FORUMS: list search recent posts

Prem vs FCPX - Panels

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 24, 2017 at 4:07:44 pm

Since this is a debate forum and it's a Friday, what are your thoughts about Adobe's Premiere Pro panels architecture? This seems to be a key enabler for many third party developers building add-ins to the Premiere UI for direct interaction. It helps push the growth of Premiere Pro penetration into production companies and facilities. Nothing like that exists in FCPX and the presumption is that Apple is not interested in others altering their UI design. It seems like this could offer some real advantages for FCPX. Thoughts?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 24, 2017 at 4:12:56 pm

Used the new Vimeo panel for PPro just this morning to send approvals. Very easy and just kept working on the next spot while that all went down.

So I'm for them.


Return to posts index

Joe Marler
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 24, 2017 at 4:41:38 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Adobe's Premiere Pro panels architecture?...It helps push the growth of Premiere Pro penetration into production companies and facilities. Nothing like that exists in FCPX and the presumption is that Apple is not interested in others altering their UI design...."

This is an interesting point. You can obviously have fairly elaborate plugins for FCPX such as Color Finale Pro, but it can't be fully integrated into the UI. In FCPX you also see widely-varying techniques to shoehorn plugin UIs into the canvass. Some like Color Finale have a large floating window. Others like CoreMelt take over part of the Viewer. Neat Video launches an entire sub-interface with tabs and menus. There are other inconsistencies such as multicam doesn't work with Drop Zones. There is no standard way to check plugin version numbers.

Besides UI issues, the plugin software architecture on FCPX can cause odd behavior. A fundamental principle of UI design is background tasks or computation should not interfere with the main UI thread. A familiar past example was on 16-bit Windows, OS/2 and (I think) macOS before X, the UI input queue was synchronous -- if an app hung, it owned the input queue and you lost control of the mouse and keyboard.

With Windows 95, NT, OS/2 Warp 2.x and OS X, they adopted an asynchronous input queue so a hung or CPU-intensive app would not lock out user input: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20130604-00/?p=4173

However it appears the plugin threading model used by FCPX has elements similar to a synchronous input queue. A CPU-intensive plugin such as Neat Video can lock out the input for significant periods. Normally -- on most plugins and situations -- this isn't a problem but with some it is. I don't know why Apple designed it this way but there are definitely possible improvements. I don't recollect seeing this behavior on Premiere but I no longer use it that much. Maybe someone could comment.


Return to posts index


andy patterson
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 24, 2017 at 5:28:47 pm

Premiere Pro does have a nice GUI.


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 24, 2017 at 8:25:53 pm

[andy patterson] "Premiere Pro does have a nice GUI."

Counterpoint: Premiere Pro has a lousy GUI. Crowded, fiddly, ugly, not at all pleasant to use on a daily basis.


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 24, 2017 at 9:23:11 pm

Counter-counterpoint: that's why Premiere Pro has an interface you can actually change if you don't like what's there. Highly customizable.

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 24, 2017 at 10:08:32 pm

[Joseph W. Bourke] " Premiere Pro has an interface you can actually change if you don't like what's there. Highly customizable."

Yep, you can make it look like FCPX if you want (Especially now that FCPX looks even more like PPro ☺ )


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 24, 2017 at 11:00:14 pm

So are we talking about the UI look of the panels (which is mostly up to the dev) vs the more GUI restrictions in X, or additional functionality that can be created in PPro via the panels that is beyond what's capable in X? Or both?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 25, 2017 at 12:16:20 am

Well... I... was talking about custom 3rd party panels like those from Vimeo, Wipster, Frame IO, PDF Viewer, Colorista, etc.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 25, 2017 at 4:47:14 am

I have been using Pr for a job that requires it.

I'm not being pendantic. I don't know why any editor that works on a deadline would use this software. It is hard to predict and thrives on chaos.

It crashes. A lot. It definitely is fiddly, editing multitrack audio is cumbersome, it has trouble with huge layered PSD files (???). It is so confusing as the same commands are in different places in contextual menus. XML is funky, relinking is not fun, it's really no fun at all.

I'm glad they aped FCPX's keyboard shortcut command center, until you need a submenu. I'm glad there's more ProRes options, I'm glad there's a 1/4 res playback option.

I'm also glad I don't have to use it everyday.

So, Panels makes all this more for the better? For who?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 25, 2017 at 2:33:09 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I don't know why any editor that works on a deadline would use this software. It is hard to predict and thrives on chaos. .....I'm also glad I don't have to use it everyday. "

I would venture to say that most users' experience is exactly the opposite.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 25, 2017 at 2:47:49 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I would venture to say that most users' experience is exactly the opposite."

Then they must enjoy the pain.


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 25, 2017 at 2:49:14 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Then they must enjoy the pain."

As someone who uses it nearly every day for better or worse, I would say, yes, we do ☺

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 11:32:26 pm

[Oliver Peters] "most users' experience is exactly the opposite."

FWIW, except for the PSD issue, my experience pretty much mirrors Jeremy's. Across three different systems (all MacPro trashcans) and two different versions (CC2015 snd CC2017). Nasty habit of crashing on deadline. Almost as if it were alive and malicious... ;-)


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 12:40:08 am

[Jeff Markgraf] "Almost as if it were alive and malicious... ;-)"

I guess you guys just aren't living right ☺

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Simon Ubsdell
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 25, 2017 at 2:55:33 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm also glad I don't have to use it everyday. "

Hi Jeremy,

As someone who uses it every day, I'm going to have to agree with Oliver and disagree with you.

I'm sorry to hear you've had a bad experience - I guess it happens to all of us at some time with one piece of software or another. But for me and my colleagues the Premiere experience has mostly been about daily surprise at how much it can do that suits the way we like to work.

Collectively, I don't think we've had any crashes in the last six months of working with it. (Now that's tempting fate!)

I'd stick my neck out here and suggest that your problems don't sound normal - hardware issues, software conflicts?

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 3:35:24 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'm sorry to hear you've had a bad experience - I guess it happens to all of us at some time with one piece of software or another. But for me and my colleagues the Premiere experience has mostly been about daily surprise at how much it can do that suits the way we like to work. "

But of course. What I like about FCPX is that it doesn't try and do everything, although I find it to be much more creative software. Pr is not as intuitive. I also find it to not be as creative, sure you can be creative with it, but it is cumbersome when compared to FCPX. Syncing clips is nutty, XML is not accurate, relinking is goofy. The effects UI is unorganized. And seriously, having trouble with layered PSDs? It's the Creative Cloud for chrissakes.

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'd stick my neck out here and suggest that your problems don't sound normal - hardware issues, software conflicts?"

Perhaps Photoshop and Pr don't work well together? Everything else on multiple computers works, but it's only this program that has an issue, or my hardware only fails in Pr?

What it comes down to, is that I don't prefer it. It is unnecessarily clunky. It tries to do too much with a bunch of add on features in weird places.

FCPX has a very robust interchange system that can go out to highly specialized environments to get work done.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 1:33:17 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Syncing clips is nutty,..relinking is goofy."

Other than crashing issues, it's these specifics where we really differ. How is syncing "nutty"? It's effectively the same as in FCPX. It's a feature I use all the time for multicam.

I find relinking to be better than in FCPX. For example, if you move an entire production from one drive to any at the same positions on the volumes - only with a different volume name - X has to be manually directed to link. Premiere usually automatically finds the clips.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 2:44:47 pm

[Oliver Peters] "How is syncing "nutty"? "

In this project I have 1080 ProRes dailies with audio, "camera raw" which is really less than 4k ProRes with no audio. I need to sync the Dailies audio to the higher res, ungraded ProRes. I had to go through no less than three iterations to finally Merge clips, because syncing doesn't work, mutlicam is unnecessary, and you can't merge clips but on a timeline.

So now I have merged clips of high res ProRes, and multichannel audio from the Dailies (I do not have access to Production audio. I asked, it never showed up).

Now, move that project to a new computer and new drive so I can take it with me. Pr is not smart enough to relink the audio from the dailies and the video from the high res, it just relinks to the dailies, which is the wrong color and resolution. I had to manually go and rename everything in the finder, relink the dailies to the newly named media one by one, then relink the all merged clips strung out on a timeline, because if you do it from the browser, it doesn't discern between the dailies and ProRes despite different reel names, and now even different file names. Nutty.

[Oliver Peters] "For example, if you move an entire production from one drive to any at the same positions on the volumes - only with a different volume name - X has to be manually directed to link."

Just point X at the top level of the new drive (or folder) and hit "choose". In Pr, I have to manually point at every folder. And for whatever reason, I have to relink the PSD files every time I start the program. It is so bad, that I reimport the PSD as merged layers, use them that way, and then if I need to use the layers, I have to reimport each PSD so it stays linked, everytime I want to use it. When I save and quit and begin work the next day, the layered PSDs are offline (only some of the layers, not all). I then have to reimport, replace all the layers that are offline, and continue editing. It is the hugest waste of time. A vimeo panel isn't going to help. A frame.io panel isn't going to help. A PDF script panel isn't going to help. The problems I face are functional limitations of Pr.

Sure, panels in Pr might be great, but Pr is not great.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 2:50:19 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Just point X at the top level of the new drive (or folder) and hit "choose". In Pr, I have to manually point at every folder. And for whatever reason, I have to relink the PSD files every time I start the program."

My exact same experience (with both) as well. It's maddening. I have no idea how, by my experience, PPro's relinking could be considered superior or better by any stretch.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 3:00:36 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "My exact same experience (with both) as well. It's maddening. I have no idea how, by my experience, PPro's relinking could be considered superior or better by any stretch."

It has a tremendous amount of switches and buttons, but it doesn't work very well in "complex?" relinks.

I didn't even get in to the export window. I don't know why I have to feel like I am launching Saturn 5 to get a high res mp4 out of Pr.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 3:26:35 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Feb 26, 2017 at 3:29:51 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It has a tremendous amount of switches and buttons"

Check out my other post for some exact (and frightening) numbers. PPro competes heavily with MS Word in terms of "GUI design" (hard to even use the term in that context).


[Jeremy Garchow] "I don't know why I have to feel like I am launching Saturn 5 to get a high res mp4 out of Pr."

😂😂
I know, right?

Never mind that setting a project up for the first time is a very close second (Saturn 4?) in terms of "usability" or "user-friendliness". Boggles the mind what hoops one (still!!) has to jump through before even so much as a single frame has been edited! I guess that's "pro"? Confuse the user with THE most irrelevant options that a screen-sized window will allow… if he still gets something usable out the other end, he MUST be good (i.e. "pro")! 😏

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 4:46:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I need to sync the Dailies audio to the higher res, ungraded ProRes. I had to go through no less than three iterations to finally Merge clips, because syncing doesn't work, mutlicam is unnecessary, and you can't merge clips but on a timeline."

I see your issue, however, this is really a case for multicam, even if only one camera angle is ever used.

[Jeremy Garchow] " In Pr, I have to manually point at every folder."

I'll have to double-check, but I don't recall that to always be the case. Relative paths seem to work fine, although there are cases where one or two folders have to be redirected. Yet in most cases, I can move from one to the other and relinking is completely automatic. It may vary with camera formats - for example, when you have spanned clips, like from C300s - those are a PITA.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 6:42:06 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I see your issue, however, this is really a case for multicam, even if only one camera angle is ever used."

There was a reason I couldn't use multicam. I need to revisit it as it's the first thing I tried to do, and then had to resort to an obscene amount of work to get two angles synced and ready to use.

I looked for a panel to help me out, but couldn't find it! :-D


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 28, 2017 at 8:24:38 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "There was a reason I couldn't use multicam. I need to revisit it as it's the first thing I tried to do, and then had to resort to an obscene amount of work to get two angles synced and ready to use."

If you do have a movement to revisit that wound I'm interested in hearing what specific trouble you ran into too.

My experience is more akin to Oliver's and Simon's. I've been using PPro as my main NLE for about 3 years now and my experience has been much more positive than negative. Not that this changes what you've gone through, but I can't see PPro gaining all the traction it has in the last couple of years if your experience was the common experience.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 28, 2017 at 4:05:34 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "If you do have a movement to revisit that wound I'm interested in hearing what specific trouble you ran into too."

Indeed. I'll try and revisit when I can. It didn't seem probable that it was working as designed. I know if I had production audio, it would have been fine, but I didn't.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 9:03:52 am

Dude! Got to say--NOT my experience at all! Sorry you are going through that. Maybe you have setup issues or some plugin conflict.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 10:00:02 am

[Chris Harlan] "Got to say--NOT my experience at all!"

May very well be. We'll have to take your word for it. Only, strangely enough, I was just recently reading an Adobe post on Facebook announcing one of the updates to PPro and it had near 300 comments. Of those comments I could spot maybe FIVE that were positive through and through scrolling through the list. The rest were nothing but ranting users saying that they'd far prefer Adobe finally rid them of age old bugs, and "Let us know when you guys release a version that's more than just a glorified beta test..." and the likes. Saying they'd prefer Adobe not keep tacking on features for the sake of features that only a hand full of users even actually need instead.

