New FCP due in spring

[filmguy123]

Who the hell cares where it came from, so long as it works and is useful especially within the context of resolution independent editing, and native workflow?

exactly.

 

[refocusedmedia]

I'm sorry but a lot of what you are saying here is just off. First, they explicitly stated that the new version is designed to scale from the simple Intel Macbook all the way up to the towers. It won't require any greater horsepower than FCP 7 to run, only to use all the fancy new stuff to full advantage.

Underhanded (and quite frankly, inaccurate) insult aside, I didn't say that a new Mac was going to be required, but it's an inevitability. The first few Intel Macs have already begun to be phased out, and this is a continuation of that. I'm just saying... those that are oohing and aahing over the 4K editing and other high-end features are going to be sorely disappointed in the long run. When Auditioning requires 2-3 min to switch between clips and your playback is jerky and your background rendering never finishes... you'll be wishing for a less fancy and more straightforward release of FCP.

Second, the market for FCP is much different than your "apple lapdogs" who lovez the newz iPhonez because it's shiny. You're talking about pro editors. The editors of True Grit, Social Network, 500 Days of Summer, 300, etc. On the topic, The Social Network won the academy award for Best Editing.

Correct, and it was mostly edited in Adobe.
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/showcase/index.cfm?event=casestudydetail&casestudyid=1097997&loc=en_us

Also, understand that FCP has been a tried and true NLE for years that has never really changed all that much until just now, whereas CS5 is a relatively new revolutionary product that is still making headway in the industry. Of course more films have been edited with FCP versus Premier (just as more films were edited on Avid than Apple 5+ years ago)... until CS5 there was no reason to use Adobe's NLE over Apple's. Now, however, there are many reasons (a number of which Apple has obviously taken notice of, as evidenced by FCPX).

Third, many of these features ARE revolutionary in the sense that they will actually be USED on a widespread basis at a high-end professional level. Final Cut's market share KILLS Adobe Premiere on the prosumer front, and let's not even talk big budget movies - I'm sure there's SOMETHING out there edited on Premiere, but I can't name a single flick. And then Sony Vegas - it's great, but their market share is even lower. So yes, this IS revolutionary because it will actually have an impact on a large number of editors, unlike Premiere, Vegas, Edius, etc. I agree - perhaps not revolutionary in the sense that the features have never been done before, but revolutionary in the sense that it will actual CHANGE the way people edit because a large amount of people will actually USE the software. Something isn't revolutionary in a practical sense if no one uses it.

Further, many different NLEs have done some of what FCP is doing, but the COMBINATION of all of those things in one place, and the polish/execution (how WELL they are done) is what will likely set FCP apart. And it's this combination and polish that hasn't been done before. Of course I can't speak yet to the polish, but there aren't many examples of Apple dropping the ball in the polish department.

I see what you're saying, and it makes sense and I actually agree with it. I'm not anti-Apple or anti-FCP, but you seem to have misinterpreted my "Apple lapdogs" comment and ran with it. Regardless, I applaud Apple for incorporating a number of well needed changes to their program. CS5 revolutionized NLE's as we knew them, and now Apple has not only brought those revolutions to a larger crowd but also decided to take their product down a distinctly different path. Kudos to them, but I am just not so blinded by the shine of their polish to follow them down said path so blindly or enthusiastically. Or perhaps I just don't like my software making decisions for me.

And just to be clear, I am not referencing any board member other individual in particular.

Also, you're right about Apple's reputation for polish... that is without question their number 1 strength.

And finally, please, enough with the "iMovie Pro" talk. It's getting old, not because it's some weakness of FCP, but because it is simply not accurate. They did not build anything on the iMovie platform. They took some of the surface level UI, and some of the best technical features, and incorporated them into a the high-end professional tool that FCP is, as they SHOULD. The features are great and it would be non-sensical to leave them out. Keywording is a LIFE SAVER for sports highlight videos. Skimming is beautiful for live event coverage. And the new interface, that takes the best of FCP and other editors, is a welcome step forward - especially since it's been reported from a beta user that the option to use the traditional timeline is there if you so wish.

It's not getting old, and you should get used to it. I watched the presentation twice... it literally is iMovie Pro. The look and feel of it matches iMovie exactly. You have to realize that this is an intentional design aspect on Apple's part, so trying to dismiss the "iMovie Pro" label as some sort of ignorant insult is ironic at best.

