FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Alex James
FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 26, 2017 at 7:54:28 pm

Hi All,

This is probably a topic that has been covered time and time again but I wanted to create a forum post to ask advise on the best course of action for our company.

We are a video production agency based in Dublin with about 6 editors and 12 members of staff. We were all originally FCP7 users and made the transition with Apple to FCPX. We have a couple of new members to our team recently who are enthusiastic Premiere users and would be keen to see us migrate. Personally I'm on the FCPX side of the fence as thats what I feel we all know and the transitions for the original editors could cost lots of time(and essentially money) and hard work. Saying this I'm open to the advantages if it substantially benefits our business in the future.

Heres a rundown of some of our major equipment:
RED Raven
C300
C500
C300MK2
Sound Devices 633
8 x Mac's
10G network
QNAP TS-1685 Shared storage



Heres is some of our main applications used and their purpose:
FCPX - Day to Day editing & Recently most audio editing/mixing
Logic - VO and occasional audio mixing
After Effects - Graphics
Photoshop - Graphics
DaVinci Resolve


Sort of videos we make:
Online Content (Lots)
Occasional TV Ad's
Online content aimed at mobile devices and social media
Occasional long training series
Corporate Promotional videos



I have read lots on compatibility between Premiere and the rest of the Adobe creative suite which we use on occasion and could be useful. Although on the other side our audio editors have now moved to mixing audio in FCPX for the power and simplicity of this.

We are keen to have a cohesion across the board and not have lots of different projects on different software as this seems very messy. Also with the recent introduction of our NAS, what may best suit this.
We feel FCPX has served us well with good performance and minimal glitches although in our search for top talent we are repeatedly getting far more CV's with Premiere Pro and no FCPX listed.

So I suppose i'm looking to open up a debate which clarify if in the long run, or at all, if migrating to Premiere will be the best choice for us? or if the man hours and stress involved in the change will be worth it.

I look forward to your thoughts in our particular context.

Many Thanks,

Alex James

TINY ARK
http://www.tinyark.com


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 26, 2017 at 9:14:48 pm

If you use Photoshop and AE then you are already paying into the CC so cost should not be an issue. If you use AE Premiere Pro might be a better option. Premiere Pro has good audio capabilities and I am sure they will continue to get better but then again so will all the other NLE.

Both should work but everyone's needs will be different and every editor editing style is slightly different. That is why some prefer one NLE over the other.

I can only say that for myself when the Adobe products are combined as whole it make's Premiere Pro shine a little brighter than it otherwise would. Having said that maybe you could let the employees demo of there top ten must have items for the NLE of their choice and see what items are the most valuable to your companies work flow.


Return to posts index

Glenn Grant
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 26, 2017 at 11:05:42 pm

I wouldn't switch just because a few new guys know Premier better.

As for NAS, there are some pretty solid solutions for FCPX so that shouldn't be a problem.

Depending on what you use After Effects for, you might be better off using Motion with FCP. That would be an easier and more cost effective switch than going to Premier.

I have projects and custom Motion Templates set up for my recurring clients and I can finish most projects without opening Motion. Now it's real easy to make sure any editor that opens the project has the Motion files to go with it.


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 26, 2017 at 11:41:57 pm

If you are happy with FCPX and performance with the NAS is fine, don't change. Try to help the new guys get comfortable with X. It takes a bit of a learning curve and an adjustment period.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 27, 2017 at 12:19:51 am

And there are certainly more than a few useful training programs out there designed to help ease their pathway to figuring out the new stuff!

; )

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


Return to posts index

Noah Kadner
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 27, 2017 at 5:17:47 am

Why hire editors if they don't use the house app? Just curious why the tail gets to wag the dog.

Noah

FCPWORKS - FCPX Workflow
FCP Exchange - FCPX Workshops
XinTwo - FCPX Training


Return to posts index


Brian Seegmiller
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 27, 2017 at 5:42:46 am

Set them down with FCP X and let them use it for a week or so. They may realize they hate tracks.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 27, 2017 at 12:03:32 pm

[Noah Kadner] "Why hire editors if they don't use the house app? Just curious why the tail gets to wag the dog."

When you hire based on talent, that's often more important than the tools. In the high-end world of color correction, facilities often build rooms around the requirements of the colorists they bring on board. It's because they bring clients with them. I'm sure that's changing there and I'm not saying that's the case here, but it's a reason.

Currently I'm at a shop that's doing a lot of work and bringing in freelancers to the team. We are Premiere-based, so the people who aren't familiar with Premiere don't get quite the same consideration, however, we are willing to accept some ramp up time. In our case, where editors often open up and work on projects started by others, consistency of app is critical. Hence, I agree that in Alex's case, sticking with FCPX is the obvious choice for the good of the facility.

