APPLE FINAL CUT PRO: FCP Legacy FCPX Debates Apple Final Cut Pro X FCP Tutorials

Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
andy patterson
Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 23, 2017 at 8:46:26 pm

I know a lot of people have to use 3rd party hardware to capture video. I like to use 3rd party hardware for playback on broadcast compliant equipment more than capturing video. I did some testing with the Blackmagic Design Intensity Shuttle and the Canopus ADVC 110 using two different software programs. Do both software programs give the same results? You would have to watch the videos below to find out.













Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 23, 2017 at 9:05:49 pm

Well, since the Intensity Shuttle can do HD, and the Canopus is limited to SD...specifically DV...stands to reason that the Intensity would be better.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 23, 2017 at 9:40:27 pm

What does the subject matter have to do with the title of the topic?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 23, 2017 at 10:32:06 pm

Well...I guess that it's a "VERSUS" thing...and they work with FCX?

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


Return to posts index

Noah Kadner
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 23, 2017 at 10:59:43 pm

Woohoo- if the bar is set at S-Video they should all do well...

Noah

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 23, 2017 at 11:45:52 pm

[Noah Kadner] "Woohoo- if the bar is set at S-Video they should all do well..."

Native 4K Red One R3D files are not the same thing as S-Video.

Premiere will let you output 4K to 720X480 standard resolution using the Canopus ADVC 110. Edius would not. Will FCPX allow you to do the same thing? If you have a DV converter set up a 4K timeline and test it. I would like to know the results. That is why I started this thread. I hope to get feedback about FCPX as well as Avid using 3rd party hardware.


Return to posts index


andy patterson
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 23, 2017 at 11:36:56 pm

[Shane Ross] "Well...I guess that it's a "VERSUS" thing...and they work with FCX?"

I know they work with FCPX as well as Avid. I am hoping others will post their results. Can FCPX out put any aspect ratio using the AVDC 110 or the Intensity Shuttle? Can Sony Vegas out put 1800 X 800 using the Intensity Shuttle? The reason I made my post is to get feedback. I would be interested in getting the results from other software programs and even other hardware vendors like AJA and Matrox.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 23, 2017 at 11:49:28 pm

[andy patterson] "Can FCPX out put any aspect ratio using the AVDC 110 or the Intensity Shuttle? "

The Canopus is SD only...so only output ratio it does is 4:3. The Intensity Shuttle does HD and SD...so it can output 16:9 HD...and even downconvert that to 4:3 SD...either letterboxed or squeezed.

[andy patterson] "Can Sony Vegas out put 1800 X 800 using the Intensity Shuttle?"

No. Those IO devices only do broadcast frame sizes....720x480, 720x486, 1280x720, 1920x1080. 1800x800 isn't a video signal format...none of them output to that.

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 24, 2017 at 12:40:30 am

[Shane Ross] "[andy patterson] "Can FCPX out put any aspect ratio using the AVDC 110 or the Intensity Shuttle? "

The Canopus is SD only...so only output ratio it does is 4:3. The Intensity Shuttle does HD and SD...so it can output 16:9 HD...and even downconvert that to 4:3 SD...either letterboxed or squeezed."


That is true but Edius could not output 4K or even HD using the ADVC 110. Edius could output SD timelines only. That is what the ADVC 110 was designed to do. Premiere Pro added some extra functionality. Premiere could also output 4K to HD. Edius could not. The Intensity Shuttle was only designed for HD but Premiere can get a little extra functionality out of the device by outputting a 4K timeline using the Shuttle.


[Shane Ross] "[andy patterson] "Can Sony Vegas out put 1800 X 800 using the Intensity Shuttle?"

No. Those IO devices only do broadcast frame sizes....720x480, 720x486, 1280x720, 1920x1080. 1800x800 isn't a video signal format...none of them output to that."


It would not have the pixels count of 1800 X 800 but Sony Vegas may have a retain aspect ratio option for the Intensity Shuttle. I wish Premiere Pro did. Premiere does have that option for all IEEE Fire Wire DV converts (not just the ADVC 110). Premiere can output 2100 X 800 to the ADVC 110. Edius would not. It is kind of cool to do 1200 X 400 banner ads for website on the old SD monitor using the Canopus ADVC 110. The 1200 X 400 does get down converted to SD (720 X 480) but the motion graphics are super smooth. I also like the look of the CRT monitors. I am not saying FCPX cannot do the same thing. I admit most people are not going to output Red One R3D 4.5K to mini DV tape or Digital Beta. I just like seeing my website work on the SD monitor as a reference.