Also, I understand the value of those features you have mentioned just fine as I have already been using them happily for awhile now. Though the keywording of time ranges within a clip is a neat feature that I'm curious to see how it holds up in real world usage.

So please, enough with the Apple hating. It belongs in teenage iPhone VS Android debate, not adult professional editors. And as for your "pseudo-creative" comment, it's ironic because what FCP X does it cuts out even more of the technical non-creative crap and lets you get straight to true creativity. The automated processes all deal with technical tasks that are simple drudgery. The only thing "pseudo-creative" in the editing world is uncreative editors who rely solely on technical knowledge to set them apart. This is a boon for creatives.

Again, I don't hate Apple, but denying that there is, in fact, a strong "Apple lapdog" cult-ish subset of people who blindly digest everything Apple says or does as flawless and revolutionary and "magical" is downright foolish. Apple purposefully targets this following again and again, and they are evidenced in their total ignorance of other products and manufacturers and their thorough defense and support of everything Apple. The point of my lapdog comment was that those people will eat this release up as another magical and revolutionary release from Apple... completely oblivious that the majority of those changes and features have been widely available for over a year now.

Here, maybe this will help, since you randomly reference the Apple vs Android argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg The fact is that these arguments are extremely valid and with absolute merit. You can arrogantly dismiss them all you want, but it doesn't reduce their relevance one bit.

Lastly, I disagree with your assessment about the increased creative freedom of FCPX. I see your point, but I think that really only applies to the newbies and simple projects. Maybe YOU appreciate software thinking for you and making decisions for you, but I'd assume you'll be in the minority (outside of the lapdogs of course). Maybe you just want to ingest your footage, slap a timeline together, and go... but that is hardly editing. I think there are some really compelling features of FCPX, but there are also certainly some questionable and potentially disappointing changes. However the news that most-if-not-all of these can be disabled is great news as that allows each of us to customize our FCPX to the ways that suit us best.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Point is, FCP is a very good NLE that's been slacking and just made it's (awesome) come back. It's my NLE by choice and for a variety of good reasons, not because of ignorance or being an apple fanboy. And I'm not alone. Apple's good at marketing but I respect that, since my career is basically sizzling things up via video as it is. The important thing is, can they back the sizzle? Most of the time, the answer is yes, even despite minor quibbling here and there. The polish of everything else almost always makes up for it in my book. My money is on FCP X living up to the sizzle. Can't wait.

Well said, and again for the record, I never called you or anyone else hear out as being one of the lapdogs. Sorry it ruffled your feathers, but again, it is a very present reality.

 

[David Saraceno]

Or perhaps I just don't like my software making decisions for me.

FCP X doesn't make decisions for you. All these "decisions," as you elect to call them, are non destructive, and can be turned off completely or partially.

The point being is that the editing process is always controlled by the editor.

 

[filmguy123]

lwright84,

I think those who are doing 4K editing are well aware that they won't be wanting to do it on a 13in Macbook and won't be sorely disappointed, as you suggest. Unless you assume all FCP users are idiots, or a bunch of tools running around with their spendy 4K systems and white macbooks who will be Allz Whatz Iz cantz editz my REDz footage at blazing fast speedz on my 2007 Macbook Air??

Just because something has background rendering doesn't mean you can't wait for it finish rendering before playing back a clip as you do today if your system is slow. In fact, they demoed the display that showed the render progress. It's just that you don't have to STOP using the program in any capacity while it does the rendering. Further, judging from the reports from Beta users that you can switch to traditional timelines and viewers, I would think it's a pretty safe bet you will be able to highlight and render certain work areas for those few people trying to edit 4K w/out proxys on their 4 year old laptop.

Social Network was not mostly edited in Adobe. It wasn't edited on Adobe at all. It was edited in Final Cut Pro and imported into Adobe Premiere for the sole purpose of moving through the edit to round-trip FX clips to After Effects CS5 for the VFX. AE is a wonderful tool which I own, and it's widely regarded that Apple Motion doesn't hold a torch to AE (though perhaps if Apple releases the rumored Shake successor combined with Motion it will). If they were going to do that for the VFX, why not just edit the whole thing in Premiere and why go through the trouble of an EDL from FCP? Look, my point isn't to say Premiere is bad, it's a great tool. My point is in defense of your baseless assertions against FCP.