So I guess, statistically speaking, you may be an anomaly? I know that I'm not, and I speak for more than 50 installed seats on otherwise bare-bones, current gen Macs. No unusual setups, no plugins and a fraction of the stability (and usability) one would hope for.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 10:12:50 am

Don't know what to tell you. Its working here in Hollywood pretty well. My machines are fine. The machines in the last two companies I sat in at are fine. The place I'm going to work for the next month--all it seats are fine. Everyone else I know in the promo world who is using it is having fun, and thinks its fine. Do bugs crop up now and then? Sure. But, when don't they?

Hey! Here's the last thing I cut on it that isn't NDAed:

https://www.facebook.com/InfernoTheMovie/videos/720176311479402/


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 10:26:56 am

[Chris Harlan] "Its working here in Hollywood pretty well."

That's great! Good to hear. (although I have no clue how the location is the least bit relevant, other than maybe for the sake of… oh never mind…)

I'm just saying that I'm unable to say the same for the aforementioned seats nor apparently can the long list of other users, with comments like "No way I am going to upgrade after the most recent AE and Pr fiasco! It added a WEEK to my workflow, and I am still shaken. Trust is broken."

Also, the vast majority of negative things I read about Final Cut Pro X are along the tired lines of "The magnetic timeline sux, dude!". Don't remember when I last read about show-stopping instability or bugs like that. Which is not to say there aren't any around somewhere, just not in forums and groups I read where actual users are. I.e. outside of company PR channels.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 10:45:12 am

Dude! You're just a permanent hater, and there's no getting around it. I'm guessing you have a "Death to Adobe" tat. Location, of course, has nothing to do with it. Its just where I am, and where I see a lot of Premiere. You may read where actual users are, but I work where actual users are. Avid's still the winner, here. But that's changing. X is nudging in too, here and there.

If you can't remember X having some "show stopping bugs" from time to time, than you're just not trying hard enough. After all, it began with show-stopping issues! And, really, you don't remember some of the buggier iterations from time to time? Very selective memory, man! I'm not knocking X, I'm just saying its had some of the same growing pains everything else has.

I have to say this latest FCPX is pretty exciting, too. With the audio sorted in a way that's usable for me, I'm looking forward to trying it out again.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 2:09:17 pm

[Chris Harlan] "
If you can't remember X having some "show stopping bugs" from time to time, than you're just not trying hard enough. After all, it began with show-stopping issues!"


It sure did. As hard as I am on Adobe, FCPX was a tinker toy when it first came out. I think it was about 2.5 years before I used it on a deadline driven job, and almost 2 years after that before the whole office switched. It took Apple a few years to get it up and running.

Adobe has had about 20. After Effects is another weird animal, I won't get in to that here.

If I have a software conflict, it's because I'm working on a Mac. I don't have many plugins that are Pr specific, and I'm not using any 3rd party plugs on this job.

I'm glad people are finding success with Pr. You are a crazy bunch! :-P

I say that with all due humor and respect.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 6:54:21 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think it was about 2.5 years before I used it on a deadline driven job, and almost 2 years after that before the whole office switched. It took Apple a few years to get it up and running."

As far as I'm concerned, as of 10.0.6 (barely ONE YEAR after the initial release btw), I don't see what "essentials" were missing. Monitoring, multicam, XML exchange (all as of 10.0.3 even, barely six months later) were all there. Sure, the big changes in the library structure of 10.1 and obviously the audio features with 10.3 were a huge step forward, but, at least for me, didn't make previous versions any less viable for production work per se. The newer versions are just that much more convenient and more of a pleasure to use. 😊

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 7:00:37 pm

And to be fair, I mostly cut promos, BTS and sizzles on Premiere, so everything is pretty short--yes, lots and lots of time manipulation, odd screen ratios, filters and GFX--but still short. I did cut a show on it back in September, but I broke it into acts, the longest of which was eight minutes. I could feel the strain, but I was also cutting on my Macbook Pro.

For me, the buggiest issue currently is the disappearing timecode overlay. Granted, all you have to do is click on another timeline, then click back, but its annoying.

One of the things I'm enjoying about it, right now, is its ability to work well at non traditional screen ratios. In January, I cut a fast-paced :90 Snapchat sizzle for an Amazon show at 1080X1920 (phone vertical). It was a lot of fun rethinking how to tell a fast, visual story at that ratio. Premiere held up fine! (though I was cutting this on a 12 core with 64G, and NOT on my laptop.)


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 7:03:56 pm

[Chris Harlan] "One of the things I'm enjoying about it, right now, is its ability to work well at non traditional screen ratios. In January, I cut a fast-paced :90 Snapchat sizzle for an Amazon show at 1080X1920 (phone vertical)."

How is that in any way even the least bit unique to PPro?


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 7:11:44 pm

Oh, dear God. You need to relax some, man. You are way too vigorous about this stuff.

I made no claim that that was exclusive to Pr. It's just really simple to cut that way in Pr. Easier than it is in Avid. I don't use X right now, so, I don't know. Maybe you could tell me about how great it is to do in X instead of getting huffy. I don't want to fight. I just want to share my experience. AND, I want to learn from others.


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 4:47:55 pm

[Chris Harlan] "With the audio sorted in a way that's usable for me, I'm looking forward to trying it out again."



I have to say Chris, the latest update is a game changer for X. The ability to be able to color code those roles is great on it's own but added with the "Lanes" it couldn't be any clearer where things are. With these changes they have the best of both worlds. The organization of tracks with the flexibility that the connected clips gives you when you want to move things around.

The new Workspaces are great. There are now so many different ways to work. Extending the inspector the full length, the sorting view, the grading view (I love), and variations on those.

I liked it before, but it's a long way from where it started.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 7:03:55 pm

Tony, I really looking forward to playing with it. Things in my personal life have kept me away, but I'm hopeful to get there .


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 25, 2017 at 4:50:27 am

I was referring to both, in that the panels are not only configurable, but also buttons for functions can added or removed, thus making the GUI configurable to a certain degree as well. As to the overall UI look of the PPro software, it's clean enough to not bother me, and from a design standpoint, I find it easy on the eyes. I also use enough keyboard shortcuts (DOS guy) that clearing out some of the buttons is a good thing.

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 7:52:23 am

for me it is not just the UI that I like in FCP X, It is the way FCP X functions. For example, In pp you can hoover scrub a thumb nail but to be acurate in order to set in and out points you have to open it up in the viewer. Then all yopu have is just a frame of the video that you see at any given time. You have to scrub the whole clip to find that one shot you want and you don't see the audio waveforms to boot unless you click the button to see it. In FCP X you have a film strip view in the browser either in list view or thumbnail view. While you scrub you have the progam window show your video automaticaly. No need to double click to open it in the viewer. Plus with the filmstrip view you can find that one shot faster by going directly to it. Plus you can choose to see the waveforms. Even if the UI in FCP X maybe lacking for some, I can get my work done faster because it is simple and not cluttered. IMHO.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 8:20:41 am

[Brian Seegmiller] "for me it is not just the UI that I like in FCP X, It is the way FCP X functions. For example, In pp you can hoover scrub a thumb nail but to be acurate in order to set in and out points you have to open it up in the viewer. Then all yopu have is just a frame of the video that you see at any given time. You have to scrub the whole clip to find that one shot you want and you don't see the audio waveforms to boot unless you click the button to see it. In FCP X you have a film strip view in the browser either in list view or thumbnail view. While you scrub you have the progam window show your video automaticaly. No need to double click to open it in the viewer. Plus with the filmstrip view you can find that one shot faster by going directly to it. Plus you can choose to see the waveforms. Even if the UI in FCP X maybe lacking for some, I can get my work done faster because it is simple and not cluttered. IMHO."

I can use the tilde key function in Premiere Pro and save several different layouts. Having said that you don't have to open a clip up in the viewer (source monitor) to add in and out points. You can use JKL and shift key in hover scrub to get the exact frame where you want to set the in and out. If you have a second computer monitor or 3rd party hardware the video clip that you hover scrub over will out put to the external monitor. No need to double click to see it on the external monitor. I image FCPX will do the same.


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 5:50:40 pm

I have a second monitor. How do I get the video I am hoover scrubbing to go to the second monitor?


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 6:52:21 pm

[Brian Seegmiller] "I have a second monitor. How do I get the video I am hoover scrubbing to go to the second monitor?"

Simply go to the "edit tab" on the menu bar. Then select "preferences". Use the jump list menu and navigate to playback. There you will find your second monitor and any 3rd party hardware. Mercury Transmit must be enabled.


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 28, 2017 at 3:20:27 am

I guess I like the way FCP X does it better. For example, it is nice to see the waveforms under the video instead of a seperate window. Also, in filmstrip view I can see my used ranges and can find a certain shot faster. I can see all of my in and outs that are in the timeline and don't have to hit "f" to find that range. Keyword, favorites, used media, and reject ranges are great.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 1:01:12 pm

[Brian Seegmiller] "for me it is not just the UI that I like in FCP X, It is the way FCP X functions. For example, In pp you can hoover scrub a thumb nail but to be acurate in order to set in and out points you have to open it up in the viewer. Then all yopu have is just a frame of the video that you see at any given time. You have to scrub the whole clip to find that one shot you want and you don't see the audio waveforms to boot unless you click the button to see it"

Agreed, "Hover Scrub" in Pro is occasionally useful but it's nowhere near as useful as skimming in FCPX


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 25, 2017 at 4:08:09 am

[Jeff Markgraf] "[andy patterson] "Premiere Pro does have a nice GUI."

Counterpoint: Premiere Pro has a lousy GUI. Crowded, fiddly, ugly, not at all pleasant to use on a daily basis."


Are you serious or just trolling? Feel free to layout your GUI the way you like in your NLE of choice and I will see if I can mimic it in Premiere Pro. I will then customize a few layouts in Premiere Pro and we will see if your NLE can mimic what I have done.

Don't back out on me, dude. Post some screen shots of your awesome GUI that makes Premiere Pro's GUI look lousy.

I don't see Avid or Premiere Pro users saying FCPX has a lousy GUI or that FCPX has an old and obsolete database or FCPX is slow and sluggish but I do see FCPX user saying those things about all the other NLE. Why do you folks think that is?


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 25, 2017 at 8:40:09 pm

[andy patterson] "Don't back out on me, dude."

ooooohhhhh

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 12:43:20 am

[Scott Witthaus] "[andy patterson] "Don't back out on me, dude."

ooooohhhhh"


Don't you want to see this awesome GUI that makes Premiere Pro's GUI look lousy? If I stated FCPX has crappy metadata capabilities compared to Premiere Pro wouldn't you want proof? I'm sure you would leave a comment of some kind if I made that statement. You don't see Avid users or Premiere Pro users bad mouthing FCPX the same way FCPX users bad mouth Premiere Pro and Avid. I think most people who use FCPX and Premiere Pro would say Premiere has a better GUI than FCPX but they don't say FCPX has a lousy GUI. See my point?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 2:51:17 am

[andy patterson] "You don't see Avid users or Premiere Pro users bad mouthing FCPX the same way FCPX users bad mouth Premiere Pro and Avid."

I would start reading from the beginning of this forum.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 1:46:29 pm

The usual COW tangents in this thread, I'm afraid. But, back on point, wouldn't 3rd party panel integration offer some benefits to FCPX users?

For example, with PDF Viewer, I can see my client's script right inside of Premiere Pro. In theory I could do that with a PDF in an event in X, but then it's seen as a graphic, not a PDF with pages. Or with Colorista, I see the correction panel integrated into the UI - not like Color Finale's floating window that just don't have a comfortable place to live within the UI without being in the way of something.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 2:34:09 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Feb 26, 2017 at 2:34:32 pm

[Oliver Peters] "not like Color Finale's floating window that just don't have a comfortable place to live within the UI without being in the way of something."

Only that for CFP nothing needs to resize, therefore I'm not losing any space for anything else that I might need just as much. So it's a give and take no matter what. Me preferring the latter either way. Again, horses for courses.

And sorry, but PDFs do import with any and all pages into FCP. With one page per frame. View it side by side with the Event Viewer window if you must.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 5:09:48 pm

[Oliver Peters] "For example, with PDF Viewer, I can see my client's script right inside of Premiere Pro. In theory I could do that with a PDF in an event in X, but then it's seen as a graphic, not a PDF with pages."

Not that it's directly equivalent, but it's perfectly possible to bring a text based script into X via the Notes field for any Range Selections you've created.

IIRC, Lumberjack uses this technique for script sync and lookup in their system.

Doing so will keep the script text in virtual sync and allow for text search with visual range call-up via the standard database query's inside X.

