![final cut pro x 10.3.4 timeline bug final cut pro x 10.3.4 timeline bug](https://images.macrumors.com/t/JceuWN6z8CqlFDeVJjN7FzIWzY0=/400x400/smart/article-new/2020/08/final-cut-pro-x-10-4-9.jpg)
![final cut pro x 10.3.4 timeline bug final cut pro x 10.3.4 timeline bug](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rsUFW.jpg)
I am helping a friend finish a project, inheriting their timeline and MacBook Pro (Retina 13-inch, Early 2015) that it was assembled with (using FCPX 10.3.4). In fact, I started when editing meant flatbeds and splicing blocks, progressed through low and high-end linear video editing, and started with NLEs in 1990 with Montage (anybody remember those 17 betamax decks?). My first choice is always FCPX, without hesitation.I am a noob to FCPX, but not to the business. When I start a project, however, the only reason I might use Premiere or FCP7 is if the client needs it. Personally, I have both Premiere and FCPX on my main computer, also have FCP7 available on another machine, and I consider myself proficient on all of them.
![final cut pro x 10.3.4 timeline bug final cut pro x 10.3.4 timeline bug](https://scr3.golem.de/screenshots/1610/Final-Cut-Pro-X/thumb620/screen1600x1000-1.jpeg)
I'm convinced that almost any editing task can be done quicker and easier on FCPX than the others, but it's a major change and requires a lot of re-learning for an editor to master. That does not mean, however, that it can't have better and more efficient workflow. It does not fit well with industry-standard workflows. Unlike Avid and Premiere, however, it is optimized for a single editor and not a collaborative environment. Now in version 10.3.4, FPCX is very deep, faster than anything else, and at least as capable. With FCPX Apple tried to design a better editing paradigm and I think they succeeded, but unfortunately they introduced it to the market before it was ready. Now I prefer FCPX, mostly because it applies available technology to the process better than the others. I've worked professionally as an editor for many years, and have used Avid, Premiere and FCP almost from version 1. I hate that FCPXs reputation is so bad, but I'm finding that the people who think it's bad have never actually used it and only know about details from its terrible launch.Ībsolutely. The XML transfers between FCPX and Resolve have been flawless for me so far with no information being lost and everything lining back up when I bring it back into FCPX. But Resolve is free, so I just roundtrip since Resolve is fantastic. When it comes to color, FCPXs tool is decent for primaries, but they hugely limit themselves in secondaries since you can't apply a custom shape mask to a secondary correction (just an ellipse or a rectangle). There are still some things FCPX sucks at, like you can't put an ease in/out on keyframed scale movements (key framing in general could be better), but you can overcome that by using the Ken Burns tool and some clever thinking. I see a lot of people here mentioning Premiere is great because of Dynamic Link with After Effects, but I often found it was actually costing me time since it would lead to more rendering time within Premiere rather than outputting a file once out of After Effects and slapping it on the timeline.
![final cut pro x 10.3.4 timeline bug final cut pro x 10.3.4 timeline bug](https://i1.wp.com/9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2015/05/whatis_editing_hero_2x.png)
Magnetic timeline, while frustrating as shit at first, is an absolute massive time saver once you get the hang of it. Keywords are a far faster way to organize footage than bins. I find FCPX to generally just be better and more efficient in every way, especially with the introduction of audio lanes. I freelance and had been switching between Premiere and FCPX between the couple of clients I have, but I recently reintroduced FCPX to the Premiere client and got him to switch his workflow over after a few weeks.