The iPhone VS Evo video is exactly what I was thinking of in my Apple VS Android comment and was not random. The point being, replacing iPhone with "FCP" and Android with "Other NLEs" is not a congruent comparison - though you implied in your use of Apple lapdogs and other opinions towards FCP that it was. You can restate things if you like, or perhaps clarify your opinion, but your first post is clearly indicates your idea that FCP users are like the brainless iPhone user from that video.

The iMovie Pro issue has been beat to death, I'll only say it clearly indicates a highly superficial (and logically absurd) viewpoint to say "the UI looks like iMovie... so... it's LITERALLY iMovie Pro!" Please. And of COURSE it was intentional on Apple's part - iMovie has a great User Interface. What it doesn't have is powerful editing. On the bright side though, it sounds like you're really good at judging books by their cover!

 

[ReneH]

"Point is, FCP is a very good NLE that's been slacking and just made it's (awesome) come back. It's my NLE by choice and for a variety of good reasons, not because of ignorance or being an apple fanboy"

You do come across as a bit of fanboy I'm afraid, perhaps even myself!

FCP is making a comeback by looking a whole lot like Vegas? Not to ruin everybody's FCP party here but some of the "new" features in FCP strangely resemble features that Vegas has had for years.

 

[Buck Forester]

Craziness... I keep reading from Vegas lovers than FCPX is a rip-off of Vegas, and I hear Premiere Pro users say it's a rip-off of CS5, and then others say it really looks like iMovie on steriods! Shirley, it doesn't look like all three of those? I don't think it would matter WHAT Apple did to FCPX, someone would say it's now just like "NLE X". They're all editing systems and there's only so many ways it can look using a time-line, they're all gonna resemble each other to some degree.

 

[Buck Forester]

Maybe they should've really shook things up and used a vertical time-line. Or a reverse time-line and you can use special glasses to unreverse it, just to be different enough.

 

[Rob]

It's funny how everybody has an opinion of FCPX , but not one person has used it yet.

Rob.

 

[refocusedmedia]

Further, judging from the reports from Beta users that you can switch to traditional timelines and viewers, I would think it's a pretty safe bet you will be able to highlight and render certain work areas for those few people trying to edit 4K w/out proxys on their 4 year old laptop.

As I mentioned, it is these and other reports from Beta users that is giving me back the hope that the NAB demo took away.

Social Network was not mostly edited in Adobe. It wasn't edited on Adobe at all. It was edited in Final Cut Pro and imported into Adobe Premiere for the sole purpose of moving through the edit to round-trip FX clips to After Effects CS5 for the VFX.

Right and wrong. The initial chronological order of the story was indeed cut first in FCP, but then the majority of the editing was completed in CS5 (both PP and AE), the article I linked you to says as much. TSN was an extremely effects heavy film. So much so that they even did timeline editing within AE as well.

If they were going to do that for the VFX, why not just edit the whole thing in Premiere and why go through the trouble of an EDL from FCP?

IIRC, CS5 was not available (or at least, unproven) at the time and so of course neither was the custom workflow they created between PP and AE. FCP was the best NLE at the time and, as we both agree, the most widely used then.

Look, my point isn't to say Premiere is bad, it's a great tool. My point is in defense of your baseless assertions against FCP.

Hah, ok. Your defense is purely the projection of vehemently not wanting to be lumped into the "Apple fanboi" category, which I wasn't even doing in the first place. However, your "baseless" responses here have certainly been counter-productive to that point.

If you weren't trying so hard to prove how much of an Apple lapdog you supposedly aren't, you might be able to actually see that I haven't really said all that many baseless OR negative things about FCP.

The iPhone VS Evo video is exactly what I was thinking of in my Apple VS Android comment and was not random. The point being, replacing iPhone with "FCP" and Android with "Other NLEs" is not a congruent comparison - though you implied in your use of Apple lapdogs and other opinions towards FCP that it was. You can restate things if you like, or perhaps clarify your opinion, but your first post is clearly indicates your idea that FCP users are like the brainless iPhone user from that video.

Not at all, and I would never begin to compare brainless iDevice yuppies to industry professionals and fellow amateur editors using their NLE of choice. My opinions towards FCP as a NLE is separate from my opinion of Jobs' army of iRobots.

