FORUMS: list search recent posts

Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 2:31:35 pm

I've noticed that some here have made a transition from FCP "legacy" to Premiere Pro and now to FCP X. Many first shifted to Premiere Pro out of the reaction to FCP X's early stages. Out of curiosity, for those that have decided to shift from Premiere Pro to FCP X, what about one or the other changed your mind? I get the resistance to the subscription plan. But, is it more than that?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Devin Crane
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 4:10:06 pm

Reliance on the cloud.



Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 4:11:02 pm

My reasons:

1. FCP X is trackless which often equates to faster editing. No need to patch or worry about which tracks are assigned. Granted, tracks can be useful sometimes.
2. Ability to create a custom title, transition, effect, or generator. From there publish parameters of your choice, save and ready to go.
3. Better organization, create keywords and collections from finder tags. A small, but very useful feature.
4. As you do not have pay monthly rent, it is going to be cost effective over the long term.
5. Improved media management in last version.
6. Great workflow to and from Resolve 11 when more advanced color correction and grading is needed.

Those are my thoughts, look forward to hearing from others.

I am an avid user of FCP X!


Return to posts index


Devin Crane
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 4:50:00 pm

Ability to custom create titles and effects is huge. We produce episodic programming and have found the ability to create our own them of effects and titles was the biggest plus.

Multicam in FCPX has by far the best implementation of it compared to all the editors we have worked with.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 5:06:30 pm

[David Mathis] "2. Ability to create a custom title, transition, effect, or generator. From there publish parameters of your choice, save and ready to go."

[Devin Crane] "Ability to custom create titles and effects is huge. We produce episodic programming and have found the ability to create our own them of effects and titles was the biggest plus."

CC 2014 introduces live text templates [link], which are Ae comps with replaceable text in Premiere.

I've published a workflow which extends live text templates with expressions [link], allowing the user to hijack extra text entry fields to control non-text comp elements, too.

It's not as good as the FCPX/M5 rigging/publishing workflow (yet), but it does handle the base case pretty nicely. I'm hopeful that there will be more development along these lines, and I'd certainly apprciate any Ae/Pr users out there helping me to encourage the developers [link] along these lines.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 5:13:31 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I've published a workflow which extends live text templates with expressions [link], allowing the user to hijack extra text entry fields to control non-text comp elements, too."

If anyone hasn't watched Walter's demo of this, I heartily recommend it - extremely clever (as one would of course expect! and extremely useful.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index


Devin Crane
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 5:56:06 pm

[Walter Soyka] "CC 2014 introduces live text templates [link], which are Ae comps with replaceable text in Premiere."

Still requires the Cloud, sorry but a no go for our organization.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 6:12:10 pm

[Devin Crane] "Still requires the Cloud, sorry but a no go for our organization."

I'm not selling anything, and of course I think you should make the decision that's best for you and your team.

I'm just pointing out that a variation on this feature now exists in the Adobe ecosystem, too. It's quite new.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 6:31:23 pm

With much due respect, Walter and Simon - is it fair to say that you've switched from Premier Pro to X?

And if not, you're not responding to Oliver's actual question.

If anyone "gets" defending one's decisions to pick an NLE it's me. But when I started to respond to this I looked back at Olivers questions and since he was polling current X users who had come to it from PREMIER - = that disqualifies me. So I didn't respond.

FWIW.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 6:49:51 pm

[Bill Davis] "With much due respect, Walter and Simon - is it fair to say that you've switched from Premier Pro to X? And if not, you're not responding to Oliver's actual question."

I wasn't attempting to answer Oliver's question. I was responding quite narrowly to Devin and David, clarifying that with the latest release of CC 2014, the rigging/publishing workflow they were citing is no longer unique to FCPX/M5 in this comparison.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Devin Crane
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 6:54:53 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I wasn't attempting to answer Oliver's question. I was responding quite narrowly to Devin and David, clarifying that with the latest release of CC 2014, the rigging/publishing workflow they were citing is no longer unique to FCPX/M5 in this comparison."

Still misses the point of the thread.



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:13:10 pm

[Devin Crane] "Still misses the point of the thread."

I'm not trying to derail the thread, I'm trying to contribute to it.

If you are citing Premiere Pro's lack of templates like FCPX/M5 has as a reason you switched away, why wouldn't the fact that Pr/Ae just added that feature be germane to the conversation?

I didn't bring this up to change anybody's mind. I brought it up to provide relevant information that readers here may be unaware of.

Oliver, my apologies for the noise.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:26:01 pm

I think anytime someone can correct inaccurate information it adds to the discussion.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:33:20 pm

I appreciate trying to keep it on track, but yes, info is always helpful. I think we can skip the "anti-subscription" replies unless that really was a contributing factor in shifting away from Premiere Pro after having started down that route. What's more interesting is those folks who really liked Premiere Pro after using it, but for whatever reason have shifted to FCP X. Maybe that's "tracks versus trackless", faster editing, the new Mac Pro or change in corporate direction. This isn't anything formal BTW, just idle curiosity. Thanks.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:43:53 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I appreciate trying to keep it on track, but yes, info is always helpful."

Isn't this the forum where it's virtually mandatory to have at least a dozen insane (but incredibly interesting) changes of direction per thread?

;-)

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index


JP Pelc
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 2:46:38 pm

lol dubs vs. subs anybody?


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 9:47:32 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I think anytime someone can correct inaccurate information it adds to the discussion."

Actually, people get incensed if you correct anything. They'd prefer to wallow in ignorance apparently.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 24, 2014 at 12:37:00 am

[Gary Huff] "They'd prefer to wallow in ignorance apparently."

Particularly when we each are allowed to define "Ignorance" as simply "disagrees with ME" or "can't tell when *I* was teasing" or "has a different frame of experience and is incensed that everyone won't bend their thinking to conform with mine."

Ignorance is so very simple to identify. In others.

Perhaps why I try to avoid using the word unless I'm applying it to myself.

; _

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 24, 2014 at 1:10:29 am

[Bill Davis] "Particularly when we each are allowed to define "Ignorance" as simply "disagrees with ME""

Except when there's actually no stated disagreement.