FWIW.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 5:12:24 pm

[Bill Davis] "Doing so will keep the script text in virtual sync and allow for text search with visual range call-up via the standard database query's inside X. "

I understand, but it isn't really the same thing. Although better for many applications. I can do that for a clip in Premiere, as well. A very nice approach to that is Media Composer's storyboard view.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 5:23:03 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I understand, but it isn't really the same thing."

So how is just a plain ol' import of a PDF (as described) not enough?

But then, I much prefer the ol' analog paper version anyway, since that is far more flexible in terms of corrections etc. …

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 1:40:16 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "So how is just a plain ol' import of a PDF (as described) not enough?"

See the problem in the attached image? (I have a 20" and a 27" so the screen sizes are different.) Even when I enable the event viewer, I can't see a script, source clip and timeline in X. I can in Premiere.



- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 9:51:03 am

[Oliver Peters] "I can't see a script, source clip and timeline in X."

Then print it out and save yourself a massive waste of space all at the same time! 😛

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Tom Sefton
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 10:34:55 am

When I first heard about this tool, I thought it was going to open the door to some really cool text scanning/subtitle generating/audio matching magic, but if it is just having a pdf open in a window within premiere surely its just as easy to have acrobat open while you edit? I'm not criticising, I'd love to know if there is anything more this can do than just opening the pdf in a window? I've always preferred a printed copy to sit making my own doodles and notes on, but if someone developed the ability to scan a script for keywords, generate basic subtitles, add markers for scenes etc, I could see this being a really cool addition....

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 11:45:49 am

[Tom Sefton] "I'd love to know if there is anything more this can do than just opening the pdf in a window?"

Good question. Was wondering the same. Since, if you can't e.g. hightlight, edit or maybe copy/paste text from the PDF, what's the point or notable advantage? If you can, cool.


[Tom Sefton] "I've always preferred a printed copy to sit making my own doodles and notes on"

Same here, but to each his own.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 1:27:55 pm

[Tom Sefton] "but if it is just having a pdf open in a window within premiere surely its just as easy to have acrobat open while you edit?"

Don't get fixated in PDFviewer. It's the technology I'm talking about, not a particular plug-in. What it does is up to the developer. Vimeo, Wipster, FrameIO, Colorista are all examples of other developers and what they've done using panels.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 10:17:35 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The usual COW tangents in this thread, I'm afraid. But, back on point, wouldn't 3rd party panel integration offer some benefits to FCPX users?"

Maybe. It seems like adding a panel would only work with Adobes tabbed layout. I'm not sure how it would fit into FCP X's no-tab design. I think there are cases that I think tabs would be useful - for example different timelines in different tabs so you wouldn't have to cycle through timelines to find the one you want. But I just can't imagine Apple changing the layout structure of FCP X that radically for better or worse.

I think I'd be happy if plug-ins could have more customization within the Parameters window. I just don't like the pop-up interface design of things like Neat Video or Color Finale. You have to keep launching the window when moving from clip to clip and they tend to get in the way, so I'm moving them around a lot. It's definitely not ideal.

--------------------------
Brett Sherman
One Man Band (If it's video related I'll do it!)
I work for an institution that probably does not want to be associated with my babblings here.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 12:56:09 am

[Brett Sherman] "I think I'd be happy if plug-ins could have more customization within the Parameters window. I just don't like the pop-up interface design of things like Neat Video or Color Finale. You have to keep launching the window when moving from clip to clip and they tend to get in the way, so I'm moving them around a lot. It's definitely not ideal."

I'd be willing to bet Apple's not happy with it either. It's clearly a workaround that developers figured out to get around the other issue. Maybe Simon will comment on this, since Hawaiki Color uses a viewer overlay, which is an other solution, though not one that would work universally.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 1:44:28 am

[Brett Sherman] "I'm not sure how it would fit into FCP X's no-tab design."

In theory, isn't the new browser layout basically the same concept as Adobe panels (tabs)? "Panel" 1 = Libraries, "Panel" 2 = Photos/Audio, "Panel" 3 = Titles/Generators.



- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 6:41:51 pm

Yes, in theory there are tab-like things. But I'd say with FCP X, unlike Premiere Pro tabs, similar content is grouped together. Premiere tabs you can throw things together at will, which allows for much more customization and, yes, as many mention it can get out of hand fast.

So then the question becomes which "tab-like" area in FCP X do you add a third party window? If it's a global thing, it makes more sense in the media browser. If it's a clip-based or project-based thing it makes more sense in the parameter window. There aren't a lot of options of where to stick something like that and still retain FCP X's tight control over the workspace. Which has it's pros and cons.

--------------------------
Brett Sherman
One Man Band (If it's video related I'll do it!)
I work for an institution that probably does not want to be associated with my babblings here.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 8:42:39 am

[Brett Sherman] "I just don't like the pop-up interface design of things like Neat Video or Color Finale. You have to keep launching the window when moving from clip to clip"

You do not have to keep launching CFP's window when moving from clip to clip. It stays open i.e. pops up on its own when your on a clip with CFP applied and/or have it selected in the inspector and disappears in the opposite case. Of course assuming you didn't manually close it's window yourself at some point.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 3:29:55 pm

[andy patterson] "I think you should do the same."

But, I lived it:







Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 4:18:43 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[andy patterson] "I think you should do the same."

But, I lived it:"


To be fair he has been a member here since December 2016


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 11:20:59 pm

[andy patterson] "Don't back out on me, dude. "

Ahem..."dude"...Did I suddenly get time-warped back to middle school? Good heavens. Take a pill. Or something. No trolling here. I leave that to the usual suspects on this board.

My initial post stands on its own. Even so, Jeremy and Robin spelled out the specifics very well (each in his own inimitable way). I would only add, since there seems to be some confusion, that my comments refer to UI and UX, not capabilities.

Feel free to configure PPro panels any way you like. PPro will never have X's timeline. It's ever-increasing collection of windows/panels/whatever you wish to call them will never work in the context-sensitive simplicity that is built into the very design of X. The endless, convoluted twirldowns within twirldowns inside panels and submenus will continue to be the exasperating experience of daily editing that it is today and has been for years.

PPro's UI/UX philosophy is antithetical that of FCPX. PPro can't be made to effectively "mimic" X, let alone behave like it. I don't think X can mimic PPro, let alone behave like it. Why would I even want to try such a thing?

If I find some benefit in using PPro, I'll simply use PPro. I've used it for years. Almost never by choice, but I don't always have a choice. Same with Avid. 20 years of Avid, and it's still Avid, for better and for worse.

Clearly, I prefer FCPX, warts and all. It's simply a better tool in almost all circumstances, for me. In those rare situations where PPro or Avid is the better tool, I'll use it, if possible. But it's ridiculous to pretend that Avid's UI isn't straight out of the 90s, with seriously flawed attempts to graft on pathes to accommodate modern workflow needs. And it's ridiculous to pretend PPro, in spite of having been recoded for 64 bit hardware, isn't still just a gussied up version of the original amateur editing app for graphics guys and computer geeks it started out as 20+ years ago. Much more capable, but still built on the same philosophical underpinnings.

TL;DR: Poor UI/UX does not necessarily equal lack of capability, merely poor usability.

Hope I didn't let you down, dude.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 12:59:44 am

[Jeff Markgraf] "The endless, convoluted twirldowns within twirldowns inside panels and submenus will continue to be the exasperating experience of daily editing that it is today and has been for years."

You mean like those in FCPX's inspector?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 9:57:51 am

[Oliver Peters] "You mean like those in FCPX's inspector?"

😂
Oh please. You know better, Oliver. And you clearly must have skipped my post: https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/93745#93819

To suggest there are any even ever so slight similarities is just antagonistic nonsense, sorry.

But if so, tell me: how many windows, tabs, slider, buttons, pop-up menu clicks and screen space do you need to see the effects, blend mode, transformations, cropping, distortion, stabilization or channel configuration, metadata, project settings etc. etc. etc. all at the same time or with max two clicks in Premiere? And how many keystrokes or mouse-clicks do you need to make every last bit of that disappear completely from the GUI again?? As in nothing more than maybe a button visible at best?

Exactly.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 1:16:05 am

[Jeff Markgraf] "Hope I didn't let you down, dude."

Best response ever. ;-)

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 7:37:41 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Feb 27, 2017 at 7:39:10 pm

EDIT: Post removed


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 1:44:09 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Feb 26, 2017 at 2:15:47 pm

To answer the actual question: yeah, I wouldn't mind if there were a similar API for X. Do I think it's somehow the key feature that tips the scale for any one production company or facility to adopt X or not. Er… no. Not even. And I think that Apple not being interested in others altering their UI design could be one reason, but also that some of those integrations have been known to contribute to massive instability, especially after an update on either side (I'm not naming names). That's in fact roughly what I heard from someone at Apple on the subject. So for most it may well be a small price to pay. But then they may also have just been waiting until they got the complete groundwork done (in the form of the 10.3) to take that step and the subject may even be at the top of the list. Who knows?


[Jeff Markgraf] "Premiere Pro has a lousy GUI. Crowded, fiddly, ugly, not at all pleasant to use on a daily basis."

+1.
If only you could scale the 👍🏼 to 200pt. :P
As I like to say… "If hell had tabs and buttons."


[Jeremy Garchow] "It is hard to predict and thrives on chaos. "

No kiddin'. It's as if every possible function has either it's own tab, button or 50 level pop-up menu. Or all of the above (in most cases). There is no comprehensible logic to why something is in a right-click (or not), something else only in a (sub sub sub) menu, and the other thing only in a tab or pop-up imho. Easily demonstrated by e.g. there being a mere 12 items in the FCP Windows menu, a whopping 38 in PPro. A right-click on a clip in the timeline? Enjoy 14 items in the pop-up in X and, believe it or not, FOURTY-TWO for the same clip in PPr (which just barely fits onto my Retina screen btw!). Mind you, that's not even counting the five additional fly-out menus in PPro, of which just one has another 10 items! 😂


[Jeremy Garchow] "What it comes down to, is that I don't prefer it. It is unnecessarily clunky. It tries to do too much with a bunch of add on features in weird places."

Exactly. Endlessly riddled with button over butten, icon over icon, tab over tab. Even if you open a project in FCP X where someone left it set a custom workspace, there's absolutely no way that you're going to wonder where anything is or have to reset the GUI to find out. Never mind the endless buttons and icons riddled all across the interface that literally no one ever uses. In a default layout with one clip in the timeline I counted 104 different buttons. Let me spell that: ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR. But then I'm not using the most recent version, so there are most likely even more by now. Just in the canvas window alone it's a 5:1 ratio in transport controls.

Oh, and in PPro I'm not even counting TABS, but am in X! (i.e. "Browsers")

But hey, don't worry, you can add even more of everything if you want in PPro! 👍🏼 X's GUI elements on the other hand have gotten progressively LESS with each version. Go figger.

Look at AE. For each new tracker there's a completely different way of using it and a completely different place it's been put. So I guess it's "pro" to not consolidate features and functions that go together in a comprehensive way, but rather just introduce yet another tab, menu and pop-up? 😄

So like I said, I'd say your feeling on the matter is painfully demonstrable. And anyone that want's to claim that X "now looks like PPro" outside of maybe the color, clearly has no clue what they're talking about and is running on the same sad little track as every foam at-the-mouth "iMovie Pro!" screamer imho.

Let me guess, it's because X isn't as super powerful as PPro and simply lacking the functionality to justify so many buttontabflyoutmenurightclicks? 😏

Yeah. That. Or maybe Adobe is just interested in winning the feature list race, not squashing age old bugs as I've been reading and hearing, and simply doesn't give a rat's backend about comprehensive GUI design and usability while they're at it? I dunno.

But if you actually prefer that, great. Horses for courses as they say. I know I don't and am 100% with Jeremy as far as that's concerned.

- RK


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 26, 2017 at 2:20:50 pm

Hilarious. My post was flagged and moderated because of the word "h o m i n e m"… ?! (and, of course, just did it again. Doh! 😂)

What. The. … 🤦🏼‍♂️


Return to posts index

John Pale
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 2:50:51 am

Latin is a dead language. Move on, dude.


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 12:43:02 pm

Aaah I just saw this post.
I thought I was back in 1995, 2001, 20xx, etc... back to where we all just can't see eye to eye on platform/app wars.
Oh well, that escalated pretty fast.
IMHO (I am not in LaLaLand or anywhere that counts) we all know that these apps have their ups and downs.
Ultimately its the end user that pays the price.
I too lean towards FCPX as far as best in show but I still have to live with Pr and MC.
Its fun to read all these posts, makes me feel we all care and at least passionate about our craft :)


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 1:50:06 pm

[Eric Santiago] "Oh well, that escalated pretty fast."

Yeah, thanks for that Oliver! Got to get you off the Adobe payroll! ;-)

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


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 7:37:39 pm

Guys, as a reader, this thread has been a gem. Some terrific insights, and a lot of great full contact debate about how best to reflect workflow priorities in UI. Love it.

