Out now: FCP X 10.3

[Axel]

15 minutes ago, jax_rox said:

 Even things like scrubbing are slightly more annoying than in other editors.

Don't get this one. Since they came with clip skimming, I thought: this is really it. As good as it gets. Explain.

Tried scrolling timeline with FCP Hacks? On every FCP X wishlist. Skim and scroll and vomit on your keyboard. There are reasons why some features have never been published.

15 minutes ago, jax_rox said:

These are all things that are easy in other editors... Use what works for you though - there's plusses and minuses to any system. I can see why FCPX is popular amongst certain editors - it fits certain types of work and jobs better than others. For the right job, it's very very good. For the wrong job, it's annoying as all hell.

The right jobs would be those with a close deadline or those you don't want to spend too much time for. Like in I don't want it perfect, I want it good, and I want it monday.

[jax_rox]

40 minutes ago, Axel said:

Don't get this one.

I mean just scrubbing in the... what do FCPX call it? Event viewer? What would be a bin in Avid. But fine scrubbing across the board is harder.

40 minutes ago, Axel said:

The right jobs would be those with a close deadline or those you don't want to spend too much time for. Like in I don't want it perfect, I want it good, and I want it monday.

Yeah - although that's not a great selling point for a piece of software, is it? :-P FCPX: 'For when good enough is good enough'.

[Antonis]

I have to say that I noticed that a lot of Youtubers have been switching to FCPX as well, thanks to it's overall speed and workflow. (MKDHD (using RED Weapon), Jonathan Morrison (using FS7)).
It's just a more optimised bit of software compared to Premiere and I love it for that.
Also, if you where to pixel peep, the H.264 exports on FCPX definitely look better than Premiere's. So it's superior there as well.

If only it would offer support for H.265 file editing.

[Axel]

22 hours ago, jax_rox said:

Even things like scrubbing are slightly more annoying than in other editors.

 

22 hours ago, Axel said:

Explain.

 

21 hours ago, jax_rox said:

I mean just scrubbing in the... what do FCPX call it? Event viewer? What would be a bin in Avid. But fine scrubbing across the board is harder.

You must have been using it wrongly or working on a much too slow machine to say that. In 10.0.1, the demo version just crashed once you used the skimmer. I seriously considered Adobe CS then, who lowered their price to fantastic 1000 € for the converts. Saw someone cut with 10.0.6 a year later on a set and gave FCP X another try by buying it for 279 €, once and for all. (That it was stable enough by then and) The skimmer convinced me. If by across the board you mean searching horizontally, vertically and diagonally in list view or thumbnail view: YES! That worked flawlessly.

What is the skimmer? It's a content-sensitive tool that makes the mouse-pointer/cursor a very fast playhead that scratches clips (means over a clip the mouse becomes the skimmer and a thumbnail in the browser becomes a miniature timeline) by gestures alone - no need to click or drag. And in the timeline, as mentioned, you can toggle it so it solo-plays video and audio clips when you hover above them directly. This is as close to actual mind-reading as one can imagine in 2016. 

It allows you to find things very quickly. If combined with the minimal sorting options in the browser every adult NLE provides (date of recording, clip name, duration, ascending, descending, this kind of "metadata") you can find every shot within seconds, just from visual or aural memory. And without clicking.

Enter the advocatus diaboli. In his book In The Blink Of An Eye Walter Murch criticizes scrubbing with the playhead or hitting "LL". Because you didn't see every frame anymore. Fast forward on a Steenbeck or Moviola was different. He said, a cutter could subconsciously remember frames he saw at double speed, but the NLEs (by this he referred to the AVID of course) would just skip them.

And the skimmer is a mighty skipper. But that only matters if you are not aware of the downsides. Because you can revert to an ordinary playhead that displays real time ("s" is the command to kill the skimmer). Or you can just skim less hectically. Many FCP X users toggle off skimming for fine scrubbing in the timeline (whereas they use it's speed to search for things in the browser). 

22 hours ago, Axel said:

The right jobs would be those with a close deadline or those you don't want to spend too much time for. Like in I don't want it perfect, I want it good, and I want it monday.

 

21 hours ago, jax_rox said:

 

Yeah - although that's not a great selling point for a piece of software, is it? :-P FCPX: 'For when good enough is good enough'.

Arguably, it is. 

