FCPX Stabilization vs Lock&Load

Am I just kidding myself or have others this same experience:

Within the latest FCPX updates it seems like FCPX´s own stabilizer has improved quite a bit in both speed and quality. Some FCPX versions ago L&L easily beat the FCPX native stabilizer. Just compared the two again.
L&L still seems to be faster, but not much faster anymore. The quality of stabilization on the other hand (mostly using the default settings on both) has proven to be better in FCPX.

bluefonia wrote: Am I just kidding myself or have others this same experience:

Within the latest FCPX updates it seems like FCPX´s own stabilizer has improved quite a bit in both speed and quality. Some FCPX versions ago L&L easily beat the FCPX native stabilizer. Just compared the two again.
L&L still seems to be faster, but not much faster anymore. The quality of stabilization on the other hand (mostly using the default settings on both) has proven to be better in FCPX.

With most of the above I agree.
My point with many of the clips I've to stabilise the L&L ROI options give way better results - but it's tricky to find the right ROI.

- Andreas

As always it's a matter of speed vs. complexity.

With FCP X you will get a fast and very decent result in no time, and I agree stabilizing in FCP X has much improved.

With L&L you can tweak much more, which is especially useful with very difficult shots. But it takes a lot of trial and error finding the correct settings and each new clip requires a different approach. I think both options have their own usefulness.

- Ronny