Return to posts index


andy patterson
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 23, 2017 at 11:25:55 pm

[Oliver Peters] "What does the subject matter have to do with the title of the topic?"

The only software titles I had were Edius and Premiere Pro but I hope someone will post the results using FCPX or Avid with video capture cards from AJA or Matrox. Maybe they will maybe they won't. I myself would like to know the results. I thought it was interesting that Premiere could get a little more functionality out of both devices than Edius 8.0. Having said that Edius could make use of both devices as they were intended to be used. Premiere Pro just pushed both devices beyond their intended purpose. I would be interested in hearing other people's results even if they cannot make a short video demo. Who knows maybe FCPX or Avid can get even more functionality out of 3rd party devices than Premiere Pro.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 23, 2017 at 11:46:26 pm

[andy patterson] "but I hope someone will post the results using FCPX or Avid with video capture cards from AJA or Matrox"

First off, FCX doesn't capture from tape...unless it's DV or HDV, and when it does that, it only does it via firewire. The only way to get non-DV/HDV footage into FCX via a capture card is to use the Capture Card's own capture software. FCX doesn't believe that tape exists anymore. And while it is VERY rare to shoot on tape anymore, there is a lot of footage that exists on tape that is needed to capture for archival type shows. So FCX doesn't do this...it only uses IO hardware for output to monitors.

Avid...captures, outputs...Adobe Premiere...captures/outputs...and they all use AJA, Blackmagic Design, Matrox (Although Matrox options are getting fewer and far between).

But capturing ProRes or DNxHD via hardware cards...there really isn't much difference. Both do well, both look stellar.

[andy patterson] "Premiere Pro just pushed both devices beyond their intended purpose. "

In what way? Their intended purpose is to input and output a video signal. What does Premiere do to them beyond that?

[andy patterson] "Who knows maybe FCPX or Avid can get even more functionality out of 3rd party devices than Premiere Pro."

What functionality are you looking for? AJA/BMD/MATROX all offer hardware up conversion and down conversion...and HD cross conversion. And scaling from 4K to HD and SD. What else are you expecting? NO NLE utilized them for any hardware acceleration of any sort.

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 24, 2017 at 4:36:14 am

[Shane Ross] "[andy patterson] "Premiere Pro just pushed both devices beyond their intended purpose. "

In what way? Their intended purpose is to input and output a video signal. What does Premiere do to them beyond that?"


Edius 8.0 can output HD using the Intensity Shuttle but not a native Red One R3D 4k timeline. Premiere could do it. I am not saying Avid and FCPX cannot. Edius also needed the timeline to be a broadcast compliant format as well. Premiere Pro can output just about anything.

[Shane Ross] "[andy patterson] "Who knows maybe FCPX or Avid can get even more functionality out of 3rd party devices than Premiere Pro."

What functionality are you looking for? AJA/BMD/MATROX all offer hardware up conversion and down conversion...and HD cross conversion. And scaling from 4K to HD and SD. What else are you expecting? NO NLE utilized them for any hardware acceleration of any sort."


I know you responded to my other comments but in case other people missed it. For IEEE DV devices Premiere can maintain aspect ratio (hardware or software) so you can take a 1200 X 400 video projects for websites and see it on the old CRT monitor. Edius could only use standard NTSC timline with the ADVC 110. I wish there was an option to maintain the aspect ration when using the Intensity Shuttle with Premiere Pro but perhaps it would make the Mercury Playback Engine explode : )

Maybe Avid, FCPX or Sony Vegas can maintain the aspect ratio of 1800 x 800 by letter boxing using the Intensity Shuttle. Premiere could not and Edius will not output anything other than what the hardware was designed for. I would love to use my two computer monitors for for the GUI and use the Intensity Shuttle for real-time playback for anything from 4K and HD content to banner ads at 1200 X 400. Premiere does a good job overall but I wish I could make it work with the Intensity Shuttle using any aspect ratio. I felt let down that Premiere Pro could not and that is why I tested Edius. In the process of testing Edius I found Premiere Pro capable of doing much more than the Edius software. I wish I had a Mac and FCPX to test out FCPX.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 27, 2017 at 5:57:58 am

In the interests of people coming here for information.