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 24, 2014 at 4:17:35 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I think anytime someone can correct inaccurate information it adds to the discussion.
"


+1

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Ken Eakins
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Feb 2, 2015 at 4:03:14 pm

"Requires the cloud"

That's funny, I use it on location all the time without 'the cloud'.

Doesn't FCP require 'the cloud' to get its updates as well?


Return to posts index


Justin Crowell
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 9:54:37 pm

Super slick workaround, Walter! I came up against this issue just yesterday--working with editors who really would struggle to go into AE and adjust the background box for some text. This would totally simplify the process. It also seems sort of future proof to me--not quite sure how Adobe could break that without messing with how expressions work.

Editor, Producer, DP
JustinCrowell.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 24, 2014 at 12:25:56 am

[Justin Crowell] "uper slick workaround, Walter! I came up against this issue just yesterday--working with editors who really would struggle to go into AE and adjust the background box for some text. This would totally simplify the process. "

Thanks, Justin. This workflow might be a good fit for you.

With expressions, you could even automatically resize the type or box based on the length of the text, no additional user-exposed parameters required.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 10:30:27 pm

[Walter Soyka] "It's not as good as the FCPX/M5 rigging/publishing workflow (yet), but it does handle the base case pretty nicely. "

Does everyone using the templates need to have AE installed?

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 24, 2014 at 12:29:38 am

[Charlie Austin] "Does everyone using the templates need to have AE installed?"

Yes, templates work via Dynamic Link and require Ae to be installed to be used from Premiere.

However, you can design a template in Ae for use in Premiere without Premiere installed on that machine.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 7:29:33 pm

Hi David. What is your workflow from Fcp x to resolve and back?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 23, 2014 at 8:03:03 pm

[Craig Alan] "Hi David. What is your workflow from Fcp x to resolve and back?"

When shooting in ProRes with the Blackmagic Cinema Camera, bring the files into X for editing then export XML, bring into Resolve for correction or grading.

When shooting in raw I go with a workflow similar to what Denver Riddle from Color Grading Central uses:







Pretty straightforward workflow.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 3:22:49 am

Thanks. Very fast initial grade. What a difference! Do you have any trouble with the XML export back to resolve? According to John Davidson, XML's don't retain smart folders, on screen text data, and effect keyframes. Does this effect the workflow at all?

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 24, 2014 at 2:42:03 am

I've done every paying gig in Premiere CC since the June 2013 release including 2 feature films and 2 national TV specials. While I've dabbled in FCPX since the beginning it's always been a pain. After the "CC 2014" release and the need to not only re-install the entire suite from scratch but also most of my plug-ins, same on both PC and Mac, and then having just terrible performance issues I decided to take a serious look at ANY/ALL other NLE's again in an attempt to completely eliminate Adobe from my workflow - yes even Photoshop, AE and Illustrator. Other factors include of course the subscription and Premieres terrible audio tracks and audio in general - Audition didn't cut it for me either.

After doing the entire 5.1 mix for a 30 min. doc recently I decided it was time to do a show from start to finish in FCPX. It's just a 2 minute promo for a new game but it has quite a bit of compositing, 3D text and tons of sound fx. I almost gave up after a few days but once I got through some growing pains I actually really like the magnetic timeline. So nice to stack a bunch of sound fx and not worry about adding tracks etc. Also great to copy a bunch of sound effects and paste them anywhere without worrying about damaging something. Also audio mixing, fades outs, setting levels while playing, all are so much better than Premiere and the end result sounds far superior to sound from Premiere.

The only real drag with FCPX so far is key framing - just doing a simple move on a picture or graphic sucks due to the lack of interpolation features. I'd like to be able to right-click on a keyframe and change the interpolation - is this too much to ask?

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 24, 2014 at 1:39:41 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "After the "CC 2014" release and the need to not only re-install the entire suite from scratch but also most of my plug-ins"

I'm curious why the plug-ins issue. I haven't seen this with AE or PProCC if plug-ins are installed in the common MediaCore folder where they are supposed to be placed by most installers. And AU or VST plug-ins should be findable with a rescan. Was there a particular issue when you updated?

[Lance Bachelder] "Audition didn't cut it for me either"

What's missing for you?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Mitch Ives
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 24, 2014 at 4:23:50 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "The only real drag with FCPX so far is key framing - just doing a simple move on a picture or graphic sucks due to the lack of interpolation features. I'd like to be able to right-click on a keyframe and change the interpolation - is this too much to ask?"

No it's not... and I'd like that too.

In fact, I'd like the ability to add keyframes in any order I want and have it work every time. Whenever anyone asks me if there is anything flakey in X, I say yes, the key framing. It's intermittent and is inconsistent in it's application. If I had a nickel for every time I've had to go back in and redo a keyframe that didn't take, I'd be able to add a fair amount to my retirement fund...

Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." - Winston Churchill


Return to posts index

Pam Picard
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 24, 2014 at 12:36:19 pm

With all this said, I'm curious where people think FCPX will be in 5 years?

I am a producer/editor, started on FCP7 and quickly realized I did not know enough about editing to use a program no one was supporting. So I quickly switched to FCPX. I was not loyal to any program and loved it from the start. I now have a pretty good client base that I produce and edit for - web series, broadcast, corporate.

Over two years later, I'm a much better editor and wondering if I learn another program?

Would love people's thoughts.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 24, 2014 at 4:25:26 pm

[Pam Picard] "... wondering if I learn another program?"

Pam,

It's great that you've found something that suits your needs, and the answer to your question will be different depending on your intentions.

My experience seems to indicate that the future is one where editors will increasingly be moving between different NLEs depending on many factors. For that reason, I'd recommend becoming familiar with some other options: Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid Media Composer, Lightworks, seem to be common.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 12:48:06 pm

Hey Oliver -

I switched from FCP Legacy and Avid (not a lot of that though) to mostly X for speed, tools at hand and it's more fun (sorry, but that is important). It was not an instant transition, but once there I am hesitant to go back.