As an admin, it's been exasperating. Mixed in and among those has been some of the worst tit-for-tat personal sniping I've seen in this forum for years. A reminder: it is an express violation of our Terms of Service to comment directly on or at other posters, their competence, or their motivations. I don't care if the other guy started it. I'm calling on you not to rise to it.

Which, obviously, almost all of you are doing just fine. But in addition to following up with some individuals offline who need special reminding of this, I did want to place my official Knitted Brows of Concern™ on this thread, with a reminder to please keep your hands and head inside the vehicle at all times.

It might help to remember that anything posted here is as close as the internet gets to eternal, and at a pretty high profile to boot. Around 4 million people will pass through this forum this month. It's also easy to miss because they typically rarely post, in some cases never post, but they do talk to us offline on a regular basis about how regularly they lurk here, reading every word -- studio execs, legendary artists whose work you own, product managers for every company you see represented here and many others, and in general, people who could be giving you jobs, maybe even careers.

Everybody knows that part of the reason we go online is to blow off steam, and goodness knows I've been able to spin being a wisenheimer into a decent living, but I'm still going to encourage you to recall the unparalleled global scope of Creative COW, and pause just for a beat before a heated reply.

Back to the fray!

Tim Wilson
Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 7:46:33 pm

[Tim Wilson] "I did want to place my official Knitted Brows of Concern™"

I think this needs a picture?


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 7:50:45 pm

[Steve Connor] "I think this needs a picture?"

LOL I'll work on it. It'll have to wait, though. It's raining here, and I'm having a TERRIBLE hair day.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 8:02:39 pm

Hey, Tim. I want to apologize if I got steamy at all. My father passed away last night, so I'm doing this as sort of a diversion right now, and I have no real sense of up or down. Strange world.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 8:11:24 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Hey, Tim. I want to apologize if I got steamy at all. My father passed away last night, so I'm doing this as sort of a diversion right now, and I have no real sense of up or down. Strange world."

Oh my gosh, Chris! I'm so sorry to hear it! One reason I've been offline so much recently is because of the unexpected passing of my mother. You have my every sympathy.

I swear I wasn't thinking of you in particular, but along with the high-minded tone in my previous post, this is a great time to remember that we're all human, we all have bad days, we can all be too quick on the Post Direct button, and we have to leave some room for each other to be people.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 8:15:16 pm

Thanks, man. And you too. Sorry about your mom. Its nasty stuff, but its the way of the world. Peace, brother.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 8:33:14 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Thanks, man. And you too. Sorry about your mom. Its nasty stuff, but its the way of the world. Peace, brother."

You and I and some other folks here are getting to be that age. I also dropped offline for a bit recently to help my 79 year old father wrap up moving out of the house that he and my mother had lived in for over 35 years. I realized, wow, I'm pushing 60, he's nearly 80 and never really asked for my help with anything before. I can't say that I've gained too much perspective or insight from this -- I'm still an idiot, and always will be -- but I think I've gained a little.

I've certainly been reminded that it's harder than it looks to balance "real life" with "clever forum posts". I'm all the more impressed with people who can actually pull off doing both at once!

And I do look forward to crawling back to posting more often again. Some of the threads this year have been among my favorites of 20-odd (sometimes VERY odd) years of hanging out in COW in her various incarnations, and I'm sorry to have missed on both participating in them, and properly promoting them to the outside world. My exasperation with a few posts here notwithstanding, I'm proud of what's happening in the COW as a whole, and I remain deeply indebted to many of you for what shreds of sanity I'm able to grasp now and again.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 8:41:21 pm

Well, I'm still 39 and have been for almost two decades. Yeah, its hard. Staggering. I'm going to be starting that same house journey with my mom. One step, than another.

And yes, the COW is wonderful. There's no other word for it!


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 27, 2017 at 10:58:26 pm

Chris -

I'm sorry to hear about your father. My thoughts are with you.

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 28, 2017 at 12:49:43 am

Thanks, man!


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 28, 2017 at 5:32:52 am

[Chris Harlan] "Hey, Tim. I want to apologize if I got steamy at all. My father passed away last night, so I'm doing this as sort of a diversion right now, and I have no real sense of up or down. Strange world."

Chris,

Oh heck no. I'm so sorry for your loss.

Take care of yourself as best you can and I hope the sharpest of the grief passes as quickly as possible.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 28, 2017 at 7:37:57 am

Thanks, Bill


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 28, 2017 at 8:18:58 am

Sorry to hear about your loss, Chris. Never easy to lose someone close to you, especially a parent.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 28, 2017 at 8:22:03 am

Thanks, man!


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 28, 2017 at 8:52:07 am

[Chris Harlan] "Hey, Tim. I want to apologize if I got steamy at all. My father passed away last night, so I'm doing this as sort of a diversion right now, and I have no real sense of up or down. Strange world.

"


Sorry to hear this Chris, I lost my Father last year, it takes a while to get past it so take it slow.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 28, 2017 at 6:52:09 pm

Sorry about your father, Chris. It's a tough losing loved ones like that - best wishes to you and your family.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 1, 2017 at 11:38:15 pm

Sorry to hear about your Dad Chris.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 28, 2017 at 5:13:56 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Look at AE. For each new tracker there's a completely different way of using it and a completely different place it's been put. So I guess it's "pro" to not consolidate features and functions that go together in a comprehensive way, but rather just introduce yet another tab, menu and pop-up? 😄"

The point tracker, mask tracker, face tracker, camera tracker, and the warp stabilizer are all available in one place: Ae's Tracker panel.

The Tracker panel itself has a common set of general controls. There are some differences in workflow and UI for some of the specifics, but that seems necessary -- points, masks, faces, and cameras are all different.

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

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 28, 2017 at 5:48:34 pm

[Walter Soyka] "The point tracker, mask tracker, face tracker, camera tracker, and the warp stabilizer are all available in one place: Ae's Tracker panel. "

Okay. Then that may have changed since I last checked. Unfortunately that doesn't change anything about any of the other points and is really is only a tiny side-note overall. Just something I recall irritating me some time back.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 1, 2017 at 2:12:26 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Okay. Then that may have changed since I last checked. Unfortunately that doesn't change anything about any of the other points and is really is only a tiny side-note overall. Just something I recall irritating me some time back."

You've mentioned that tiny side note before [link], but it's just factually incorrect. I agree with you that the Adobe UI is complex, and that Premiere in particular is "fiddly," but your example that the UI is inconsistent is wrong.

And this is not a change. Each of the new trackers have been integrated into the Tracker panel as they were released. Creative Cloud gives you access to old versions of software and allows side-by-side installation (another useful feature if you work with other people), so you can go back and check if you like.

You took a lot of time to count the controls in Premiere, and there are quite a few! But volume is not the same as chaos. If Ae's trackers were all separate as you had alleged, that would certainly be chaotic, but that's not the case.

Adobe UIs can be pretty hard to learn. They're close to the metal, so to speak, relatively thin wrappers over the underlying mechanics, with lots of options and controls exposed. I know that you don't value that, but I do. Once you learn them, they generally make sense and are easy to use. They value consistency within each app and respect their users' training. Over a span of years, the UI evolves quite a lot, but there are no revolutions. That makes it hard to rethink problems from the ground up, but very easy to keep rolling through production.

Vive la différence.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 1, 2017 at 2:49:18 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Adobe UIs can be pretty hard to learn. ... I know that you don't value that, but I do. Once you learn them, they generally make sense and are easy to use. ... Over a span of years, the UI evolves quite a lot, but there are no revolutions. That makes it hard to rethink problems from the ground up, but very easy to keep rolling through production."

I would add, that in a lot of the general post production world, knowing Photoshop and After Effects to at least a functional level is very important. From there, Premiere isn't that much of a difference. Then, if you compare that to Smoke, it's a walk in the park.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 2, 2017 at 10:13:01 am

[Oliver Peters] "I would add, that in a lot of the general post production world, knowing Photoshop and After Effects to at least a functional level is very important."

More or less the exact logical fallacy I was talking about. For which NON-PPro editor is the need to "know AE at a functional level" of such dire importance?? And knowing GIMP, Affinity Photo etc. will not only give you that "functional knowledge" to work PS just the same, but you'll be saving big $$$ in the process.


[Oliver Peters] "From there, Premiere isn't that much of a difference."

I love how you make it sound like that's actually a good thing. 😄

Learn the basic concept and logic of iTunes and you've acquired the most essential basic concepts of FCP X's (organizational) logic. Ironically I personally find that much more impressive.


[Oliver Peters] "Then, if you compare that to Smoke, it's a walk in the park."

"Deal with it. It could be much worse!" 😝

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 2, 2017 at 1:36:05 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "More or less the exact logical fallacy I was talking about. For which NON-PPro editor is the need to "know AE at a functional level" of such dire importance?? And knowing GIMP, Affinity Photo etc. will not only give you that "functional knowledge" to work PS just the same, but you'll be saving big $$$ in the process."

If there wasn't a need, there would be no Automatic Duck tools. Regarding GIMP, Affinity, etc - baloney. Because it doesn't seem important in your neck of the woods, doesn't make it so. But specifically, in the commercial and corporate editing world, it's very important - even if only to integrate with graphic artists. For example, on one job, I was given a template for animated lower thirds that were done in Photoshop. These needed to be updated for each on-camera speaker in Photoshop. How does GIMP help me there?

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 2, 2017 at 2:47:44 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Mar 2, 2017 at 2:50:55 pm

[Oliver Peters] "If there wasn't a need, there would be no Automatic Duck tools."

Huh? Fascinating logic. That's like saying it's of dire importance that every FCP X editor know MOTION just because of XSendMotion. Or ProTools because of X2Pro. 😄


[Oliver Peters] "These needed to be updated for each on-camera speaker in Photoshop. How does GIMP help me there?"

GIMP? I don't know. I don't use it. I use Photo. And, erm, yeah, that's absolutely no problem whatsoever with Photo. Since when is being able to open, edit and save a PSD somehow some amazing feat?? I've been doing it for nearly two years now with Photo and even longer withPixelmator if needed.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 2, 2017 at 3:22:41 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Since when is being able to open, edit and save a PSD somehow some amazing feat?"

I was talking about animated PSD files, not static PSD files.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 2, 2017 at 5:53:06 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I was talking about animated PSD files…"

… er, okaaaaaay. Then… go with Photoshop, yes. Clearly!

Seeing that I have no clue what "animated PSDs" are supposed to be, nor have I in 20something years of PS ever encountered one, don't know what they're needed for, what possible benefit, point or purpose they could have that anyone would consider making one and sending it to me… nope, I don't know what Photo et al would or could do with one. (something tells me I don't need to care either). So… ya got me! Go for it! PS FTW! 😄

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 2, 2017 at 6:26:09 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Seeing that I have no clue what "animated PSDs" are supposed to be, nor have I in 20something years of PS ever encountered one..."

That's funny, because ironically the client providing them was a German company ☺

Photoshop has had the ability to work with motion, including live video, for several versions - at least CS6, I believe. So a lot of things that you might do in After Effects can be done on a simpler level inside of Photoshop. In this case, it was for lower third titles, where a gradient background bar would slide in, the text title would fade up, both hold for :05 and then animate off screen. All with the appropriate alphas. In Premiere, drop a copy of the template onto the timeline and "edit original" to launch Photoshop. Change the text and save. Done.

Of course this could be done in many other ways, but the point is that this is what the client provided and expected the on-site editors to use. You don't have to be a heavy user of Photoshop, but you do have to have some basic understanding of how it works. Plus of course, you have to have the software.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 2, 2017 at 7:11:10 pm

[Oliver Peters] "
Photoshop has had the ability to work with motion, including live video, for several versions - at least CS6, I believe. So a lot of things that you might do in After Effects can be done on a simpler level inside of Photoshop. In this case, it was for lower third titles, where a gradient background bar would slide in, the text title would fade up, both hold for :05 and then animate off screen. All with the appropriate alphas. In Premiere, drop a copy of the template onto the timeline and "edit original" to launch Photoshop. Change the text and save. Done."


As a side note - a lot of designers are VERY intimidated by applications like AE or Motion, so it's natural for them use the tools that they're most familiar with. Same with business folks, I can't tell you how often I get animated graphics in PowerPoint. You can't go back and ask them to re-do it in AE, so you use what they hand off.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 2, 2017 at 5:28:28 am

[Walter Soyka] "Adobe UIs can be pretty hard to learn. They're close to the metal, so to speak, relatively thin wrappers over the underlying mechanics, with lots of options and controls exposed. "

So, let's forget about the UI for a moment.

Why does Ae and Pr crash a lot? This isn't just me taking, this is all of my colleagues. Perhaps all of our machines are broken, but nothing else crashes like this. Resolve, Fusion, all my third party interchange.

I have all the controls I need exposed, and if I need some speciality, I can go out and get it. And it's stable.

Let's remember the UI for a moment.

What exposed controls are you talking about? In Pr, it's a bunch of clicks and tabs to move/repo/add stabilization/color/opacity/shutter fixes/crop/trim/zooms/compositing/spatial options.

