FORUMS: list search recent posts

Premiere vs. FCPX

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Lance Bachelder
Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 9:50:24 pm

Just some quick observations. Did a stabilize test on the same clip in FCPX and Premiere - this is on an 8 core Mac with non-CUDA 5770 graphics. Time to analyze took nearly double in Premiere and then it failed. So I repeated with same clip (h264 1080p) on Win7 workstation. End result: FCPX did much better job at both stabilizing and removing jello cam. Premiere, besides zooming in way too much using defaults also introduced bad jello cam where there was none! Also tested same clip in Sony Vegas (can't say which version but much newer than current shipping version :) - Vegas also did much better job than Premiere and analyzed much faster. I realize Warp Stabilize is an accelerated effect so probably would be great to use with approved CUDA card.

And let's talk about "skimming". This is so much better in FCPX, crazy that once a clip is selected you can no longer skin in Premiere! I like that I can scan clips in bin and set in/out etc. but only when I actually SELECT a clip. Skimming in Premiere seemed to be an afterthought and needs fine tuning.

Also playback is much smoother in FCPX than Premiere when I ad a filter - say Sharpen - Premiere slows to a crawl while X keeps playing smoothly. I know, i know - I need an approved CUDA card in my Mac - or Adobe needs to quickly approve the very popular 5770!

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 10:05:55 pm

I feel like I'm missing something too. Since the X launch last summer I've tried Premiere 5, 5.5, and now 6. Unless I'm missing something I'm completely underwhelmed. True X doesn't play nice with others, but what it does it does amazingly well. Since 10.0.4 it runs smooth as glass on my 27" 3.4 ghz i7 16gig 6970m (2gig) iMac. Other than a couple 8/12 core mac pros, that's as good as it gets.

And it's not enough for Premiere. I even added the hack so it gets the GPU boost from the 6970m. It gave me the yellow bar instead of red, but actually played back much choppier. The whole thing feels just as clunky as 5 and 5.5. Neither of those were able to actually work for more than 10 minutes on either my 2006 mac Pro, or my iMac. ANY version of FCP was a better experience. On both of these systems Media Composer runs beautifully. Even version MC 5.

I tried it with BlackMagic drivers and just as software. Both methods eventually freeze up after 10 minutes. Maybe it's something with my systems. I'm just choosing the blackmagic presets or the dslr presets.

It seems I go through this with every version of Premiere. Give it a try and give up. If anyone has any ideas I'd love to know.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 10:14:29 pm

Concur - just not feeling it at all. I appreciate the improvements and that Adobe is finally listening to high-end users but seems like it still has a way to go. A couple of long time FCP experts at NAB that were on the beta team compared it to FCP 5 as far as features, stability etc...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 10:25:22 pm

Lets be fair here.

When X was introduced the first week everyone piled on and gleefully reported every little thing that didn't work to their satisfaction.

Some of us suggested that any brand new product requires time to mature and stabilize.

That was my assessment about X when it was released, and in my opinion it's every bit as fair an assessment about Premier Pro 6 now that it's been released.

If Adobe doesn't address what might appear to be early stage flaws in a few months - fine. But at least give their dev team time to get the feedback from the real world and let users have enough time to do more than walk around and kick the most obvious tires.

That's my opinion.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Rich Joyce
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 10:56:10 pm

Face it FCPX'ers It is now going to be a Premiere and Avid world instead of a FCP and Avid world. The speed of warp stabilzer is not going to veer people away. I tried to embrace FCPX but feel that Apple let me down in terms of pleasing professional editors. Adobe however is listening and awaiting our input for improvements.
After Effects, Photoshop, and illustrator are industry standards. It seems Adobe is now trying to make Premiere the same for video editing. I'm choosing Adobe, and I'm sure a lot of other people are too.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 11:04:18 pm

Once again nobody seems to know why Premiere just doesn't "work" on a Mac. It stalls, it sputters, it just doesn't work. For me it's not lacking features or just not playing nice with other (FCP X issues), it's the same problems it's always had. Just doesn't do anything. Others have posted similar issues in the past and I feel I must be missing the "make it not freeze up or sputter" preference or something.

This isn't a major rewrite to 64 bit. It's not a new app. It's a decent upgrade, but nothing that should have been an overwhelming endeavor. I'd love to use it if I could. The tech in X is so good. Wish the interface was too.

I need something that works. Here's hoping for Smoke. Avid works. I just don't care for it. Been there. Done that.