However, if all of the editors only work on their own projects, then Premiere could be an option for those who want to use it, assuming the shop is already paying the subscription cost. This leaves you with a split in tools. That's not uncommon either in commercial shops where projects typically aren't shared among editors.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere??? (or, what's better about Premiere?)
on May 27, 2017 at 12:32:37 pm

Oliver, you post so frequently in here, perhaps you could help the OP's question with a related one of my own - what is better currently about PPro over FCPX? I may find myself in the opposite case; a group I work with is considering a mandated use of PPro (currently editor's decision). I'm in the minority on X, and would like some counter arguments. Though without some strategic advantage in X, I expect to lose the argument due to simple numerical weight.

Cost is not an issue, CS is on all desktops, graphics are split between AE & Motion, no collab editing though project "tag-teaming" is a possibility while currently infrequent, work is corporate short to long form, audio is relatively simple, color correction is also basic (ie; Resolve unlikely).

On strategic advantages; I could see proxy editing over an intranet as being a big asset. Another potential asset would be a curated broll library, probably 5TB minimum to start, with associated need of useful metadata. Graphics that would flow "top down", preferably with "automatic" updates would be useful. Again, all this with an intranet in mind.

"Constituo, ergo sum"

Bob Woodhead / Atlanta
CMX-Quantel-Avid-Premiere-FCPX-AFX-Crayola
"What a long strange trip it's been...."


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere??? (or, what's better about Premiere?)
on May 27, 2017 at 4:04:29 pm

[Bob Woodhead] "perhaps you could help the OP's question with a related one of my own - what is better currently about PPro over FCPX?"

At the risk of this thread degenerating into another forum rumble, I'll try to answer this. While you say the cost isn't a factor, do recognize that AE, PSD, etc. can be replaced with other tools. However, I suspect that's an even harder lift than the NLE. Like you, I've worked on a ton of different NLEs and currently bounce around among MC, FCPX, PPro, and maybe soon, Resolve. There are things I love and hate about each and simply don't see one "best" tool. Different tools are "best" for different types of projects. So, I'm either ambidextrous or schizophrenic - take your pick ☺

First, I'm not totally sure what you mean by intranet. Most shared environments I encounter these days are networked shared storage solutions (NAS), like Promise V-Track or QNAP that are connected via 1Gig or 10Gig ethernet. These are closed loops for the connected systems. Is that what you mean? If so, proxy editing isn't really a requirement.

Either FCPX or Premiere will work fine in your set-up. The biggest edge for Premiere is that more people know it and as you bring in folks from the outside, you'll find more people who can step right into Premiere than can FCPX. Second is that it's cross-platform, so the shop isn't tied to only using Macs. This means (optionally) you can shift to PCs with advanced Nvidia cards and really dive deeper into Premiere's power than with Macs. That being said, Premiere works fine with MBPs, iMacs and MPs and can take advantage of both OpenCL and Metal acceleration.

For me, I see a big advantage in that there's a more direct correlation between folder/subfolder/media location on your drives/NAS and the Premiere browser bins than there is with FCPX. You can certainly bring in media and leave it in place without optimizing in X, but if you want to maintain that organized structure of folders = bins, it's much easier to do in the "traditional" NLE approach of Premiere. This also ties to more versatile relinking. For example, if you change the attributes of a media file, external to FCPX, it will only relink under very limited conditions. With Premiere, I can force a relink like in the FCP7 days. Also, Premiere will handle a wider range of oddball formats than X. These days you get all manner of camera crap back from shoots - 5 cameras - 5 different formats. While I personally prefer to transcode many and at least rename a lot, I can bring these into Premiere and start working if I so choose.

Beyond that, it gets down to the UI itself. You either like Premiere or you don't. Forgetting the issue of tracks for the moment (which I don't really have a problem with), I find the Premiere UI is much more responsive than X. With X, almost every UI action is accompanied by tiny little UI animations, which I feel retard the performance for the operator, especially on an older machine. With Premiere, these things are more instant. Panels allow much greater personalization of the UI for an operator. Multiple open sequences can be a godsend on large projects. Premiere offers better timecode-based editing, when you need to make entries and edits based on numerical input. There's tracking of out-of-sync offsets. Built-in tracking and masking for every effect (not 3rd party). On and on. Of course, there's an equal list on the side of X.

Does that answer it a bit?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere??? (or, what's better about Premiere?)
on May 27, 2017 at 5:43:35 pm

[Oliver Peters] "First, I'm not totally sure what you mean by intranet."

Consider a geographically distributed corporate environment, where camera files and editors could be in different states. GigE network speeds at best, with fiber, switches, etc, between.

[Oliver Peters] "For me, I see a big advantage in that there's a more direct correlation between folder/subfolder/media location on your drives/NAS and the Premiere browser bins than there is with FCPX."

This used to bug me when I switched to X, but these days I'm pretty happily divorced from most physical camera asset organization and very much liking the metadata+keyword approach. Relinking... I certainly had issues a while ago with X some time back when I used proxies more often than I do now. Relinking & proxies as pertains to a "remote edit" workflow could be a crux matter.

