in another 2. Of course you can make the same misstake. The only way not to make that misstake, is to
1. OR Patch tracks carefully PER CLIP you put in a timeline. This slows you down immediately, because you have to work within the limitations of tracks FIRST, before you can follow your creative decision to JUST PUT THE CLIP THERE and see how it works in your story. In FCPX you can do this with very low risk and very quick.
2. OR use all tracks of every clip. Resulting in a lot of wasted space, vertically, a lot of track tetris, a lot of possible misstakes in dissorganisation.

You are explaining one audio feature which you find useful and which has no relation whatsover to what I was saying.

Your creative decision has to be made within factors which work in the whole production chain. Not just for you.
Unless you do stuff only for yourself and have no interaction with the production team.

 

[Scot Yount]

In the case of sound, that's where I'm still trying to figure things out. Having worked a particular way with sound editing in track based editors, including Pro Tools I'm looking for the best ways to approach sound editing and design in FCPX. Once again, I have to keep an open mind about it because years of working the same way are hard to put aside.

Steve,
Curious to hear your specific questions about sound.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Sound design has no place in any video editor. Not even close.

As far as sound editing goes, if you are doing the edit, after you do the rough edit I suggest exporting the sound files for a proper Protools/Nuendo work.
They have to be checked more thoroughly and if necessary alligned more precisely. Also, they have to be separated for a proper mix.

I agree that sound design/editing is better and easier in tool that is made for that purpose. I am far faster in Pro Tools than I am in an NLE. However, saying there is no place for it is too extreme. Some of the greatest editors of all time, including Walter Murch do sound editing and design inside the NLE. Of course, it is later refined in the proper tool but the creative process is perfectly fine in the NLE. I spent the first 8 years of my career doing sound editing in the video editor.

The danger of stating absolutes is that it assumes everyone works the same way, thinks the same way and as we know that's not the case.

So, the goal of this thread is to explore how people are using FCP X, what might be improved, what is missing, etc. Like the Mac vs PC argument, people will be passionate about the tools they use. And quite honestly, I don't expect everyone to be convinced FCPX is a great NLE. That's not my goal.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Steve,
Curious to hear your specific questions about sound.

Mostly, it's approach. I am used to having tracks laid out in a specific way and I need to see if FCPX will allow me to work the way I am used to or if I will need to work in a new way (which could be better). On the doc I worked with a prepared track and then some additional nat sound from stuff we cut in, but I haven't done anything yet with tons of sound elements. I have used X2Pro to export to sound mixer and it worked fine but again limited tracks.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Speaking of sound I recently picked up Logic Pro X, having seen demos of the round trip working; audio sorted and named by roles... So far I am not terribly impressed.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I agree that sound design/editing is better and easier in tool that is made for that purpose. I am far faster in Pro Tools than I am in an NLE. However, saying there is no place for it is too extreme. Some of the greatest editors of all time, including Walter Murch do sound editing and design inside the NLE. Of course, it is later refined in the proper tool but the creative process is perfectly fine in the NLE. I spent the first 8 years of my career doing sound editing in the video editor.

The danger of stating absolutes is that it assumes everyone works the same way, thinks the same way and as we know that's not the case.

I wrote that sound design has no place in video editor.

Because video editing tools in general are not designed for that purpose and very limited for sound design.

Editing is something else and basic editing can be done and in some circumstances is even more practical, but the audio material should be sent afterwards to a proper audio platform for re-checking, re-editing if necessary and final mix.

So, the goal of this thread is to explore how people are using FCP X, what might be improved, what is missing, etc. Like the Mac vs PC argument, people will be passionate about the tools they use. And quite honestly, I don't expect everyone to be convinced FCPX is a great NLE. That's not my goal.

I'm using my spare time between two video edit projects in the first shift and a feature sound post in the second, to stress what is missing in this glorified "Pro" tool and is a serious drawback for many. Not just me. Not pulled out of thin air or someone's public recital.
So it can be improved. And more powerful for many. And it's getting a Kool Aid parade here by some.

 

[Ces Peynetti]

You can achieve a professional grade edit in all NLE's. FCPX brought new ideas to the table. Some are good, some are bad, some are ugly. Some people will feel the good outshines the bad and the ugly, others will choose to stick to what they like and know because in their preference, they feel like the bad outshines the good, and there are those that will just look at the ugly and not even give it a try with an open mind.

