I don't buy that you can take a digital camera and make it look like the same image shot on motion picture film, and I worked with film for 20 years before I made the transition to an all-digital workflow back in 1999. I'm not a fan of Film Convert, because I think a lot of their advertising claims are specious and dubious. I personally find Fairlight a lot more intuitive for audio work but Final Cut is a lot more sophisticated in the audio department than it seems. The lack of a mixer is a drawback, but it's still possible to create submixes, export stems, etc. Audio can also be very efficient in Final Cut if you learn how to use roles. The main place where Final Cut shines is editing, since it's not a traditional track-based editor like Resolve, which creates efficiencies (unless you're so used to track-based editing that Final Cut is too counterintutive). My feeling is that if you don't want to learn how to use the grading tools in Resolve and are going to use FilmConvert instead, you might as well stick with Final Cut, but much depends on what you're delivering for. You could say that about Final Cut too, with the exception of color (it's actually got much better color correction/grading tools than it used to, but of course still a far cry from those in Resolve). For a one man shop, it's a dream come true. Jim Simon wrote:What I like about Resolve is that it's very good at every aspect of post production - Logging, Editing, Effects, Color, Audio and final Delivery.

Filmconvert fcpx crack