I don't need to restate anything... I still say that Apple lapdogs will indeed eat up this release of existing features and other people's innovations in a shiny iMovie Pro package as "magical" or whathaveu. Are you one of those people? You certainly seemed terrified of being labeled as one. The other people will use this as any other new tool, and create content that suits their interests; or they will stick with their existing tools.

The iMovie Pro issue has been beat to death, I'll only say it clearly indicates a highly superficial (and logically absurd) viewpoint to say "the UI looks like iMovie... so... it's LITERALLY iMovie Pro!" Please. And of COURSE it was intentional on Apple's part - iMovie has a great User Interface. What it doesn't have is powerful editing. On the bright side though, it sounds like you're really good at judging books by their cover!

This is becoming amusing. It's not iMovie just because it looks the same, yet it's a powerful editor with the great-looking UI of iMovie? If I am great at judging a book by it's cover you are simply atrocious at reading between the lines my friend.

Craziness... I keep reading from Vegas lovers than FCPX is a rip-off of Vegas, and I hear Premiere Pro users say it's a rip-off of CS5, and then others say it really looks like iMovie on steriods! Shirley, it doesn't look like all three of those? I don't think it would matter WHAT Apple did to FCPX, someone would say it's now just like "NLE X". They're all editing systems and there's only so many ways it can look using a time-line, they're all gonna resemble each other to some degree.

It's a combination of iMovie, Premiere Pro, and a side of Vegas with a couple of additional, unique features -- which is not necessarily a bad thing. Some of those unique features are obviously compelling and could prove to be quite helpful. Also, the fact that it's core architecture is completely built from the ground up is huge (probably the most compelling aspect of this release).

I really am intrigued to see some footage from the beta users. I'd also love to see someone make an over-the-shoulder view of a 30 minute editing session in FCPX as they make a 30 second promo or something. I'm very curious to see the real-world usage of this promising new version of FCPX. Obviously I have my reservations as well, but that's allowed outside of One Infinite Loop.

 

[filmguy123]

lwright, the article you linked to was written by adobe to show how great they are. Based on it, you speculate basically that CS5 wasn't out yet and if it was, they would have cut on it because FCP was the only decent option they had at the time? Hmmm, ok, that's interesting speculation. But flip it anyway you want, the point was the movie was cut on FCP, and the point of that (and the number of other films I listed) wasn't to debate the details of each film's production process or to avoid being put into the apple fanboy category, the point is that FCP is a professional tool used in the industry by people who choose to use it for reasons having nothing to do with being a fanboys. Sounds like you agree, though - thus the point is, it's these very (non fanboy people) who are thrilled about FCP X. Which basically negates what you are saying.

The iMovie-esque UI: I say they use the UI because it's a good design, and the lead designer designs all Apple video software. He makes editing accesible to the masses and powerful to the Pros. I say great. You say, because they use the iMovie UI, the program has it's roots in iMovie and is just made more powerful, hence, iMovie Pro, and you call that "reading between the lines." I get it. My point is, I call that speculation and argue that it's an invalid assertion. Sure, we're talking speculation on both our parts here, but the bottom line is how does it work? "The proofs in the pudding" if you will. Does FCP X behave like a professional editor with the latest UI innovations, or does it behave like a scaled up version of iMovie? From what I've seen, this is Final Cut Pro on steroids, not iMovie on steroids. You might disagree... but that's because you're readings things between lines that aren't there. But we'll see who's right when the product launches, and I'm going to place my money on you finding yourself dead wrong come June.

In any case, I absolutely have tremendous respect for Apple. I'm a big fan of the company and their products. But no, I'm not a fanboy. There's a big difference between that and being an Apple fanboy. The difference is, I respect Apple because of their products. Fanboys love Apple's products because they love Apple and think the company can do no wrong. I've got a list of Apple grievances, but I've got a much longer list of Apple praise, and at the end of the day, Apple's composition of pros/cons fits me much better than any other companies offer, including Vegas 10 and CS5. And that's really all it comes down to. That said, I am also a bit of a perfectionist, and have great appreciation for Apple's attention to detail, even if it takes them longer to release something. I have consistently found FCP to be far more stable with large projects than Premiere. I tried CS4 and CS5 for one project each, and one of them I even stopped and restarted in FCP because Premiere was just too buggy in comparison. Certainly it's continually getting better, and CS5 is a big step up from CS4, and FCP ain't perfect either, but it's a whole lot better where it counts for me.