In X, all those controls are exposed in the UI on every clip I select. I can see and manipulate audio and video as one in the Browser, in Pr, it's a bunch of clicks and a few tabs.

What does Pr get me, what metal is more near my vicinity, that I need to know about?


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 2, 2017 at 10:08:19 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "In Pr, it's a bunch of clicks and tabs to move/repo/add stabilization/color/opacity/shutter fixes/crop/trim/zooms/compositing/spatial options."

More is more! And therefore apparently much more is more "pro"? 😏


[Jeremy Garchow] "In X, all those controls are exposed in the UI on every clip I select. I can see and manipulate audio and video as one in the Browser, in Pr, it's a bunch of clicks and a few tabs."

As I outlined further up with actual numbers, yes. But somehow, in some minds, having things split up into endless palettes-clicks-window-menu-things makes for a more user-friendly because "flexible" interface? Okay. Then will just have to agree to vehemently disagree. 😊

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 2, 2017 at 10:27:23 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Why does Ae and Pr crash a lot? This isn't just me taking, this is all of my colleagues. Perhaps all of our machines are broken, but nothing else crashes like this. Resolve, Fusion, all my third party interchange. "

I know it's not just you. And it sounds horrible. But at the same time, Ae and Pr are stable for us. I wish I understood what the difference is. Please submit bug reports when you have the time. These apps shouldn't crash.


[Jeremy Garchow] "What does Pr get me, what metal is more near my vicinity, that I need to know about?"

I think you point out some good examples of Pr's fiddliness above. But here's an example of how philosophy differs between Apple and Adobe.

Apple curates the controls it exposes. FCPX stabilization:


Adobe shares lots of under-the-hood parameters with (at?) you. Pr stabilization:


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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 4, 2017 at 8:24:38 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Apple curates the controls it exposes. FCPX stabilization:


Adobe shares lots of under-the-hood parameters with (at?) you. Pr stabilization:
"



You are implying that one works better than the other?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 4, 2017 at 8:44:45 pm

Well Warp Stabilizer is better than FCPX Stabilisation!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 4, 2017 at 9:01:35 pm

[Steve Connor] "Well Warp Stabilizer is better than FCPX Stabilisation!"

I think it's entirely subjective based on your footage.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 5, 2017 at 11:21:54 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think it's entirely subjective based on your footage."

I completely agree. Neither is better or worse overall. I've tested repeatedly. With FCP's own, Lock and Load and AE's Warp Stabilizer, and was expecting FCP's own to be the worst most of the time, also near-sightedly judging by its seeming simplicity, but far from it. In fact in some extreme cases it did decidedly better than either of the others, as well as the other way around in other cases and most of the time it could have been considered a tie. Whereby FCP's stabilizer is the only one that works in realtime after just the one time analysis (which happens in the background, so yet another huge plus in my book) and doesn't need re-rendering with every tiny change.

Same goes for other similar effects/plugins btw, such as FCP's "Flow" transition and e.g. motionVFX's mMorph. Though in that case FCP's own did much better in most every case. Haven't tested myself yet, but have been told PPro's transition is also worse more often than not. So anyone claiming one particular tool is better than the other across the board, clearly hasn't actually done the homework.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 4, 2017 at 9:27:44 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You are implying that one works better than the other?"

I was just trying to provide a clear example of "closeness to the metal." Apple goes for simplicity, offering you only the most important control over their stabilizer. Adobe goes for flexibility, exposing more properties that affect the mechanics of the stabilizer.

As a sidebar... I don't know enough about the internals of Apple's stabilizer to know for certain, but it seems to me that Apple's controls scale the output of the stabilizer, while Adobe's controls are inputs to the stabilizer.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 6, 2017 at 3:26:34 am

[Walter Soyka] "I was just trying to provide a clear example of "closeness to the metal." Apple goes for simplicity, offering you only the most important control over their stabilizer. Adobe goes for flexibility, exposing more properties that affect the mechanics of the stabilizer."

But they are both good, and endless stabilization dials aren't going to make me switch to Pr for editing. After more and more days on it, I don't like it any more. I concur that fiddly is in fact a really good word. It is very fiddly. And I do not miss tracks. I have no less than 15 copied project files from crashes. I did find if I render the timeline before export, it crashes less. I thought I had stopped rendering in an NLE 3 years ago.

I couldn't find a simple soft edge wipe transition in Pr. Boggled my brain. I tried to get closer to the metal, but it wouldn't let me, I could only add a border. :P. Found an effect called linear wipe that does what I want, but it's an effect and not a transition. It's a huge amount of clicking for a really simple effect.

I do understand what you are saying. Adobe has a different philosophy. I believe that some of the fiddly philosophy is holdover from a bygone era. It would be interesting to see what Adobe would do without having to drag a legacy.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 6, 2017 at 6:37:50 pm

[Walter Soyka] "As a sidebar... I don't know enough about the internals of Apple's stabilizer to know for certain, but it seems to me that Apple's controls scale the output of the stabilizer, while Adobe's controls are inputs to the stabilizer."

Just out of curiosity Walter - I agree that Adobe seems to give you control over the input of the WS (a lot like Syntheyes and Mocha), but why do you say that Apple seems to give you control of the result of the stabilizer? I've obviously never used it, so I'm curious to know what you think the difference is.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 12:03:43 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Why does Ae and Pr crash a lot? This isn't just me taking, this is all of my colleagues. Perhaps all of our machines are broken, but nothing else crashes like this. "

Oh hell yes. I am on a Premiere job right now and I had to get back to "command-s" mindset after every few edits. Funny how you forget things like that! And forced renders to get a decent playback.

I mean, it may be nice to "be near the metal" if that's what you want, but if I need to deal with that cluttered, "fiddley" Premiere interface to be there, I'll pass, thank you.

Just my humble opinion. ;-)

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 12:20:08 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "that cluttered, "fiddley" Premiere interface"

Are we really saying that this:



is more cluttered and fiddly than this?



Or does it not more depend on what panels you choose to have open at one one time in either application?

As has been pointed out before, any FCP X window configuration can easily be recreated in Premiere, so to say that FCP X layouts are preferable seems like a curious claim.

I'm not arguing for the superiority of either application (I like/hate them both) but I can't see the justification for your comment.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 12:27:05 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'm not arguing for the superiority of either application "

Sure. But in your X frame grab, close the inspector and the clip browser. And the timeline index. Closer to the functionality that you show in Premiere?

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 12:35:06 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on Mar 7, 2017 at 12:53:56 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Closer to the functionality that you show in Premiere?"

Well, yes, of course. But my point is that you have to compare like with like, which I don't think you are doing.

Which of these two is more cluttered?





I'd say there's nothing in it, although arguably there is slightly more cruft hanging around the FCP X interface than in Premiere's.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 1:01:30 pm

But wouldn't you say that an editor that prefers Premiere might be using the more traditional two-up setting. And would want the track patching panel in there. Something more like this?



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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 1:14:57 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "But wouldn't you say that an editor that prefers Premiere might be using the more traditional two-up setting. "

Perhaps. I don't work that way, but again if we're comparing like with like we'd have to compare it with this in FCP X:



It's all down to personal taste, of course, but to my way of thinking filmstrips are the worst kind of visual clutter you can have staring at you. I know a lot of users just love them - I can never cope with them as the give me eyestrain, they don't provide me with any information that I actually need, and they just look plain messy and distracting.

But again, I come back to my point that if you're wanting to compare the two looks you have to be fair about exposing the same options.

I think Premiere can be every bit as pared back as FCP X if you choose to work that way. I don't think Adobe do the application justice with their default layouts, but that doesn't mean you can't configure it to something that pleases you and helps you work better. Because you most certainly can.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 3:24:59 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "But wouldn't you say that an editor that prefers Premiere might be using the more traditional two-up setting"

Actually take a look at the "assembly" workspace in PPro. Ideal for limited real estate, like on a laptop. Very FCPX-like.



- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 5:35:27 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Actually take a look at the "assembly" workspace in PPro. Ideal for limited real estate, like on a laptop. Very FCPX-like.

"


Perhaps, but I wonder how many editors are making their Premiere interface feel like X! But a nicer look for sure.

The premiere screen grab that I posted above is from the gig I am working on right now. So, it's interesting that I fall back into a "traditional" look when going back to a more traditional NLE. Old habits die hard.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 6:04:28 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Perhaps, but I wonder how many editors are making their Premiere interface feel like X! But a nicer look for sure."

Probably a minority. I think most users, regardless of the program, go with the default because it's what they learned on and they'd rather adapt to that then take the time to experiment with different layout options (even if that would be faster in the long run).


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 9:06:57 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Probably a minority."

Erm…probably? 😃


[Andrew Kimery] "I think most users, regardless of the program, go with the default because it's what they learned on and they'd rather adapt to that then take the time to experiment with different layout options (even if that would be faster in the long run)."

Absolutely. Comparing completely non-standard layouts strikes me as pretty disingenuous and contrived. To want to claim that near triple the amount of buttons(!) within the default layouts alone is somehow "no more cluttered than FCP X"… wish I knew by which logic that could hold true.

And believe it or not, there's actually a shortcut for each and every GUI area of X as well. 😏

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 11:05:34 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "Absolutely. Comparing completely non-standard layouts strikes me as pretty disingenuous and contrived."

Why? The plasticity of the Adobe UI is a significant and very useful feature.

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: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 11:10:09 am
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on Mar 8, 2017 at 11:10:49 am

1) Premiere can emulate every layout of which FCP X is capable.

2) FCP X cannot emulate every layout of which Premiere is capable. (That's a major understatement.)

3) Like FCP 7 and Media Composer, Premiere has had multiple layout options for a long while; FCP X has only just acquired them.

4) FCP X workspaces allow for only a limited number of layout options; Premiere allows for unlimited flexibility.

5) Premiere panels can be stacked so that they all occupy the same space; FCP X cannot do this.

6) Premiere allows for third parties to create custom panels via Extensions; FCP X does not have an equivalent.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 11:21:40 am
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on Mar 8, 2017 at 11:25:58 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "Comparing completely non-standard layouts strikes me as pretty disingenuous and contrived"

Oliver has already pointed out that the entirely standard (!) Assembly workspace is very lean and clean indeed.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 9, 2017 at 6:09:45 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "Absolutely. Comparing completely non-standard layouts strikes me as pretty disingenuous and contrived."

How is it disingenuous and contrived? Comparing and contrasting is pretty fundamental to analyses, debate and exploration of various ways of thinking/problem solving.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 6:11:57 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Perhaps, but I wonder how many editors are making their Premiere interface feel like X! But a nicer look for sure."

The way I work these days is to have the interface set up like this:



I can then use Shift 1 to select the Project Pane, Shift 2 for the Source Monitor, Shift 3 for the Timeline, Shift 4 for the Canvas, Shift 5 for the Effect Controls, Shift 6 for the Track Mixer, Shift 7 for the Effects browser, Shift 8 for the Media Browser, and Shift 9 for the Clip Mixer.

I don't see any need to have any more panels open at any one time - they can all live stacked up in the one pane at the top left. This way I have a full width timeline and a nice big canvas.

It might not suit you but it might be worth a try?

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 6:35:43 pm

I assume you have a second monitor. What do you put on that?


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 6:43:05 pm

[Brian Seegmiller] "I assume you have a second monitor. What do you put on that?"

Individual bins mostly, scopes when I'm using them, the track mixer if it's a big mix, ...

But the fact is you can put anything there at any time. Premiere is infinitely flexible.

Comparisons are invidious but it's only fair to point out that it's more flexible than FCP X, even now that 10.3 has more layout options.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 7:59:44 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I can then use Shift 1 to select the Project Pane, Shift 2 for the Source Monitor, Shift 3 for the Timeline, Shift 4 for the Canvas, Shift 5 for the Effect Controls, Shift 6 for the Track Mixer, Shift 7 for the Effects browser, Shift 8 for the Media Browser, and Shift 9 for the Clip Mixer. "

Here's a fun trick at parties: press Shift+2 multiple times to cycle through open clips in the Source Monitor.

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

Scott Witthaus
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 11:44:01 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "It might not suit you but it might be worth a try?
"


It might be, but at the end of the day, no matter how I customize Premiere, FXPX (for me) is the superior creative editorial tool (see Jeff's post below) It just is (for me). So I can try to make Premiere look like X, but it still is the inferior creative tool when compared to FCPX (and before anyone flames this comment, I mean for me, my workflow and my clients. Not trying to impress this opinion on anyone else). Simply my choice.

I do thank everyone for these tips and layouts as they will help when I have to work on Premiere.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 12:04:16 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "It might be, but at the end of the day, no matter how I customize Premiere, FXPX (for me) is the superior creative editorial tool (see Jeff's post below) It just is (for me)."

Fair enough.

I can't argue with that. There are loads of reasons to choose FCP X over other NLEs as it comfortably outclasses them in those areas.