Return to posts index


Tom Daigon
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 11:14:40 pm

Works great with my Mac. Sounds like it doesnt work on yours.

Tom Daigon
PrP / After Effects Editor
http://www.hdshotsandcuts.com
Mac Pro 3,1
8 core
10.7.3
Nvidia Quadro 4000
24 gigs ram
Maxx Digital / Areca 8tb. raid
Kona 3


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 11:48:35 pm

Works great on my Mac too.

Mac Pro 3,1
8 core
10.7.2
Nvidia GTX285 (Mercury Playback enabled)
12 gigs ram
CalDigit HD One
Kona 3

I don't get the stuttery, sputter issues at all. H.264 smooth as butter. GoPro, the same. AVI from flip camera...a tad sluggish, but not much. I cut my NAB project with it, and now using it to cut a sizzle reel. Works great.

Yes, you need gobs of RAM and a Mercury enabled card. Otherwise you'll be sluggish. Bear that in mind.

Plus, it interacts with others without third party app needs. thumbnail skimming retains IN and OUT points. And doesn't have that ridiculous MAGNETIC TIMELINE. Nor does it have CLIP COLLISION. I jumped when I moved a clip and it OVER WROTE the clip I was slipping it towards. JUST LIKE I WANTED IT TO.

Stupid Magnetic timeline stupidness. Yeah, I don't like that timeline... :)

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 1:46:26 am

It's the graphics card for sure - i tested CS 5.5 with a GTX 570 (on Win7) and perfromance was awesome.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index


Greg Andonian
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 8:10:16 am

Bret Williams This isn't a major rewrite to 64 bit. It's not a new app. It's a decent upgrade, but nothing that should have been an overwhelming endeavor.

I know to us casual observers it might seem that way, but there was actually a lot going on under the hood for this version. Re-writing the Mercury Engine to use OpenCL was very likely no small task. They also re-built the entire timeline and entirely overhauled the audio aspects.

Also keep in mind, a lot of the plans Adobe originally had for PPro CS6 probably got pushed aside when the FCP refugees started pouring in and asking for changes.

All things considered, I think Adobe did an incredible job.

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 2:42:55 pm

[Greg Andonian] "All things considered, I think Adobe did an incredible job."

Absolutely.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 2:50:09 am

[Rich Joyce] "Face it FCPX'ers It is now going to be a Premiere and Avid world instead of a FCP and Avid world. The speed of warp stabilzer is not going to veer people away. I tried to embrace FCPX but feel that Apple let me down in terms of pleasing professional editors."

Do we really have to Rich, that's it, you've got the official word?

Apple let you down, but you don't represent professional editors.

You represent you.


Return to posts index


Rich Joyce
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 3:46:16 am

Yes I do represent only me.
When I say I feel Apple let down professional editors I was talking the majority of other people who I speak to who make a living using an NLE (mainly FCP users)down. When they did let those people down, they opened the door for Adobe to come in.
Before the release of FCPX it was mainly a Avid/FCP world when it came to production houses. The release of, and let down of FCPX made a lot of other people explore other options. When they did they found Premiere and the production suite of awesome tools, AE, PS, Ai a choice. Priemiere is now showing up in more production houses. So it is becoming more of an Avid/Priemiere world.



There is your "official" word


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 4:10:35 am

[Rich Joyce] "Before the release of FCPX it was mainly a Avid/FCP world when it came to production houses. The release of, and let down of FCPX made a lot of other people explore other options. When they did they found Premiere and the production suite of awesome tools, AE, PS, Ai a choice."

I don't know any professional houses that haven't had Production Suites or Master Collections on their systems forever. We all use AI, PS AE, no mater what NLEs we're running. A lot of shops , like ours have them running on every system.

I'm just saying there's been no big revelation.
This debate is not conclusive as you stated in your opening sentence which I commented on.

We don't have to face up to anything was and is my point.

We're all doing fine which ever way we go, the industry hasn't made any group dictates, the situation is flexible and changing.

It's all good.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 6:16:21 am

[Jim Giberti] "[Rich Joyce] "Face it FCPX'ers It is now going to be a Premiere and Avid world instead of a FCP and Avid world. The speed of warp stabilzer is not going to veer people away. I tried to embrace FCPX but feel that Apple let me down in terms of pleasing professional editors."

Do we really have to Rich, that's it, you've got the official word?

Apple let you down, but you don't represent professional editors.