THUS...

The reason I disagree with your assertion that FCP X is not so great and it's just Apple sizzle and Apple "lapdogs" who will eat this is up is because the vast majority of the target audience are well informed, professional or semi-pro editors. Not the cute little idiot from your iPhone VS Evo video. As such, your assertion implies that all the positive talk and buzz is from the Apple lapdogs. Actually, that's all the professional editors. You might be upset that they are so excited about features that were already offered in Premiere or Vegas. You might think it's because their ill-informed. It's not. We know these features existed, but they didn't exist TO US because we use FCP. And we use Final Cut Pro for a long list of reasons far from being Apple lemmings.

Apple steals ideas from competitors all the time. Competitors steal ideas from Apple all the time. That's Capitalism. It's a good thing, not something to cry foul about. I'm sure CS6 will steal some ideas from Final Cut and Adobe users will be thrilled, not because they didn't know Final Cut Pro X existed, but because they use Premiere CS6. FWIW, if I was disappointed with FCP X announcement I was going to try out the next version of Premiere (CS6 or maybe even CS5.5) on a project and see how it held up (stability, workflow, etc.) and consider making the switch if Apple indicated it was dropping the ball. But I'm pretty amped on the FCP X release so unless Apple manages to screw it up, I'm sold. And yes, I still have a few reservations, but I feel relatively confident that I'll be very pleased judging by Apple's clear care and attention to detail with this release. Yes it's been a long time coming, but I'd rather wait and have them get it right then rush the full Cocoa re-write out the door to match Vegas/CS5's feature list. My bottom line reaction of FCP X is FINALLY. Maybe they should call it Finally Cut Pro X

 

[handsome pete]

Right and wrong. The initial chronological order of the story was indeed cut first in FCP, but then the majority of the editing was completed in CS5 (both PP and AE), the article I linked you to says as much.

That's wrong. Most of the editorial work was done in FCP. Premiere was mostly used as a go between to get it to AE where the film was conformed. They even outlined this whole process in the promotional video they had posted on the Adobe site.

 

[Buck Forester]

It doesn't really matter to me, but The Social Network was effectively "edited" on FCP.

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/videoencodvd/revfeat/editing-the-social-network-02242011/

"Wall and Baxter used Final Cut Pro to edit “The Social Network,” and one of the things they really like about the software is the ability to do multiple timelines.

“One of the best features of Final Cut Pro is the ability to tear off timelines,” Wall explains. “It’s very easy to customize your workflow and do multiple timelines of edited pieces. For example the opening scene of ‘The Social Network’ is an eight-page scene, and David shot about 60 takes of the six-minute scene. We ended up breaking the takes into smaller pieces of five or six sections, and once we are at that level, we start to work through and decide what sections from the multiple master takes work the best. Final Cut Pro allows us to track all that quite efficiently. David Fincher does tend to do more takes than other directors, so it helps to have a method to break it down.”

Wall and Baxter use FCP pretty much as is with minimal plug-ins.

“We use it pretty stock as is,” Wall explains. “We tend to use only a few plug-ins here and there. Knoll Flare from Red Giant we’ve used on occasion for previous movies. We actually use Apple’s Motion at lot to stabilize shots. Fincher uses stabilization a great deal, so it’s very handy to round-trip that through Motion to smooth things out.”

 

[studio1972]

I guess I'm an Apple lapdog because:

I like having products that are well designed

I like having well made products

I like having reliable hardware and software

I like not having to be a windows expert to deal with incompatibilities between hardware and software

I like getting a high resale price for my 3 year old macbook/iphone etc

I like the idea of being able to buy FCX for just $299

I like how these things all combine to give me a great user experience for a low total cost of ownership.

I guess this makes me a lapdog/fanboy/idiot etc. Sorry about that.

 

[David Saraceno]

If I read one more mention of "fanboy," "fanboi", "lapdog," or anything similar in this thread, it's gone.

Start discussing Final Cut Pro X.

The personal comments must end now. As well as the continual argument as to what NLE was used to edit what film.

The points have been made on that issue, and no one's mind is changed, and now that argument ends.