FCP X is the first editing software to structure narrational content. Whereas still being an NLE by definition, the hierarchy of the straightforward story (magnetic and favoring append-at-end) and child-clips connected to it for a reason causes the editor to think in linear sequences. This speeds up the process tremendously. Other NLEs have fully independent tracks, there is no way to tell clips how they relate to each other (you can't understand the second part of the sentence if you only know an 'open timeline').

So, as long as time is money, as long as I have to edit for a living, as long as clients don't pay for fiddling around with clips, there is no question that FCP X is superior.

Finally, let me quote Nick (page 1):

Quote

Sure, FCPX does make it easier to be lazy with an edit, but why should that be an argument against it? Isn't that an effect of any new technology? Certainly the same arguments were made when Media Composer.

They were. 

The argument back then was that the non-destructive, non-linear nature of it made the editor lazy. He could cheat, just repair something that didn't work instead of questioning the whole thing.

The same was said of Word. If you just delete a passage of a novel and write two or three new sentences, the whole book in the end will be a patchwork. True.

And anyway, even earlier, when there were physical film strips to actually cut and splice (and never tracks btw, A/B editing never had independent clips!) in linear sequences, editors never thought of them as linear. Spielberg: "Stories don't have a middle or an end any more. They usually have a beginning that never stops beginning."

We should become aware of that. Never go for the first that comes along.

[Django]

On 3 Nov 2016 at 10:21 AM, Axel said:

 

 

FCP X is the first editing software to structure narrational content. Whereas still being an NLE by definition, the hierarchy of the straightforward story (magnetic and favoring append-at-end) and child-clips connected to it for a reason causes the editor to think in linear sequences. This speeds up the process tremendously. Other NLEs have fully independent tracks, there is no way to tell clips how they relate to each other (you can't understand the second part of the sentence if you only know an 'open timeline').

So, as long as time is money, as long as I have to edit for a living, as long as clients don't pay for fiddling around with clips, there is no question that FCP X is superior.

 

Funny.. this is exactly the biggest gripe i have with FCPX.. the linear magnetic time line. I much prefer independent video tracks especially for non-narrative stuff (i.e. music videos / edgy commercials). I guess it depends how your brain works. I know I also hate linear sequencing on audio software. Personal preference I guess. Ironically the big feature in this FCP update is independent audio tracks. I just wish they opened up that option to video tracks. As it is I'm seriously considering switching to Premiere for this alone.. Maybe my skills are to blame though to be honest (only been editing for few months) but I just can't seem to achieve the super fast jump cuts and other clip intensive effects that the guys i hire seem to effortlessly do inside Premiere..

[Bioskop.Inc]

This whole debate is so funny & it's mind bogling that we are still here talking about it.

Back in the day, when FCP7 existed, no one would touch Premiere with a barge pole since it was a pale bad imitation of FCP/Avid (in fact I didn't know Adobe had an NLE & I was working for a big media company) - the 2 main editing NLEs were FCP or Avid (Avid was used for the big money projects).

FCP gets re-worked, for the better (so much faster to edit than Avid/FCP7/Premiere) & suddenly Premiere is a great editing NLE - NO IT IS NOT! The only reason small companies jumped ship was because they could now (or should that be, had to) RENT the whole Adobe suite & lets face it the only 2 things worth using are After Effects & Photoshop - Premiere is there, so people use it & not because it somehow suddenly became this great editing platform.

Personally, if you can't edit in FCPX then you've got serious problems & the magnetic timeline arguement is a non-arguement (it's brought up by people who've never used FCPX for more than a few minutes). The only complaint I have is the need for 3rd party plug-ins, but if you've got the time you can make your own in Motion (and they tend to be better) - & no one is mentioning how great the new Motion is!

[Axel]

9 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

 If you can't edit in FCPX then you've got serious problems ...

Indeed.

[Davey]

14 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

This whole debate is so funny & it's mind bogling that we are still here talking about it.

Back in the day, when FCP7 existed, no one would touch Premiere with a barge pole since it was a pale bad imitation of FCP/Avid (in fact I didn't know Adobe had an NLE & I was working for a big media company) - the 2 main editing NLEs were FCP or Avid (Avid was used for the big money projects).

FCP gets re-worked, for the better (so much faster to edit than Avid/FCP7/Premiere) & suddenly Premiere is a great editing NLE - NO IT IS NOT! The only reason small companies jumped ship was because they could now (or should that be, had to) RENT the whole Adobe suite & lets face it the only 2 things worth using are After Effects & Photoshop - Premiere is there, so people use it & not because it somehow suddenly became this great editing platform.