I am in the middle of an agency job where I had to use FCP7 and, while it is certainly a comfortable, familiar and robust tool, there was nothing that I came across that I really thought "wow, I wish X would have this". My thoughts were more on how to do the same gig in a trackless environment.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 8:35:28 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "I switched from FCP Legacy and Avid (not a lot of that though) to mostly X for speed, tools at hand and it's more fun (sorry, but that is important). It was not an instant transition, but once there I am hesitant to go back"

I would largely agree with that, for me, as well. With the exception of Aindreas' "lust" for Premiere Pro, I find very few editors who really "love" it. They like the performance, like Adobe's fast development, but often still find it misses the mark when compared to FCP 7. Maybe that's the comfort of a well-worn shoe, but it seems like FCP 7 still remains the most versatile (though not great performing) of the tools out there.

My own feeling is that despite Premiere's strong points, it continues to have nuisance issues for me that make it the last NLE I go to most of the time - given the choice. The most recent job was one I was going to do on Premiere, but it was 720p/29.97 from existing FCP 7 sequences. These simply wouldn't play through a BMD card with Premiere, because the card wants to see 720p/59.94. Even though the exact same media on the same machine worked in FCP 7 and FCP X, because the software takes care of the cadence issue. I could have copied & pasted the old times like to a new 720p/59.94 sequence in Premiere and that worked, but why bother. Hence, I finished it in X.

The other problem I have with Premiere is the push for native media all the time, with no fallback to transcoding. While this is helpful in a crunch, it's terrible for performance. Right now I'm about to cut a 10 minute short, shot on RED. I could cut it in Premiere, but I'm not about to mess around with native 4K RED files in a film edit. X's transcode/proxy workflow simply makes so much more sense.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 9:36:54 pm
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Jul 25, 2014 at 9:41:36 pm

[Oliver Peters] "With the exception of Aindreas' "lust" for Premiere Pro"

hey - hey now. strong words sir.

Avid is a bag of cats that wants you to see the timeline as a sequence of keyboard driven additions or deletions from a growing or shrinking sausage link chain of uninterrupted video, where you act only on the trim points. they don't want you to see discreet video objects with intrinsic parameters you can act on with a tool palette of slip slid roll tools. they want you to see a monolithic assembly where you hold down three keys and drag left to right to invoke a wildly over-engineered trim mode at the cut points.

I find that about as aesthetically appealing as a root canal personally.

the X timeline is a basket case of primary, secondary, nearest neighbour, second cousin, active dot, tilde to de-activate connections mad hatter's tea party. It also has mathematically zero uptake in the UK - anyone? Bueller? So it sort of slightly doesn't actually exist in local terms.

the only thing I can make out from my limited vantage point that still looks sane to me is 7, the dying king, and latterly 8 - also occasionally known as premiere. And adobe have effectively bet the farm on making premiere work like it should for a vast majority of the market. I don't like rental and I ain't going to do it, but its heartening that someone (read Al Mooney Doctor Who fan) is pushing a sane replacement for the rather massive stranded FCP base?

I wouldn't say I lust for premiere, but it's odd to think if they hadn't pushed it and we were all left staring in silence at X or Avid.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 9:40:30 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Avid is a bag of cats that wants you to see the timeline as a sequence of keyboard driven additions or deletions from a growing or shrinking sausage link chain of uninterrupted video, where you act only on the trim points."

I have no idea what in the world that means ;-)

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 9:57:27 pm

I'm developing a thesis there...

OK. Avid doesn't really want you to even use a move tool, certainly a really large number of avid editors I've recently encountered don't. Avid is not an open timeline.

Its entire notion is a careful keyboard IO driven set of additions to a cardinal timeline. Once they're in there, they are supposed to be sausage links in a video chain - you operate on the link points. All avid ever is is a timeline trim operation. Basically, in their terms its one great lump of video where you faff around with the trim points, but really, they don't think you should be doing too much of that. because you made the edit decision right?

you can't even disable a clip for god's sake.


that's all fine if you're making simple deadly serious assemblies of performance and scene. But it's all rather awful if you are trying to throw around an absolute ton of elements and alternates, making grab bags away down the end of the timeline, for any million of different reasons that arose in all the new edit use cases over the last ten years.

Avid is completely awful for all of that. also the effects handling is utterly ludicrous, the key framing is a joke for the ages, and if it was any more clicky track patchy - you might as well just go and call yourself a seamstress. so there's that.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 10:09:22 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "...if you are trying to throw around an absolute ton of elements and alternates, making grab bags away down the end of the timeline, for any million of different reasons that arose in all the new edit use cases over the last ten years."

Which is what the FCP X timeline is absolutely perfect for. ;-) I cut like that in 7 and Pr as well. Just madly re-arranging, storing bits at the timeline tail etc. FCP X wins that particular fight hands down.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 10:25:53 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Charlie Austin] "FCP X wins that particular fight hands down."

Not saying you're wrong, but I'd be interested to know why you think X is better than any other NLE for that purpose. I reckon you can do it pretty much the same in most of the ones I know."


No clip collisions/accidental overwrites etc. Ability to "store" unused/disabled clips anywhere above or below the primary no matter whether they are A or V. Auditions. Quickly creating CC's and then breaking 'em apart in the TL. Audio components for sync audio so I need only move one object rather than 2 or more for every clip. Not needing to carefully lasso groups of related AV clips to move or rearrange.

Essentially just the fact that I can throw anything pretty much anywhere without thinking about the consequences. I can just cut, and sort out the mess later. ;-)

Yes, you can work the same way in other NLE's. Sort of.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 11:47:17 pm

[Charlie Austin] "No clip collisions/accidental overwrites etc."

What are we - special requirement editors? super clap handies moving dot happy connected timeline fans? I get that people say its fun, but seriously, given no production house on any scale in the UK or broadcaster is touching it with a barge pole - what is anyone supposed to do with that.

apple laid an egg with X. the egg is nearly three years old. certain people are doing some amazing things, but relative to what apple had in 7, they now have a dead egg.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 26, 2014 at 12:14:00 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "What are we - special requirement editors? super clap handies moving dot happy connected timeline fans?"

I'm an editor who needs to cut stuff quickly so movie studios can meet deadlines and advertise their multi-million dollar movies. The less time I have to spend thinking about being a technician the more time I can spend being creative. Maybe creativity doesn't matter to you.

