PDA

View Full Version : FCP X vs Premiere Pro



elmerlang
06-10-2012, 07:36 AM
Hi Folks
I have FCP 7. I would have happily continued using FCP into the next millenium. Unfortunately, I just bought a Pana GH2, an avchd cam and the files created by by transcoding to ProRes are huge. I also have PP 5.0 which can handle .mts files so have been learning, a little hassle, but not much.

I see FCPX can handle .mts files natively. But my understanding was that X was somehow just a stepup from FCP Express and saw much frustration about its capabilities. Also, there's that sense among some that Apple is no longer interested in vigorous development of its NLEs and is mostly focused on its iPhone, etc line.

So, my questions:
What is your opinion of X, is it a complete professional package, will it be backed vigorously by its creators, how different is it from FCP7 and how much of a hassle would it be switching?
Is there a site that explains the capabilities of X and its differences from FCP7?

Gary Huff
06-10-2012, 08:25 AM
There are trials of both FCPX and Premiere CS6, and I would highly advise you to download both and give them a spin. Being a Premiere user since Premiere 5 Beta (not CS5...5, before the "Pro" moniker), I'm very happy with CS6 so far, and with the Adobe Creative Cloud option, you can get it for $30 per month for your first year (given that you have CS5 already). FCPX is cheaper at $300 ($350 if you need Compressor with it or $400 if you need Motion too). CS6 has been referred to as "FCP8" while FCPX is Apple's attempt to do something revolutionary traditional desktop video editing and opinions have been very mixed.

elmerlang
06-14-2012, 12:18 PM
Thank you, sir, I appreciate the info!

Postmaster
06-14-2012, 12:23 PM
I second that, before we have an other X vs Y flame ware tread.

refocusedmedia
06-14-2012, 02:22 PM
Well, as for this:


What is your opinion of X, is it a complete professional package, will it be backed vigorously by its creators, how different is it from FCP7 and how much of a hassle would it be switching?

No, it is not a "suite" or a "studio". It is a stand-alone NLE, like if you purchased Adobe Premiere by itself. If you compare the two directly, it's hard not to recommend FCPX if for no other reason than it is only $299. But if you're wanting to upgrade from FCS, I would strongly recommend Adobe CS6. It is quite an impressive suite, and is very well integrated. As the others said, download the trials of each and test for yourself.


Here is a good read, while you wait for the downloads to finish: http://philipbloom.net/2012/05/08/cs6/

simonpwood
06-14-2012, 02:38 PM
Most of the negative reaction to FCPX directly after its release was blown out of proportion. Most of the issues that people had with it upon its release (lack of multi cam etc) have been addressed. In fact Apple have released a lot of free updates for this program (FCPX 1.05 was released this week, as well as new free content for Motion), so Apple certainly is not "no longer interested in vigorous development of NLE" as you say.

In fact a number of new features included in CS6 bear a striking resemblance to features that had been implemented in FCPX. If history is anything to go by; in a couple of years everyone will be copying Apples software.

Get the free trial and decide for yourself. I would recommend the Ripple Training FCPX course; there are some workflow differences between FCP7 and 10 that take a bit of getting used to (but that streamline your job more efficiently). With the training course you'll be up and running in 2 days. Most people I know using FCPX can't bear the thought of going back to FCP7 as its workflows are really antiquated in comparison.

refocusedmedia
06-14-2012, 07:01 PM
Most of the negative reaction to FCPX directly after its release was blown out of proportion. Most of the issues that people had with it upon its release (lack of multi cam etc) have been addressed.

Yes, months later after considerable backlash, they frantically made reparations for their insulting oversights. There was no "out of proportion" about it, the flaws in FCPX's initial release were glaring and inexcusable.


In fact Apple have released a lot of free updates for this program (FCPX 1.05 was released this week, as well as new free content for Motion), so Apple certainly is not "no longer interested in vigorous development of NLE" as you say.

True, he should've said "professional NLE". :P


In fact a number of new features included in CS6 bear a striking resemblance to features that had been implemented in FCPX.

Well, that's fair I guess considering a number of features in FCPX had been apart of CS5 and even Vegas for years. FCPX was Apple finally catching up to the rest of the industry, and then offering a few of their own innovations on top of that. Which is fine and typical of any competitive industry like this, but the problem came with their disregard for the professionals who rely on their product. It wasn't until overwhelming complaints and the promise of Adobe CS6 that Apple began to wise up. The promise of a comprehensive editing suite whose NLE has all your features and more, and a multitude of formerly happy customers eager to switch over to it, would have that effect I imagine.