I've personally been using FCPX for about 95% of the projects I've done in the past few years. I still like Premiere. I still like Avid. The one I just can't use anymore is FCP7, but there are those who are hanging in there (I even know a couple of guys that are die hard Vegas fans), and that's all good. No need for me to argue why my favorite one is better than the other, all I can share is what I like about it and maybe that will encourage others to take a look at it, I'm just not a fan when people just shut down things because it doesn't adhere to their workflow or preferences, like the Mac vs PC debate. They are tools, and some will think you are silly for using the tool you find less useful, while they think you are silly for the same reason.

I know that for me there have been projects with insane deadlines that I know for a fact I wouldn't have been able too meet if I had chosen Avid or Premiere, but was barely able to pull it through with FCPX, so points to FCPX. There are times where I'm working on FCPX and I wish I could use a feature from Premiere or Avid. The best I can do is try to envision what the project will be like before I start and choose the tool that will serve me, or me and my collaborators best throughout the process.

I will tell you this though, I've noticed that people brand new to editing pick up decent editing skills in FCPX much faster than in Premiere or Avid (specially younger people) and then are able to jump to other NLE's with much less of a challenge. Not sure if it's been a curious coincidence so far, or if there is something to say about that, but that has been my experience so far with people I've taught how to use these programs.

 

[D Fuller]

Apple fundamentally likes to make islands. Both FCPX and the nMP are indicative of that. I believe it's fundamental to the Apple culture. Their own ecosystem is brilliant in its own way, but it does not play so well with others. If you understand that, then FCPX makes more sense. And if you choose to or need to work with a lot of other disciplines to get your work done, that will affect your choice of platforms.

The fact that Apple has left most of the development of interchange functions to others is interesting and, IMO, indicative of its priority to them. It's kind of an, "OK if you need to do that, knock yourself out, but we don't want any part of that messy business." stance. I think FCPX might be the best one-stop editing solution out there, but not the best collaborative solution.

Similarly, the nMacPro is a brilliant machine in its own right. I love mine. But it's been an abject failure at creating a vibrant ecosystem around itself. For example, it's two years on the market, and not one manufacturer has made a new GPU for its "interchangeable" GPU slots. Sure, there some thunderbolt devices that fill some of the gaps, but with the exception of big RAIDS that would be faster using other technologies, most of the thunderbolt devices are better matches in many ways for a MacBook ecosystem.

IMO.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

"It's about intuitive, think-less digging of few shots from the cut and rearranging them."

I get this, but...

Intuition comes from learning and familiarity. If you have been using your old NLE for several years, yes, you are more intuitive in using its capabilities. But, that doesn't mean it is, and will always be, a better tool. If one decides to develop new intuition by studying and learning and practicing (yes, it requires an investment of time) then your paradigm can shift and your "intuition" can, too.

If the reference to "intuition" is having absorbed all of the material by spending many hours reviewing, sorting and organizing it, then I'd argue that FCPX saves you from the extraneous and time consuming work of doing these things and gives you better tools to do this process in a shorter time. If reviewing footage is what you want to do, then spend the time to do that directly (and FCPX accommodates that quite well), not in the context of doing other work that may not be as productive, or, under certain conditions, even necessary, and can be time consuming

IMO, this argument is akin to the tired "I use this tool because I have always used this tool and so I am better at using this tool." That will always be true if you don't try using new tools. Nothing wrong with that. But it is NOT an argument as to why a new tool is not as good (or, maybe even "better").

Nostrum how the ability to go faster is a bad thing... doesn't mean you have to rush, just that you can focus your time where it does the most good. Michael Cioni refers to it as "cost per pixel." Sam Mestman says you get to spend more time being creative because you are spending less time on the tedious tasks of setting up the edit.

A couple of my "goods" -
- Database driven structure which allows for more powerful organization of material
- Built on AV Foundation (getting away from QT)
- Good integration with the OS and the hardware - because Apple controls the whole ecosystem, possibilities of glitches are less and potential for more overall power within the app rises
- Plug-in architecture that allows for 3rd parties to add powerful capabilities right into the same interface; no need for "round tripping"
- Auditions
- Roles

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Intuition comes from learning and familiarity.

No. The other way around.
Learning comes based on intuition.

Part of it. The other part from reason.
Intuition is separate from reason.

If you have been using your old NLE for several years, yes, you are more intuitive in using its capabilities.

You are talking about "muscle memory".

The expression "doing something intuitively" is often generalised with "learning something until being able to do it without thinking" which is why this interpretation. It is important to make a distinction.