I'm working in our beloved FCP 7 this week, and I'd like to throw it off a cliff. The amount of time I spend patching tracks and playing track tetris is just stupid. Maybe not an issue if your source has 1 or 2 audio channels, but juggling 6 or 8 from the source, and 24+ in the timeline is an enormous waste of time. Not that I ever knew how stupid it was before X. It's really stupid. And Pr is even more annoying with it's multiplicity of "smart" tracks and convoluted mixing workflow. And I know how to use it, you should hear the questions I get, and see the messes i need to clean up, from the poor bastards who don't.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "but seriously, given no production house on any scale in the UK or broadcaster is touching it with a barge pole - what is anyone supposed to do with that."

Who fricking cares what anyone else uses.?! Not me. :-) Maybe if I was freelancing, but I'm not. I use whatever I need to, If I'm flying solo I use X. If I have to swap work with people who use something else I do. The "industry standard" is still MC Aindreas.... get to work! :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 26, 2014 at 12:32:14 am
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Jul 26, 2014 at 12:39:31 am

[Charlie Austin] "The "industry standard" is still MC Aindreas.... get to work! :-)"

You're not wrong...


[Charlie Austin] "Maybe not an issue if your source has 1 or 2 audio channels, but juggling 6 or 8 from the source, and 24+ in the timeline is an enormous waste of time. "

ah no - to be fair bud, I did say cut a top gear promo for international sales for BBCWW where I intercut the guys between seven different dubbed languages as a gag. real benny hill thing - lots of fun, lots of preparation. you do sort of need clearly defined rigid audio tracks to play that game.

(edit - not blowing my horn there - point is that was one of the more complex audio edits i've done. half the translations drifted to different timings as well. It was mayhem. I believe you need tracks there.)

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 26, 2014 at 12:50:35 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] " you do sort of need clearly defined rigid audio tracks to play that game.

(edit - not blowing my horn there - point is that was one of the more complex audio edits i've done. half the translations drifted to different timings as well. It was mayhem. I believe you need tracks there.) "


I honestly believe that Roles and the Timeline Index are a much better way to manage audio in a cut. Not visually at this point, but as far as keeping track of/manipulating stuff in a timeline. It might be nice to group roles in the timeline, but it makes no difference to me. When I export for a mix they're all sorted for me, I just press a button. Yes, I need a 3rd party app for that. Who cares. If you like/prefer fixed tracks, fine. Not me. :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 26, 2014 at 1:21:04 am

[Charlie Austin] " are a much better way to manage audio in a cut. Not visually at this point,"

charlie, without wanting to sound in any way dismissive here - visual understanding has to be a pretty key issue and omission. audio elements are either locked in a VA container, or they are detached elements with no sync information - or are fx stuff and they all jump up and down like yo yos depending on your edit actions.
that's not exactly a massively workable scenario.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 26, 2014 at 2:24:58 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "visual understanding has to be a pretty key issue and omission. audio elements are either locked in a VA container, or they are detached elements with no sync information - or are fx stuff and they all jump up and down like yo yos depending on your edit actions.
that's not exactly a massively workable scenario."


I understand what you're saying, and sort of agree about jumping up and down, though I'm used to it so I don't pay attention to it anymore. Roles that stuck together would be a nice option. However, in my case sync/production audio rarely leaves the clip it goes with, so it's always in the primary with pix. If I need to detach it, for a cheat or to use some production sfx somewhere else, I'll comp it back with the video if it's lot of little phonemes all chopped up or something, or just leave it connected. And it never moves left or right unless I specifically move it. That would be a problem, but vertical movement isn't. It's in sync is all that I care about. If I need to see a specific Role I'll just highlight it in the index. I really don't have a problem with it and I do some fairly crazy audio editing.

Managing connections is all that matters, and while it does take a little effort, it's way easier for me than relying on tracks and out of sync markers. Mainly because it's only out of sync if I move it. And you can always re-arrange clips manually in vertical space if you want. I always keep my MX at the bottom of the pile,, and will create secondaries if I really need it fixed in a linear way. But I really don't miss fixed tracks at all. Also, those little snorkels everyone complains about are a huge timesaver syncing FX, MX hits, DIA cheats etc, as you see the vid frame the connection point attaches to in the viewer. As I said, I'm cutting in 7 today about 30 tracks deep and I wish i was doing it in X. Sadly, I need to collaborate with an editor on 7, so I'm trapped. :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 26, 2014 at 4:10:21 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "charlie, without wanting to sound in any way dismissive here - visual understanding has to be a pretty key issue and omission. audio elements are either locked in a VA container, or they are detached elements with no sync information - or are fx stuff and they all jump up and down like yo yos depending on your edit actions. that's not exactly a massively workable scenario"

Not only that, three years later and you still can't do a simple copy/overwrite paste of audio in the primary.

Epic FAIL.

BTW, I've been using FCPX every day for the past couple months for the gig I'm on as a logging/organizing tool. It's working beautifully. But I cut in Premiere - still The Honeybadger of Timelines™

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 27, 2014 at 1:20:22 am

[David Lawrence] "Not only that, three years later and you still can't do a simple copy/overwrite paste of audio in the primary.

Epic FAIL."


I'm not sure I'd call that a FAIL at all. If I understand what you're talking about (and maybe I don't) typically this operation is used to replace audio in an interview or actuality with blank ambiance. You're right, the structure of X doesn't allow that, and won't ever. But, it's not something I do a lot of. And certainly there are plenty of ways to accomplish that with attached audio files in X. However the structure of combining video and audio together, rather than as separate tracks, saves me a lot of time in my bread and butter editing operations.

If we're going on one particular feature. I'd call Premiere Pro and Epic FAIL for not being able to open more than one project at a time. I do this on a daily basis to pull a single clip from one library into another library. Or copy and paste between timelines in different libraries.



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 27, 2014 at 2:34:28 am

[Brett Sherman] "I'm not sure I'd call that a FAIL at all. If I understand what you're talking about (and maybe I don't) typically this operation is used to replace audio in an interview or actuality with blank ambiance. You're right, the structure of X doesn't allow that, and won't ever. But, it's not something I do a lot of."

There's absolutely no technical reason why the timeline structure won't allow this. You can already do it from the browser.

[Brett Sherman] "I'd call Premiere Pro and Epic FAIL for not being able to open more than one project at a time."

