FORUMS: list search recent posts

Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
andy patterson
Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 26, 2017 at 8:38:45 pm
Last Edited By andy patterson on May 26, 2017 at 9:17:57 pm

I think everyone agrees that the titling tool of Premiere Pro is horrible but what about the titling tool of Photoshop? Would that type of titling system make Premiere Pro much better? Does anyone think Photoshop has a horrible titling system? Watching the video below might be helpful in order to answer that question correctly. The video is much longer than I wanted and a lot of things had to be left out. I like to use mattes and mask more than 3-D titles and so does a FCPX user in this video. Having said that everyone's needs will be different.







Return to posts index

John Pale
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 27, 2017 at 12:59:36 am

If I need anything more than a quick and dirty title, I use After Effects. The integration with Premiere is pretty good.
That being said, they did make some nice workflow enhancements in the Premiere titler in CC2017. Definitely borrowing from Photoshop.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 27, 2017 at 3:47:51 am

[John Pale] "If I need anything more than a quick and dirty title, I use After Effects. The integration with Premiere is pretty good.
That being said, they did make some nice workflow enhancements in the Premiere titler in CC2017. Definitely borrowing from Photoshop."


I was not using the new version of Premiere Pro. All the motion graphics and track mattes in my video could have been done with Premiere Pro 1.0. Most of them were. Premiere Pro has always been really easy to use and has always mimicked Photoshop. I think people bad mouth the titling tools in Premiere Pro because they don't know how to use them.


Return to posts index


Bret Williams
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 27, 2017 at 8:35:01 am

I personally don't know much about the Premiere titler but it seems pretty standard. Bevels glows gradients, etc all of which you can do (the trend has been toward flatter cleaner stuff for a while now) with the standard FCPX titler as well. Fills, alphas, mattes, all that. Text 101. Of course FCPX has the ability to do true 3D text complete with complex surfacing and even environment map lighting. Pretty slick stuff that outperforms a bevel any day. That said what I think is the true power of the X titling is the text sequencing and animation engine. You didn't touch on that. But the ability to sequence characters, lines, words in very complex ways without having to resort to AE or Motion AND do it in 3D at the click of a button is pretty powerful IMHO. A lot of folks don't realize that nearly the entire Motion text engine is right there in FCPX under that unassuming title labeled "custom." Give it a whirl.

But in the end AE/Premiere or FCPX / Motion, they're just tools. Both completely capable.

_______________________________________________________________________
http://BretFX.com FCP X Plugins & Templates for Editors & Motion Graphics Artists


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 27, 2017 at 5:28:13 pm

[Bret Williams] " Bevels glows gradients, etc all of which you can do (the trend has been toward flatter cleaner stuff for a while now) with the standard FCPX titler as well."

I stated in my video that you can do the same thing with most titling tools not just Premiere Pro. I pointed that out because I have used Vegas, Liquid, Edius and Avid. My point is that how can people claim that the Premiere Pro's titling tools are horrible? That is why I made the video.

[Bret Williams] "Text 101. Of course FCPX has the ability to do true 3D text complete with complex surfacing and even environment map lighting."

It is not really the same as ray-tracing and with out any drawing tools it is limited. That is my point.

[Bret Williams] "Pretty slick stuff that outperforms a bevel any day."

You can bevel on top off bevels using inner and outer stroke and that will make a big difference. You can infact create beveled edges that FCPX does not have. Don't get me wrong I know FCPX has 7 or 8 different bevels with modification. FCPX is better for 3-D titles but as I showed in the video the FCPX users has spent $500.00 on plugins to create masks and mattes. I have stated I need to uses masks and mattes more than 3-D titles and I can do do in Premiere Pro very easy.

[Bret Williams] "That said what I think is the true power of the X titling is the text sequencing and animation engine. You didn't touch on that. ."

There are more things I wanted to mention about Premiere Pro but the video is 20 minutes long. People already claim FCPX has an awesome titling system. I wanted to show that Premiere Pro's titling tools don't deserve all the negative comments that it receives. It is going to be different than FCPX but claiming the titling tool of Premiere Pro is horrible isn't true.