[Oliver Peters] "Beyond that, it gets down to the UI itself. "

Yeah, I prefer PPro's tear-off panels to X's semi-customizable UI, and I agree the UI animations & thumbnails in X need to hit the trash, but in whole I find editing is X is much faster than a track environment (YMMV of course!), so I just deal with those nuisances.

How robust would a large broll library in PPro (Bridge?) be? Say 5TB, 20,000 clips. The one I'm using in X is about 1.5TB, 6,000 clips, and it's fast as I could want. Cut from it into other projects, file management no worries. Multiple keyword, metadata, etc, coverage.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere??? (or, what's better about Premiere?)
on May 28, 2017 at 12:38:46 am

[Bob Woodhead] "Consider a geographically distributed corporate environment, where camera files and editors could be in different states. GigE network speeds at best, with fiber, switches, etc, between"

I'm not sure either NLE would deal with this well. I'm assuming live access to media located across the country. Plus how do you actual manage where to access the media from? I'm not sure these sorts of existing networks are really designed to transfer video data in real time consistently. I'm just simply not a believer in these approaches, just like cloud editing.

[Bob Woodhead] "How robust would a large broll library in PPro (Bridge?) be? Say 5TB, 20,000 clips. The one I'm using in X is about 1.5TB, 6,000 clips, and it's fast as I could want. Cut from it into other projects, file management no worries. Multiple keyword, metadata, etc, coverage."

Hmm. I don't know. Generally Premiere does OK with a ton of media and less so with tons of sequences. But remember, depending on format, Premiere goes through a process of conforming files and generating .pek audio data. This would take a long time the first time you do it. That info wants to stay local, so that means each machine would generate these files. Bridge could certainly be an option, but I would not recommend Premiere for this. Remember that you can only have one Premiere project open at a time. Therefore, you wouldn't be able to open the library project and pull from that into another project for use in editing. Of course, you could actually use X to create a quick sequence of selects and then bring that into Premiere via XtoCC.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Andy Field
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 29, 2017 at 6:33:27 pm

maybe because they are terrific editors who've spent years on standard NLEs and found no need to relearn everything to suit Apple?

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 30, 2017 at 12:27:43 am

[Andy Field] "maybe because they are terrific editors who've spent years on standard NLEs and found no need to relearn everything to suit Apple?"

(Oooh, the "big bad evil Apple" shibboleth rears it's head again! Been a while.)

Those folks - who hurt your feelings back in 2011? Keep the flame alive, brother!

Throwing their muscle around and screwing up EVERYTHING for the rest of us poor traditional editors.

They are just so MEAN over there, aren't they?

They are so cruel to ALWAYS focus on thinking that they might create superior tools that enable editors to work more efficiently.

The jerks.

When are they going to understand that you can already cut a string with a pocket knife, single edge razor blade, or a samurai sword.

Each have their place.

So why did Apple have to take a stab at developing yet another approach - a very refined specialized string cutter that they feel cuts string particularly well, with special string cutting features that no other string cutter has. Sure just maybe it cuts string a bit faster, and with less hassle. And we can't let THAT take root, can we? THAT's A BRIDGE TOO FAR!

We must constantly remind them of the value of a slow, methodical approach to string cutting - an approach like our forefathers employed when they settled the string cutting frontier back in the glorious analog age - the age where hard drives spun with a comforting noise and if your red channel offset on gen-3 footage was something you STFU about and LIVED with. (At least until you could afford a consultation with an engineering priest and spend last month's profits on a TBC or something.)

They MUST be punished for such cheek!

Long live the large group of pro string cutters pushing back that the new Apple string cutter is too complex, doesn't have features we all know agree are critical to a real pro (perhaps the ability to batch cut strings like the samurai sword? - or to make carrying the blade safer (as with the pocket knife verses the razor blade) and how the new string cutter will NEVER catch on because it's just too different and the old string cutters are all anyone will ever need.

We have our own innovation, too, dang it. Look, we have Swiss Army style pocket knives. Machine mounted Samurai swords, etc, etc, etc. Things that are BETTER - and don't scare you so much. W(ell, Except the machine mounted samurai swords - those ARE kinda scary) But it's just grossly unfair that we have to compete with the Apple String cutter. That damn thing is like a VIRUS spreading world wide now.

It's SO CRUEL. No matter how much marketing money our priests spend, over time, Apple spends next to NOTHING and yet a TON of people are apparently so dumb that they buy into that stupid, useless, industry-destroying Apple String (dammed) Automated MF*@#Ing cutter.

It's so annoying.

Sheesh.



(That was fun.)


Hey, OP.

My real suggestion. For six months, let the Premiere editors cross train the X guys in Premiere and let your best X editors cross train the Premiere guys in X.

Then buy a case of beer throw a party and let THEM decide.

My 2 cents.