You represent you."


I agree. There's nothing to face. X has its superior features in a number of areas. It just ain't that kind of a contest.


Return to posts index


Joseph Mastantuono
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 11:03:29 pm

Perhaps adding a few filters here and there run better on FCPX, but as a full fledged NLE, I would pick Premiere every time. I'm finding rock solid performance, a search tool that *actually searches your metadata* not just keywords, better markers, and the killer feature: Tracks.

Not being trackbased made FCPX a dealbreaker for me, as I use tracks to organize so many things (subtitles, lower 3rds, graphics, singling out clips for effects, etc...).

I like the trim function in FCP, but that was the only thing in the software I found intuitive, and liked.

There are a few things I miss from FCP7 (such as moving clips up and down tracks with Opt-Up arrow) but they're few and far between.

And you can have more than one project open at a time...

So far, and this could change, and I'm shocked I'm saying this, but Premiere CS6 is the editor I was waiting for with FCPX.

Joseph Mastantuono
http://www.goodpost.net
Color Grading & Post Production Consulting


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 11:05:56 pm

What are you running it on that it could possibly feel solid? PC I guess?


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 11:15:53 pm

Don't think the fair thing is a legit argument - FCPX was a 100% new NLE. Premiere is NOT - it's version 6 and been around for years. I appreciate the update look and it's getting better each rev. but it really should be even better and could have been had Adobe been listening to "pro" users years ago like they are now.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 11:58:04 pm

Bill, I jump down your throat when you've rolled over many of us with the X is ahead of the curve and we can't evolve line or argument, so I think it only fair of me to doff my hat to you for this post.

We may now resume sniping at each other and the balance of the universe will be resumed.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 7:38:43 am

[Jules bowman] "Bill, I jump down your throat when you've rolled over many of us with the X is ahead of the curve and we can't evolve line or argument, so I think it only fair of me to doff my hat to you for this post.

We may now resume sniping at each other and the balance of the universe will be resumed.

"


See - you couldn't ignore him, even if it's for a compliment!

Steve Connor
"FCPX Professional"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 12:12:30 am

[Bill Davis] "When X was introduced the first week everyone piled on and gleefully reported every little thing that didn't work to their satisfaction.

Some of us suggested that any brand new product requires time to mature and stabilize.

That was my assessment about X when it was released, and in my opinion it's every bit as fair an assessment about Premier Pro 6 now that it's been released.

If Adobe doesn't address what might appear to be early stage flaws in a few months - fine. But at least give their dev team time to get the feedback from the real world and let users have enough time to do more than walk around and kick the most obvious tires.

That's my opinion."


http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Tom Daigon
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 10:42:20 pm

Sorry you guys had such a bad experience. Mine is quite different. Maybe its a machine thing. Premiere and AE create a workflow for my projects that is unbeatable.

Bottomline, Working with FCP X to me was like editing on drugs with my fingers broken. Nasty!

But Im a firm believer that everyone is allowed there own preferences and I wish you well. :D

Tom Daigon
PrP / After Effects Editor
http://www.hdshotsandcuts.com
Mac Pro 3,1
8 core
10.7.3
Nvidia Quadro 4000
24 gigs ram
Maxx Digital / Areca 8tb. raid
Kona 3


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 11:08:06 pm

Highlighting 3 semi transparent clips (h264) and sending them to premiere took about 10 minutes and left the whole machine in flux. I had no idea it was even doing anything. Is that cuz it was h264?


Return to posts index

Rich Joyce
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 11:21:44 pm

I run premiere on a Mac also and it works well. Maybe your machine needs an update Lance?


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 11:30:38 pm

Think you mean Bret but yeah I need an update too - c'mon Apple when is the new Mac Pro coming?

Although FCPX runs great but it's the graphics card that helps, C'mon Adobe approve the 5770 already...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 12:17:29 am

I hacked the 5770 to work and it crapped out with dropped, stuttery playback. I have had to force quit Premiere about 4 times in just a few hours of playing around (before and after the hack). Also previewing a comp in AE has demonstrated that there are still problems with audio sync (h264 quicktime problem?). I enable multiple processors, tried to ram preview a 10 second comp, and got a warning that 'initializing background processes may take a while', turned it off after a few minutes of nothing, and now the audio won't sync in AE. Even restarting didn't fix the AE sync.