[Bret Williams] "without having to resort to AE or Motion AND do it in 3D at the click of a button is pretty powerful IMHO."

Mattes and masks are more useful to me.

[Bret Williams] "A lot of folks don't realize that nearly the entire Motion text engine is right there in FCPX under that unassuming title labeled "custom." Give it a whirl."

My point is Premiere Pro can do some cool things as well but all any body want to do is talk about how great FCPX is and trash Premiere Pro. I am not saying FCPX is no good. I am saying Premiere Pro's titling tool is not horrible and hopefully no one will claim Premiere Pro has a horrible titling system after watching my video.


[Bret Williams] "But in the end AE/Premiere or FCPX / Motion, they're just tools. Both completely capable."

That is my point. Hopefully after watching my video everyone else will agree with us.


Return to posts index

John Pale
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 29, 2017 at 8:21:32 pm

I guess my point is, that pretty much everyone who has PPRo also has AE...so I can't see Adobe putting in all the 3D and advanced features you see in FCPX....they view Creative Cloud as a suite of integrated programs, and AE is the tool for those tasks. Not saying I'm totally on board with that strategy, but that's how It is.


Return to posts index


Tony West
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 27, 2017 at 3:47:04 pm

Thanks for putting together the video Andy.

Just a couple of points.

Those canned templates in X that you used can be just a jumping off point that you change a bit to fit the project you're working on by simply opening in Motion (you pointed this out yourself) or as is or anything in the middle.









Then your new templates are there for you in X for the next you want them.

That can cut some of your time in half but Apple is not making you use those. Start from scratch if you want.

A third party 3D program is not going to work as seamlessly with X as Motion so I personally don't see the need for it.

You said that some people don't have Motion. It's only a onetime cost of 50 bucks so if people don't have it they just don't want it and that's up to them. They are designed to be used together so that's how I use them.

When talking about the mask sample video you said that the creator "HAD to pay into" He CHOSE to pay into those. Like you said, he likely could have made all of those himself but didn't want to spend that much time doing it.

Time is money and everyone has to weigh that.

As I have said before, unless you created the NLE you are working on yourself you are using the work of other people. It just depends on how far you want to take that line of thinking.

I was hoping to see you animate the Chevy logo in Pr to compare the time, cost and look to the one Charlie did.

I think the titling tool is quite capable in Pr I just personally prefer to work with titles directly in the canvas like X does instead of in that secondary window over a still image that they have been doing for sometime.

That's just a personal taste thing for me.



Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 27, 2017 at 6:07:22 pm

[Tony West] "Thanks for putting together the video Andy."

Thanks for the kind words.

[Tony West] "Those canned templates in X that you used can be just a jumping off point that you change a bit to fit the project you're working on by simply opening in Motion (you pointed this out yourself) or as is or anything in the middle."

You actually paid attention. Thanks. I mentioned you can probably tweak things but my point was if you did not have a template to start from would you have created something better or worse? I think that depends on who is using FCPX.


[Tony West] "Then your new templates are there for you in X for the next you want them.

That can cut some of your time in half but Apple is not making you use those. Start from scratch if you want."


I hear you but I can also reuse the animation sequences from other projects and just simply tweak them out a bit as needed. I think with the new Premiere Pro we can create templates but I have not downloaded it yet to test it out.


[Tony West] "A third party 3D program is not going to work as seamlessly with X as Motion so I personally don't see the need for it."

In my video I stated if you only have FCPX I think it would be wise to get Motion as opposed to third party plugins but everyone has different needs. On a side note Cinema 4-D (part of AE) is powerful and the integration between Premiere Pro and AE is awesome but if you want to do 3-D character animation really easy Poser would be your best bet. Character animation is not easy in Cinema 4-D. It is powerful but not easy.


[Tony West] "You said that some people don't have Motion. It's only a onetime cost of 50 bucks so if people don't have it they just don't want it and that's up to them. They are designed to be used together so that's how I use them."