You feel that grabbing papers on your desk is natural. There is no rational thinking. It simply flows across the desk. Moving them only in a row someone told you to is not an automatic action or intuitive. You adapt and develop muscle memory based on an externally made condition to move them only in that way. Against the intuitive part which draws to using the whole desk surface.

But, that doesn't mean it is, and will always be, a better tool.

"Better" is a very relative term, dependent to individual priorities. If a tool caters a craft dependent on various creative approaches it can only be "better" in broader sense if it finds the optimal balance in satisfying those approaches. Completely removing a huge part of them by redefining the basic parameters is nowhere near that balance.

In order to avoid needless polarization and either/or reasoning, instead of focusing in "that vs. this tool" it is much more productive to perceive specific functionalities which many find essential and missing here, and which can be implemented in this tool as well further improving it.

If one decides to develop new intuition by studying and learning and practicing

There is no "new intuition".

There is one intuition. You are confusing rational knowledge and trained actions with intuition.

Intuition:


Intuition,*a phenomenon of the*mind, describes the ability to acquire knowledge without*inference*or the use of*reason.[2]The word "intuition" comes from Latin verbintueri*translated as*consider*or from*late middle English*word*intuit, "to contemplate".[3]*Intuition is often interpreted with varied meaning from intuition being glimpses of greater knowledge[4]*to only a function of*mind; however, processes by which and why they happen typically remain mostly unknown to the thinker, as opposed to the view ofrational thinking.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition

FCPX saves you from the extraneous and time consuming work of doing these things and gives you better tools to do this process in a shorter time. If reviewing footage is what you want to do, then spend the time to do that directly (and FCPX accommodates that quite well), not in the context of doing other work that may not be as productive, or, under certain conditions, even necessary, and can be time consuming

Yes, obviously FCPx improves certain aspects. With sacrifices mentioned previously. It does not have to be like this and it can be much better by fusing advantages and very essentials of non-linear editing.

IMO, this argument is akin to the tired "I use this tool because I have always used this tool and so I am better at using this tool."

The interpretation is understandable but incorrect. It only seems that way, additionally fueled by PR BS.

Rest assured, if someone has directors, producers, agencies, artists, labels, broadcasters etc with needs, undefined requests, sudden ideas, deadlines, last minute changes, with unexpected issues whether from production, received material, computer, bugs or whatever....one is "re-wiring one's brain" daily multiple times to a level of being too tired to talk at the end of the day, so doing the same thing in order to adapt to a new tool - to gain some workflow advantage is really not that big of an issue.

Also, rest assured that if something makes one's life easier and more productive it can be grasped by those who's job relies on ability to adapt constantly.

Corporate sales BS will aim to convince you those folks actually don't know although been through practical scenarios countless of times and that the problem is in them if they don't bend as the corporative wind blows. Because of course the seller knows better, and those "old fashioned folks" get paid and trusted by their clients for lacking comprehension and being too stubborn to learn new things. Does this really seem logical to you ?

A couple of my "goods" -
- Database driven structure which allows for more powerful organization of material
- Built on AV Foundation (getting away from QT)
- Good integration with the OS and the hardware - because Apple controls the whole ecosystem, possibilities of glitches are less and potential for more overall power within the app rises
- Plug-in architecture that allows for 3rd parties to add powerful capabilities right into the same interface; no need for "round tripping"
- Auditions
- Roles

Which would be great if that didn't come in the package with messing up important functionalities.

 

[Scott Crawley]

:jacked:

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Frankly, I think your whole discussion of "intuition" is pure BS. You talk as if people are born with "intuition" that is applicable to mechanical activities. If you are making "intuition"so ethereal that it has nothing to do with what is learned or otherwise gleaned from life's experience, then you are simply disconnected from any reason.

Here is another definition of "intuition" - "the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning." I am saying that, once one learns a new system and a new way of thinking within that system, one develops new intuition - yes, the ability to understand, and act on that understanding, without any need for conscious decision. The simple idea that Premier, Avid, (insert NLE of choice here) are inherently "intuitive" while another isn't is, well, pure crap.

I get it, you don't like FCPX. But, your pseudo-phlisophic meanderings are nothing more than a verbose way of saying that you are right while everyone who likes and appreciates working with it is wrong.

So, your mind isn't changed. Surprise. Nor is mine. Another surprise.