It's a bit of an annoyance, but Adobe addressed it pretty nicely by allowing us to peek into projects and selectively import individual sequences and media assets. At this point it's basically a non-issue for me.

On the other hand, select/copy/overwrite paste audio is something I might do hundreds of times an hour when editing dialog or interview actuality.

Select/copy/overwrite paste isn't just an NLE thing. It's one of the most basic actions on any type of digital editor. Even freaking TextEdit does it!

The fact that three years out, it's still missing from the FCPX timeline is mind-boggling and simply indefensible. That's why I call it an epic FAIL.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 27, 2014 at 6:07:12 am

Little confused David. How would you paste overwrite just the audio from the browser onto an A/V clip without first breaking apart the audio?

Also can you paste overwrite the visual on the timeline? I can insert and connect but I can't seem to overwrite except from the browser.

The only way I know to select a timeline clip, audio or visual, and paste it as an overwrite in the timeline: select it, reveal in browser, and then overwrite.

Am I behind the times?

[Brett Sherman] "You're right, the structure of X doesn't allow that, and won't ever. "

I can't imagine that anything prevents Apple from writing code that will allow this feature/behavior.
You can detach audio from an A/V clip.
You can overwrite from start to an audio clip.
You can form a compound clip of the attached audio and visual clip.

So all Apple would need to do is write a script and a short cut to perform it.
And it would be nice to have something similar to a compound clip that did not adhere to all the parent child save in the browser behaviors. And be able to break apart this compound like clip and reassemble.

Also it would be nice if you did overwrite dialog to have a little symbol on the clip that shows you that the original audio was over-written.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 27, 2014 at 6:38:59 am

[Craig Alan] "Little confused David. How would you paste overwrite just the audio from the browser onto an A/V clip without first breaking apart the audio?"

Craig, you are right, apologies for the confusion. What I meant is that you can do an overwrite edit from the browser that overwrites audio as well as video. There needs to be a paste mode in the timeline that works the same way.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 27, 2014 at 8:07:18 pm

Thanks David.
It is an obvious and weird omission. FCP X is full of stuff that can be done in one instance and not another.

So if you want to overwrite audio using timeline clips (I'm not suggesting this for you, just trying to learn for myself, aka I'm not close to being at your level):

shift-3 (audio only edits)
select primary storyline sequence that contains the dialog
control-shift-S to detach audio
select detached audio clips
command-G (create storyline)
select an audio clip within the new storyline
shift-F (reveal in browser)
select range to be overwritten
D (overwrite)

so shift-F instead of command-C
R click to select audio clip to be overwritten
D instead of command-V.
then if you wish to keep individual clips magnetic
select the audio storyline and shift-command-G to break apart audio storyline

Perhaps on your level???-
http://fcpx.tv/Pages/tracks.html

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 28, 2014 at 1:11:34 am
Last Edited By Brett Sherman on Jul 28, 2014 at 1:17:20 am

[Craig Alan] "I can't imagine that anything prevents Apple from writing code that will allow this feature/behavior.
You can detach audio from an A/V clip.
You can overwrite from start to an audio clip.
You can form a compound clip of the attached audio and visual clip.

So all Apple would need to do is write a script and a short cut to perform it.
And it would be nice to have something similar to a compound clip that did not adhere to all the parent child save in the browser behaviors. And be able to break apart this compound like clip and reassemble."


From the FCP X timeline design you can't have an audio track within the primary that is a separate clip from the video that's in the primary.

What you suggesting is a bit convoluted (no offense) creating a compound that doesn't behave like a compound. Remaining editable in the timeline but a container of sorts. It would be a whole new object in the FCP X logic. Maybe "never" is too strong, but I just don't see it happening.

I don't do dialogue editing, but I edit the heck out of interview clips and have rarely desired this capability. 98% of the time if I'm cutting audio, I'm also cutting video or I have a B-roll shot that covers the cut anyways. Different strokes I suppose.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 28, 2014 at 1:19:47 am

"From the FCP X timeline design you can't have an audio track within the primary that is a separate clip from the video that's in the primary."

Actually that's not completely accurate. You can open any clip in its own timeline and change or replace any audio within it. Once edited to the primary, this clip acts like any other clip.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 28, 2014 at 5:33:50 am

Oliver,

Still not getting it.

You open a clip in its own timeline. It's expanded in its own timeline. You select a range in the audio.
You have audio edit only selected and range in a clip in the browser selected. You try to over write and the visual clip get over written. So how do you overwrite audio only? Not with audio only but with and to audio only. With the exception of a storyline of all audio clips I can't figure it out.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 29, 2014 at 12:05:33 am

[Craig Alan] "So how do you overwrite audio only? Not with audio only but with and to audio only. With the exception of a storyline of all audio clips I can't figure it out."

In my example I wasn't talking about a way to paste-overwrite. I was addressing the statement that a master clip could only contain the original audio and video. In FCP X that's not the case. A master clip is merely a container and it can be "destroyed" (requiring re-import) if you aren't careful.

There is no way to do an audio-only paste-overwrite that doesn't also affect video in the primary. The workaround is to paste as a connected clip and then duck down the audio in the primary audio channels.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 29, 2014 at 5:38:02 am

[Oliver Peters] "In my example I wasn't talking about a way to paste-overwrite. I was addressing the statement that a master clip could only contain the original audio and video. In FCP X that's not the case. A master clip is merely a container and it can be "destroyed" (requiring re-import) if you aren't careful."

Which is why I feel that Apple could add overwrite ability. and consistent copy paste.

But - once you open a clip in its own storyline what would be the workflow for replacing the audio and then returning to the original storyline with this new audio as part of the primary clip?

Also if you really need to do a lot of audio overwrite and other changes to the primary audio as I mentioned above you can

detach audio from the primary clips
create a storyline of these detached audio clips
select an audio clip within the new storyline
shift-F (reveal in browser)
select range to be overwritten
D (overwrite)

then if you wish to keep individual clips magnetic
break apart audio storyline.

and if you wish you can then create new compound clips using the now connected audio and the primary clips.