Some people see cool plugin demos and buy the plugins.

[Tony West] "When talking about the mask sample video you said that the creator "HAD to pay into" He CHOSE to pay into those. Like you said, he likely could have made all of those himself but didn't want to spend that much time doing it."

I agree but it was worth mentioning because I have stated masks and mattes are more useful to me than 3-D titles.

[Tony West] "As I have said before, unless you created the NLE you are working on yourself you are using the work of other people. It just depends on how far you want to take that line of thinking."

I agree. The programmers make it all possible.

[Tony West] "I was hoping to see you animate the Chevy logo in Pr to compare the time, cost and look to the one Charlie did."

I image I can find a 3-D Chevy Logo online and in that case it would import in a few seconds. Once it is in the 3-D program I can animate and change the shaders just it as easy as you can in FCPX. That is why I showed the 3-D software. It is easy to use. You just have to make sure you set up your composition in the render camera correctly. I might have time to model it from scratch. That is why I think the 3-D titling system in FCPX sucks because there are no drawing/modeling tools. I would much rather animate logos in 3-D space than text. Importing logos as fonts is a pain in the butt and you have to use 3rd party software to do the conversion.


[Tony West] "I think the titling tool is quite capable in Pr I just personally prefer to work with titles directly in the canvas like X does instead of in that secondary window over a still image that they have been doing for sometime.

That's just a personal taste thing for me."


I agree. I want to thank you for realizing it was not a FCPX VS Premiere Pro video. It was simply to show that Premiere Pro's titling system is not horrible like so many people claim.


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 27, 2017 at 7:06:53 pm

You put a lot of effort into it so I wanted to at least share my thoughts.

I enjoy watching videos like that, thanks again.


Return to posts index


andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 27, 2017 at 7:44:46 pm

[Tony West] "You put a lot of effort into it so I wanted to at least share my thoughts.

I enjoy watching videos like that, thanks again."


Thanks. It did take a while and I had to edit a lot out. I really could only mention things here and there. It was originally going to be more of a tutorial but it is what it is. Glade you liked it.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 6, 2017 at 9:15:48 pm

[Tony West] "As I have said before, unless you created the NLE you are working on yourself you are using the work of other people. It just depends on how far you want to take that line of thinking"

That's good!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 28, 2017 at 2:06:38 pm

Thanks for putting forth the effort. I know these types of things take some time. I really do appreciate it.

I didn't see the part where Premiere could make a 3D hexagon and have the text reflected in the hexagon.

Also, FCPX is track matte capable, you can also draw masks and shapes to use for compositing. I don't think it's a great tool for this, but it is possible. You can get gradient fills, you can have "transparent fills", you can have a "hollow" 3D object within FCPX.

What I don't like about Pr's titling isn't about 3D vs 2D or even overall capability, it's about usability in the pop up window without canvas control, and the sheer amount of files it generates in the project that have to be managed. I think this may have changed in the latest version of Pr, but I haven't installed since the new media cache clearing function was deleting media as well as the cache. I'll have to revisit after I gain the confidence to install the latest version and patches.

Again, thanks for the effort. It's nice to be able to talk and react to concrete examples instead of hypotheticals.

Cheers.


Return to posts index


andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 28, 2017 at 6:49:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I didn't see the part where Premiere could make a 3D hexagon and have the text reflected in the hexagon."

I never stated Premiere Pro could make a 3-D hexagon (polyhedron). I had wanted to see what FCPX could do a with a polyhedron. I could make a flat 2-D hexagon in Premiere Pro like you did but I was more concerned with the interaction of surfaces and other elements in the scene than the actual shape. Premiere Pro is not going to make true 3-D glass nor did I say it could so I didn't bother.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Also, FCPX is track matte capable, you can also draw masks and shapes to use for compositing. I don't think it's a great tool for this, but it is possible. You can get gradient fills, you can have "transparent fills", you can have a "hollow" 3D object within FCPX."