Personally, if you can't edit in FCPX then you've got serious problems & the magnetic timeline arguement is a non-arguement (it's brought up by people who've never used FCPX for more than a few minutes). The only complaint I have is the need for 3rd party plug-ins, but if you've got the time you can make your own in Motion (and they tend to be better) - & no one is mentioning how great the new Motion is!

I hated the magnetic timeline when it first appeared but that is because I was used to doing things a certain way. After a few days I saw the sense in it and now consider it a timesaver.

[Django]

LoL.. I don't have any "serious problems" and I've used FCPX for more then a few minutes. However pro editor I am not. I hire people for paid projects.

I guess I shouldn't expect any seasoned FCPX users to understand my gripes with it (which aren't limited to the single row mag time line).

My experience is every software has it's pros/cons, and some people may gel with one or the other depending on workflow preferences.

Some of the statements I'm reading here sound very biased borderline fanboyish so I won't further expand much..

All i can say is it so happens all the pros I hire are using Premiere, and they are independent so I don't think the rental argument holds up (premiere for single users is a lot more expensive then FCPX - this is a clear disadvantage of CC). They do use After FX, but I think the main thing is sticking to what you're confortable with and perhaps that it's become the industry standard (from indeed FCP7/Avid a decade ago). I think FCPX "lost" the pro market when it was introduced because of the iMovie look. Logic on the audio side also lost a lot of pros when Apple took over from Emagic and streamlined it with GarageBand. They've done major efforts since with updates catching up missing pro features but the harm is done..  But anyways use whatever you want.. The "debate" is kinda silly indeed. 

[jax_rox]

On 11/3/2016 at 8:21 PM, Axel said:

This is as close to actual mind-reading as one can imagine in 2016. 

Surely you're being farcical 

On 11/3/2016 at 8:21 PM, Axel said:

What is the skimmer? It's a content-sensitive tool that makes the mouse-pointer/cursor a very fast playhead that scratches clips (means over a clip the mouse becomes the skimmer and a thumbnail in the browser becomes a miniature timeline) by gestures alone - no need to click or drag.

Which is great to get 'close enough' to the bits you want, but it makes it much more difficult to finesse by individual frames.

On 11/3/2016 at 8:21 PM, Axel said:

FCP X is the first editing software to structure narrational content. Whereas still being an NLE by definition, the hierarchy of the straightforward story (magnetic and favoring append-at-end) and child-clips connected to it for a reason causes the editor to think in linear sequences. This speeds up the process tremendously. Other NLEs have fully independent tracks, there is no way to tell clips how they relate to each other (you can't understand the second part of the sentence if you only know an 'open timeline').

You mean other than linking, grouping etc?

Again - as I said, it's overall perhaps easier to throw things together to get close to what you want. And that part is relatively quick/easy. But start trying to finetune and it gets real difficult. Want to fine-tune timings of transitions between clips that have forced themselves into a storyline? Have fun. Want to slide an audio track that is the main storyline over a few frames because it's slightly out of sync? Good luck. Want to trim a certain part of a clip, but keep the gap there to ensure sync is retained? Again, good luck.

On 11/3/2016 at 8:21 PM, Axel said:

So, as long as time is money, as long as I have to edit for a living, as long as clients don't pay for fiddling around with clips, there is no question that FCP X is superior.

 Except - again - when you want to fine tune your edit (which takes more time than other NLEs so potentially it cancels out the time saving of the assembly). Not to mention that it's costly and/or time consuming and/or simply impossible to get an OMF out of it to edit the audio appropriately. 

If clients aren't paying for 'fiddling around with clips' - I certainly find myself 'fiddling around' with clips in FCPX to get it to do what I want more than I would with say MC.

16 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Back in the day, when FCP7 existed, no one would touch Premiere with a barge pole since it was a pale bad imitation of FCP/Avid (in fact I didn't know Adobe had an NLE & I was working for a big media company) - the 2 main editing NLEs were FCP or Avid (Avid was used for the big money projects).

Which is why I moved to Avid  

Don't get me wrong - even Media Composer forced a different way of working to what I was used to with FCP7. But the way of working made infinitely more sense to me than FCPX, and I'm faster on it than FCPX.

FCPX is still a good editor - don't get me wrong, but I use FCPX for quick edits, stuff I don't want to spend too much time on (and I had to use it full time initially when I bought my A7s as it was the only software I had outside Resolve that read XAVC-S natively). When I want proper/full control, and care about making my edit the best it can be (and/or need to do a proper sound mix), I use MC.