The only problem here is you end up with a whole mess of compound clips. And I keep hearing if you have compounds in compounds this could lead to file or project corruption.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 29, 2014 at 6:38:39 am

[Craig Alan] "Also if you really need to do a lot of audio overwrite and other changes to the primary audio as I mentioned above you can

detach audio from the primary clips
create a storyline of these detached audio clips
select an audio clip within the new storyline
shift-F (reveal in browser)
select range to be overwritten
D (overwrite)"


Or you could just cut in Premiere, where it only takes a single keystroke ;)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 29, 2014 at 7:11:05 am

[David Lawrence] "[Craig Alan] "Also if you really need to do a lot of audio overwrite and other changes to the primary audio as I mentioned above you can

detach audio from the primary clips
create a storyline of these detached audio clips
select an audio clip within the new storyline
shift-F (reveal in browser)
select range to be overwritten
D (overwrite)"

Or you could just cut in Premiere, where it only takes a single keystroke ;)"



Or just cut in FCP X as connected clips and comp 'em together if it's particularly convoluted audio cheat. Just disable the primary audio if you don't need it. The nice thing about X is you can just turn it back on if you change your mind. Sync isn't an issue because connected clips don't lose sync unless you move them.

I really don't understand either side of this "discussion". I mean, i get what you both are saying, but I do this stuff in 7, X and Pr all the time. Cutting/cheating dialog in X is easy, without going through any convoluted workarounds. Just work with it the way it works. It ain't rocket surgery. :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 29, 2014 at 7:58:46 am
Last Edited By Steve Connor on Jul 29, 2014 at 7:59:34 am

[David Lawrence] "Or you could just cut in Premiere, where it only takes a single keystroke ;)"\
\
and a rental contract (if you want the latest and much better version!)

Steve Connor
Mellowing slowly


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 29, 2014 at 6:14:14 pm

Why do you need to do primary audio overwrites so often? Are you working with ADR?

Unfortunately, funding for my program does not work with Adobe's billing practices.

I also seriously considered AVID but the learning curve was rather steep and then there were rumors of it being in the RED.

In premier you still need to select-copy-select-paste.

I don't do a lot of primary audio overwrites. When I need to - connected audio and ducking the primary audio does the trick. However, if I ever needed to or just wanted to create a tracked timeline in X. I do think a secondary storyline is a viable alternative.

Since its all keyboard shortcuts except making selection's (isn't this generally true?) I think it goes pretty smoothly.

shift-F (instead of command-C)
D (instead of command-V).

Granted turning FCP X timeline into a hybrid tracked timeline is an extra step
And I do think it could be made more ergonomic.

Also granted simple copy paste would be more INTUITIVE since it is universal as you pointed out.

Very simple feature request: overwrite any connected clip with D or command-V.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 29, 2014 at 11:33:10 pm

[Craig Alan] "Why do you need to do primary audio overwrites so often? Are you working with ADR?"

Not ADR specifically, but I often have ADR-like needs when building a radio cut and especially when "franken-clipping".

My editing style is very influenced from working with sound in DAWs. We had a very interesting conversation about this three years ago:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/16886

Note that trackless DAWs are still basically nonexistent. I think there's a reason for that.

Also, I think it's cool that three years later, I'm finally getting my wish to use FCPX as a DAM :)

[Craig Alan] "Granted turning FCP X timeline into a hybrid tracked timeline is an extra step
And I do think it could be made more ergonomic.

Also granted simple copy paste would be more INTUITIVE since it is universal as you pointed out.

Very simple feature request: overwrite any connected clip with D or command-V.
"


Yes. Yes. Yes.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
http://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 28, 2014 at 5:26:26 am

[Brett Sherman] "What you suggesting is a bit convoluted (no offense) creating a compound that doesn't behave like a compound. Remaining editable in the timeline but a container of sorts. It would be a whole new object in the FCP X logic. "

Well, I could certainly see it NOT happening. But it seems to me that compound clips shows that it could be done. Compounds seem to be an answer for so many needs within FC that its strange to me that the one that is in place saves it as a parent clip. That to me seems convoluted. How many times do you make a change to a clip in one instance and want that change to occur in projects you are not even actively editing? What I would prefer is to be able to save any clip to the browser since the browser is essentially a storage container. Now you can do that by making it a compound. But you best be careful that if you reuse this clip that you save it as a new master.

I'm not saying that if you have a TV series or show that you might not reuse the same opening clip, but it's a very specialized need. The fact that as soon as you break the components of a compound clip apart you can't put it back together is less than ideal though I guess creating a new one isn't that hard. But now you have the uncorrected one left in the browser.

Here's a common example where you might like to overwrite dialog in the primary: ADR.

Here's another: comedies where you are putting words in people's mouths and maybe even deliberately out of sync.

You could do either with connected clips.

But given how sloppy a non-tracked timeline can become beyond 3 or 4 layers, its kind of nice to form a compound to simplify things and make sure they stay in sync.

[Brett Sherman] "From the FCP X timeline design you can't have an audio track within the primary that is a separate clip from the video that's in the primary.
"


That's true. So in order to overwrite just the audio in a dialog you'd need to detach the audio.

If it were possible for the code to be written so it could be done directly that would be great. But if not it could certainly be detached, overwritten, and then married again like or as a compound.

And even if this is a ridiculous convoluted idea on my part, certainly you should be able to copy and overwrite paste anything on the timeline without going back to the browser.

How many times do you want to over write an A/V clip in the primary with just a different audio clip. Cause that's what happens now. Is that by design? Does it make sense? Don't you think it would be cool if you could expand audio components, copy and paste between clips and then collapse audio?

My guess is that all this is really just a visual presentation on the timeline since back in the browser the original clips are just being referenced and not changed. So Apple could, I'm guessing, be able to write the code to present the timeline and add features however they like.

But let's say I'm wrong and that my idea is convoluted cause its against FCP X basic design.

Certainly you should be able to over write a connected detached audio clip from either the browser or the timeline. But you can't or correct me if I'm wrong. Cause if I have a connected clip of audio and I select something in the browser and click D it overwrites the primary even if the connected clip is selected. In fact even if I set a range on the connected clip it will overwrite the primary storyline. That's pretty bizarre behavior. Now only if I am overwriting audio from one audio clip to another on the same storyline will this work as expected. In other words I need to create an audio only storyline. In short, it's own track.