I never stated you could not do that in FCPX. My video was in response to all the people claiming Premiere Pro has a horrible and outdated titling system. Now everyone knows that is not true. Had people known Premiere Pro has the same titling system as Photoshop I would not have made my video. That was the purpose of making the video. Not to show what FCPX is capable of. I also wanted to pose the question if canned effects are the best option. Keep in mind a FCPX user posted the video in the Cow about the guy who used the canned effects plugins. I thought it was worth showing because for me masks and mattes are more useful than rotating titles in 3-D but everyone will have different needs.

[Jeremy Garchow] "What I don't like about Pr's titling isn't about 3D vs 2D or even overall capability, it's about usability in the pop up window without canvas control, and the sheer amount of files it generates in the project that have to be managed"

It works OK for me but things can always be better.

[Jeremy Garchow] " I think this may have changed in the latest version of Pr, but I haven't installed since the new media cache clearing function was deleting media as well as the cache. I'll have to revisit after I gain the confidence to install the latest version and patches."

I finally downloaded it. It kind of sucks as of now because you don't have all the options of the old titling tool. People have stated Adobe knows it and things will get better over time. I hope so.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Again, thanks for the effort. It's nice to be able to talk and react to concrete examples instead of hypotheticals."

Thanks for the kind words and thanks again for letting me use your video.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 28, 2017 at 9:20:35 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on May 28, 2017 at 9:46:48 pm

[andy patterson] "My video was in response to all the people claiming Premiere Pro has a horrible and outdated titling system."

Okay, now that you've stated that over and over and over and over again 😴… do tell: who? When? Where? Because it apparently had to have been a BUNCH of "all the people" here, since why else would you post this otherwise unrelated clip in this particular forum? Feel free to quote any and all of the oh-so-many occurrences of proclamations or horribleness. Or is it just yet another straw man after all? I for one don't recall seeing a single such claim. How bout a pointer?

And, I dunno… maybe someone got the notion from you?







🙄


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 28, 2017 at 11:12:16 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "Okay, now that you've stated that over and over and over and over again 😴… do tell: who? When? Where? Because it apparently had to have been a BUNCH of "all the people" here, since why else would you post this otherwise unrelated clip in this particular forum?"

https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/94929

Perhaps you should read the comments in the link above. There have been many times people have said negative things about Premiere Pro's titling system while glorify FCPX. I am not going to waste my time going through comments form 2 and 3 months ago but here are some recent quotes for you.

[Scott Witthaus] ""Doesn't FCPX need a new titling tool much more than Premiere Pro?"

No, or not as nearly as bad as Premiere needed it. That title tool was stuck in the 1990's. In my opinion only, of course."


[Robin S. Kurz] "[Scott Witthaus] "In my opinion only, of course."

Not only yours, believe me."



[Doug Metz] "I am *dying* to see an example from you using PP CS 4.

No, not literally dying. Let's say 'eager'.

Doug Metz"


[Brian Seegmiller] "Dying to see the demo."

For the record the titles in my video were done with Premiere Pro 1.0 not Premiere Pro CS4. Having said that I believe you have your quotes.

[Robin S. Kurz] "And, I dunno… maybe someone got the notion from you?"

I did not say the titling tool was bad in my video. I made a video that showed a bug in Premiere Pro. I find it interesting that after watching my video you cannot just simply say "I guess Premiere Pro does have a decent titling system". Instead you have to show a video of a bug in Premiere Pro. As stated in the video in CPU mode everything works OK. It did not crash the machine unlike the bug in FCPX video below but you won't ever bad mouth FCPX. You shake your pom poms for FCPX when ever possible and bad mouth Premiere Pro when ever possible. Everyone on these forums knows it and it can get annoying. I bad mouth Adobe as much as Apple and everyone knows that as well. Having said that if you cannot create stylish titles using Premiere Pro, Premiere Pro would not be the problem.







Return to posts index


Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 29, 2017 at 5:55:31 am

This funny. Showing the problems with FCP X a few versions back. Kind of irrelevant at this point.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 29, 2017 at 8:33:00 am
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on May 29, 2017 at 8:35:50 am

[Brian Seegmiller] "This funny."