My friend Patrick Southern was the AE on "OJ Speaks, the Hidden Tapes" programs for A&E and as such, had to digitize MOUNTAINS of depositions and historical content off all sorts of tapes from 1" to BetaSP to VHS.

He and producer Chuck Braverman did a TON of testing regarding conversions and digitizations seeking the highest quality conversions to air.

In the end, they dumped ALL the external box approaches including those via high-end Hollywood transfer services - and simply plugged in appropriate tape decks via Firewire and digitized directly into X.

THAT provided them the highest quality transfers. And that's what aired.

I have used the <$200 BlackMagic Designs Video Recorder dongle to transfer VHS, S-VHS, Hi-8 and other sources into X via vanilla USB and have had exactly the same results.

It's easy to overthink this.

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 27, 2017 at 6:05:42 am

I'm going to have to ask Patrick what they did for the several projects I onlined for them...one of them being LOST TAPES: PEARL HARBOR. I know for that one we had the National Archives telecine the film to ProRes files, and a lot of the other footage used was from archives already in digital form. But I do know they had lots of tapes too. I think that they used the Kona 3 and the AJA software, but I'll ask.

[Bill Davis] "In the end, they dumped ALL the external box approaches including those via high-end Hollywood transfer services - and simply plugged in appropriate tape decks via Firewire and digitized directly into X."

I'm going to ask about this too. It's an OK approach, because you can then convert the footage via Compressor for decent results. Although the Kona upscales in a much cleaner and better way.

[Bill Davis] "THAT provided them the highest quality transfers. And that's what aired."

No...it wasn't the highest quality...but it is an acceptable quality to many. Highest quality would be those expensive services (Alchemist, Terranex) or AJA box. But it was a decent transfer. I myself have used Compressor to upconvert files that I've received digitally only, and it's pretty good.

[Bill Davis] "It's easy to overthink this."

When dealing with really crappy footage already, often we can get away with those other means, because the image is so poor to begin with, that you can't tell the difference if you used a Terranex or if you used Compressor. I know this due to years of personal experience doing it.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 27, 2017 at 2:42:41 pm

There's a long thread somewhere on the forum during the earlier debates about whether there were any visible advantages to going the Terrenex route over the direct FireWire deck transfers.

I reached out to my old friend tech journalist Adam Wilt at the time for guidance.

IIRC, the upshot of his technically informed opinion was that if the original recording has limited signal bandwidth, there's no improvement to be gained via an improved capture method.

So for me, that's that.

If you're digitizing higher Rez sources, Terrenex all the way. But a VHS, or even Hi-8 tape? Waste of resources.

YMMV.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 27, 2017 at 2:58:08 pm

[Bill Davis] "If you're digitizing higher Rez sources, Terrenex all the way. But a VHS, or even Hi-8 tape? Waste of resources. "

I have to differ, having just done a bunch of this. The point of the Teranex units is high-quality upscaling, not 1:1 capture. If you have SD and want it in 1080, 2K, etc. the Teranex will give you superior results. Remember that in this process you often also want to de-interlace, noise-reduce and otherwise enhance the footage. So when you are specifically talking about Teranex and not a capture card per se, this device will give you those results in real-time. If you can stomach long render times, then you might get close with Compressor - or you might not. In software, so far I like the built-in scaling in Resolve the best.

If you are comparing just capture, such as Kona versus Firewire, that's a different story. However, even there, when I did a lot of this in the past, I got better results using AJA Io instead Firewire into a Mac. Part of the reason for this, I believe, is that the component analog or SDI conversion circuitry within a decent DV deck tended to smooth over image artifacts that were simply passed through over Firewire.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 27, 2017 at 3:29:35 pm

[Oliver Peters] " The point of the Teranex units is high-quality upscaling, not 1:1 capture. If you have SD and want it in 1080, 2K, etc. the Teranex will give you superior results."

OK, I'm willing to believe this.

However, I wish somebody would post real world captures or other observable examples of HOW MUCH improvement is gained by spending the big bucks on these processes.

I can understand that if you have a noisy VHS tape, a smart algorithm should make a difference. But if you have a CLEAN VHS tape, is the benefit as much? Half as much? 5% better?