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


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 30, 2017 at 1:57:09 am

Sheesh! (As you like to say)

Is someone insecure about their NLE choice? Someone asked a question. I gave a possible answer. Wasn't challenging your manhood.

I work in network broadcast and documentary news There's is not a single shop I know that uses FCP X. It's all FCP 10 Premiere and Avid. May be one reason a FCP x shop has trouble finding experienced editors. Just a guess

Nothing against your cherished NLE

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index


Alex James
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 30, 2017 at 8:18:45 am

[Bill Davis] ""My real suggestion. For six months, let the Premiere editors cross train the X guys in Premiere and let your best X editors cross train the Premiere guys in X.

Then buy a case of beer throw a party and let THEM decide.""


This could be a plan!

Alex James

TINY ARK
http://www.tinyark.com


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 29, 2017 at 9:08:12 am

[Glenn Grant] "I wouldn't switch just because a few new guys know Premier better.

As for NAS, there are some pretty solid solutions for FCPX so that shouldn't be a problem.

Depending on what you use After Effects for, you might be better off using Motion with FCP. That would be an easier and more cost effective switch than going to Premier."



I agree 100% on every count.

Also, the round-tripping to/from X is exponentially more solid and far lossy than to/from PPro, thanks to Resolve's native support of FCPXML and no need for the painfully outdated and limited XMEML (v7 XML).

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 27, 2017 at 7:06:38 am

Hi Alex,

This is a no-brainer. You have established solid workflows with FCP X, and it looks like your productions are running well. So if others want to join your team, they should adapt to your workflows and not the other way around. A really talented editor will have no problem whatsoever doing this. For the kind of work you do, mixed workflows will only add complexity without real benefits.

- Ronny


Return to posts index


Alex James
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 27, 2017 at 2:03:10 pm

Thanks for all of your fast responses. Please keep them coming as they offer great incite:

I suppose hear are a few doubts from FCPX which we have struggled with and wonder if Premiere could solve?:

1. Motion Templates: With different projects moving to different computers, or a project being revisited months later. We often have problems of missing plugins and struggle to keep our machines coherent. Could this issue be solved with premier?

2. Transcoded media: With FCPX DATA is essentially doubled, I.e the PRORES files that are created within the optimised media folder to work best with FCPX are in addition to our original RUSHES on our NAS and are taking more space the necessary. I suppose this is a separate question but if we stop optimising media will we see FCPX start to run much slower? - Whereas Premiere on the other hand works with the native format.

3. AE Integration: Is the integration with aftereffects really that good? As much as I'd love to find an awesome Motion editor, they seem to be virtually non-existent here in Ireland.

4. Future of FCPX: I feel Apple have shown an enthusiasm of late for FCPX with major updates, the introduction of SMB and a far more professional overhaul feel to the NLE in 10.3. Although some of my colleagues feel a danger of being left high and dry like with the death of FCP7. What are peoples thoughts on this?


Many Thanks,

Alex James

TINY ARK
http://www.tinyark.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 27, 2017 at 4:26:30 pm

[Alex James] "1. Motion Templates: With different projects moving to different computers, or a project being revisited months later. We often have problems of missing plugins and struggle to keep our machines coherent. Could this issue be solved with premier?"

Third party plug-ins will always be a problem for everyone. You want to make sure every system has the same software versions and same set of plug-ins. With Premiere, don't think so much about templates. I would assume these are After Effects compositions, which are imported into your Premiere project. The AE project should live on your NAS in the same place as the rest of the files for that project. As long as the machines have the same builds, then a project cut on system A should open just fine on system B six months later.

[Alex James] "2. Transcoded media: With FCPX DATA is essentially doubled, I.e the PRORES files that are created within the optimised media folder to work best with FCPX are in addition to our original RUSHES on our NAS and are taking more space the necessary. I suppose this is a separate question but if we stop optimising media will we see FCPX start to run much slower? - Whereas Premiere on the other hand works with the native format."

I would suggest not to optimize in X, but that depends on the media. If you do everything with RED, then you might be best to only transcode to proxies and work from there. Then toggle back to original media for finishing. The same conditions apply with Premiere, although it's more comfortable with a range of camera formats, whereas X will require optimization for some.

[Alex James] "3. AE Integration: Is the integration with aftereffects really that good? As much as I'd love to find an awesome Motion editor, they seem to be virtually non-existent here in Ireland."

Photoshop, After Effects, and Pro Tools are probably the three most entrenched applications in this business. While there are alternatives, you won't find many using them.

There is a good roundtrip between Premiere and AE. Let's say you have 5 clips in a sequence and send them to AE. They go as a group to a new AE project, where either you or another designer can manipulate them. This is more or less how FCP7/Motion roundtrips worked. You have the option of doing this as a roundtrip or simply sending them to AE.