I'm just not convinced that it's superior to Premiere in terms of layout options. That's all.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 12:22:52 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'm just not convinced that it's superior to Premiere in terms of layout options. That's all."

Totally cool, and you have given me some great ideas and layouts that I will incorporate into my current Premiere project. Thank you.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 12:43:04 pm

Good to hear, thanks. Glad we could help a bit.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 4:34:54 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "It might be, but at the end of the day, no matter how I customize Premiere, FXPX (for me) is the superior creative editorial tool (see Jeff's post below) It just is (for me). So I can try to make Premiere look like X, but it still is the inferior creative tool when compared to FCPX (and before anyone flames this comment, I mean for me, my workflow and my clients. Not trying to impress this opinion on anyone else). Simply my choice."

Theres another HUGE factor in play here.

To the best of my knowledge, there was never a MASSIVE mis-impression that Adobe Premiere Pro was a TERRIBLE NLE and that Adobe had "ruined" editing by creating it.

Without being objectively BETTER than it's competition - I'd argue that X would have had ABSOLUTELY no chance of regaining it's market share after it's woefully misunderstood early days.

The runner that starts even may be just having a better day if they win.

The one forced to start BEHIND the line - has to run smoother and faster just to catch up.

If there is any type of utility parity now - that becomes prima facia evidence that X has objectively gone much farther, much faster.

FWIW.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 4:45:29 pm

[Bill Davis] "there was never a MASSIVE mis-impression that Adobe Premiere Pro was a TERRIBLE NLE"

I'm just not sure that's true at all.

In common with many editors I know, at the time of FCP X's original launch, I was very much under the impression that Premiere was a toy that was simply not worth my time in investigating.

Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. But the fact remains that Premiere was starting from a very low point five or six years ago in terms of perception and Adobe have made up huge amounts of ground since then.

Whether Adobe have made as much progress as Apple in that time is not for me to say.

I will say that I was much more inclined to give serious consideration to FCP X when it launched than to waste any effort on getting to know Premiere.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 5:00:50 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'm just not sure that's true at all.

In common with many editors I know, at the time of FCP X's original launch, I was very much under the impression that Premiere was a toy that was simply not worth my time in investigating. "


Maybe I'm super sensitive to this because I had so much vitriol thrown at me in the early days of THIS forum for even TRYING to defend the concepts behind X.

And yes, Premiere was disrespected at the time as well.

But it's also pretty hard to dismiss the fact that large swaths of people moved to Premiere Pro looking for FCP 8 than did looking for ANYTHING uniquely Premiere-like.

After all, even with Premiere/After Effects linkage - WAY more people adopted FCP 7 than Premiere Pro at the time. So it's hard to argue that even THAT was a singular enough feature to have caused them to look for Premiere to replace Legacy.

FWIW.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 4:45:58 pm

[Bill Davis] "To the best of my knowledge, there was never a MASSIVE mis-impression that Adobe Premiere Pro was a TERRIBLE NLE"

I think that's historically incorrect. Up until CS6, most folks needing a "pro" NLE would have said otherwise. Why do you think Adobe managers like Al Mooney said that Premiere wasn't bad anymore (or something to that effect) at the time?

[Bill Davis] "Without being objectively BETTER than it's competition - I'd argue that X would have had ABSOLUTELY no chance of regaining it's market share after it's woefully misunderstood early days. "

I would offer a different POV. FCPX, in fact, did not gain back the full marketshare of FCP "legacy" users. It certainly gained new users, which positions it well today. However, of the FCP "legacy" users up to the FCPX launch, those were split up among: 1) stay with FCP7, 2) move to FCPX, 3) move to Premiere, or 4) move to Avid.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 5:00:40 pm

[Oliver Peters] "FCPX, in fact, did not gain back the full marketshare of FCP "legacy" users."

True. It has surpassed it a long time ago. But then that market is an entirely different one today anyway, therefore a completely futile and meaningless comparison from the get go.

No, can't name numbers nor source, but it is in fact true. Whether it clashes with anyone's world view or not, disbelief doesn't change anything, sorry. Of course there are those that would brush the vast majority of those users/that market off as not anywhere near the "super-L.A.-pro" level that can be considered relevant for their so distinguished little club, but that's beside the point. 😏

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 5:10:21 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "[Oliver Peters] "FCPX, in fact, did not gain back the full marketshare of FCP "legacy" users."

True. It has surpassed it a long time ago. But then that market is an entirely different one today anyway, therefore a completely futile and meaningless comparison from the get go."


Bill made the comparison, not me. And I said the same thing as you, in the post I made.

"It certainly gained new users, which positions it well today."

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 2:51:27 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'd say there's nothing in it, although arguably there is slightly more cruft hanging around the FCP X interface than in Premiere's."


You have to have that "patch panel" in Pr That's the "cruft" I don't need.


Take a picture with the title tool open in pr and titles in X


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 8:43:57 pm

[Tony West] "You have to have that "patch panel" in Pr That's the "cruft" I don't need."

Call me crazy, but sometimes FCP X is just perfect for what I need to do.

And sometimes it's Premiere.

And sometimes it's Media Composer.

And sometimes it's Resolve.

And so on.

I guess I need therapy.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 8:55:58 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Call me crazy, but sometimes FCP X is just perfect for what I need to do.

And sometimes it's Premiere.

And sometimes it's Media Composer.

And sometimes it's Resolve.

And so on.

I guess I need therapy."


Not on this evidence. 😎

Although I can see why some people would call you crazy for not just paying lip service to "using the right tool for the job" but actually THINKING about the best tool, and CHOOSING them on a project-by-project basis. Surely the definition of insanity. 😁


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 9, 2017 at 1:09:01 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Although I can see why some people would call you crazy for not just paying lip service to "using the right tool for the job" but actually THINKING about the best tool,"

It really didn't have anything to do with anybody bing called crazy.

Somebody made a point, then somebody challenged it and then somebody made a strawman'ish response.

Then someone else responded by implying that others were not actually "THINKING" about the tools when THEY made THEIR decisions.

As if THEY can't even explain their decisions. THEY were not THINKING.

I think you should rethink that statement.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 9:19:42 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Call me crazy, but sometimes FCP X is just perfect for what I need to do.

And sometimes it's Premiere.

And sometimes it's Media Composer.

And sometimes it's Resolve.

And so on.

I guess I need therapy."


Sorry, you can't say things like that on here.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 9:55:09 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I guess I need therapy.
"


Therapy? is awesome. I suggest starting with Troublegum, it's probably their best album.

http://www.therapyquestionmark.co.uk/


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 10:29:58 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Call me crazy, but sometimes FCP X is just perfect for what I need to do. And sometimes it's Premiere. And sometimes it's Media Composer. And sometimes it's Resolve. And so on. I guess I need therapy."

I know one of your use cases for Resolve [link]. Where, roughly, do you draw the lines for the other apps?

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: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 9, 2017 at 11:43:07 am
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on Mar 9, 2017 at 1:08:09 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Where, roughly, do you draw the lines for the other apps?"

With the proviso that this is my opinion based on my editing and business needs, which are not necessarily going to be the same as anyone else's, and only celebrating the positives and ignoring the negatives ...

Media Composer: for collaboration.

There is still no better solution for a team of editors working on the same project at the same time.

FCP X: for the fun.

For the sheer, freeform, creative exuberance of it, there is nothing like working in the magnetic timeline.

Premiere: for the Swiss Army Knife factor.

Premiere takes up where FCP 7 left off in offering the most adaptable set of workflow options. No one thing stands out but I would list: flexible and powerful relinking, comprehensive interchange options that work right out of the box, workspace customisation, advanced audio mixing capabilities, and of course the seamless interaction with Ps, Ai and Ae.

Resolve: for the finished look

For some projects, the cutting needs to go hand in hand with the final look and for this nothing comes close to Resolve, as I have discussed before. A capable NLE that is also the world's leading grading solution is quite an act to beat, but when you factor in Fusion Connect, it's in a class of its own.

Steenbeck: for the magic

OK, so this doesn't belong here, but I mention it to make a more general point. To anyone who can still remember those days, there was unquestionably something indefinably special about the process of cutting on a flatbed (or a Moviola). Was it the tactile pleasure of the physical interaction with the medium? The intrinsic slowness of the process that made you think harder about what you were doing? The magic of looking at a beautiful projected image rather than just a bunch of dead pixels? The performative aspect of every cut? The sheer physical labour of it that made you feel more like an honest artisan than a pretentious "artist"? The satisfaction of working with a magnificent piece of mechanical engineering costing more than a luxury car? I think ultimately the appeal was that it was a holistic experience, more than the sum of its parts, a holistic experience that made you feel connected, even if only by a slender thread, to a tradition of film-making stretching back to Griffith and Eisenstein.

By which I mean that speed and efficiency and modernity are not necessarily the only values it pays to think about.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 9, 2017 at 2:04:47 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "FCP X: for the fun."..."Steenbeck: for the magic"

Damn! You've stumbled upon Apple's new marketing catch phrase: FCPX - the digital Steenback for the future! Somehow this is a loopback to the "Blade" thread!



- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 10, 2017 at 4:24:52 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "OK, so this doesn't belong here, but I mention it to make a more general point. To anyone who can still remember those days, there was unquestionably something indefinably special about the process of cutting on a flatbed (or a Moviola). Was it the tactile pleasure of the physical interaction with the medium? The intrinsic slowness of the process that made you think harder about what you were doing? The magic of looking at a beautiful projected image rather than just a bunch of dead pixels? The performative aspect of every cut? The sheer physical labour of it that made you feel more like an honest artisan than a pretentious "artist"? The satisfaction of working with a magnificent piece of mechanical engineering costing more than a luxury car? I think ultimately the appeal was that it was a holistic experience, more than the sum of its parts, a holistic experience that made you feel connected, even if only by a slender thread, to a tradition of film-making stretching back to Griffith and Eisenstein.

By which I mean that speed and efficiency and modernity are not necessarily the only values it pays to think about."


Here you go guys... don't get TOO excited at the imagery...



Photo attributed to the University of Utah,
Posted by a friend yesterday on a private forum.

Enjoy.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 10, 2017 at 5:04:23 pm

Definitely not designed by Apple.

;-)

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 10, 2017 at 6:22:54 am

[Walter Soyka] "[Simon Ubsdell] "Call me crazy, but sometimes FCP X is just perfect for what I need to do. And sometimes it's Premiere. And sometimes it's Media Composer. And sometimes it's Resolve. And so on. I guess I need therapy."

I know one of your use cases for Resolve [link]. Where, roughly, do you draw the lines for the other apps?"


Walter, you have one of the broadest toolsets of anyone in these parts. Where do YOU draw the rough lines for which apps get used for which tasks?


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 9, 2017 at 5:46:46 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "Call me crazy,"

Everyone stop calling Simon crazy. Everyone who might have been doing that : )


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 9, 2017 at 1:14:11 pm

[Tony West] "[Simon Ubsdell] "Call me crazy,"

Everyone stop calling Simon crazy."


Yeah!

Just call him cranky. :)


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 3:21:20 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "Oh hell yes. I am on a Premiere job right now and I had to get back to "command-s" mindset after every few edits. Funny how you forget things like that! And forced renders to get a decent playback."

I don't want to minimize the pain you and Jeremy and others are having with Premiere, but for the life of me, I'm struggling to understand what sort of configuration you are running that is causing this. I've have experience with literally 20-30 different Macs and some PCs running Premiere over several years and versions. Does it crash, yes; but from my experience only slightly more so than X. Probably across all this time, an average of a crash a week.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 5:02:13 pm

[Oliver Peters] " I'm struggling to understand what sort of configuration you are running that is causing this. "

Here's my dead project storage from all the crashes and recovery projects. This is from one project file.






Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 5:38:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Here's my dead project storage from all the crashes and recovery projects. This is from one project file."

I don't think Oliver is questioning that it's happening, but questioning why it's happening.

Once in a blue moon I'll get a crashy project (it might crash 2 or 3 times in a day) but I can typically find the cause (bad render, bad piece of media, transfer it all to a new project., etc.,) and the crashing goes away. I've been using PPro a lot since 2013/2014 on a variety of Macs (some owned and maintained by me, some owned and maintained by the various companies I've worked for), and generally speaking it's been stable and reliable in my experience.

Obviously our lack of problems doesn't help to solve your problem though...


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 5:49:50 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Obviously our lack of problems doesn't help to solve your problem though..."

It seems that rendering the timeline, and then using the previews in the resulting export stops the crashing. If I don't do it that way, it will crash on export.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 6:03:05 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It seems that rendering the timeline, and then using the previews in the resulting export stops the crashing. If I don't do it that way, it will crash on export.
"


Possibly a codec or file/media type issue? Does it crash whether your export directly from PPro or from Media Encoder?

One of my projects developed an export glitch that would surface if I export via Media Encoder but not if I exported from PPro?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 6:05:55 pm

As mentioned before, I think it's Pr having trouble with layered photoshop files. This project is full of them.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 6:37:39 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It seems that rendering the timeline, and then using the previews in the resulting export stops the crashing. If I don't do it that way, it will crash on export."