34 minutes ago, Django said:

I think FCPX "lost" the pro market when it was introduced because of the iMovie look. 

FCPX lost the 'pro' market because Apple decided to go after a different customer base - its aimed at, and priced at a point where they've likely made more money on it in the past few years than they ever did with any previous versions of FCP/FCP Studio.

Most of the target demo (particularly YouTubers) probably don't care about pro features like OMF and TC (okay it has source TC now but didn't for a long time) and plenty of other things that the 'pro' (if you take pro to be the kind of market that used to be dominated by FCP7/Avid) user needs.

That doesn't make it a bad editor, and there are plenty of things to like about it.

But there are also major downsides that in some use cases can be hard to work around.

[Geoff CB]

People tend to forget the reason a lot of FCP7 users switched to Premiere around that time (including me).

It wasn't that people were scared of the new type of editing. It was the fact that on the day FCPX came out, Apple completely dropped support for FCP7, including not allowing new copies of the software to be sold, dropped multicam editing (If you do broadcast work, this was like saying the program didn't support editing) , and didn't allow existing Final Cut projects to be imported into it.

At the same time this happened, Adobe took advantage of a great opportunity. They halved the cost of Premiere for anyone switching ("Just use code "Switch" at checkout"), and allowed FCP7 projects to be imported in Premiere.

In one move, the industry changed.

[Axel]

On 3.11.2016 at 10:21 AM, Axel said:

This is as close to actual mind-reading as one can imagine in 2016.

 

4 hours ago, jax_rox said:

Surely you're being farcical 

No. Had the photographer who was hired by the travel agency sitting next to me. He had been asked to shoot some additional video with his DSLR for a change for their homepage. Shot 1400 clips, some GoPro too. Copied them to a USB drive in the hotel each morning - naked files without card structure. Said, "oh, that must have been Angkor Wat, belongs in the middle. There was a monk with a monkey somewhat later. That was cool. Only now I realize I should've made some notes perhaps." I said, "you mean this monk?"

That I defend the skimmer is no fanboy behavior. No chance to do that in Premiere, hover scrubber or not.

On 3.11.2016 at 10:21 AM, Axel said:

Other NLEs have fully independent tracks, there is no way to tell clips how they relate to each other (you can't understand the second part of the sentence if you only know an 'open timeline').

 

4 hours ago, jax_rox said:

You mean other than linking, grouping etc?

Not the same. These relations are arbitrary, there is no hierarchy. That's why this comment is misleading.

4 hours ago, jax_rox said:

Want to slide an audio track that is the main storyline over a few frames because it's slightly out of sync? Good luck.

When an audio clip IS the main storyline it's high time to think things over. 

4 hours ago, jax_rox said:

Want to trim a certain part of a clip, but keep the gap there to ensure sync is retained? Again, good luck.

Compare this to what you would do in Premiere. If it's paramount to keep clips at various points of the timeline in synch with clips on other tracks, you have to start the old Tetris routine. You have to manage the tracks, padlock them or create new ones to avoid collisions. No problem for an experienced editor, I know. Keeps you alert and stimulates your creativity, and I'm not being farcical now.. That's my point against FCP X, it is too easy.

5 hours ago, Django said:

But anyways use whatever you want.. The "debate" is kinda silly indeed. 

I don't think so. FCP X users can learn from Premiere users and vice versa. Narrow-mindedness doesn't help anybody.

[Bioskop.Inc]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not 100% happy with FCPX as there are loads of things missing/wrong with it. But for my use, it was cheap & better than the demo of Premiere, which I tried side-by-side with FCPX demo for a month.

The magnetic timeline isn't great & to begin with I was able to avoid it since i was editing anamorphic footage & had to create an anamorphic template (no custom timelines at the start) - so no magnetic timeline to deal with. I'm used to it now, but not really happy with it - sometimes I forget to replace a clip with a block of nothing & everything does the rumba.

It's the missing things from FCP7 that made me fume, but then again the price made me smile!

For professional projects it's Avid all the way, but in the end no one NLE is king - it's money & habit.

All do the job to an acceptable standard - go in peace.....

