FORUMS: list search recent posts

Final Cut X vs Strawman

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
David Powell
Final Cut X vs Strawman
on Feb 6, 2012 at 8:20:35 pm

The straw man being Final Cut 7. A lot of users on here used Final Cut 7 exclusively without having really learned what the competition had to offer. And for good reasons I'm sure. It takes time to master a professional editing software, and those who say "use the trial version" get on my nerves as I've known people who cut on Final Cut since version one and still didn't know how to use many of the features that would've greatly sped up their workflows.

The same applies to other NLE's. You can easily jump to another spend 30 days on it (not that any professional has 30 days straight to really use it anyway) and decide it sucks before you've really understood it on a level that would get the ball rolling for you.

That being said, I hear a lot of "I can do this 10x's faster than in X than 7!" which is really a moot point for Avid and Premiere users. Final Cut 7 had been long in the tooth for a long time. And it seems that people boast about features that were lacking in 7 but existed in PP or Avid for quite a while. If you were in a FC bubble for even the last 5 years, you quite possibly may have not known these other features existed.

I'm noticing that I have not seen anyone who's been using anything other than Final Cut (primarily not dabbled with) raging about how much they love X. Where are the people who have used something other than FCP 7 that are slaying projects left and right now that they have FCP X? I'm curious to hear from them. I'm just not so impressed that the new software beats the pants off what we all knew to be aging technology with code from 90s.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Final Cut X vs Strawman
on Feb 6, 2012 at 8:31:32 pm

[David Powell] "Where are the people who have used something other than FCP 7 that are slaying projects left and right now that they have FCP X? I'm curious to hear from them. I'm just not so impressed that the new software beats the pants off what we all knew to be aging technology with code from 90s."

I used Premiere for a few years (before it was Pro) and have used it on and off over the last couple of years. I won't claim to be a power user but I know my way around a lot of it. I spent some time with it before FCPX was launched and despite the improvements over the last couple of years, I still find FCPX to be faster for me. The skimmer and keywording combination allows to to get through my footage much quicker than any NLE I've used.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Final Cut X vs Strawman
on Feb 6, 2012 at 9:19:22 pm

I've used all the aforementioned NLE's for pay over the years and have always been a Mac AND PC guy. I've used FCP since June 1999 (right after it was introduced at NAB), Avid since 2000, legacy Premiere and was a beta tester for Vegas Pro for 10 years and PPro for 2 or 3. I also cut film and tape dating back to the 80's.

I think FCPX has the best foundation of any NLE that I've seen. The rapid pace that Apple has shown in getting useable updates and fixes into it show they are fully committed to making it even greater than legacy FCP. The biggest thing for me is that it's making editing fun again - fast, intuitive, modern... yeah it has some things lacking and some things bug me about it but I think it's gonna be HUGE!

As far as Avid - still strong, solid, great for delivery but kinda boring and I need more than 8 stereo pairs! Premiere Pro has always longed to be FCP and aside from the 64bit and CUDA goodness, is still playing catch up to legacy FCP in features and use - I mean I don't know anyone using it to deliver shows for national TV let alone doing frame-accurate inserts to tape to fix QC issues. Things FCP did ok and Avid does great. I'm sure that's changing it will take time to see who really wins since the original FCPX release...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index


Dennis Radeke
Re: Final Cut X vs Strawman
on Feb 7, 2012 at 1:52:34 am

[Lance Bachelder] "Premiere Pro has always longed to be FCP and aside from the 64bit and CUDA goodness, is still playing catch up to legacy FCP in features and use"

Oh my Lance - how can I walk away from one like this. ;-)

64-bit goodness - if that's all we ever did, it would be a huge one in comparison to FCP7 as MANY people will attest.
GPU goodness - something no one else is really doing still to the level that we are.