Basically, whats the point where spending the money on an outside service makes a visible difference?

At what point does interpolating the 640x480 pixel raster onto a 2k signal via A verses B make any actual visible difference? That's what I want somebody to test. So far, I can't find that out - no matter how much I try.

Oh well.

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 27, 2017 at 5:12:23 pm

[Bill Davis] "However, I wish somebody would post real world captures or other observable examples of HOW MUCH improvement is gained by spending the big bucks on these processes."

Well, I could show you the differences between captures from a BETA tape...if I can figure out how to capture that via firewire. I'll have to see if I can find a j-30 deck or something. And then capture that via firewire, as DV...and upconvert with Compressor. And then capture that same tape via AJA IoXT upconverting via hardware. (Don't have access to Terranex for a test like this). I have done tests in the past of this, and the difference is visually noticeable. I could tell that the AJA/Terranex upconvert looked better. The fact that you won't believe me or Oliver when we tell you this is odd...don't trust us? Don't trust other professionals when they say this?

[Bill Davis] "I can understand that if you have a noisy VHS tape, a smart algorithm should make a difference. But if you have a CLEAN VHS tape, is the benefit as much? Half as much? 5% better?"

RARELY do I have VHS masters to work from...it's primarily Beta, 3/4", digibeta...either film telecined to those formats long ago, either high end means, or sketchy (projector directly into a camera lens) means. Or broadcast news masters on those formats. The difference can't be quatified by a percentage...I don't know how to say "it looks better...maybe 10% better than the other." I can say that the difference is noticeable...it's sharper, more detail. Less artifacts.

[Bill Davis] "Basically, whats the point where spending the money on an outside service makes a visible difference?"

Because my master isn't the FINAL that airs. It gets converted to a broadcast master format, so a layer of compression. And then when broadcast, it's compressed over the airwaves by various means...cable or satellite. And then they might make international masters, so more converting and compressing. Because of this, networks insist on having the best possible conversion available, because it's going to be compressed and converted again..and if you start out with a better image, it'll hold up more than one that's OK...but not as good.

But again...this is the world of high end video broadcast...and the standards there are very high. Crappy video only gets accepted when it's a) one of a kind video, very important to the story... and b) zero alternatives exist, it's the only version of the video, and there's not another source to replace it. Then networks reluctantly take it. I've had to deliver shows with HORRID interlacing baked into the video...and with masters that smaller local markets archives as "high end WMV" files...meaning WMV compressed at 640x480. And yes, I've done a machine to machine output upconvert to 1080, along with a software upconvert, and the difference is visible. So why not go with that extra 5-10% (if it's even that quatifiable?) We are talking shows with budgets from $125,000 to $350,000 and up...full of archival.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 27, 2017 at 5:53:38 pm

[Bill Davis] "There's a long thread somewhere on the forum during the earlier debates about whether there were any visible advantages to going the Terrenex route over the direct FireWire deck transfers. "

For the curious (and the nerdy).

https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/85274#85363


[Bill Davis] "Basically, whats the point where spending the money on an outside service makes a visible difference?"

I think that probably always comes down to a case-by-case basis. What's the budget, what's the expectations, etc., Most people opt for 'best quality possible' which really means 'best quality within the budget'.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 27, 2017 at 6:54:15 pm

[Bill Davis] "I can understand that if you have a noisy VHS tape, a smart algorithm should make a difference. But if you have a CLEAN VHS tape, is the benefit as much? Half as much? 5% better?"

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I would say subjectively that the improvement is between 5% and 25% depending on the results you are trying to achieve. Remember I'm only talking about conversion and scaling, not capture; however, the BMD Teranex models can also function for i/o.

https://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2016/07/30/blackmagic-design-teranex-pro...

[Bill Davis] "Basically, whats the point where spending the money on an outside service makes a visible difference?"

You also need to separate the discussion between the original Teranex products and those currently made under the BMD banner. There are certain image restoration products that Teranex used to make, which are no longer part of the line-up. Although some of those functions have been integrated. For example, on an indie film that I had to piece together from rather dirty cut negative, I used a Teranex image restoration product (no longer sold) to reduce a significant amount of embedded film dirt (in real time). However, for standard use these days, the BMD products are quite good and relatively cheap.