Not a big fan of having to select a track I want to make changes to in Premiere. Are there shortcuts for activating and deactivating tracks for edit? Rendering seems to take about as long as FCP - and on that subject, how the heck do you turn off the automatic playback of the sequence after render? It makes me lose my place and gets quite annoying.

Also noticed that the window layout got wonky. Tried to revert to the original one and wouldn't budge - had to reset it. Weird.

I really really want Premiere to work and make us happy. Having to constantly click the side of the timeline to do stuff is maddening - as is having to place the playhead wherever I want to paste transitions, etc. So many weird quirks here. Maybe this is normal. I'm trying to keep an open mind while we work out the idiosyncrasies... Surprised at how many times I have to quit and reopen it to get it to work right. And where's my CS6 license email already?

It's tough because I like the Adobe guys and I know how criticism of something you put your heart into can be stressful. Just not sure what's going on here. I'm hoping it's one of those situations where I'm just using it wrong.

12 core mac pro, 5770, RAID 5, 64 gigs of ram, blackmagic decklink studio, etc.


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 12:48:11 am

I will say this - AE renders are faster, a restart of the system fixed the audio sync issue, and I do like the improvements on AE.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Tero Ahlfors
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 3:59:30 am

[John Davidson] "Not a big fan of having to select a track I want to make changes to in Premiere. Are there shortcuts for activating and deactivating tracks for edit? Rendering seems to take about as long as FCP - and on that subject, how the heck do you turn off the automatic playback of the sequence after render? It makes me lose my place and gets quite annoying."

You can set up track selection shortcuts in the keyboard shortcuts menu. They aren't used by default. Also the automatic playback can be disabled in preferences -> general -> play work area after rendering previews.


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 5:25:35 am

Good to know. Thanks!

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 5:39:25 am

[Tero Ahlfors] "You can set up track selection shortcuts in the keyboard shortcuts menu. They aren't used by default. Also the automatic playback can be disabled in preferences -> general -> play work area after rendering previews."

In addition to this, if you're using the mouse to drag clips to the timeline, holding down the shift key lets you slide the audio to any track you wish while keeping the video on the track you initially placed it on. Try it. It's very cool.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 6:19:12 am

[David Lawrence] "In addition to this, if you're using the mouse to drag clips to the timeline, holding down the shift key lets you slide the audio to any track you wish while keeping the video on the track you initially placed it on. Try it. It's very cool.
"


Cool!


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 7:35:33 am

John Davidson how the heck do you turn off the automatic playback of the sequence after render?

In Preferences under General- uncheck "Play work area after rendering previews"

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 10, 2012 at 11:59:03 pm

[Tom Daigon] " Im a firm believer that everyone is allowed their own preferences and I wish you well. :D"

Son, you can take that nonsense straight to another forum here at the COW. This here's the DEBATE forum.

Tim Wilson
Associate Publisher, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW Magazine
Twitter: timdoubleyou



Return to posts index

Tom Daigon
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 12:03:05 am

Hi Tim! :D

Tom Daigon
PrP / After Effects Editor
http://www.hdshotsandcuts.com
Mac Pro 3,1
8 core
10.7.3
Nvidia Quadro 4000
24 gigs ram
Maxx Digital / Areca 8tb. raid
Kona 3


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 7:14:03 am

[Bret Williams] I'm just choosing the blackmagic presets

WAIT- are you using the same Blackmagic drivers as in 5.5 to set up a sequence preset in 6? If you are that may be your problem. They changed it so you don't need to do that anymore. That's what the whole "mercury transmit" thing is about. You just tell premiere what device you want to use to monitor with, and it works for any sequence.

I believe Blackmagic has 6.0 specific drivers now.

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index

Frank Gothmann
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 12:20:37 am

[Lance Bachelder] "End result: FCPX did much better job at both stabilizing and removing jello cam. "

That a very different result most people find when comparing the warp stabilizer with X.
eg





I am very happy with the performance, even on a tired old Quad Core Macpro with a GT120 I find working with it wonderfully fluid and
completely beach-ball free. On a modern machine it just flies.

------
"You also agree that you will not use these products for... the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons."
iTunes End User Licence Agreement


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 12:50:17 am

I ran CS/Matrox set ups for years as having a native format to work with was always top priority as was SDI and/or component in and out. Once CS4 came out with 64-bit and I was able to load my HP workstation (8200?) up with 32gig of RAM I couldn't understand how anybody could still WANT to edit in 32-bit regardless of platform or editing software. Then came CS5 and the CUDA cards. Got the upgrade, got the card and kicked Matrox to the curb. Never looked back. So I've been using CS since v1 through XP to Vista-64 to Win7-64 and have used it for everything imaginable. Couldn't have been happier.