If there is another way, I'm all ears.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 10:17:44 pm

Well, I would suggest that most of your assumptions are wrong and are based on how you see editors use the software and not what the software actually does. Granted, there are a lot of things on there that were added over time to make it more FCP-user-friendly. As far as timeline interaction, it works exactly the same as FCP7 and Premiere Pro, with a few exceptions.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "want you to even use a move tool"

It is there though, albeit it a bit more cumbersome than in FCP 7, simply because it's not the default mode.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Avid is not an open timeline."

This is incorrect terminology. An open timeline means you can throw a lot of different sizes and codecs on the same timeline. By that definition, Avid is most certainly "open". If you mean to say that clip manipulation in the timeline isn't as freeform as with FCP 7 or Premiere, then yes, you would be correct.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Once they're in there, they are supposed to be sausage links in a video chain - you operate on the link points. All avid ever is is a timeline trim operation. Basically, in their terms its one great lump of video where you faff around with the trim points,"

I don't think that's really accurate. In fact, that's basically how X works. I think what you are really reacting to is how filler (blank space) is handled. With all track-based NLEs, this is actual media, however, with MC it's more obvious and until recently, has caused obscructions. The main limitation with MC is that you can't start with a blank timeline and add a clip anywhere other than the beginning. You can certainly move clips around within the beginning and end of the timeline.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "you can't even disable a clip for god's sake."

Soon. But OTOH, you CAN change track visibility (monitoring) without losing renders.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "But it's all rather awful if you are trying to throw around an absolute ton of elements and alternates, making grab bags away down the end of the timeline, for any million of different reasons that arose in all the new edit use cases over the last ten years"

Have you actually tried it? I would contend every TV and film editor that regularly uses Avid would completely disagree with you.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "also the effects handling is utterly ludicrous, the key framing is a joke for the ages, and if it was any more clicky track patchy"

Agreed. The effects tool is very long-in-the-tooth. OTOH, the keyframe model is definitely better than FCP X. And speaking of effects in X, why can't X still not do built-in X and Y rotation?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 26, 2014 at 12:04:08 am

[Oliver Peters] ""Avid is not an open timeline.""

fair enough on everything else but - I meant open as in pliable.

[Oliver Peters] "In fact, that's basically how X works. I think what you are really reacting to is how filler (blank space) is handled."

frankly they can both go to hell. video objects exist in a clean vacuum yo. not a pointless gravity space requiring filler to sustain object separation. avid and X can both take a running jump in a lake on that notion.


[Oliver Peters] "[Aindreas Gallagher] "you can't even disable a clip for god's sake."

Soon. But OTOH, you CAN change track visibility (monitoring) without losing renders."


what, good Peters, is this basic trivial required render you speak of? is this hellish avid logic? that avid ever thought this was a 2014 feat? To turn on a video layer in real time. such achievement. much wow.

sorry - but come on.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 26, 2014 at 12:08:26 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] " To turn on a video layer in real time. such achievement. much wow"

Except that FCP 7 couldn't do it without losing the renders. Change track visibility and renders go poof. I'm not sure about Premiere, but there certainly are times you have to render in PProCC, too. And speaking of render link management, FCP X still leaves a lot to be desired.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 26, 2014 at 12:20:05 am

[Oliver Peters] "Except that FCP 7 couldn't do it without losing the renders."

no indeed sure - all my stuff with CC is easy mxf via avid aaf so far, although I've monstered it a little with mixed stuff elsewhere, I end up thinking that it can handle things quite well and it looks a lot like AE with a basic 7 philosophy - I could kiss that - frankly I have kissed that. I'm not really a viable case study.

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


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 26, 2014 at 1:19:00 am

[Oliver Peters] "The other problem I have with Premiere is the push for native media all the time, with no fallback to transcoding."

AME and Prelude both provide transcoding workflows should you wish it. AME provides a background process through watch folders. Prelude provides partial ingest as well as tagging and subclipping as part of the process.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 3:21:33 pm

[Pam Picard] "With all this said, I'm curious where people think FCPX will be in 5 years?"

Only Apple knows. If in 2009, the year FCP 7 was released, someone asked "Where do you think FCP (or NLEs in general) will be in 5 years?" I highly doubt anyone would've correctly predicted what went down.

I about learning more than one NLE so that all your eggs aren't in the same basket.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 5:00:29 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "[Pam Picard] "With all this said, I'm curious where people think FCPX will be in 5 years?"

Only Apple knows. "


Yes Apple is secretive about stuff they are working on, their plans. However, I really doubt Apple knows what they plan to do 5 years in advance. I don't think they planned to move to the library structure they have now. I think sales and yes even user feedback and where other companies go are all variables. Not to mention the availability of creative talent and patent rights and so forth.

I think its really important at this stage in FCP X development that as a user base we let them know our needs as if every vote counts. I doubt they would make this product if only the high end uses it because that market is very small. But since they are making it, the high end is a very important selling point, branding point. Look how they brag about its use on their site. If some hot shot director or major film is released that was edited on FCP X they will make a big deal about it.

If only NBA players wore Nike sneakers, Nike could not afford to make them. But if they didn't wear them, they wouldn't sell nearly as many.

I think the last update had a quite a few features that initially only the upper middle and high end would care about.

[Andrew Kimery] "I about learning more than one NLE so that all your eggs aren't in the same basket.
"


If you want a career as a free lance editor, that's true regardless of what will happen in 5 years. Be able to say yes to whatever gig comes your way. However, for independent producers and jack of all production trades, learn a work flow and get good with it. If the rug gets pulled out from under you, like it was for many with FCP 7, learn something else.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 5:39:14 pm

[Craig Alan] " If the rug gets pulled out from under you, like it was for many with FCP 7, learn something else."

Just for the record... FCP 7 still works, and at this point it looks like it'll continue to work for at least one more OS revision. So, as it's been years since it was EOL... not really a rug pull. More like a "you need to eventually move to something else" message. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 5:47:12 pm

Granted. But it felt that way. They initially stopped selling it and it didn't seem like the way to go if you were setting up new stations.

I for one was very excited about what FCP 8 would bring to the table.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 6:08:14 pm

[Craig Alan] "Granted. But it felt that way. They initially stopped selling it and it didn't seem like the way to go if you were setting up new stations."