Yeah, no kiddin'. 😄

Never mind that that was A SIERRA BUG (or quite possibly even one of the usual shoddy drivers for BMD hardware) not an FCP one. Once FCP was updated for Sierra (I believe just a week later?) everything was of course fine.

Never mind that the only instances of the word "horrible" (4) anywhere in this context were uttered by… guess who. 😏
http://bit.ly/1QjHPfs


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 29, 2017 at 8:53:54 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "Never mind that that was A SIERRA BUG (or quite possibly even one of the usual shoddy drivers for BMD hardware) not an FCP one."

Either way it does not look good for Apple. Keep in mind Adobe has to write code for Mac and PC. FCPX is only available on the Mac OS. There should be less risks of bugs for FCPX than Premiere Pro but you forgot about that part of the equation didn't you? Having said that this is not a thread about bugs in Premiere Pro or FCPX. If you want to start a thread about bugs in the NLEs feel free to do so. This thread is about Premiere Pro having inferior titling system according to you and many others. Could you please comment on that instead of changing the subject?


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 29, 2017 at 8:43:04 am

[Brian Seegmiller] "This funny. Showing the problems with FCP X a few versions back. Kind of irrelevant at this point."

It is not as funny as your comment considering the FCPX video was posted on Oct 16, 2016. The FCPX video is actually newer than the Premiere Pro video but you missed that part didn't you? As stated in the FCPX video simply changing the color of a title caused FCPX to crash. I would be ticked off if Premiere Pro crashed like that. Having said that this thread should not be about bugs in FCPX or Premiere Pro. The obvious topic of the thread is does Photoshop have an old and outdated titling system from the 1990s? If not how could anyone claim Premiere Pro does?

[Brian Seegmiller] "Dying to see the demo."

If you want to start a new discussion about bugs in Premiere Pro you can but this thread was started in part because you were dying to see the demo. I couldn't live with my self if you died. Simply posting "thanks for taking the time to make the demo" might be a nice gesture don't ya think?


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 29, 2017 at 4:04:23 pm

I don't understand, the video you posted in this forum was posted May 28th 2017 not 2016. It may have been created back in 2016, but you posted it just yesterday. With that being said, I do wish FCP X had a basic way to draw shapes like PP can. But I would still create my custom titles in Motion.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 29, 2017 at 4:57:46 pm
Last Edited By Jeremy Garchow on May 29, 2017 at 4:58:18 pm

[Brian Seegmiller] "With that being said, I do wish FCP X had a basic way to draw shapes like PP can."

Use the "draw mask" filter on a solid or any piece of media.


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 30, 2017 at 3:31:56 am

WOW, I would have never thought of this. Thanks Jeremy.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on May 29, 2017 at 6:16:02 pm

[Brian Seegmiller] "I don't understand, the video you posted in this forum was posted May 28th 2017 not 2016. It may have been created back in 2016, but you posted it just yesterday"

I am referring to the Premiere Pro bug video that Robin posted. That one is old.


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 4:33:47 am

I tried making a title the other day in PP and was not successful. I wanted to make a lower third bar for a title with a gradient that gradually went transparent on both ends and was solid in the middle. Could not do it. I spent a lot of time with the gradient option trying to figure it out. This title comes with FCP X.



Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 9:56:57 am

[Brian Seegmiller] "I tried making a title the other day in PP and was not successful. I wanted to make a lower third bar for a title with a gradient that gradually went transparent on both ends and was solid in the middle. Could not do it. I spent a lot of time with the gradient option trying to figure it out. This title comes with FCP X."

Did you figure out how to do it in FCPX super easy or did you simply use a canned title effect that was created by someone else using Motion as opposed to creating it yourself from scratch using FCPX? Having said that can you post a short video or screen shot of the lower third?