[Bill Davis] "At what point does interpolating the 640x480 pixel raster onto a 2k signal via A verses B make any actual visible difference? "

I would contend that the bigger the target, the more obvious the difference in quality. The fact that it's crap to begin with is not an absolute mitigating factor. There are many variables that affect that subjective 5-25% judgement range. For example, is there a lot of motion? Do you need to convert interlaced to progressive? Do you need to add noise reduction and/or sharpening?

On a recent job for a documentary about the WWII-era WASPs (forgotten female pilots), I used a BMD Teranex convertor to uprez all of the interview footage from SD to HD. These were all static shots in limbo of older ladies. Because they are on screen alone for lengths of time, you focus in on image quality. There was a noticeable difference between going the Teranex route or not. Could I achieve similar results within a few percentage point of the Teranex? Probably - but not in real-time. Think about how much of a beast it is to render Neat plug-ins. Much better going this way.

In addition, some network delivery requirement specify the use of Teranx and/or SAM (Snell) conversion products when content is from SD sources. OTOH, if you are working on a few clips for basic corporate jobs, then no, it's probably not worth it.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 27, 2017 at 8:14:23 pm

BTW (regarding Teranex) - A great way to test these things is with a DVD and Blu-ray test series called HQV Benchmark (Google it.) It's quite old at this point, but something I developed with the Teranex folks when they were together with Silicon Optics. At that point, they were trying to license some of their algorithms into consumer products, particularly high-end DVD players and TV sets. If you can snag one on E-bay, it includes a series of tests and grading criteria to evaluate some of what we've been discussing. It's designed for consumers and TV sets, but would still work in professional video applications, too.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 28, 2017 at 1:14:48 am

Interesting info Oliver. A little of topic but the info is more than welcomed by me.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 28, 2017 at 1:17:16 am

Thanks.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 27, 2017 at 7:17:51 am

[Bill Davis] "My friend Patrick Southern was the AE on "OJ Speaks, the Hidden Tapes" programs for A&E and as such, had to digitize MOUNTAINS of depositions and historical content off all sorts of tapes from 1" to BetaSP to VHS."

[Bill Davis] "In the end, they dumped ALL the external box approaches including those via high-end Hollywood transfer services - and simply plugged in appropriate tape decks via Firewire and digitized directly into X."

I have never used 1" tape but I used to work with 3/4" and Beta before the digital formats hit the market. The generic IEEE Fire Wire DV converters are the simplest to use and probably the best option for SD content. No drivers needed for FCP, Premiere, Avid, Vegas etc. I have the Canopus ADVC 110 but Canopus used to make some $350-$850.00 DV converts. The more expensive DV converters have BNC connectors and also offer full deck control. I was told Canopus no longer makes any converters. I don't doubt that is true. There used to be about 8 or 9 companies making them back in the day for as little as $99.99. Companies like ADS, Dazzle, Pinnacle, DAC, Canopus and many more. It was a real inexpensive way to monitor SD content on a broadcast quality monitor. I hate to look at interlaced video on the computer screen.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 28, 2017 at 1:31:42 am

[Bill Davis] "In the end, they dumped ALL the external box approaches including those via high-end Hollywood transfer services - and simply plugged in appropriate tape decks via Firewire and digitized directly into X."

I asked Patrick about this, and the workflow he did for me on LOST TAPES: Pearl Harbor, and he said you were right about everything but the firewire capture directly into FCX. The original capture for OJ was SD through Media Express with BMD capture hardware. But then they scaled up in FCX..and compared that to what a company did with a Terranex and the terranex was softer.

But for Pearl Harbor, they used the AJA Kona 3 and FCP 7, and that worked great for them. (I do the same thing...still utilizing FCP 7 on occasion...or the AJA capture tool).

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 28, 2017 at 3:05:44 am

Not surprised I miss-remembered that step.

What blew me away at the time was that the native algorithm in X was good enough to do the ultimate storyline to master without the need to go out of house.
(A radical idea back in an era where the default expectation was that you had to toss expensive and sophisticated hardware into the signal chain for ALL transcode broadcast deliveries.)

Changed my thinking at the time.

Thanks for the clarification.

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 28, 2017 at 3:08:56 am

I have no doubt that the scaler in X is good...far better than FCP 7. I know that Adobe's is good too. And I'd rely on them for many things. The fact that they did that test and X was better doesn't surprise me.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 28, 2017 at 1:20:30 pm

[Bill Davis] "What blew me away at the time was that the native algorithm in X was good enough to do the ultimate storyline to master without the need to go out of house."