Agreed. I think even Apple, in retrospect, would admit they botched the launch. It was a little... abrupt. ;-)

[Craig Alan] "I for one was very excited about what FCP 8 would bring to the table."

Have you tried FCP 10? lol

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 27, 2014 at 4:08:50 am

[Craig Alan] "Yes Apple is secretive about stuff they are working on, their plans. However, I really doubt Apple knows what they plan to do 5 years in advance. I don't think they planned to move to the library structure they have now. I think sales and yes even user feedback and where other companies go are all variables. Not to mention the availability of creative talent and patent rights and so forth. "

I would be surprised if Apple didn't project 5-10 years into the future with its product roadmaps. Do they map out every feature to the day? No. Do things change? Yes, and I think it's safe to assume they set short, medium and long term goals to keep development focused and moving forward.


[Craig Alan] "However, for independent producers and jack of all production trades, learn a work flow and get good with it. If the rug gets pulled out from under you, like it was for many with FCP 7, learn something else."

If you are familiar with multiple NLEs and workflows then you'll be much less likely to get the rug pulled out from under you, IMO. I'm not saying you have to be expert at multiple NLEs, but just be aware of what other options exist. In my experience the people that were the most shellshocked by the X bomb were FCP users that had little to no experience with other NLEs and pretty much assumed they'd be using FCP until the day they retired. On the other hand, people I knew that experience with multiple NLEs were more likely to roll with the punches.


Return to posts index

Craig Alan
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 27, 2014 at 6:28:43 am

[Andrew Kimery] "I would be surprised if Apple didn't project 5-10 years into the future with its product roadmaps"

They might have some projections but I don't think they know that much detail 5 years in advance other wise they never would have changed the organizational structure in major ways twice so far in 3 years.

[Andrew Kimery] "If you are familiar with multiple NLEs and workflows then you'll be much less likely to get the rug pulled out from under you, IMO. I'm not saying you have to be expert at multiple NLEs, but just be aware of what other options exist."

I can't disagree there and putting it another way - you need to learn how to learn. When FCP 7 was announced as EOL but still alive and kicking as it is still ... I used it for another 2 years as I looked at other NLEs. I took a course in AVID and FCP X. Since I need to teach HS kids, I was very conflicted initially. I knew I could learn either one but was not so sure that AVID would work for a lot of the students. It was a harder learning curve and harder for me to learn the media management. It's not too Mac like. FCP X was under such heavy criticism that I wasn't sure I'd be teaching "professional" practices. FCP began to get mixed reviews and I needed to make a decision. About that time I heard that AVID was bleeding red and FCP's jury was still out. I started to consider premier and then Adobe went to the monthly bill thing and that took care of that. So I decided on FCP X and it is a great fit for the classroom. I have kids up and editing within minutes. I do the media organization for them except for advanced kids but it's been a good fit. Any student that might consider editing on a professional level - I tell them they need to learn as many programs as they can including AVID, resolve, CC, pro tools. Most of them can't afford it but their college will. And unlike in the first year of FCP X, the colleges do use it and allow students to submit projects with it. They also teach the others.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 26, 2014 at 8:24:11 pm

I think it depends on whether you see plan to hire yourself out as a freelance editor or work with projects that have been started by someone else in other editing programs. In those cases, having a good working knowledge of other programs, if not mastery, helps.

But, if you plan to control your own projects, there isn't that much advantage to learning another program. While a particular edit may be slightly easier in another program, getting to that point of mastery is a huge investment in time. Especially when you're new, your time may be better spent mastering the program you use. And mastering editing techniques, audio mixing, color correction theory, etc. that are helpful regardless of program.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 8:22:09 pm

[Erik Lindahl] "I flip-side to the whole renting model Adobe has is the issue of the AppStore for businesses. It's a terrible model for buying apps for an organization"

I believe that Apple will also set up volume licenses for businesses. I'm not sure how the process differs, but it's there.

Actually in my experience, the Adobe model feels pretty poor. I install a lot of software on my own machines as well as clients', and the Apple installs have been the easiest of all. I continually run into "first run" problems with Adobe software - in fact, as recent as today. If anything, for me, it's the biggest argument in favor of running an "Adobe-free" environment.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 10:57:19 pm

Apple has a volume-program in certain regions. Not yet Sweden. The whole Apple ID-solution is at the moment broken for groups. Seeing they are adding features like "family connections" in iOS 8 they are looking into "group tech" but at the moment - at least in Sweden - the AppStore model is a huge issue for businesses buying apps.

One should be able to:

A) Link multiple accounts into groups
B) Merge multiple accounts into one
C) Transfer purchases between account
D) Redeem items between accounts
E) Give temporary access to items between accounts / based on account groups

For a single man show it's not a problem with the Apple ID / AppStore model of today. For us just being two people needing an NLE I immediately run into the above issues that I just do not understand why Apple hasn't fixed yet.

The above a side I'm going to have to put FCPX and PrPro CC 2014 more to the test now that we've got a nMP to see what our future platform will be.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 11:04:30 pm

[Erik Lindahl] "Seeing they are adding features like "family connections" in iOS 8 they are looking into "group tech" "

FWIW, it's coming to Yosemite, and the app store, as well. I would imagine they'll figure out an "enterprise" version. Maybe they'll cal it "Company"® :-)

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/129972-what-is-apple-s-family-sharing-featu...

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 11:44:31 pm

They could call out iCorporate perhaps? ;-)

I am an avid user of FCP X!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 25, 2014 at 11:49:06 pm

[Erik Lindahl] "For us just being two people needing an NLE I immediately run into the above issues"

Why is that? I work at a number of small shops with 5+ machines that are all bought on a single Apple ID account by the company owner. While technically not OK with the EULA, Apple seems to ignore it, as long as it doesn't get out of hand, I guess.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: Premiere Pro CC versus FCP X
on Jul 26, 2014 at 4:52:06 am

It's against the ELUA but primarily we'd need to log in with a companies Apple ID, expose a joint credit card etc. It's a very in-elegant way of dealing with things. It would mean me dealing with a third Apple ID, two as it is today is messy enough.


Return to posts index

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