I run CS5.5/6 and on a MBP now with no TBolt peripherals but a 27" Cinema and it works better than my old HP workstation. 8 gig of ram and nothing else added. FCPX on the same machine is a freaking nightmare. Slow, clunky, lost projects, projects changed (from 1080/29.97 to 720/25? Really? and no way to change it back!) and damaged after beachball induced restarts.

I like FCPX. I really do. There's a lot there to like. I just don't like the way it runs. I CANNOT watch footage render knowing I'd be zipping through it were I in PPro. Maybe that's just me.

So everybody has their experience and that's mine. If anything starts mucking up on your machine the first thing I'd start with is to go totally native and pull any I/O out of the mix and see what happens. Getting out from under Matrox's thumb was liberating. It's my opinion that that's how all this editing software is developed despite any 3rd party's best intentions.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 1:25:45 am

Who are "most people"? One guy with a YouTube video? I just reported my simple test, I think I have enough years doing this to post my results. There are always those who want what they choose to work and be the best, and most folks will come to a place of comfort with their workflow and even defend it if need be. I try to remain objective but of course have my own idiosyncrasies.

Even with all the bugs in Sony Vegas 11, I still think it's a far better NLE than Premiere or FCPX in most ways, not all ways, just most ways :)

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 1:50:11 am

[Lance Bachelder] "Even with all the bugs in Sony Vegas 11, I still think it's a far better NLE than Premiere or FCPX in most ways, not all ways, just most ways :)"

Lance, I've never even considered Vegas. What do you like so much about it? What keeps you away from it?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 4:10:00 am

It's really a love/hate relationship with Vegas lol. But it truly is the only NLE that gives you picture editing and the power of Pro Tools all in the same timeline. This works well for the indie features I cut because I like to sound design and cut in score as I edit. I've had a 90 min. 1080p timeline with over 60 tracks of 5.1 audio going with no slow down. Plus I get to use plug-ins like WAVES and isotope while I cut and mix. It also has a great secondary color correction tool.

The ONLY reason I've kept a PC's around for the past decade is Vegas. Even shows I've cut in FCP or Avid I've done the mix in Vegas. Version 11 has been very problematic - just take a peek at the Vegas forum and you'll see all the posts. This has been the main reason why I continue to support and test NLE's like FCPX and Premiere. But I'm hoping they get the bugs fixed and as a beta tester I can say there is hope, lots of it.

Vegas was the first full 64bit NLE. The first to support native RED 4k files and one of the first to offer true stereoscopic editng. 3rd party plugs by Boris,Red Giant, New Blue and GenArts are fully supported. It also supports realtime playback via the widest array of graphics cards from both ATI and nVidia! Matrox, AJA and BMD cards are supported.

It has it's problems and it's a weird interface for the uninitiated but it never fails to blow away everyone who sits down with me for a session or a demo...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 11:03:41 am

Thanks for taking the time to explain in more detail, Lance.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 5:42:18 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Thanks for taking the time to explain in more detail, Lance.
"


I have to second Lance's enthusiasm. I haven't used it in years but I'll definitely have it on my machine if I add a PC workstation. Those Sonic Foundry guys really were some of the sharpest tools in the shed. I used it mostly as a DAW, and it was a very good one.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 6:58:02 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Those Sonic Foundry guys really were some of the sharpest tools in the shed. I used it mostly as a DAW, and it was a very good one."

I completely agree, those folks at Sonic Foundry were sharp. I cut a music video for a friend a number of years ago (in Vegas 4 I believe). We had locked the edit and were about to start finishing, when he decided that he wasn't crazy about some of the vocals. Instead of going back to Protools to re-record, we plugged in a microphone and recorded a new track in Vegas, he liked it so much we re-recorded all of his background vocals (8 in all, I think). Long story short, we ended up bringing the entire mix into Vegas, complete with VST plugins, processing (reverb, flanges, etc.) and routing in and out of hardware compressors... not in a separate project, but into the actual edit… without a dropped frame in sight.

Vegas was my ‘go to’ editor for years, because it was so flexible and it could do so many things… even though no one had heard of it, and it had a quirky UI. Unfortunately, after the acquisition by Sony, Vegas just seemed to get buggier with each release. I think I went to Premiere full time after CS2, as I started doing more compositing and 3D work… the CS Suite just seemed to make more sense by then.