If history is anything to go by; in a couple of years everyone will be copying Apples software.

You have that backwards. History favors Apple because (among other things) they take other people's innovation and put it in a nicer, simpler, more attractive package that is much more approachable and intuitive for the average user. It's a great business model, obviously, but don't mistake that for being at the forefront of said innovation.

J Davis
06-14-2012, 07:08 PM
By far the biggest reason to avoid editing long form with premier is that it it does not support smart rendering

explanatory thread is here
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?265939
of which post 4 is relevant

However where premier shines is in short form edits of long gop media (h264, avchd)
- OR -
a RED online / offline scenario such as editing prores proxies in fcpx and sending xml to premiere to swap in the r3d's.

refocusedmedia
06-14-2012, 07:26 PM
Not exactly, but it does have alternatives for the time being.

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/3/924923

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/cs6-creative-cloud-feature-tour-for-video/save-time-with-powerful-background-rendering-using-media-encoder/

unadog
06-14-2012, 07:26 PM
May 24, 2012 CS6 Release 6.01 - Premiere Pro & Media Exporter -

Enabled “smart rendering”

arniepix
06-14-2012, 07:32 PM
you should use whichever you like better, or whichever suits your needs better. you may find that one is best for some projects, but the other is best for other projects. you may also find out that avid or lightworks or vegas is best for some projects. you may find that a particular client has a particular system installed, and you need to work with that system.

iow, if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. if you have a large set of tools, you can screw slot headed screws with a flat screw driver, phillips head screws with a phillips head driver, and hex nuts with a hex wrench. and you can still hammer the odd nail with your hammer.

J Davis
06-14-2012, 07:45 PM
May 24, 2012 CS6 Release 6.01 - Premiere Pro & Media Exporter -

Enabled “smart rendering”


my heart skipped a beat and I had hope ... alas no according to this

http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2012/05/premiere-pro-cs6-6-0-1-update-bug-fixes-and-improved-opencl-performance.html

J Davis
06-14-2012, 07:48 PM
found a better one ... reading it now
http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/3/924923

J Davis
06-14-2012, 07:51 PM
doesn't look good, there is generation loss. Smart rendering is impossible for an edit of long gop media without an i-frame intermediate codec.

I've said this before. If only adobe had bought cineform before gopro did.

refocusedmedia
06-14-2012, 08:25 PM
doesn't look good, there is generation loss. Smart rendering is impossible for an edit of long gop media without an i-frame intermediate codec.

I've said this before. If only adobe had bought cineform before gopro did.

Not if your timeline is a higher quality than your export will be (applicable for h.264 for web, for example).

simonpwood
06-15-2012, 02:21 AM
Yes, months later after considerable backlash, they frantically made reparations for their insulting oversights. There was no "out of proportion" about it, the flaws in FCPX's initial release were glaring and inexcusable.



True, he should've said "professional NLE". :P



Well, that's fair I guess considering a number of features in FCPX had been apart of CS5 and even Vegas for years. FCPX was Apple finally catching up to the rest of the industry, and then offering a few of their own innovations on top of that. Which is fine and typical of any competitive industry like this, but the problem came with their disregard for the professionals who rely on their product. It wasn't until overwhelming complaints and the promise of Adobe CS6 that Apple began to wise up. The promise of a comprehensive editing suite whose NLE has all your features and more, and a multitude of formerly happy customers eager to switch over to it, would have that effect I imagine.



You have that backwards. History favors Apple because (among other things) they take other people's innovation and put it in a nicer, simpler, more attractive package that is much more approachable and intuitive for the average user. It's a great business model, obviously, but don't mistake that for being at the forefront of said innovation.

You seem to be very emotional about it.

At the end of the day its just a program that edits video. It seems to do this quite well.

Postmaster
06-15-2012, 06:26 AM
Smartrendering is way overrated IMHO.

1. 99% of my footage have some sort of color correction or filter anyway - that rules out smartrendering anyway.
2. Rendering out a master file in an acquisition codec is something I never would do - masters are always uncompressed or a better codec than acquisition.

So what is left for smartrendering?

Frank

J Davis
06-15-2012, 06:38 AM
Frank, I don;t know what you edit with or what edit situations you are in but smart rendering is without a doubt one of the most important tools in a high pressure work environment. I recently cut stuff for Toyota, Hasten and Canon. In each situation the final edits go thought about 20 rounds of tweaks and changes as it must run the gauntlet to be approved by about 10 separate groups of people. Each one of those asks for a small change which means another export / render.