[Raafi Rivero]

Here's my story. I started interning at a post-production house in September 1999 and learned Avid Media Composer first. They eventually they hired me full-time and I learned Avid front-to-back. In film school I bought FCP (2 or 3) for personal projects. I stuck with it over the years and it got better and better. I became a diehard FCP guy. Never went back to Avid. Never left FCP7. I even cut a feature in 7 this year. Last year I spent a month on FCP X. It didn't stick. And this year, after another flirtation with Avid, and a separate flirtation with Resolve, I spent about three months in Premiere. Premiere has all the most important features from FCP7 that I needed to move on with my life. I can use it. It works.

About a week ago I download the FCP X 10.3 free trial. And... Wow. It takes some getting used to - the magnetic timeline concept is not something that feels "natural" to someone who's cut professionally for many years (commercials, features, industrials, etc.). My brain is wired to think in tracks and bins and everything like that. But FCP X is fast. Faster than premiere. Faster than anything. The amount of time from "I have an idea" to "I'm looking at that idea on a timeline" is the fastest of any app I've tried. I'm loving it.

It's missing a bunch of stuff from FCP7 that would help. Just a few knick-knacks and shortcuts that could make the process faster. But the trimming tools on the timeline, the speed and intuition that they add to the process. And, more importantly, the silly intermediate steps that have been subtracted? There's so much less friction to the edit.

As I start to get to the parts of the post process where I have to send out XML and move the project through external applications like mixing I can see some of the normal professional gripes. But as a creative tool? I think I'll be here for awhile.

[jax_rox]

16 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

It wasn't that people were scared of the new type of editing. It was the fact that on the day FCPX came out, Apple completely dropped support for FCP7, including not allowing new copies of the software to be sold, dropped multicam editing (If you do broadcast work, this was like saying the program didn't support editing) , and didn't allow existing Final Cut projects to be imported into it.

At the same time this happened, Adobe took advantage of a great opportunity. They halved the cost of Premiere for anyone switching ("Just use code "Switch" at checkout"), and allowed FCP7 projects to be imported in Premiere.

In one move, the industry changed.

Exactly. Not only that, it's not fair to compare FCPX's latest version with what it was day 1. There are plenty of features that have been implemented since it was released five years ago that have turned it into a viable piece of editing software for some people and some jobs. But there were (and still are) plenty of omissions that meant for a vast amount of users on FCP7, it was simply unusable.

Adobe's pricing, coupled with the fact that it was essentially FCP7 with an Adobe flair, meant that it was the logical choice for many people left without an editing home.

Avid also cut their prices for a while (and offered deals for FCP7 owners who wanted to come over), but they couldn't compete price-wise with Adobe, and they always were the more expensive option.

13 hours ago, Axel said:

Had the photographer who was hired by the travel agency sitting next to me. He had been asked to shoot some additional video with his DSLR for a change for their homepage. Shot 1400 clips, some GoPro too. Copied them to a USB drive in the hotel each morning - naked files without card structure. Said, "oh, that must have been Angkor Wat, belongs in the middle. There was a monk with a monkey somewhat later. That was cool. Only now I realize I should've made some notes perhaps." I said, "you mean this monk?"

Again - this is the exact point I'm making. For a photographer shooting video, or a YouTuber, or other sorts of applications - it is a very powerful and quick piece of software. 

But that's not everyone.

A photographer who shoots a bit of video doesn't care if he/she can send the Audio team an OMF, how it round trips from DaVinci, how it deals with source timecode, or whether or not they can share their timelines with assistant and other editors.

But some people need that stuff, and use it on a daily basis.

That's the thing - I have both FCPX and MC, and you have to put yourself into the FCPX mode of thinking when you use it, and accept that whilst it will be faster to do this thing, it will be much more time-consuming, or nigh on impossible to do that thing (even if that thing is very quick/easy to do in other NLEs).

13 hours ago, Axel said:

When an audio clip IS the main storyline it's high time to think things over. 

You mean when the audio is the first thing you drag in, as you want to cut to it, and it automatically becomes the main storyline, and you finish your edit, or are 1halfway through but want to adjust the audio track a little - you're saying the best thing to do is to start over and/or re-think your edit? Really?

[Oliver Daniel]

I think there's a widespread fundamental lack of understanding of how FCPX works, mostly by those who don't really use it, or have used it once, thought it was weird, and went to Adobe. 

I was an FCP7 user, and I updated to FCPX in 2011. I was stumped and had no idea what was going on. But I looked at the new features and thought, this has got to be good. So I spent time to learn it. 

I've not looked back since. The new design was faster, intuitive, responsive, organised and very well supported by third parties. 

I use FCPX for everything now - music videos, commercials, corporates, everything. 