Besides that? Well, with good humor, let me say "How about:"

- leading file based workflow (no transcoding)
- never have to render because it's always real-time, or another way to say the most flexible and powerful software playback system in NLEs
- generally better, faster encoder in AME
- RED source settings - non-destructive color and metadata
- METADATA - been leading that since CS3
- good built-in, 2D titler
- when that fails, best of class integration with Photoshop for graphics
- AE integration (perhaps unfair since it's an Adobe product, but hey, it's a standard)
- truly usable, real-time chroma keyer

I could go on, but that's enough for top of mind. Do we have room to improve? ABSOLUTELY! Can you probably point out some warts of our software? If you can't, I sure can! However, your lack of information in this area prompted me to reply. I like to say that EVERY nle has some good and unique features. Maybe even Movie Maker or similar! So, to be so dismissive of Premiere Pro I think is a tad unkind.

[Lance Bachelder] " I mean I don't know anyone using it to deliver shows for national TV"

I do and I've mentioned them here before. They're also on the Adobe website. News, TV, Film, etc. They're all there. A nice new one will be out soon. ;-)

Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Dominic Deacon
Re: Final Cut X vs Strawman
on Feb 7, 2012 at 2:27:22 am

[Dennis Radeke] " never have to render because it's always real-time, or another way to say the most flexible and powerful software playback system in NLEs"

I've actually been very impressed with Premiere from the little I've used it. The AE integration and the way it works with RED is not to be sneezed at. I have to disagree with this statement though. On my system (windows 7, i7 3.4ghz quadcore, 16 gbs of RAM, nVidia Quadro graphics) I find it nowhere near as efficient as Edius.

Running some basic tests I found Premiere uses 25% more RAM than Edius when playing back the same footage- in this case 1080p footage from a 5d with a few filters laid on top. While Premiere is running the system harder it is not doing it as well. It's showing a low res "preview" version of my footage while Edius is showing the real thing.

Also found that Edius will play back a wider range of formats than Premiere though I haven't toyed with that enough to say definitely that that's the case. I've just a few instances where Premiere refuses to work with footage that Edius has no issues with.

My biggest disappoint with both both programs though is that they have significant issues with project bloat which was never a problem with FCP 7. From what I hear FCPX is even worse on this front. Is AVID the only NLE left that doesn't slow down massively on a large project?


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Final Cut X vs Strawman
on Feb 7, 2012 at 8:42:34 am





Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: Final Cut X vs Strawman
on Feb 7, 2012 at 9:29:03 am

[Lance Bachelder] "I wish you had been there when I was a beta tester, it was a terrible experience - I mean so bad that it would take therapy to erase how bad it was and how full of bugs the program was.
"


Interesting to get a view on how PPro was in it's early days, I know it's very good now, but it's had the time to mature.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Final Cut X vs Strawman
on Feb 7, 2012 at 9:37:46 pm

It was bad to the tune of thousands of dollars and lawyers getting involved to settle all the extra costs incurred by attempting to use the software on a feature and then getting abandoned by Adobe as the entire team that launched PPro left the company.

I know it's not as bad as it was in the early days but we still found it unusable up to version 5 for feature film editing. This was strictly a bug and crash issue, not a lack of features. I'm hearing that 5.5 is great but for me I'll stick with FCPX for now...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Final Cut X vs Strawman
on Feb 7, 2012 at 2:11:57 am

[Lance Bachelder] "The biggest thing for me is that it's making editing fun again"


Yes!

I keep hearing this over and over and it's why X is going to be around and in many places in the future.

I just don't think you can underestimate FUN

There are going to be so many people who start projects in X and need a more experienced editor to get it over the finish line.

There are guys on here who could pick that money up if they wanted to but if they don't that's cool to.

I certainly can see you cash'in Lance : )

$$$$$$$$


Return to posts index


Lance Bachelder
Re: Final Cut X vs Strawman
on Feb 7, 2012 at 8:43:38 am

Cash is cool :)

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Final Cut X vs Strawman
on Feb 6, 2012 at 9:23:30 pm

There are many parts of editing that translate to real world "speed" for editors, and they are all different.

Ask 10 editors, you get 10 different answers, as speed means 10 different things to each one.

I think that's what you mean by "slaying" projects. Speed.

So what features are you speaking of in particular?