If you have a 10 minute timeline of which you only alter 4 seconds for one of those rounds of changes you do not want to be re-rendering the entire timeline again. And this is just on 10 minute piece, some of the regular work I do is 40+ minutes.

J Davis
06-15-2012, 06:42 AM
For the record I consistently work with all three editors (fcp7, fcpx and premiere) selecting the best one for the job. I'm using fcp7 less and less. Premiere I regard as my codec swiss army knife, kind of like a non-linear compositor because I see it closer to after effects than to editors like avid and fcp that make use of their own native codecs

unadog
06-15-2012, 09:00 AM
So J,

Because of your workflow, wouldn't it make sense to use Prelude in CS6 and transcode at import to a lossless format of the highest quality?

Then you take the hit to the render time once up front, and can use the render frames for export?

You could even start editing with the RAW H.262 and have Prelude transcode in the background, then switch assets later to the newer codec? (Maybe; that sounds a little cumbersome.)

Just thinking that due to your special requirements, a tweaked workflow might make sense.

Michael

J Davis
06-15-2012, 09:34 AM
It depends on the job and whether I'm editing on my gear or if I'm paid to sit in an edit bay. Some small stuff I just keep in premiere

Postmaster
06-15-2012, 11:20 AM
Frank, I don;t know what you edit with or what edit situations you are in but smart rendering is without a doubt one of the most important tools in a high pressure work environment. I recently cut stuff for Toyota, Hasten and Canon. In each situation the final edits go thought about 20 rounds of tweaks and changes as it must run the gauntlet to be approved by about 10 separate groups of people. Each one of those asks for a small change which means another export / render.

If you have a 10 minute timeline of which you only alter 4 seconds for one of those rounds of changes you do not want to be re-rendering the entire timeline again. And this is just on 10 minute piece, some of the regular work I do is 40+ minutes.

Fair enough, I don´t have that kind of situations very often, but on the other hand,
exporting from the timeline is mostly - at least - realtime on my workstation, sometimes even faster.
So I can live wit that.

Frank

GavinAbe
06-17-2012, 11:34 PM
Like J I do not just use one NLE program , I use Edius Pro 6.01 and Adobe CS5 ,but will be which to CS6 on the next project. These days there is no one package that does everything better than the other , you have to find which works for you in your work environment. The best advise many have given is down load the trial versions of the different products and see if they work for you , even Lightworks Studio v11 which is free.

maarek
06-19-2012, 06:23 AM
Frank, I don;t know what you edit with or what edit situations you are in but smart rendering is without a doubt one of the most important tools in a high pressure work environment. I recently cut stuff for Toyota, Hasten and Canon. In each situation the final edits go thought about 20 rounds of tweaks and changes as it must run the gauntlet to be approved by about 10 separate groups of people. Each one of those asks for a small change which means another export / render.

If you have a 10 minute timeline of which you only alter 4 seconds for one of those rounds of changes you do not want to be re-rendering the entire timeline again. And this is just on 10 minute piece, some of the regular work I do is 40+ minutes.

In those cases you just enable Premiere to use "preview files". Then it will not render anything that it has already rendered.

"Smart rendering" is kinda pointless nowadays.

ulisses
06-20-2012, 05:33 PM
Today I did some tests with GH2 native footage in FCX, Premiere and Smoke in a MAC PRO.
The winner was Premiere, I could edit very smooth, playback previews in realtime and I tested 4 PIPs of GH2 footage playing in realtime, render was pretty fast too.
Personally, I don't like the Premiere settings adjustments, keyframes, etc, but the CS6 interface is a lot better and performance is outstanding.
Smoke is very nice and handle footage better than FCPX, lots of control, nice features, but maybe it is ideal for a music video or a TV spot.
FCPX has nice features, editing can be very fast, but I miss the project control, many presets, but lost custom adjustments in many situations. Performance is not close to Premiere.

Thanks,
Ulisses

Matt Harris
06-20-2012, 07:59 PM
Premiere Pro is an easier transition from FCP7 IMHO. FCPX is a whole different ballgame what with merged tracks and what not.
I never figured out FCPX but i used Premiere intuitively from the get go.

Sidderke
06-23-2012, 12:07 PM
About the smart rendering, it's a great feature, and I miss it a lot. It's not in FCP X either. FCP X has some smart rendering going on in the sense that if you for instance, render a color correction, remove it, and put it back, it doesn't have to render again.