What do you mean? We did that well before X with previous NLEs including "legacy". Would you clarify?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 30, 2017 at 10:01:13 pm

[Oliver Peters] "What do you mean? We did that well before X with previous NLEs including "legacy". Would you clarify?"

Sure. My presumption (once upon a time) was that if you start with a low quality master like VHS - the high-end boxes would add some mojo (beyond something like a good TBC or similar frame shaker) - to enhance the result.

Turns out not so.

The quality of the X direct digitizations was plenty to maximize the result.

I had (nor have) a clue about if the other NLEs do exactly the same thing. I was only concerned with my own workflow at the time.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 30, 2017 at 11:56:06 pm

[Bill Davis] "Sure. My presumption (once upon a time) was that if you start with a low quality master like VHS - the high-end boxes would add some mojo (beyond something like a good TBC or similar frame shaker) - to enhance the result."

OK, I see what you were saying. I didn't realize this still applied to up conversions.

[Bill Davis] "The quality of the X direct digitizations was plenty to maximize the result."

I would point out that based on my own work, IMHO no other NLE (with the possible exception of Smoke) holds a candle to the quality of Resolve when it comes to software up-conversions. X is good, but not as good as Resolve. Plus there you get several settings variations from softer to crisper. Likewise, I also feel that After Effects' up-conversion is better than what FCPX and/or Compressor are doing. The Apple results tend to be softer than other choices.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 31, 2017 at 2:41:45 am

[Oliver Peters] "I would point out that based on my own work, IMHO no other NLE (with the possible exception of Smoke) holds a candle to the quality of Resolve when it comes to software up-conversions. X is good, but not as good as Resolve. Plus there you get several settings variations from softer to crisper. Likewise, I also feel that After Effects' up-conversion is better than what FCPX and/or Compressor are doing. The Apple results tend to be softer than other choices."

Fair enough..

I'll just note that when I was in the heart of my SD to digital content conversions some years back, Resolve was a grading tool that barely edited - and of course I'm still firmly against the Adobe rental thing. So I'm glad to have a tool that still does it perfectly well, that I don't have to pay monthly to use - and for which the learning curve is LONG in my past.

Good enough for A&E HD broadcast is generally plenty good enough for me.

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 23, 2017 at 11:13:38 pm

[Shane Ross] "Well, since the Intensity Shuttle can do HD, and the Canopus is limited to SD...specifically DV...stands to reason that the Intensity would be better."

That is true but the Canopus ADVC 110 is easier to use if all you wanted to do was capture VHS tapes. With Premiere Pro it can also output any resolution and any aspect ration to SD. You could out put 1800 X 800 and the aspect ration would be correct although it would be down converted to 720 X 480. They used to sell DV converters for $110.00 but they have become a thing of the past. The Intensity does do all forms of Broadcast compliant HD but if you wanted to do 1920 X 800 for a website it could output the video to a 16:9 HD monitor but it would look funky. Premiere was able to get a little more functionality with both devices over Edius 8.0 although Edius 8.2 is out now. I am not sure what the results for FCXP, Resolve or Avid would be but it would be interesting to know. Maybe someone will post the results using FCPX or Avid using video capture cards fro AJA or Matrox.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 24, 2017 at 1:47:55 am

[andy patterson] " With Premiere Pro it can also output any resolution and any aspect ration to SD. You could out put 1800 X 800 and the aspect ration would be correct although it would be down converted to 720 X 480. "

Ahhhh. I'm getting what you are saying now.

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


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 24, 2017 at 9:10:02 pm

I had to check the date of the original post - I thought I had lost it for a moment. Maybe someone will post if I can use my Digisuite with FCPX to capture from my XL1?

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

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 25, 2017 at 1:36:35 am

[Lance Bachelder] "I had to check the date of the original post - I thought I had lost it for a moment. Maybe someone will post if I can use my Digisuite with FCPX to capture from my XL1?"

I remember the Digisuite systems from Matrox as well as the DPS Velocity systems and even the True Vision Products before Pinnacle bought them out and later Avid bought Pinnacle. Of course Pinnacle also bought out Fast Multimedia and a few others.