So you are getting crashes on export? As I recall you had a 2013 Mac Pro. I've experienced a lot of render issues with those machine, because the GPUs are crap. Check your hardware settings. Right now, Metal is touch and go, OpenCL may be better, so safest is software only, but slower. I find I have to check - not spot check - every export I make from Premiere on the trash can Macs. I don't see this with other machines.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 7, 2017 at 6:42:26 pm

[Oliver Peters] "So you are getting crashes on export?"

On export is where it occurs the most, yes. But not all.

This is on a laptop and 2 desktops. It's not the hardware. I know "configuration" is the most likely culprit to suspect (because Adobe doesn't write for Macs, but they write for everything) but these are decent machines. Everything else works on them. Premiere does not work that well.

I am using software only as well. Thanks for the suggestion.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 2, 2017 at 10:00:30 am

[Walter Soyka] "Adobe UIs can be pretty hard to learn. "

Yes. And completely unnecessarily so imho. As shown by X's interface in comparison imho.

Would I like the "web in your NLE"-thing option? Generally speaking, sure! At the cost of usability? Nope. But I suspect Apple will eventually make changes to either the FX Plug API or X itself to allow for more things in that direction. Only I suspect they'll come up with a much better solution overall once and if they do. Or at least one that won't mean the GUI has to explode into some convoluted mess for just that little bit more functionality.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 2, 2017 at 10:33:50 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "Yes. And completely unnecessarily so imho. As shown by X's interface in comparison imho."

I'm curious. Please see my examples a couple of posts up. Which specific stabilization controls should Adobe take out of their users' hands? How much control must they remove before they meet your benchmark for simplicity?

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

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 2, 2017 at 11:11:51 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Mar 2, 2017 at 11:15:19 am

[Walter Soyka] "Which specific stabilization controls should Adobe take out of their users' hands? How much control must they remove before they meet your benchmark for simplicity?"

I'm sorry… are you suggesting that it all somehow hinges on just that one panel??! 😄 Okay, so I may have been inadvertently hyperbolic as far as that one palette is concerned and remembered it wrong, but that does not change diddly about PPro's GUI as a whole in comparison, which was my only and real underlaying point, so who cares?

Feel free to re-read my examples a couple of posts up as far as the direct overall comparison is concerned.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 2, 2017 at 11:22:16 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "I'm sorry… are you suggesting that it all somehow hinges on just that one panel??! 😄 Okay, so I may have been inadvertently hyperbolic as far as that one palette is concerned and remembered it wrong, but that plain does not change diddly about PPro's GUI as a whole in comparison, which the only and real underlaying point."

No. This screenshot has nothing to do with Ae's Tracker panel; it's the effect controls for Pr's Warp Stabilizer effect.

I picked this as an example of Apple's philosophy of simplicity versus Adobe's philosophy of flexibility. Personally, I think both have value, but you seem to disagree. If Adobe exposes too many controls, let's pick which ones to remove.

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

Walter Soyka
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 28, 2017 at 4:31:56 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] "Counterpoint: Premiere Pro has a lousy GUI. Crowded, fiddly, ugly, not at all pleasant to use on a daily basis."

I think fiddly is a great word to describe the Pr UI. I do seem to fiddle with it it a bit every time I use it.

I disagree on crowded, ugly and unpleasant, but I do feel that the design of the application and the default layouts promote a larger number of obvious UI interactions than FCPX does. I think at least part of this is a tradeoff between flexibility and complexity.

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

Walter Soyka
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 28, 2017 at 4:19:07 pm

The panel architecture that Oliver is talking about is much bigger than just plugins adding panels to the interface.

Panels are part of Adobe's Common Extensibility Platform (CEP). What's particularly cool about CEP is that it's based on HTML5 for the interface and Javascript for the logic. It provides a set of APIs for interfacing with Adobe apps, it provides a really rich set of industry-standard web development libraries, and it essentially runs it all this in a web browser inside an Adobe app.

Why on earth would someone want a web browser in their NLE? Not for browsing the COW (sorry, Tim), but for allowing web developers to easily customize or integrate Adobe apps. As a developer, you do not need to be an expert on C++ and the entire breadth of the Adobe plugin SDKs; you can be a web developer, like Frame.io or Vimeo, focus on your main development efforts, and just learn a couple of relatively easy hooks into the host app (like Premiere).

This is a very, very natural way to integrate a web-based service into a desktop-based product.

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

Jeff Markgraf
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Feb 28, 2017 at 8:49:25 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Panels are part of Adobe's Common Extensibility Platform (CEP)."

Walter,

I think the panel thing Adobe has going on is a great tool. Very nice integration with other Adobe products, and a great way to interface with other products (media managers, etc.). I wish FCPX had similar hooks available to third party products. I thinks it's a key shortcoming.

The difficulty with this extensibility, from a usability standpoint, goes back to one of the fundamental differences (IMHO) between Adobe and Apple philosophies. The "everything to all people" approach of Adobe (of which panels is a valuable element) has very real drawbacks in terms of user experience. As you said in an earlier post, it's a tradeoff. I find that what I may lose in extensibility/flexibility/customizability in FCPX (and many Apple products in general), I more than make up for in simplicity, ease of use, and the ability to focus on the work without other stuff in the way.

UI/UX is hard, it's squishy, and it's the very definition of a moving target. CF, Windows vs. Mac OS. Both can get the job done. Both can inspire near stroke-inducing fits of rage in some users. Years of using Adobe products hasn't changed my opinion of their fundamentally unfriendly UI and UX. Neither has years of Windows use. But they both have come up with some great features over the years.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 1, 2017 at 11:28:07 am

[Jeff Markgraf] "I find that what I may lose in extensibility/flexibility/customizability in FCPX (and many Apple products in general), I more than make up for in simplicity, ease of use, and the ability to focus on the work without other stuff in the way. "

Exactly.

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 1, 2017 at 12:11:55 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "[Jeff Markgraf] "I find that what I may lose in extensibility/flexibility/customizability in FCPX (and many Apple products in general), I more than make up for in simplicity, ease of use, and the ability to focus on the work without other stuff in the way. "

Exactly."


+1

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 4:51:48 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Why on earth would someone want a web browser in their NLE? SNIP you can be a web developer, like Frame.io or Vimeo, focus on your main development efforts, and just learn a couple of relatively easy hooks into the host app (like Premiere).

This is a very, very natural way to integrate a web-based service into a desktop-based product."


The skeptic in me immediately thinks....

Goal 1: Make it infinitely easier for the Company and it's partners to SELL add-ons to a locked-in installed base!

Is it a "feature" if it's primary purpose is less to empower the user with new capabilities, but rather to reduce friction between developers and the customers wallet?

Nothing wrong with commerce. I'm all for it!

But theres no need to cloak it in the mantle of "user benefits."

In-app purchases - in any form - are incremental revenue drivers - NOT "customer benefits."

That's all.

; )

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 4:56:25 pm

[Bill Davis] "Is it a "feature" if it's primary purpose is less to empower the user with new capabilities, but rather to reduce friction between developers and the customers wallet? Nothing wrong with commerce. I'm all for it! But theres no need to cloak it in the mantle of "user benefits." In-app purchases - in any form - are incremental revenue drivers - NOT "customer benefits.""

That strikes me as an incredibly dark view. Why on earth would anyone buy an add-on if they didn't find real value or tangible benefit in it?

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: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 5:13:35 pm

[Walter Soyka] "That strikes me as an incredibly dark view. Why on earth would anyone buy an add-on if they didn't find real value or tangible benefit in it?"

Overtime a application developer adds features to their program they increase the value. Often, those are DETATCHED from the need to increment revenue. Apple just spent huge amounts of time and money plumbing in MASSIVE improvements in FCP X 10.3 - yet that was almost completely DECOUPLED from revenue concerns - at least for existing users.

Why DARK?

It's right up front. Adobe prizes incremental add-on sales inside their apps. What's wrong with that?

It' isn't "dark" to note that that the links and hooks that Premiere is coming up with are (at least in some cases) are tied to revenue production.

Adobe Stock does it extremely openly and obviously.

In X the similar system works very differently. I can get "in app" pitches for new products via Motion VFX or FX Factory- but ONLY after my own opt-in - not plumbed into the Application by the manufacturer. Once again, it's Apple leaving third party commerce to the third parties, rather than trying to plumb it directly into the program.

It's seems like a VERY different approach to me.

Thats all.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 5:34:03 pm

[Bill Davis] "Why DARK? It's right up front. Adobe prizes incremental add-on sales inside their apps. What's wrong with that? "

I don't think anything's wrong with that. Didn't you suggest that this was did not providing end user benefits, but just separating people from their money?


[Bill Davis] "Overtime a application developer adds features to their program they increase the value. Often, those are DETATCHED from the need to increment revenue. Apple just spent huge amounts of time and money plumbing in MASSIVE improvements in FCP X 10.3 - yet that was almost completely DECOUPLED from revenue concerns - at least for existing users. "

Apple and BMD give out free software or updates. They can afford it, because their customers are on a de facto hardware subscription.

Does your business model allow you to provide free "new feature" updates to the videos you produce for your clients? Why should software be different?

Getting back to the panel architecture, we're not just talking about first-party add-ons here. Take Vimeo. You're a Vimeo customer already. If you were using Premiere, you could use the Vimeo panel:
https://join.vimeo.com/adobe-premiere-panel

I know that FCPX has Share, but the point here is that anyone who offers a service can integrate directly inside Premiere with this panel architecture.

There's a hard limit to what you can do with just a desktop application running on a disconnect personal computer. There's a lot more you can do when you add networked services on top. I'm really excited about the possibilities.

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: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 10:47:41 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Apple and BMD give out free software or updates. They can afford it, because their customers are on a de facto hardware subscription. "

Funny you should mention that.

We'd barely started marketing XinTwo when we started getting hints that X might change significantly. So I had to put it on hold until we knew if ALL the lessons would be essentially obsolete before release. When I saw the new interface in 10.3, I realized that the best way to serve our potential customers would be to re-capture everything with the new interface.

So, yes. A free update of EVERYTHING is EXACTLY what I've spent the last few months working on.

I took the hit and revised my product, hopefully for the benefit of my customers, without any compensation for the effort in making the change.

And so it goes.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 8, 2017 at 10:57:48 pm

[Bill Davis] "Funny you should mention that. We'd barely started marketing XinTwo when we started getting hints that X might change significantly... A free update of EVERYTHING is EXACTLY what I've spent the last few months working on. I took the hit and revised my product, hopefully for the benefit of my customers, without any compensation for the effort in making the change. "

But you're charging a subscription. How could it be a free update when your customers are paying every month?

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: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 9, 2017 at 2:42:33 am

It's just semantics, I suppose.

I could have left all the lessons we'd completed prior to the change "as is" and just used the new look going forward - sorta like a software program that only builds a little new code on top of all the legacy code that already exists and sells that as something new. I just felt that would be less valuable to subscribers who would want to come to learn about the program as it looks and functions in the present day.

Again, to my mind it's subscriptions ala Lynda.com - where the ease of entry AND exit keeps me motivated to try to get my subscriptions by focusing on end user value - rather than locking subscribers into my system by more or less holding their creative IP hostage.

Same philosophy I've always held.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 9, 2017 at 7:28:11 am

[Bill Davis] "It's just semantics, I suppose. "

It's not semantics, either you are charging people to access the videos or you offering them for free (not counting people on the 7-day free trial).

You wanted to increase of the value of your service with, presumably, the intended goals of retaining current subscribers as well as attracting new ones. It's almost like you are saying subscription services need to continuously prove their worth or risk losing subscribers. ;)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 10, 2017 at 4:11:07 am

Well, what I'm NOT doing is taking away their ability to continue working on THEIR OWN VIDEOS if they don't renew their subscriptions.

Seems to me as if that's a pretty HUGE difference in the different subscription models right there.

; )

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 10, 2017 at 10:48:09 am

[Bill Davis] "Well, what I'm NOT doing is taking away their ability to continue working on THEIR OWN VIDEOS if they don't renew their subscriptions."

Exactly. Which is why it's completely nonsensical to try and compare the two if you want to ignore that "tiny detail" which isn't one. And as I've said before, you don't remove their ability to use what they've learned or watch what they've (most likely) downloaded after opting out either. Subscription is not subscription is not subscription.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 10, 2017 at 2:27:14 pm

[Bill Davis] "Well, what I'm NOT doing is taking away their ability to continue working on THEIR OWN VIDEOS if they don't renew their subscriptions."

FCP7/FCPX taught me that switching creative applications is easier than I ever thought. If you want to quit Premiere tomorrow, export XML and download Resolve (or buy FCPX and SendToX) today.