At any rate, for any FCP users (Legacy and X) who are planning to go bi-platform… seriously, you owe it to yourself to at least try Vegas, especially if you have a heavy bent towards audio.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 2:06:17 am

[Lance Bachelder] "Even with all the bugs in Sony Vegas 11, I still think it's a far better NLE..."

It's funny! I remember Vegas before it was an NLE, back when it was a multitrack DAW. It had just gotten its video capabilities when I bought it. It was quite impressive. I used it mostly as a DAW, but I when did cut video with it I was blown away by how freeform and limber it was. I couldn't use it for my work because, at that point, it had no support for "broadcast" video cards. It was cool, though. And, from what I've heard, it has matured really well. Sonic Foundry was a terrific company, and I wish Sony had done a little more to promote their products. If I end up getting a PC workstation this year, one of my joys will be installing upgraded copies of Sound Forge and Acid. I bet I put Vegas on there, too.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 4:29:46 am

That's when I first used it too. Back in 2000 i think , I saw a Vegas 2 demo at the DV Expo in Long Beach and was really freaked out. Vegas was the first NLE to have realtime dissolves etc with DV footage - no Targa or Digisuite or CineWave required!

I ended up buying my copy at Frys and have used it off and on ever since and been on the beta team since version 3. I got to fly back to Sonic Foundry HQ in Madison and meet the team before the Sony purchase. Very cool and creative group. They were the first Windows guys I ever met that were as passionate as Mac folks.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Frank Gothmann
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 2:15:30 am

[Lance Bachelder] "Who are "most people"? One guy with a YouTube video? "

Google Warp Stabilizer vs FCP X and "most people" means the finding of... well... most people who wrote about their comparison of the two.
Actually, I only used most because of your findings, without it it should read "everybody".

------
"You also agree that you will not use these products for... the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons."
iTunes End User Licence Agreement


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 1:50:36 am

Who cares? use what you like.

Robert Brown
Editor/VFX/Colorist - FCP, Smoke, Quantel Pablo, After Effects, 3DS MAX, Premiere Pro

http://vimeo.com/user3987510/videos


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 2:19:55 am

Its odd to see such polar opposite first/early impressions.

David Lawrence did a write up of it and seemed very impressed w/how snappy and responsive it was on his 2008 MBP (which I doubt has a CUDA-friendly card).

Premiere Pro CS 6.0: First Impressions


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Joseph Mastantuono
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 2:53:35 am

Apple *really* needs nVidia GPU options it seems.

I'm running a Mac Pro 2010 model, with a GTX285, and it runs like a dream, output through my Blackmagic Decklink 3d.

I'm cutting h.264 and XDCAM EX together on a single timeline, without conversion, without hiccups.

I'm cutting a corporate video right now, and using the search function almost anytime to look for a clip, and it's really sweet.

Titles with Tiff's on top of video? NO RENDERING.

Joseph Mastantuono
http://www.goodpost.net
Color Grading & Post Production Consulting


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 6:18:08 am

[Joseph Mastantuono] "'m running a Mac Pro 2010 model, with a GTX285, and it runs like a dream, output through my Blackmagic Decklink 3d"

I've got a GTX285 in 2008 8 core. Glad to hear.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 3:08:40 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Its odd to see such polar opposite first/early impressions.
"


I didn't spend a lot of time with PP but I didn't have to, I could move into it tomorrow and put out a project. It's that intuitive for a FCP user.

I see both X and 6 as being in a similar and interesting spots, both in a good light, no need for invective.

Now it's time for Adobe to push the envelope with PP and Apple with FCP.

For a while last year it looked pretty stupid and unnecessarily unsettling to me and so many other producers and editors.

Now, nearly a year later, it looks pretty interesting.
We've been putting out a steady stream of nice creative for broadcast and web out of FCPX for months. Aside from our brush with corruption, It's become a better and better environment as I've invested more time - big surprise.

Again, I think David's article is spot on.
Right now I could edit enjoyably in either FCPX or PP6.
But honestly, FCPX is a better overall experience than any NLE we've produced with going back to PP 1.0, Media 100 and Avid suites.
It needs to evolve, as does PP6, but it's there at a very serious level now.