 

[oneinfiniteloop]

@filmguy & David, just to clarify my point on P2… I agree it's a non-issue when working. Our editor prefers to L&T so he can name clips, review, etc in most cases. It's mostly the management of two sets of media/files that becomes cumbersome. After having been recently shooting with the Alexa on our last couple of spots it's quite a joy to only have to deal with one set of media that works as camera originals and as editing material. Simplifies our workflow and data infrastructure a great deal.

@filmguy, totally forgot about my handle and the Apple reference, ah, see how the times have changed

After watching more videos I'm open, as I've always been, but I am concerned about the whole deal and what exists outside of the Apple-o-sphere because that's always been the source of my pain using FCP in a multi-person small studio like ours.

 

[bgundu]

Thanks for saying this David. I was just about to hit the unsubscribe button, but now I hold out a bit longer.

If I read one more mention of "fanboy," "fanboi", "lapdog," or anything similar in this thread, it's gone.

Start discussing Final Cut Pro X.

The personal comments must end now. As well as the continual argument as to what NLE was used to edit what film.

The points have been made, and now the argument ends.

 

[blackcat]

Regarding the pricing, I understand how pricing can help separate consumer products from professional products, but do you realize how ridiculous you sound complaining about something that's going to to cost you less money (simply for the pride of saying you have a professional product)? Just because a consumer user might be able to get their hands on it, does not mean they will be able to understand or use it, or afford professional cameras, etc. to supplement it.

I am not concerned about the price being too low. The problem is that we have a lot invested in a Final Cut workflow. If the price indicates a shift in focus, where the design is geared towards consumers, some of us might have to jump ship and move on. I am not suggesting that is the case, but that is the slightly paranoid thought, that has a lot of us trying to figure out what to do. For example, having the functions of Color built into Final Cut might sound nice, but that doesn't mean that it is set up for an efficient workflow for color design. The same is true with sweetening sound.

 

[David G. Smith]

I am not concerned about the price being too low. The problem is that we have a lot invested in a Final Cut workflow. If the price indicates a shift in focus, where the design is geared towards consumers, some of us might have to jump ship and move on. I am not suggesting that is the case, but that is the slightly paranoid thought, that has a lot of us trying to figure out what to do. For example, having the functions of Color built into Final Cut might sound nice, but that doesn't mean that it is set up for an efficient workflow for color design. The same is true with sweetening sound.

It doesn't mean that it is not, also. Having the power of a pro app in a more streamlined, more intuitive interface might just lead to a much more efficient workflow. Having the price point that this version of FCP has, it is almost an imperative that Apple make it easier to use, as there are going to be many, many more people, with varying degrees of production expertise, pick it up. You wouldn't want too many of them frustrated with a complicated, hard to use application. Now that does not necessarily mean that it also can't be used by pros. We just have to work with it and make the decision for ourselves.

 

[vegas06]

I think everyone has to try to remember that while $299 is a good price, it's ONLY for FCPX.
The entire current FCS suite is $999.

So if you break down the apps, then $299 might be about the price that it would go for separately.
Start adding in the other apps, depending on what they'll be, and you very well might wind up paying more than you did for the entire bundled suite. Ala Carte is always more expensive than bundled.
Now it seems that FCPX has finally incorporated features from STP, Color, and maybe Motion to make it a fully self sufficient NLE. This is why I liked working in Sony Vegas (I switched becasue I switched platforms) as I rarely had to leave the app for anything. FCPX, seems like Vegas on steroids to me. :grin:

And while these additions to FCPX won't be as powerful as the programs themselves, they might just suffice for a lot of us. But if you need more then you can buy the App from the App store. So you can custom build your suite. Nice, becasue as for myself I rarely used Motion or Color (I use MB Colorista for most color grading).

The big question I have is what will happen to Compressor and DVDSP. DVDSP didn't even get touched in the last release, and even got broken with an update for some. So will FCPX incorporate most of DVDSP as well as Compressor. That would be sweet. So if the Compressor engine is build into FCPX, I would love to be able to edit on the FCPX timeline, set chapter points and export and create a fully custom designed DVD or BluRay (this is doubtful), as well as online and mobile content with Meta info. That would be a huge timesaver for me.

Just have to wait and see.

 

[KarlSutton]

sorry if this has been discussed, does anyone know how they're planning to handle multi-clip editing without a source/destination window arrangement?

also does anyone know if you can make multiclips out of different codecs now?