In my opinion, and after being forced to look around after Apple effectively killed FCS (and being soley an FCP editor for a while, and media100 before that, and avid before that, with decent use of After Effects amidst all of those) that there are concepts in X that aren't necessarily in other NLEs/systems, and yes, it goes beyond the magnetic timeline. I happen to be in the camp that likes what I see. No big deal.

The difference is that people that are using other systems and don't rely on FCS 3 exclusively is that, they haven't been forced to look around. With FCPX's fairly limited feature set, the reason to switch isn't as compelling as someone who is using FCS 3. The features keep improving with every new FCPX release, but right now, FCPX can't compete with the likes of Avid Media Composer, Premiere, Smoke, or whatever. That doesn't mean it's not usable to some people, but to others, that means it's not usable. Simple, really.

Some people require a more mature interchange workflow, or need tape capture/output to/from the program, or hate the design and FCPX is in it's infancy when it comes to workflow, connection with the outside world, and it's design. Some people can use X on smaller, more self contained projects and are doing just fine and are enjoying it.

It would be a totally different conversation if support for Avid Media Composer 6 ended today, while simultaneously launching a radically different Avid Media Composer 7, with no support for MC6.







Or for those that prefer the original as opposed to the more modern inspiration above:







Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Powell
Re: Final Cut X vs Strawman
on Feb 7, 2012 at 12:00:04 am

Thats what I was pointing to. There are a lot of Vegas, Edius, Media 100 users that love their software and don't need the collaborative features or toolsets that MC offers. But these aren't really NLE's that I would care to compare anyway. Since I cut narrative mostly, the trim tools mean a lot to me, which is why FCP 7 took the fun out of narrative editing for me personally, and from what I hear PP is inferior to FCP 7's trim tools which really kills my interest right off the bat.

I do like the skim feature a lot. I can't do without ganging though. I use it all the time. I need the source monitor.


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Final Cut X vs Strawman
on Feb 7, 2012 at 12:21:33 am

So, FCPX isn't for you?


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Final Cut X vs Strawman
on Feb 7, 2012 at 1:41:51 am

and lo cry: DW Griffiths, Moliere, George C Burns and the Wright Brothers have voted for a standard bearing statement in the FCP sh*t storm sanity brigade.

[Jeremy Garchow] "
The difference is that people that are using other systems and don't rely on FCS 3 exclusively is that, they haven't been forced to look around. With FCPX's fairly limited feature set, the reason to switch isn't as compelling as someone who is using FCS 3. The features keep improving with every new FCPX release, but right now, FCPX can't compete with the likes of Avid Media Composer, Premiere, Smoke, or whatever. That doesn't mean it's not usable to some people, but to others, that means it's not usable. Simple, really.
"


I will personally wee and throw every FCP toy out of the pram for.. some seasons.. however.
My own personal essential hope is that apple find a way to hew back to just enough of the broad established norms - roles is sort of something, multicam is a biceps rip, stability is.. something else, the power windows in colour correction are heartstoppping on an imac.

but its the central timeline isn't it? I do think the footage library is overly imploded into events and keywords personally, I don't think the spatial aspect is being respected enough as a discovery process; nice things happen in spatial bins.

but I argue that apple have to address the implications of their timeline, in our tangential use scenario - as in - the professional editor is a tangential use scenario.

If Apple are right, and video literacy is burgeoning, they still have to sustain and encourage quiet pathways to proper free unencumbered complexity in their software at some point. If they hold editing in their hands, they hold its finest expression - it can't all be cuts on beats for h264 lulz right? where do we get our next murch?

there have to be secret preferences. Apple are not the arbiters of editing. They have to retain the paths of idiosyncrasy and skill somehow.
they just don't get to lobotomise editing. its too risky. The primary is a metaphor baldly sitting on a V1 track.

the secondary is a metaphor baldly sitting on a V2 track. i can use editing shortcuts on one of these two.

At some point any FCPX editor will hopefully want to dissuade themselves of apple's limitations? they are going to want to manipulate the underlying structure?

Absolute time based video and audio sub structure is irreducible. Its mechanics are clean. FCPX needs to at least begin multiplying primaries. And creating proper waveforms. And folders.

Apple have an obligation here.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]