Return to posts index

Spencer Iervolino
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 4:36:01 am

I agree Jim. It's an interesting and exciting time for sure. I like X but just not sure I want/can afford to have my world change so drastically, so quickly. Couldn't you have warmed me up a little before we jumped in the sack, Apple?

I used to hate Premiere, but 6 is really attracting me and I feel very comfortable in there. This is definitely the direction I want to go. I can do some great things together with Ae and Ps. I'm also very excited to see what Smoke has to offer, what a great time for someone else to step into the ring.

For now, I'll be learning and playing around with X and Pr on the side, meanwhile still making my living with FCP 7 until they pry it from my cold, stubborn hands.


Return to posts index

Paul Jay
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 7:52:56 am

In terms of broadcast I/O playback and smoothness in operation. CS6 can finally compete with FCP7. ( yes, classic)

FCPX and CS6 are both awesome and both will deserve their place.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 11, 2012 at 4:27:28 pm

[Paul Jay] "FCPX and CS6 are both awesome and both will deserve their place."

Paul,

You understand this is heresy right?

In this forum, one must swear allegiance to an NLE. Unconditionally!

One must be outraged when anyone suggests it's not ideal for everyone. And one needs to develop a deep, deep desire to bask in the warm glow of self-satisfaction when someone says something nice about your choice.

Some of the priests here have proved to be so sage that they can notice the good in all - but to ascend to that level of neutralized judgeship requires many, many posts and expertise in one of the more arcane arts that everyone fears and values so much that they can't dismiss.

So far, only Walter S and Tim have ascended into such lofty clouds - and Tim's a special case because he works for the joint and talks to the owner regularly.

You've been warned, so get in line, dude.

This reasonableness must not stand...

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Tangier Clarke
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 14, 2012 at 9:01:29 pm

Bill, I haven't read all of the posts in this thread yet, but I jumped into PR6 today (to test) and had similar results. FCP X was far faster. I used 720p60 AVCHD and there's really no details to discuss because the entire process from launch to import, to drawing poster frames and skimming (hovering) was much faster on FCP X.

Mac Pro 2x2.26 Quad-Core Intel Xeon/ OS 10.7.3/16 GB RAM/ ATI Radeon HD 5770

No other apps running.

Tangier


Return to posts index

Tangier Clarke
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 14, 2012 at 9:12:51 pm

Sorry Rich, even though FCP X has some growing up to do, I think it's in a league of it's own in so many ways. A far departure from what we're used to and if one tries to shoehorn the old way of doing things into FCP X it makes a lot less sense. The data management, AV foundation, use of core technologies, price point, the way developers love it,...I could go on.

Trust me I am frustrated with some things in X and frankly there's never been an FCP version I've ever been 100% satisfied with, but I don't think X is going away. FCP X will do what the iPod and iPhone did to their respective industries due the price point and younger users adopting it and expecting it. I truly believe it is the Wii of it's generation (except way more powerful) and I also believe that there's "one more thing" that Apple will announce this year that works with or in FCP X; just following some developer trails.

We all pick our tool(s) of choice, but for me Adobe has always been very useful in everything but Premiere, but the codebase seems not to great when running on a mac; slow and bloated but the main workhorse like Photoshop or AfterEffects - mostly because there's not much competition.

I'd love Apple to buy Pixelmator and SuperPaint and GIMP and Appleize it. Anywho I digress.

FCP 7 is a like a slow dog to me now when I go back to it. It's most familiar, but it's painful at times to work in it now that I've used X so much. I still need to dabble in Pr6 more, but first impressions at best only amount to where FCP was years ago. Best to know as many tools as you can in the end.

Tangier


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 14, 2012 at 9:17:14 pm

[Tangier Clarke] "I still need to dabble in Pr6 more, but first impressions at best only amount to where FCP was years ago."

Give PP6 a try. I think you're in for a big surprise.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Tangier Clarke
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 14, 2012 at 9:21:11 pm

"In this forum, one must swear allegiance to an NLE. Unconditionally!"

Love this post in particular Bill. Made me laugh. Made my day.

FCP X it is for me. I'm all in; growing pains and all.

...but I will still cut a project or three in PP6 to see/learn what it can do.

Tangier


Return to posts index

Tangier Clarke
Re: Premiere vs. FCPX
on May 14, 2012 at 9:35:52 pm

10 Final Cut Pro things FCP editors might be missing in Adobe Premiere Pro CS6

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/ssimmons/story/10_fcp_things_fcp_edi...

Tangier


Return to posts index

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