When you do this as a roundtrip, the 5 clips are replaced in the Premiere timeline by a single AE composition. When the AE comp is completed and saved, this updates in the Premiere timeline. At that point it's a live clip, which is actually running through an instance of AE "under the hood". You can then render-and-replace on the timeline, which replaces the live composition with a "baked" media file. However, if you subsequently choose to edit-in-original, the baked file is linked to the AE comp and sends you back into AE where you can make changes. You can also simply bring in compositions from AE and it works in a similar manner. A similar process can be used for simple animations created in Photoshop, too. These would also be live and updates made in PSD ripple back into that Premiere project.

[Alex James] "4. Future of FCPX: I feel Apple have shown an enthusiasm of late for FCPX with major updates, the introduction of SMB and a far more professional overhaul feel to the NLE in 10.3. Although some of my colleagues feel a danger of being left high and dry like with the death of FCP7. What are peoples thoughts on this?"

Impossible to read those tea leaves. It's Cupertinology, just like Kremlinology. ☺

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 27, 2017 at 6:31:37 pm

[Alex James] "1. Motion Templates: With different projects moving to different computers, or a project being revisited months later. We often have problems of missing plugins and struggle to keep our machines coherent. Could this issue be solved with premier?"

There is a new option, I believe that started with 10.3, that allows you to keep Motion templates in the Library itself. This helps tremendously when moving from machine to machine. The option is in the preferences. This won't solve issues of third party plugins, those have to be on all machines, but any custom generated Templates should travel with ease between machines as long as you move the library:




[Alex James] "2. Transcoded media: With FCPX DATA is essentially doubled, I.e the PRORES files that are created within the optimised media folder to work best with FCPX are in addition to our original RUSHES on our NAS and are taking more space the necessary. I suppose this is a separate question but if we stop optimising media will we see FCPX start to run much slower? - Whereas Premiere on the other hand works with the native format."

This wholly depends on what formats you are using. I very rarely transcode to ProRes when editing in fcpx.


[Alex James] "3. AE Integration: Is the integration with aftereffects really that good? As much as I'd love to find an awesome Motion editor, they seem to be virtually non-existent here in Ireland."

I find that Dynamic Link from Pr to Ae is very cumbersome. I don't know any Motion artists either, everyone we work with uses Ae. But there are tools to get FCPX timelines to Ae really easily, and they are cheap. If you need that kind of integration, it's out there. I use them all the time as I interact with Ae artists daily.

[Alex James] "4. Future of FCPX: I feel Apple have shown an enthusiasm of late for FCPX with major updates, the introduction of SMB and a far more professional overhaul feel to the NLE in 10.3. Although some of my colleagues feel a danger of being left high and dry like with the death of FCP7. What are peoples thoughts on this?"

FCPX is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Apple has made recent announcements that they are going to rethink the MacPro (again) and computers for professional users needs. If you like the Mac environment, like me, then perhaps this is good news to you.


This will sound a little alarmist, but I have a trust issue with Adobe, their last Pr release (before this latest patch) was deleting media. This is the second time that an Adobe CC update has started trashing very important files off of the hard drive in just over a year. This time it was media, last time it started at the top of the drive alphabetically. Both times, it was fixed by Adobe pretty quickly. That kind of thing makes me shutter. Even with backups, even with clones, straight up deleting files would cost us dearly.

https://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/02/warning-bug-in-adobe-creative-cloud-d...

https://forums.adobe.com/message/9503050


Return to posts index

Alex James
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 7:40:55 am

Thanks everybody,

I think what I've been trying to conclude is if Premiere will substantially benefit our company by offering lots additional features and overall a better NLE, but to conclude and after doing a lot more research, dabbling a little with it myself I don't feel that Premiere will substantially benefit our company. In fact the change will be far more disruptive.

If after my initial question, If I had gotten an overwhelming response from people saying 'Premiere all the way' then this would have definitely raised an eyebrow. Although it seems as like most things, there are Pros and Cons to both FCPX and Premiere with both NLE's capable of delivering quality end products.

Alex James

TINY ARK
http://www.tinyark.com


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 8:41:17 am

Being in the Adobe-camp for a few key reasons I can say a lot of things aren't as impressive as they make it sound.

- Tracks are key for my work doing online / finishing. FCPX is far to messy. Having lanes for video would probably solve this but not so yet.

- Relinking is imparritive for me. Every iteration of FCPX has had issues with this. This is virtually not an issue in PP.

- XML / EDL / AAF i/o is impartivie. This is virtually a non-issue in PP as long as you know how to make the app work the way you want.

- A/V output is chockling unresponsive in FCPX. This isn't an issue in PP.

- Dynamic linking I've never really found that impressive in PP, on the opposite you really need to know what works and to to make it work for you. It's of course better than anything out there but it's not THE solution. Copy & paste items from PP to AR works 90%. Filters are very much hit and miss. You're still forced to organize everything in Finder, PP and AE. For the most part I always render everything out from AE manually adding it to the edit in PP. Force relink however works even if files change format, coded or duration.