My first video card was a Pinnacle System DC 10+. I also used to have a Matrox RT 2000. Then I bought the Pinnacle Pro One and later the Canopus DV Storm. I used the Canopus Storm the most.

I love using 3rd party hardware for client previews.

I wish other people would post images of their editing suites and their results.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 29, 2017 at 5:58:35 pm

[andy patterson] "I wish other people would post images of their editing suites and their results."

OK...here is my setup. Hackintosh (black box on the lower left next to my old MacPro, boba fett sticker on it):



4.0Ghz i7 (turbo up to 4.4Ghz)
32 GB RAM
2x500GB SSD drives (one with MacOS, the other with Windows 10)
NVidia GTX 980 GPU w/4GB RAM
3x3TB SATA drives in internal sleds.
See this link for full list of parts:

http://lfhd.net/2016/08/27/saga-of-the-amphibi-hack-part-1/

Attached to it via Thunderbolt 2 is a BlackMagic Ultrastudio 4K Extreme, and then to that is a Flanders Scientific LM-2340W broadcast monitor. And it's running Resolve in the picture provided.

Now, while I don't do a lot of capturing of tapes these days, I do also have an AJA IoXT that I connect to my laptop, a 2010 MacBook Pro. That does the upconvert using a hardware scaler and the results are great. I really should test it against my Ultrastudio though...I know that it also has a hardware scaler...before BMD only did scaling in software.

I mainly work in HD...althought I have had one project in 4K, and I simply scaled that down to 1080p to play on my monitor. Color space is the same.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 30, 2017 at 6:29:01 pm

[Shane Ross] "OK...here is my setup. Hackintosh (black box on the lower left next to my old MacPro, boba fett sticker on it):"

How do you think this would benchmark against the latest BTO iMac? The latter runs about $4K and seems to have similar components.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 30, 2017 at 7:09:55 pm

I've run benchmarks...it outperforms the latest iMac. From part 2 of the build (which was not easy, due to bad components, but a fun story):

http://lfhd.net/2016/09/01/saga-of-the-amphibi-hack-part-2/

"Here’s a test I ran on the system…CINEBENCH. The processor tests better than a current iMac, although slower than a current MacPro (if 2013 is considered ‘current’). That’s pretty good, if you ask me. But what I really like is that the GPU tested higher than both. And the GPU is the main thing Resolve relies on, and that, along with Avid Media Composer, are the main apps I intend to use. "

The processor won't beat the dual xenons in the MacPros...those are $2400-$3500 processors. I could do a build on them, and it'd still be half price of the MacTube, but the boards those processors work on that also run the MacOS, don't have thunderbolt of any kind, and I need TB for my IO and my RAID.

But yes, that's why I built my Hack. I spec'd out the iMac I wanted, and it was just shy of $4000 ($3970)...so I looked at the components I could get and they all beat the iMac, and the total cost was under $1600. And I have more internal storage (3x3.5 slots, 2.5 sized drive slots), PCIe slots, a far better GPU. The drawbacks being that I need to tread carefully when it comes to OS updates.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 30, 2017 at 7:29:39 pm

[Shane Ross] "The drawbacks being that I need to tread carefully when it comes to OS updates.
"


So, just to be clear, app updates won't cause problems, just OS updates?


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 30, 2017 at 7:32:00 pm

App updates are fine...as long as they are compatible with the OS I am running. Which currently is 10.10.5, but I'm looking at 10.11 soon. Even downloaded apps from the App store (Compressor) and they work fine. Apple, nicely, will notice what OS you are running and allow download of versions of apps compatible with that version (Pages, Numbers)

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


Return to posts index

andy patterson
Re: Avid VS Premiere VS FCPX VS Edius?
on Jan 30, 2017 at 9:11:46 pm

[Shane Ross] "Attached to it via Thunderbolt 2 is a BlackMagic Ultrastudio 4K Extreme, and then to that is a Flanders Scientific LM-2340W broadcast monitor. And it's running Resolve in the picture provided."

Cool.

[Shane Ross] "Now, while I don't do a lot of capturing of tapes these days, I do also have an AJA IoXT that I connect to my laptop, a 2010 MacBook Pro. That does the upconvert using a hardware scaler and the results are great. I really should test it against my Ultrastudio though...I know that it also has a hardware scaler...before BMD only did scaling in software."

That would make for a good thread.


Return to posts index

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