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: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 10, 2017 at 5:39:39 pm

[Bill Davis] "Well, what I'm NOT doing is taking away their ability to continue working on THEIR OWN VIDEOS if they don't renew their subscriptions.

Seems to me as if that's a pretty HUGE difference in the different subscription models right there. "


You are offering tutorials about about software, Adobe is offering the actual software; It's a huge difference in what's being offered, but the models are the same (they are both subscriptions).

Don't pay the ISP bill? Don't pay the Adobe bill? Don't pay the Bill bill (sorry, couldn't help myself)? End result is the same, access is lost. If one lets their subscription to Sapphire effects from Gen Arts lapse one has to re-up before it'll work again. If one rents a bounce house, a BetaSP deck, a RED Dragon or an entire turnkey NLE system one has to keep paying otherwise access is lost.


[Walter Soyka] "FCP7/FCPX taught me that switching creative applications is easier than I ever thought. If you want to quit Premiere tomorrow, export XML and download Resolve (or buy FCPX and SendToX) today."

That's crazy talk, Walter. Everyone knows that once you start using an NLE you can never, ever, ever switch to another one. ;)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 11, 2017 at 12:40:55 am

[Andrew Kimery] "You are offering tutorials about about software, Adobe is offering the actual software; It's a huge difference in what's being offered, but the models are the same (they are both subscriptions)."

FIFY.
You are offering tutorials about "HOW TO USE" the software.

There is only ONE "software."

There are many ways to learn that how to use them all, including the ability to do it without spending a dime more than acquisition of the program - making my product OPTIONAL. (If hopefully VERY useful when it's ready to go!)

Getting "locked out of your own IP because you didn't continue paying a third party who should NEVER (in my opinion) nor in ANY way have the ability to separate you from your OWN IP" is, in my humble opinion, so far from the same as to be in a totally different universe.

How I see it. YMMV.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 12, 2017 at 7:01:13 am

[Bill Davis] "There are many ways to learn that how to use them all, including the ability to do it without spending a dime more than acquisition of the program - making my product OPTIONAL. "

There are multiple NLEs people can use, including one that doesn't cost a dime, so choosing the NLE offered by Adobe is OPTIONAL.

[Bill Davis] "Getting "locked out of your own IP because you didn't continue paying a third party who should NEVER (in my opinion) nor in ANY way have the ability to separate you from your OWN IP" is, in my humble opinion, so far from the same as to be in a totally different universe. "

You and Adobe (along with a lot of other companies) choose to live on Planet Subscription. You may think Adobe shouldn't live on Planet Subscription, but that's a totally different matter.

With regards to getting "locked out of your own IP", I assume you toss the same vitriol at people/companies that rent gear as you do at Adobe? 'Cause really what's fundamentally different between renting, say, a turnkey system for a month vs CC for a month? Come month number 2 it's pay more or no more NLE for you. Should editors work for free because doing otherwise would separate the client form their own IP? Will the soundstage allow me to keep using it at no cost after my allotted time is up? Will the cold storage facility offer me unfettered access to my IP after I stop paying my monthly bill? There are a plethora of situations where a third party can "separate' you from your own IP due to lack of payment.

Thankfully FCP 7 has an export XML function otherwise Apple would have been separating me from my own IP once I decided to stop using the NLE they killed. Oh, and I certainly need to thank Philip and Greg for making SendtoX so that Apple would no longer be separating me from my own IP when I want to transfer projects that originated in other NLEs into FCPX.


[Bill Davis] "And I don't think it's an accident that this serves their business interests in making it harder to leave, the longer you create work in their system. "

That statement isn't unique to Adobe and it is also very situational. I mean, isn't it common to call Media Composer 'entrenched' when talking about why it still has the place it does in the NLE world? The more time and money that goes towards a certain solution (especially at the enterprise level) the harder it is to jump ship and go a different route. Even on the individual user level it can be hard which is why people are typically reluctant to switch platforms unless they become strongly motivated. I've been an Apple user over 15yrs and at this point it's certainly easier for me to switch NLEs than switch computing platforms.

With regards to different editing situations, I've been using PPro as my main NLE for around three years, but I could drop it from my personal edit system tomorrow and there wouldn't really be a problem because the type of work I usually do doesn't lend itself to creating a library of past projects that get revisited on a regular basis (I'd of course still have to use it when it's required by my clients/employers). Once I'm done working on a project the deliverables, project files, assets, etc., all go back to the producer/director and it's off to the next gig. Even when I work with the same people again it's always on a new/different project

Even places I've worked that did recycle a lot of their previous work (ex. one place did commercials for bands on tour) would just pull from textless masters with split audio (much easier than re-constituting an old project). Most of my work with new media companies has been like that as well. Once it's done it's done. There are of course evergreen assets that get used over and over again, but those are certainly not tied to one specific NLE.

For people that typically deal with ongoing/open ended projects I can certainly see the lack of appeal of paying a subscription for your NLE, but not everyone is in that situation.


[Bill Davis] "And sorry, but an XML pooped out that when loaded into another NLE loses a significant part of my work and makes me start over is NOT the same as letting me go in and access my own work from where I left off without further cost. "

So how does one get 100% of one's work out of FCPX when one needs/wants to switch to another NLE? Not everyone wants to, or is in a position to, keep a cacophony of old computers running old operating systems until the day they die so they can hop between this project in FCP 7, that project from an Avid ABVB system, that one from Vegas, that one from FCP XI, that one from Resolve 2025, etc.,. You don't think keeping a collection like that in working order has costs associated to it? Don't take this the wrong way, but at your age and place in life keeping a bunch of old computers around probably isn't that big a deal. For someone that's in their 20's or 30's though, telling them to hang onto computers for decades incase they may need to access an old project is an inelegant solution at best.

The right solution, IMO, is lobbying for an open, universal exchange format that all companies agree to adopt. Will it be 100% perfect? No, but it'll be better than a closet full of old computers. I'd much rather migrate my projects (and media assets, and storage methods) forward as tech progress rather than try to hang on to relics that hopefully will keep working (especially as certain tech keeps moving more and more towards unrepairable, sealed boxes).


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 12, 2017 at 2:50:10 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Apple would have been separating me from my own IP once I decided to stop using the NLE they killed."

That's not an accurate statement is it Andrew?

Apple didn't kill FCP, they have a newer version that's more advanced than the old one. You may not like that version, but plenty people do.

That's not the same as killing FCP.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 12, 2017 at 3:15:40 pm

[Tony West] "Apple didn't kill FCP, they have a newer version that's more advanced than the old one."

Without any viable upgrade path for existing work from 7 to X built into the app. When X launched, FC Studio was pulled from resellers and the Apple Store. Later Apple allowed new full seats to still be sold to existing, but not new customers through their support channel. That was only after the blow-back they received, but no upgrades from earlier versions for existing FCP 1-6 customers. So it's not cut and dried, but that pretty close to killing a product.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 12, 2017 at 3:36:01 pm

[Oliver Peters] "but that pretty close to killing a product.
"


Not at all. they still have the product out there. They have a newer version of it. That's better than the old one.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 12, 2017 at 5:00:21 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Without any viable upgrade path for existing work from 7 to X built into the app."

Oh wow. That line is seriously getting so painfully old. Why not mention viable EDL and OMF, too? 😂

That "viable upgrade path" was built into the app well below three months after release. So big friggen whoop that some people had to wait that oh-so-amazingly-long-time to upgrade to something they were convinced they didn't need or even want to upgrade to anyway and continued with 6/7 for literally years after that either way. Yeah, unviable indeed. What an argument. 👍🏼


[Oliver Peters] "but no upgrades from earlier versions for existing FCP 1-6 customers."

Huhwha…?? How exactly do you define "upgrade"? By the price it costs to get to the current version? How else? Do you remember what previous Final Cut upgrades cost? I do. They (at least here) cost MORE than a full license of X and Motion and Compressor as of June 2011. How is that NOT an "upgrade"? Just because their was no price differentiation for new and previous users? But then I supposed you realize that X et al were moved to the MAS, in which case to date absolutely no one, including Apple, is given any type of "upgrade" option for newer versions of anything if they're not mere point updates? It's always a full purchase. So to want to portray that as some sort of unusual, Apple-only procedure is disingenuous at best.

Oh wait… what was Adobe's "viable upgrade path" for CS1-6 users to CC again?? Oh… right. That's totally different. My bad.


[Oliver Peters] "but that pretty close to killing a product."

So by that logic I guess e.g. Screenflow was "killed" with version 5 since I had to purchase version 6 at full price if I bought it through the MAS? Got it. Well, then there are an amazing number of murdered apps out there. Hundreds if not thousands. Wow. And then apparently other apps such as DVD Studio Pro 2.0 "killed" v1.0 since it was, as with FCP X, merely a redesign. Odd how I've never heard about that.

Apple did not "kill" FCP, period. Tony described it perfectly imho.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 12, 2017 at 9:08:22 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Mar 12, 2017 at 9:20:11 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Apple did not "kill" FCP, period. Tony described it perfectly imho."

You both believe in revisionist history. There STILL is NO viable path built inside of FCPX to transfer a sequence directly from FCP7 to FCPX. This requires 3rd party tools. Period. When X was initiatially launched, if you had 100 seats of FCP7 and needed to add 1 more, you could not do that. This policy was quickly changed because of the uproar. If you had FCP6 and wanted to upgrade to FCP7, you couldn't buy an upgrade. You had to buy a full version of FC Studio, again. That policy was not changed.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 12, 2017 at 9:30:26 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Mar 12, 2017 at 9:57:30 pm

[Oliver Peters] "There STILL is NO viable path built inside of FCPX to transfer a sequence directly from FCP7 to FCPX."

Yeah. The four people left that still need it actually having to pay one fourth/tenth of a single month's CC sub?! I mean... the gall of Apple to not deliver on something now we already haven't needed since 2013, right?

Never mind that we're still arguing a tired, irrelevant, five+ year old topic, it's all about principle! ☝🏼

🤤 😏


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 12, 2017 at 11:42:56 pm

[Oliver Peters] "You both believe in revisionist history. There STILL is NO viable path built inside of FCPX to transfer a sequence directly from FCP7 to FCPX."

That's a different issue.

They stopped making the version 7 of FCP.

They didn't stop making FCP.

Just because you can't bring in a version from 7 doesn't mean the stop making FCP.

I worked with folks last week who are still working on 7 today. I'm helping move them to X


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 13, 2017 at 12:05:21 am

[Tony West] "
They didn't stop making FCP.
Just because you can't bring in a version from 7 doesn't mean the stop making FCP. "


That's just marketing semantics. The fact that both apps carry the same name is only because Apple wanted to built upon an existing user base. There simply is no commonality between the two versions. Just like Premiere up to 4 is nothing like the versions that followed. Lightworks in its original form and Resolve in its original form are nothing like current versions and are completely different apps. The similarity is in name only, yet their similarity between old and new is way closer than between FCP X and FCP 1-7.

And I have clients who also have projects still in 7. It's such a PITA that they simply stay in 7 with those projects. Plus making sure those machines can still work with FCP7 without getting broken along the way results in an island or dual-boot situation. I see one side of what you are saying, but having worked with clients who literally pissed away thousands of dollars invested in a Final Cut ecosystem (FC Server, Xserve, Xsan), I'm just not having any of it.

Meanwhile, if I had Premiere Pro CS onward, or Media Composer (nearly any version) I could open the project file in the newest version and keep on trucking.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 13, 2017 at 1:39:46 am

[Oliver Peters] "That's just marketing semantics. "

That's just your opinion. You don't get to decide what their product is or what they call it. They do.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 13, 2017 at 12:15:58 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Mar 13, 2017 at 12:20:35 pm

[Tony West] "That's just your opinion. You don't get to decide what their product is or what they call it. They do."

No, but you are technically incorrect. These were two different product brand names. Final Cut Pro and Final Cut Pro X. These are individual brand names, not version numbers. They are as distinctly different as Mac Pro and Macbook Pro.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 14, 2017 at 12:05:30 am

[Oliver Peters] "No, but you are technically incorrect. These were two different product brand names. Final Cut Pro and Final Cut Pro X. These are individual brand names, not version numbers. "

I don't think so.

Apple calls it Final Cut Pro on their page.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 14, 2017 at 12:10:45 am

[Tony West] "Apple calls it Final Cut Pro on their page."

Ha! Ha! Man, you are working too hard at this! Depends on where you look.




- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 14, 2017 at 12:12:58 am

[Oliver Peters] "Depends on where you look."

Maybe we should just agree that Apple was and is completely inconsistent on how they've named it!


- oliver

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


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Prem vs FCPX - Panels
on Mar 14, 2017 at 11:18:57 am

[Oliver Peters] "you are working too hard at this! "

I'm not working any harder than you are.

It shouldn't matter where I look. you said they didn't call it Final Cut Pro and I showed you an example of just that.

He already corrected his original comment anyway, and yet YOU are trying to defend the comment that even HE corrected but it's ME in your mind that's working hard. hahahahaha


Return to posts index