Steve, good luck with this thread.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I won't consider it thread jacked as long as we start providing specific examples. A lot of what Hrvoje is saying is opinion and I don't object to it but I think the most helpful thing would be examples. Show how something is done in another NLE that is superior to FCPX. For example there are videos floating around out there that compare dynamic trimming in Avid to trimming in FCPX. It's a good food for thought type of example. Going back and forth with lots of words is probably not as helpful to people as seeing these things in action. Another example would be compound clips vs collapsed in Avid vs nesting in FCP7. Reviewing and Selecting footage would be another.

 

[Kalechi Noel]

So clearly this guy seems to think everyone else who does not agree with him are idiots and have never edited before... smh
Why he seems to think his essay responses are going make anyone uninstall fcpx off their system is beyond me.


Coincidently, i'll take this time to do a Plug! If anyone is in the New York, Long Island area this Monday, i'll be teaching another FREE FCPX workshop at the studio. DM for details.

Topics covered:


Keywording, Metadata
Synchronizing external Audio with .r3d
Editing FASTER THAN EVERY BEFORE.
Color correction (color finale)
Using motion to modify built-in effects and 3rd party plugins giving complete control over all your effects

Our studio has completely converted all our freelance editors to fcpx. We do commercials, shorts, and countless music videos. Overtime as I do these workshops and people actually give it a try, they all end up buying FCPX and it becomes their NLE of choice. Go figure...

 

[Scott Crawley]

Quid Pro Quo

Earn your plug and tease your class at the same time. Give at least two real world examples of things that attendees of your classes cite as reasons for adopting X. Please.

Or to be more fair; an X feature they get an AHA moment from your class, and a feature they would just as well do without.

So clearly this guy seems to think everyone else who does not agree with him are idiots and have never edited before... smh
Why he seems to think his essay responses are going make anyone uninstall fcpx off their system is beyond me.


Coincidently, i'll take this time to do a Plug! If anyone is in the New York, Long Island area this Monday, i'll be teaching another FREE FCPX workshop at the studio. DM for details.

Topics covered:


Keywording, Metadata
Synchronizing external Audio with .r3d
Editing FASTER THAN EVERY BEFORE.
Color correction (color finale)
Using motion to modify built-in effects and 3rd party plugins giving complete control over all your effects

Our studio has completely converted all our freelance editors to fcpx. We do commercials, shorts, and countless music videos. Overtime as I do these workshops and people actually give it a try, they all end up buying FCPX and it becomes their NLE of choice. Go figure...

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I won't consider it thread jacked as long as we start providing specific examples. A lot of what Hrvoje is saying is opinion and I don't object to it but I think the most helpful thing would be examples.

Examples have been mentioned, factors have been mentioned, principles have been mentioned, context has been mentioned, so based on responses, logical conclusion is that further watering down everything and attempting to push it where it meets the wall, in the middle of a fanatic parade, would be a waste or energy.

Most of the stuff I mentioned does not even require mentioning to many.
Apparently here is like talking Swahili and leads to high-school level defensive and offensive reactions.

This route does not lead to improvement, just to self-comforting petting on the back, denial and propagation of corporate BS designed reality bubble.

I suggest renaming this thread, the title is misleading.

Lesson learned.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Examples have been mentioned, factors have been mentioned, principles have been mentioned, context has been mentioned, so based on responses, further watering down everything and pushing it through banannas stuck in the ears, in the middle of a fanatic parade would be a waste or energy.

All of the stuff I mentioned does not need even mentioning to many.
Apparently here is like talking Swahili and leads to high-school level reactions.

I suggest renaming this thread, the title is misleading.

Lesson learned.

You have made valid points, but there comes a point where opinions being stated as facts don't necessarily help. And not quite sure why I would need to change the title of my own thread.

I suggest having more patience with people who see things a different way, even if you believe their points of view are wrong. Humble pie always tastes best.

 

[Oliver Peters]

Steve,

Since you haven't received any useful audio info, let me recommend this. Do your audio in Pro Tools, if you have access to it. Make sure you properly assignned audio roles to the audio channels in your timeline. Use X2Pro to create an AAF for PT. You should them be set.

- Oliver

 

[Alex Doctor]

I switch between multiple platforms based on my project. But I have to say X is the easiest to cut a first draft. I just wish they could enable traditional AB at any point & with or without magnetic abilities that would be amazing, the ability to do a super quick cut and then go back and refine in a traditional sense would rock my world. (FYI I've been editing for 15 years, not as long as others but long enough).

My second request would be that instead of curved edges on the footage within the project that they make it right angles. Is the slightest of changes, but to me symbolises a definitive cut. I understand that the curved edge looks sexier to a non-editor, but it doesn't look/feel as precise to me.