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 3:58:53 pm

I posted the screen shot somewhere in the thread. Yes it was a canned title, those titles are created in Motion for FCP X so they are apart of the eco system of FCP X. I did not have to go out to Motion to use it because it is a part of FCP X. I guess you are right, I had to use a title that was created in Motion, but you don't have to have motion installed to use them. So in a way I did not use Motion ONLY FCP X. The integration is pretty slick. Looks like PP decided they needed a better title tool so they copied FCP X with it Essential Graphics Panel. However, I have read it needs a lot of work.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 6:52:51 pm

[Brian Seegmiller] "Yes it was a canned title, those titles are created in Motion for FCP X so they are apart of the eco system of FCP X."

I am hip and that is my point. You didn't create it with FCPX. Having said that I can mimic what you have done with Premiere Pro.

[Brian Seegmiller] " I did not have to go out to Motion to use it because it is a part of FCP X. I guess you are right, I had to use a title that was created in Motion, but you don't have to have motion installed to use them."

Yes but you are limited to canned effects without Motion. Premiere Pro is not limited to canned effects.

[Brian Seegmiller] "The integration is pretty slick. Looks like PP decided they needed a better title tool so they copied FCP X with it Essential Graphics Panel. However, I have read it needs a lot of work."

It needs a lot of work compared to what? Are you saying you can do more with FCPX's titling tools than with Premiere's titling tools? The Essential Graphics Panel does not have all the drawing tools of Premiere's old titling system but FCPX does not have all the tools of PP's old titling system either. Keep in mind we still have the old titling tools. Having said that I imagine you can create some really cool motion graphics in AE and those parameters can be released into the Essential Graphics Panel of PP. Prior to the Essentials Graphics Panel Premiere Pro and AE had great integration. The only reason we have the Essential Graphics Panel is because people like you want canned effects. That is what the Essential Graphics Panel is design for. FCPX users always want to say Motion is part of FCPX. Then we CC users can say AE is part of Premiere Pro. Are you saying AE is lacking? If so how?

I mimicked your gradient using only Premiere Pro as you can see from the screen shots.







Can you mimic the logo below using only FCPX?




Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:37:02 pm

Very good Andy. Your example is why we would not want to design a logo in PP. But seriously, It looks like your lower third gradient title is well done. I have been trying to do that. How did you do that?

Andy Paterson "It needs a lot of work compared to what? Are you saying you can do more with FCPX's titling tools than with Premiere's titling tools?"

I was referring to the the Essentials Graphics Panel compared to FCP X and Motion. Not the titling tool.

Andy Paterson Are you saying AE is lacking? If so how?

Never said AE was lacking just the new Essentials Graphics Panel. I have not used it myself but others have said it needs work.

You can create custom titles, effects, transitions, and generators in Motion for FCP X. PP will soon follow suit and copy. I disagree that the new EGP was made just for canned effects. Some of the default templates in both FCP X and PP's new EGP are however pretty lame.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 8, 2017 at 6:42:38 am

[Brian Seegmiller] "Your example is why we would not want to design a logo in PP"

Do you think that is a wise comment to make? You are saying that with all the drawing tools Premiere Pro has you could not create a logo? Then you probably could not create a logo with Photoshop or Illustrator either. Perhaps you should have said something like this "with all the tools available in Premiere Pro I think I could create a better logo than you did" as opposed to "Your example is why we would not want to design a logo in PP". Having said that perhaps you can show us a logo you created in FCPX or Motion. I don't create logos using Premiere Pro anymore but then again I would not use Motion either because many times logos are used for print (something FCPX and Motion are not good at). Having said that I create logos with Illustrator and use them in Premiere Pro. For masks and mattes I simply use Premiere Pro because masks and mattes are not going to be used for print. See the method to the madness? See how FCPX and Motion are lacking for my needs? That is why some people want Apple to make a photo/graphic design program. Will Apple finally catch up or will BMD do it?


[Brian Seegmiller] "Andy Paterson "It needs a lot of work compared to what? Are you saying you can do more with FCPX's titling tools than with Premiere's titling tools?"

I was referring to the the Essentials Graphics Panel compared to FCP X and Motion. Not the titling tool."


What exactly is lacking? Keep in mind dynamic link works for me. We really didn't need the Essentials Graphics Panel. It is more or less a canned effects template generator. I am not saying it will not be useful for many post production houses.