- CC media files are very much hit an miss. For example rendings of .ai files is horrible in PP, AE sorts this perfectly but then having PP or FCPX doesn't really matter - aside from the relinking issues I've had with FCPX (i.e. force updating file on disk).

- Format / codec support in PP is amazing and can also be a bane. But it's wide support is a life-save and we've even had projects where AVID editors where required to use PP for this technical reason.

- The GUI of PP is something like a polished cluster f'k. FCPX looks so much better. I'm primary taking looks but to a degree also funktion. That said here FCPX has some massive downsides as well. Keeping track of media, source names / TC of various tracks and items in a timeline is a pain in the neck or impossible in FCPX vs PP. Comparing timelines also a pain, yet certain things in X are 10 times easier / faster.

Basically all systems have ups and downs. Some even remove your source media when clean out its cache! ;)


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 9:02:22 am

I can also add PP sadly has a very unreliable graphics / rendering engine. It's quite sad actually. One could say odd even. Given Adobe has some of the most used graphics and animation apps out there one would imagine better integration and consistency. Today this isn't the case by a long shot and I doubt it ever will be.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 9:36:23 am

[Erik Lindahl] "- The GUI of PP is something like a polished cluster f'k. FCPX looks so much better. I'm primary taking looks but to a degree also funktion."

You can layout the GUI anyway you want in Premiere Pro. Someone was supposed to do demo of how pancake editing works better in FCPX than in Premiere Pro.

[Erik Lindahl] "I can also add PP sadly has a very unreliable graphics / rendering engine. It's quite sad actually. One could say odd even. Given Adobe has some of the most used graphics and animation apps out there one would imagine better integration and consistency. Today this isn't the case by a long shot and I doubt it ever will be."

AE and Premiere Pro work well together for me. Keep in mind they just added better integration with AE into the latest version of Premiere Pro. Having said that I am not sure what you want. Would you like Premiere Pro to have the same titling tools as Photoshop? It has that already. I am not sure what you want but the video below might be worth watching.







Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 5:21:27 pm

It's true you can layout the Premeire GUI to your liking true but it still looks pretty poor compared to FCPX and Resolve. Sort of like it's a mish-mash of 5 different apps. The GUI also suffers deeply from amnesia. In project A I want one layout, in project B a different one. It's manual setup every time more or less (the project / bin setup windows primarily).

In terms of the Premiere graphics engine being sub-par really comes down to quality. After Effects gives better, more predictable results compared to Premiere hence I'm still forced jumping hoops between the apps. You can / have to work around it or live with lesser quality. Different plugins that do seemingly the same thing will render vastly different results. This can be true in any app of course, just point out "the grass isn't always greener".

For graphics and titles I always go Illustrator / Photoshop > After Effects > Premiere or just create them in AE. You can get around the quality issue by super sampling your graphics files in Illustrator but even then you loose all realtime in PP so the upside is a bit questionable (and techicanlly PP can still screw with the image). Also, if you have 10-20 text items the client wants new fonts and drop shadows for this is a pain to deal with in PP vs AE (2017 version might have changed that, I haven't tested that version yet).

Premiere is also quite confused where some parameters are in % where others are in pixels.

I can post some screen-grabs tomorrow perhaps.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 6:58:54 pm

[Erik Lindahl] "The GUI also suffers deeply from amnesia. In project A I want one layout, in project B a different one. It's manual setup every time more or less (the project / bin setup windows primarily)."

Could you expand on what you mean by this?

I have numerous custom layouts that I can call on across different projects, and I haven't yet encountered "layout amnesia". The deep customisability of the Premiere UI is one of its attractions.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 8:04:40 pm

For example if you project A want to have a setup where you see icons / previews of say 4 different bins where in project B you want a setup with 1 large bin in list view. Every time you swap between the projects the bin-layouts are screwed up. There can also be inconsistencies in the GUI every time you open a project.

Note the above only affects media bins (or is it the project window possibly).

Now in my case I can on a given day work with three - four projects with various requirements and I've just given up on anything else but manually organizing everything each time it's required.

The above could be seen as a detail but it can be very frustrating. I can't say if FCPX is better or worse in this regard though.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 12:23:15 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on May 28, 2017 at 12:41:59 pm

[Erik Lindahl] "I can also add PP sadly has a very unreliable graphics / rendering engine."

Odd. What sort of issues? I haven't seen any specific problems working with multiple machines. Re-reading your previous post, do you specifically mean with .ai files? If so, that probably explains why I haven't run into an issue.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 1:31:31 pm

A lot of GPU accelerated issues with basics such as transforms and crops can render sub-par quality.

You also have the default linear light mode which renders everything wrong. This can be manually disabled but it's a hassle to remember. Then you have things you think might render the same in AE and PP but they won't. Effects will appear different even with identical settings. There are also a ton of cache-related bugs where PP will "remember" precious states of media or effects. Rendering will also act differently with or with out GPU acceleration and can look different in realtime playback vs final render.

