In answer to your somewhat aggressive post:
1. I was a student - I learned on the previous version of FCP
2. Yes, like you, I read all the manuals - I was an IT guy for years.
3. Yes, some editors say they are much more efficient in FCP X.
4. FCP X doesn't suit the kind of work I do.
a) I do mostly interviews
b) I use at least one camera, with a tape, for the master track - one clip, usually 1hr in duration
c) I use another cameras with a hard drive, for close-ups. Sometimes one single 1hr clip, sometimes 3 or 4 shorter ones
d) I use a handheld blackmagic pocket camera for other shots - these are short clips
e) I sync via audio
f) I use various clips from my library for b-roll
5. To assemble a 1hr documentary I like to drop the standard components on to the timeline where they need to be: doco series intro, last week's summary, next week's program intro. Then I can slot the footage into the time available. There are usually various segments given equal time - usually they are assembled out of order, depending on what has been shot.
6. I use FCP to process the footage from my older Sony cameras so that they can be read by DaVinci Resolve.
7. I assemble the footage in DVResolve which uses a traditional timeline and makes it easy to put things where I want them.
8. Footage from each camera goes on its own track
9. B-roll goes on its own track
10. Titles go on their own track
11. Separately recorded audio goes on its own track
12. When everything is organised this way it is easy to edit the various cameras to assemble the doco.
13. DVResolve uses conventional bins which make it easy for me to find the material I want in the Mac file system and to check that I have not left anything out.
14. FCPX clip selection works well for short clips if you like to edit clips first and assemble later. That workflow doesn't work for me - in an interview I must have the complete interview so I make the selection when I have everything in front of me from each of the cameras.
15. I like to move things around so I use extra tracks for ideas - slotting clips into an approximate place in the doco.
16. I also use titles for editing commentary "X goes here", "Switch to XY here", "Need to record XX for insertion here".
I find DVResolve much more intuitive to use. Even the terminology in FCPX confuses me - what is an event in the context of a doco series? This stuff comes from iMovie and makes more sense if you filming "events" like your granny's 90th birthday and a trip to the beach.
DVResolve uses a magnetic feature to snap clips together when close - like the old FCP - but doesn't force it. Its very tricky in FCPX to put things where you want them and ensure they don't move sideways or into another track.
Selecting multiple clips from a single long clip is very tricky in FCPX - if you miskey once you lose the lot. I don't do that any more.
Keywords are not helpful to me and the lack of organisation means it can be tricky to find the original footage in the file system.
FCPX uses a library concept - which is unwieldy for a doco series and uses a lot of resources. I keep all the objects in a single library because I use them in various episodes. But this requires a huge amount of resources. Its complicated to move stuff from one library to another.
Sometimes my master clip is the separately recorded audio. In DVResolve I can drop that in first - I can't in FCPX.
Manually syncing audio in FCPX is quite tricky - especially if the edit runs over a cliip end. Adding spacer clips and moving things around is very fiddly and its very tricky to actually see the waveforms at sufficient detail in the camera and separate audio at the same time. This is very easy in DVResolve.
I am not editing every day and the first half hour of using FCPX is always frustrating until I remember how it works.
I have no problem learning new software - I am a computer programmer by trade. But I like to use apps which support the way I work, not force me into a different workflow. After 2 years of battling with FCPX I switched to DV Resolve, which has infinitely better colour matching and a traditional approach to editing which suits the way I like to work. And its free.
DVResolve has issues: It is not the most stable piece of software; it doesn't recognise older camera formats; it can't sync long clips by audio if a secondary clip doesn't start for a long time after the first clip. But FCPX has issues with audio sync especially of you have multiple framespeeds and are using multicam. I tried to assemble a wedding in FCP last year but gave up after being unable to resolve the audio issues with 25fpm and 24fpm clips. I will revisit that project in DVResolve later this year.
But it is much easier for editing audio where you have separately recorded audio and want to manually sync it - this is very easy in DVResolve, much like it was in the old FCP.
Its good that you like FCPX. With any luck you won't find the sort of problems I did - which I realise are specific to the kind of work I do. But my point remains valid: Apple could have provided an on/off switch for the magnetic timeline which would still provide magnetic positioning for adjacent clips but let you put things where you want without messing around with spacers. They could have retained bins and added keywords as an option. They chose not to do so - I feel that was just arrogance.
I never got my head around the organisation in FCPX - I never remember whether I am looking for an event or something else, and it always takes me a while to figure out what FCPX is actually showing me in the media section. Its very cluttered anyway with the whole library of stuff and if I don't remember to always ensure that an import from the tape or disc camera is sent to the file system rather than the library I end up with stuff everywhere.
For me, working with FCPX means working backwards to fit in with their idea of how a workflow should be. I resent it. I loved the old FCP and I wish I had kept it. But DVResolve is truly amazing - and, of course, you can't beat the price.
As you will be aware, FCPX has had a chequered career. Apple lost a lot of users at the start and their imposed workflow and compulsory magnetic timeline has driven others, like me, to other platforms. Unnecessarily, in my opinion - but Apple's FCPX development team seems determined to stick to their guns.