[Brian Seegmiller] "You can create custom titles, effects, transitions, and generators in Motion for FCP X. PP will soon follow suit and copy."

Soon follow and copy? We have been able to do it for over ten years but now we can make templates with editable parameters.


[Brian Seegmiller] " I disagree that the new EGP was made just for canned effects."

It is just that. The old titling system has more design tools and it is still there. I don't doubt the Essential Graphics Panel will get more design tools but shouldn't FCPX get some design tools of it's own?


[Brian Seegmiller] "Some of the default templates in both FCP X and PP's new EGP are however pretty lame."

I don't doubt that but I have not really bothered to check either.


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 8, 2017 at 3:04:25 pm

You touted the logo creating abilities of the titling... Awe, what's the point anymore? I am not conceding just not going to waste my time anymore. Time to put this thread to bed.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 4:38:09 pm

[andy patterson] "or did you simply use a canned title effect that was created by someone else using Motion"

You still haven't grasped that every single title in FCP X is a Motion project, have you? There is no such thing as a title that wasn't created in Motion, period. Unless maybe it's 3rd party, but even then…

🤦🏼‍♂️

This is such a non-discussion.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 7:19:29 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "[andy patterson] "or did you simply use a canned title effect that was created by someone else using Motion"

You still haven't grasped that every single title in FCP X is a Motion project, have you? There is no such thing as a title that wasn't created in Motion, period. Unless maybe it's 3rd party, but even then…"


I have grasped that but my point is how can FCPX users claim the titling tools of Premiere Pro needed an overhaul when Premiere Pro has more titling options than FCPX? That is what you are not grasping. It is the pot calling the kettle black. With FCPX you are relying on Motion to create custom Motion Graphics. You are now using two programs. Would you say FCPX has an old outdated titling system if a CC users opted to use Illustrator along with Premiere Pro? FCPX users always want to say Motion is part of FCPX. Then we CC users can say AE is part of Premiere Pro's titling system. Heck we can even say Illustrator is part of Premiere Pro's titling system. Do Illustrator, AE and Photoshop need an overhaul for creating graphics? For the record I do create logos in Illustrator and Photoshop and animate them in Premiere Pro. The only difference is my logos can be used for printing production. How well does Motion handle the bleed and slug area for printing? Does Motion need an Overhaul?


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 12, 2017 at 3:23:37 pm
Last Edited By Robin S. Kurz on Jun 12, 2017 at 3:25:43 pm

Ever hear of "relative privation"? Look it up.

[andy patterson] "How well does Motion handle the bleed and slug area for printing?"

Wow. Rarely seen anyone try THAT hard. 😄

Yeah, Motion is needed for making custom titles, effects, generators and transitions for FCP one way or another. Be it directly or "under the hood", without even needing to own Motion. Saving you $600 a year in the process by comparison. Somehow that's a horrible disadvantage and limitation (not) that I can live with very very easily. Go figure.

And you'll probably de horrified to hear, that even for PPro et al you need an SDK to make Plugins! 😳 Motion essentially being FCP's SDK… without the SDK. But what would you know. Why not tell us how to make effects, generators and transitions for PPro. Oh… right. Oops.

🙄


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 12, 2017 at 6:26:27 pm

[Robin S. Kurz] "And you'll probably de horrified to hear, that even for PPro et al you need an SDK to make Plugins! 😳 Motion essentially being FCP's SDK… without the SDK. But what would you know. Why not tell us how to make effects, generators and transitions for PPro. Oh… right. Oops."

We are talking about the titling tools of FCPX and Premiere Pro in this thread not plugins or bugs. If you want to start a thread about plugins or bugs for either software program feel free to do so. Having said that you could at this point say "I guess Premiere Pro does have a decent titling system".


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 13, 2017 at 9:51:18 am

[Robin S. Kurz] "[andy patterson] "How well does Motion handle the bleed and slug area for printing?"