Also, as mentioned, anything dealing with rastering (vector to pixel graphics) will in general look like garbage in PP compared to AE or PS. Color transformations is also handled vastly different depending on the app you're using.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 3:51:10 pm

[Erik Lindahl] "Also, as mentioned, anything dealing with rastering (vector to pixel graphics) will in general look like garbage in PP compared to AE or PS. Color transformations is also handled vastly different depending on the app you're using."

I guess I just haven't run into that, however, most of the time I'm working with rasterized graphics in PPro. The only render issue I've run into is occasional corruption when using GPU acceleration on the 2013 Mac Pros. I have seen the situation where old states are sometimes held.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 4:27:39 pm

[Erik Lindahl] " Rendering will also act differently with or with out GPU acceleration and can look different in realtime playback vs final render."

That part is true for me at certain times on the PC side with an Nvidia GPU. Did you make out a bug report? If I use CPU only it always looks correct for playback and rendering. I never had this problem until Adobe started supporting Open CL. PP CS 5.5 had no bugs.

[Erik Lindahl] "Also, as mentioned, anything dealing with rastering (vector to pixel graphics) will in general look like garbage in PP compared to AE or PS. Color transformations is also handled vastly different depending on the app you're using."

Did you file a bug report? I have not imported vectors from Illustrator since I have been on the Creative Cloud. It used to work great in CS 4.0 and CS 5.5.


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 5:52:33 pm

Adobe is well aware (or should be) about my concerns yes. I frequently speak to a contact I have there + meet with them every year at IBC.

CPU renders seem reliable from my tests but this makes the application (PP) chocking slow for the most part. It's also sometimes odd I can render say a 60s sequence in far less time than 60s yet realtime playback often stutters. In this regard FCPX is simply put insane (in a good way).

As with the fact Adobe uses something like 7 (or was it 17) different type-engines in their apps I'm not surprised things like vector-rasterizing differs between apps. It's however frustrating one can't assume "Adobe Creative Cloud" as "one" set of tools, each app has it's own quirks. This includes simple things such as format / codec support.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 7:06:15 pm

[Erik Lindahl] "CPU renders seem reliable from my tests but this makes the application (PP) chocking slow for the most part. It's also sometimes odd I can render say a 60s sequence in far less time than 60s yet realtime playback often stutters. In this regard FCPX is simply put insane (in a good way).
"


I think it's important to note that AE doesn't use the GPU much at all, especially for rendering. Premiere does, but as an option (4 on a Mac). Not all GPU results are the same. For example, with RED raw files, there are visible differences between a software render/debayer and one using the RED Rocket card, which is a purpose-driven GPU. Not better or worse, just not the same.

However, an interesting comparison is type between Adobe apps and FCPX. I generally feel type in Adobe is crisper, although sometimes too crisp with some visible aliasing. Conversely the type in X is softer with smoother edges, therefore sometimes more pleasant.

[Erik Lindahl] "As with the fact Adobe uses something like 7 (or was it 17) different type-engines in their apps I'm not surprised things like vector-rasterizing differs between apps."

In fairness, each of these apps have different development teams. What Adobe has been doing over the last few years is to unify their approach. Hence the fact that SpeedGrade guts ended up in Premiere and now type from Photoshop and audio elements from Audition. That's why the AE team has been working hard to revamp AE to be more in line with Adobe's other apps.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 7:16:30 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I think it's important to note that AE doesn't use the GPU much at all, especially for rendering. Premiere does, but as an option (4 on a Mac). Not all GPU results are the same. For example, with RED raw files, there are visible differences between a software render/debayer and one using the RED Rocket card, which is a purpose-driven GPU. Not better or worse, just not the same."

Could OS X have more problems than the Windows computers? Premiere Pro was rock solid when it only supported CUDA. Could Open CL be a problem?

[Oliver Peters] "SpeedGrade guts ended up in Premiere and now type from Photoshop and audio elements from Audition."

Premiere Pro has always had the titling tools of Photoshop. The essential graphics panel left a lot of them out. I was told Adobe is aware of this and will add more features over time. I hope so.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 9:20:26 pm

[andy patterson] "Could OS X have more problems than the Windows computers? Premiere Pro was rock solid when it only supported CUDA. Could Open CL be a problem?"

If you have certain Nvidia cards in your Mac, you still have CUDA support.

[andy patterson] "Premiere Pro has always had the titling tools of Photoshop."

Hmm... It's my understand that prior to this newest update, the titling in Premiere was based on a third party plug-in adopted by Adobe some years earlier.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 11:21:50 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[andy patterson] "Could OS X have more problems than the Windows computers? Premiere Pro was rock solid when it only supported CUDA. Could Open CL be a problem?"

If you have certain Nvidia cards in your Mac, you still have CUDA support."


I know. I am asking if it happens only with Open CL or does it do it with both?

[Oliver Peters] "[andy patterson] "Premiere Pro has always had the titling tools of Photoshop."