The update to FCPX 10.3 is the definite version... going to Premiere does feel a little "ancient"... now I'm pulling my hair out wondering what all these tracks and stacks are doing, ironically. There's nothing wrong with that, this design floats some peoples boats. 

FCPX feels to me like a true progression from track based NLE's, and like with anything new or different, give it enough of a chance and you'll learn to love it. My opinion is that it's design and performance is now way ahead of Premiere - and this may become fact if more forgot about the past and embraced it, as it is now. 

[Axel]

17 hours ago, jax_rox said:

A photographer who shoots a bit of video doesn't care if he/she can send the Audio team an OMF, how it round trips from DaVinci, how it deals with source timecode, or whether or not they can share their timelines with assistant and other editors.

But some people need that stuff, and use it on a daily basis.

No, it's not for everybody. If you work together with other pros it makes much less sense I guess. Just let me say that I find roundtripping to and from Resolve very reliable so far. For OMF export, you'd need a plugin, afaik there are a few, one of them from well-known Automatic Duck. As far as I am concerned, I never loved Premiere, but I am an AAE subscriber. I precompose 'layers' in FCP X as compound clips from my project-timeline and conform the XMLs with XtoCC. I know it's no dynamic link, but again: reliable.

With more complex post, the time you spend to shove clips back and forth probably matters less. 

Who is a professional anyway? 

On 7.11.2016 at 4:06 PM, Axel said:

When an audio clip IS the main storyline it's high time to think things over. 

17 hours ago, jax_rox said:

You mean when the audio is the first thing you drag in, as you want to cut to it, and it automatically becomes the main storyline, and you finish your edit, or are 1halfway through but want to adjust the audio track a little - you're saying the best thing to do is to start over and/or re-think your edit? Really?

 

You start by connecting the audio clip with "q", not "e". It gets connected to a black gap placeholder clip the length of your audio. You never use "e" in such a project. 

"b" - if you want to cut to the beat (which I don't, I cut to the rhythm), you can chop the gap in pieces, select one piece with "x" and 3-point-overwrite it with "d" or "shift + d" (backwards)

"d" - to overwrite the gap clip at the position of the playhead 

"q" - to move clips freely above the solidly-synched primary storyline, the way you would tracks allow to staple above the locked audio track

"alt + cmd + down" to finally move a connected clip to the main storyline, lock it ("alt + command + up" if it needs to be free again)

Of course you can trim clips without moving the rest out of synch. You just have to find the find the right tools for a given task. This example shows four things:

1. depending on the project, the actual editing in the timeline can be quite similar to that of track-based NLEs.

2. using the primary storyline as a dummy clip easily gives you back the open timeline experience. Start with a gap, hit "ctrl + d" and make it ten minutes long. Then there IS no story. 

3. More often than not, having that linear "track one" is a big timesaver. And it doesn't need to make you lazy, as long as you are aware of the formal simplification it implies. 

4. Many comments on how FCP X performs poorer than Premiere for a certain job (i.e. music clips) show how little experience people have with the tools and that they don't plan their projects in advance.

[Ivanhurba]

Sorry to highjack the OP but I think I got bugged. I hope it's just user error but I wanted to know what do you think. Anybody got this before or know how to fix it? Should I bug report it?

 

[Ivanhurba]

Fixed. It's a bug based on language. I changed it to english and worked without issue. Loving it now. In fact I love FCPX so much I feel stuck with Mac but the update put the -bug- of PCs buzzing in my ear and that razer blade, Razer Core and Resolve look mighty interesting. hmmmmm! Lately I'm reading reviews of people who are using it more and more like Biscardi or Marco Solorio and Youtube is growing a healthy tutorial community.

[Axel]

11 hours ago, Ivanhurba said:

Fixed. It's a bug based on language. I changed it to english and worked without issue.

Not fixed then. I noticed a few months ago that I couldn't map the 'Magic Keyboard' (german version) to FCP X shortcuts (left bracket, right bracket etc. become Umlaute- äöüß). Wrote to Apple, but there is no solution other than buying a traditional keyboard or use FCP X in english.

The translation to german is flawed. In FCP 7, they didn't translate the important stuff like Browser, Viewer, Canvas, Playhead and Timeline. No one knows what the german word for browser would be anyway. In 10.3, it became worse. Originally, they had translated roles ('Rollen' in german) to Funktionen (functions). Because a term of analog film, reel, translates to Rolle as well. Now they call it Funktion in some places, Rolle in others. Very confusing, particularly for newbies.