Wow. Rarely seen anyone try THAT hard. 😄
"


He was speaking ironically. I think that was pretty obvious. Maybe not. 😄


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 13, 2017 at 5:19:05 pm

[Chris Harlan] "[Robin S. Kurz] "[andy patterson] "How well does Motion handle the bleed and slug area for printing?"

Wow. Rarely seen anyone try THAT hard. 😄
"

He was speaking ironically. I think that was pretty obvious. Maybe not. 😄"


It was obvious to me and that is why I did not respond to this comment. I am surprised you did.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 13, 2017 at 11:15:33 pm

[andy patterson] "[Chris Harlan] "[Robin S. Kurz] "[andy patterson] "How well does Motion handle the bleed and slug area for printing?"

Wow. Rarely seen anyone try THAT hard. 😄
"

He was speaking ironically. I think that was pretty obvious. Maybe not. 😄"

It was obvious to me and that is why I did not respond to this comment. I am surprised you did.
"


ROTFL I have no idea what you are talking about.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 5:35:49 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Jun 7, 2017 at 5:38:50 pm

[Brian Seegmiller] "I tried making a title the other day in PP and was not successful. I wanted to make a lower third bar for a title with a gradient that gradually went transparent on both ends and was solid in the middle. Could not do it. I spent a lot of time with the gradient option trying to figure it out. This title comes with FCP X."

A feathered mask on a color matte would have been a LOT faster.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 6:28:28 pm

Right, however I was just trying to use the title tool which was the topic of this thread.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 6:53:27 pm
Last Edited By Shawn Miller on Jun 7, 2017 at 7:00:21 pm

[Brian Seegmiller] "Right, however I was just trying to use the title tool which was the topic of this thread."

Why not use them together? It's not like it's a huge investment in time... which was your point, right? You spent hours trying to do something simple with gradients - I'm just suggesting a much faster way to do it.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 7:36:12 pm

I could not get the look I wanted using both. For tiles and or graphics, you would need to use a graphics program more capable than FCP X or PP. What I like about Motion and FCP X is you can publish a generator, effect, title and transitions with many parameters and it is available in FCP X. Design it once and then use it many times without going back to Motion. What will PP copy next? Wait for it... "The Essential Custom Generator Effects and Transitions Panel"


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 6:36:12 pm

actually I just tried the feathered mask on a color matte and sorry I still could not create the look I wanted like this one created in FCP X.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 6:56:16 pm

[Brian Seegmiller] "actually I just tried the feathered mask on a color matte and sorry I still could not create the look I wanted like this one created in FCP X"

What result did you get in PPro, and how did you get there?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 7:21:24 pm

I did just like you told me to do . Add a feather mask to a color matte.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 7:26:13 pm

[Brian Seegmiller] "I did just like you told me to do . Add a feather mask to a color matte."

So, what was it that you didn't like about the result? It seems like you could adjust the shape and feather size of the mask and get the same result you showed in the FCPX example.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 7:41:27 pm

I tried, no can do. I guess with the new Essential Graphics you could make that template but the bosses don't want to upgrade until bugs are gone.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:13:55 pm

I mimicked what you wanted 100% if you look at my other response for you. I had asked you to mimic what I created in FCPX.


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 9:29:27 pm

I already posted it earlier. I am still curious how you did yours. I would like to know. Thanks.


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 7, 2017 at 9:39:29 pm

There are two different ways. One method is to use the good old titling system in Premiere Pro and make your rectangle with the titling tools. Make it extra wide to crop the left and right. Then use the feather effect of the crop tool. Another way is to use two gradient rectangles and butt them up to one another.

Try using CPU mode as opposed to GPU mode. I have let Adobe know GPU mode does not work 100% correct.


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Why is the Premiere Pro titling tool so horrible?
on Jun 8, 2017 at 6:56:38 am

Thanks for sharing. I was able to create a lower third other than that canned title in FCP X just using what was was in FCP X, but since every effect, title, transition and generator are created from Motion and are defaults I guess FCP X has a unfair advantage vs. just the title tool in PP. It is what it is.


Return to posts index

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