Hmm... It's my understand that prior to this newest update, the titling in Premiere was based on a third party plug-in adopted by Adobe some years earlier."


The titling system of Premiere Pro works the same as Photoshop. You have all the same drawing tools and options. I am only saying the tools are the same. The code is probably different.


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 8:11:41 pm

All this is exactly what makes the Adobe eco-system relatively complex. A lot of things are great there but they are far from perfect and do require one to know the ins and outs.

Apples idea of a unified engine in FCPX and Motion is defiantly "the future". From what I've heard Adobe has concidered that route but it's to big of a task.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 12:28:06 pm

[Erik Lindahl] "Some even remove your source media when clean out its cache! ;)"

Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I do that.
Doctor: Don't do that!



- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 28, 2017 at 1:55:04 pm

Isn't it more like going to the hospital and the doctor just removes your organs with out asking...? :)


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 30, 2017 at 2:40:58 am

Alex in this forum you are going to get a lot of FCP X all the way. You won't get an unvarnished opinion on Premiere here from many participants. I love Premiere but it is true there are some issues with each upgrade. You should religiously auto save as we've had unrecoverable project files that we could only resurrect with auto save. AE to Premiere round tip is mostly good except when it isn't

That said both systems have many pros..and cons

If you are the only FCP x shop in town. Don't expect experienced editors to jump thru hoops to learn X for one client if they are flush with work

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Ben McCarthy
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 30, 2017 at 4:21:58 am

Why not let the editors use what they want to use, there's ways of getting FPCX projects into Premiere and Visa Versa?


Return to posts index

Alex James
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 30, 2017 at 8:13:29 am

Hi All,

Again, very good incite. I am having a lot of fun hearing people's thoughts and opinions! I maybe didn't realise the can of worms I would crack open. 😉

[Ben McCarthy] ""Why not let the editors use what they want to use, there's ways of getting FPCX projects into Premiere and Visa Versa?""

Ben, In answer to your question we have a lot of projects that get revisited for amends months down the line that need doing immediately. With 80% on FCPX and 20% on Premiere when that project needs quick changes, undoubtedly the editor that was on Premiere is either on holiday or too busy on another project. This is why I feel we need cohesion across the board is necessary.

You may ask, for the projects that are signed off never to be revisited again, is some editors using Premiere fine? Yes, I suppose. Although it does make for messy Post-Production Workflows. E.g When using and backing up a NAS for centralised storage.

Alex James

TINY ARK
http://www.tinyark.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 30, 2017 at 2:46:33 pm

Since you specifically brought up revisions to prior work, Alex-

In my opinion this tilts things wildly towards FCP X.

I've never experienced a software approach that's more "revision friendly" than X is.

If your past projects storage/archive systems are properly configured (actually required for any NLE workflow!) My experience has been that revisiting and revising historic projects in X is usually around 50-90% faster than in my old non-magnetic editing days.

Part of this is how X is structured as the central hub of your work with assets like titles and sounds embedded rather than linked from separate programs - as well as the whole magnetic timeline thing making it super easy to make changes to one part of a project without affecting anything else.

Finally, all the database linkage in elements like the timeline index, let you make lots of project wide batch changes really quickly.

As awesom as X is as an editor, I honestly think it's twice as strong as a "revisioner" of prior work - by design.

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 30, 2017 at 5:08:57 pm

[Bill Davis] "In my opinion this tilts things wildly towards FCP X."

I would also add that Alex mentioned they are doing a lot of their audio post within FCPX, treating it like a DAW. It would seem that perfect interchange between rooms and operators would be critical in that case. I don't really think it would be a good idea to cut in Premiere, convert to X, and then do audio in X. Going from Premiere to ProTools would be more straightforward. In this case, it also makes sense to stay inside the same app.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 30, 2017 at 5:25:13 pm

Hey Alex! … can you be reached elsewhere? I have a proposition that may or may not be of interest to you in this context, but your site doesn't list an email (for you) and the forum has no messaging system to speak of 🙄. Cheers.

- RK

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


Return to posts index

Alex James
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 30, 2017 at 5:40:56 pm

Hi Robin,

Sure.

It's alex.james@tinyark.com.

Speak soon.

Alex James

TINY ARK
http://www.tinyark.com


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 30, 2017 at 9:15:23 pm

Alex..btw FANTASTIC show reel -- you doing great work

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 31, 2017 at 7:59:09 am

Totally agree, you are doing some amazing work Alex. Happy to hear you will stick with FCP X. Any chance you will be coming to IBC this year?

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Alex James
Re: FCPX - Should we move to Premiere???
on May 31, 2017 at 8:21:02 am

Thanks, Ronny and Andy, We do try.

Being based in Dublin we went to BVE earlier this year but we will have to try and sway the guys to get us to Amsterdam in September! Will let you know for sure if we end up going.

Alex James

TINY ARK
http://www.tinyark.com


Return to posts index

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