But I could cut XDCAM footage in FCP 7 and have it export very quickly, and FCP X is taking me 5 times as long for exactly the same export.
I reported all my tests here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/final-cut-pro-x/508191-big-issue-fcp-x-only-outputting-uncompressed.html

About the question: Premiere or FCP X.
Both have very interesting directions. I first rejected FCP X, and bought Production Suite CS5.5 with the Switch deal. I didn't touch Premiere though, I still hated a lot of the interface (and this is coming from someone who started with Premiere, transitioned to Final Cut and loved FCP a lot more). But CS 6 looks a much cleaner interface, and has many interesting features. As a suite, it's pretty unbeatable.

But FCP X has some very great features too, and Apple has been doing a lot of important upgrades. I gave the software a new chance with FCP 10.0.3, and I cursed a lot but also had a lot of "aha" moments (which is still where I'm at).
I'm not too found of buying another Adobe upgrade again, so I'll wait and see. Apple has some very good upgrades coming to FCP X (R3D support, multiple viewers - whatever that implementation will be - and multichannel audio editing, native MXF support, ...)
Yes Apple botched the FCP X launch in many ways, but they got me some credit after seeing how much they did 'right' with the old FCP suite. It will be interesting too see where this all will be in a year.

alpi69
06-26-2012, 11:14 PM
Premiere Pro is an easier transition from FCP7 IMHO. FCPX is a whole different ballgame what with merged tracks and what not.
I never figured out FCPX but i used Premiere intuitively from the get go.

Yes, PP is definitely looking more like the conservative approach; tracks make it look and feel like FCP7.
But once someone "gets FCPX" it is a very efficient and powerful NLE. FCPX has tools that are quite unique: skimming, auditions, the magnetic timeline, its multicam-mode and the keyword-bins. Depending on your projects these tools can become invaluable to you fast.

I suggest those who are on the fence really take a look at some tutorials about FCPX and give it some time. You can jump into PP6 right away, but maybe FCPX would have been the better choice for you in the long term.

gonzo_entertainment
06-27-2012, 09:22 AM
I know a LOT of people switching from FCP to Premiere just because you don't have to transcode DSLR footage.

Darren Levine
06-27-2012, 09:38 AM
NVIDIA and premiere make a very compelling case for that combo. that, and i also am wondering j davis if you're used to smart rendering why not just render the timeline and always export using previews, that would be 1 generation loss at best, likely not noticeable to the eye, and if that's not enough then i would ask why the footage isn't starting off as or being transcoded to a master format before edit begins.

simonpwood
06-27-2012, 01:15 PM
I know a LOT of people switching from FCP to Premiere just because you don't have to transcode DSLR footage.

You don't have to transcode DSLR footage in FCPX; just import it and work native. No problem.

KyleProhaska
06-30-2012, 08:17 AM
I think they both have their strengths, but for short form I definitely would go with FCPX. The final render speed of FCPX kills Premiere for me. FCPX is insanely fast at final export, I've never seen anything like it. Editing wise they both have things I like but I'm getting used to FCPX more and more. Premiere is nice, I guess I just don't have interest.

Thelonious Ler
07-09-2012, 08:30 PM
I must say I was reluctant to hop on the Adobe train for editing as I was an avid Final Cut user since I went to college in 2000. When I decided to switch to CS5.5 I didn't know what to expect and found myself still switching to Final Cut 7 to do all my editing. When CS6 came out I decided to see what FCPX and Premiere had to offer and found that I liked CS6 a whole lot more. It seemed like a natural progression from FCP 7 without having to wrap my brain around something completely new. It added things that I missed in FCP 7 and things that I wished where in FCP 7 (and CS5.5 for that matter) like Warp Stabilizer and various other tools. I tried the 30 day trial of FCPX and found it never stuck with me as an editing choice. I honestly missed not editing on Premiere. I agree with a lot of people that say the platform is important, but not as important as having the skill set and/or storytelling ability to be an editor. But as a whole, I think Premiere is starting to make a case for being on of the best editing software at an affordable price, especially with the great integration with After Effects, Audition, SpeedGrade, Photoshop, etc....

J Davis
07-09-2012, 08:35 PM
... as I was an avid Final Cut user since I went to ...

an interesting choice of adjective

Thelonious Ler
07-09-2012, 08:42 PM
I'm glad someone caught that....

VMT
07-14-2012, 12:36 AM
Which NLE to use depends on personal preference, industry niche, and client need. There ain't no "best." They all do the same thing which is cut video.

I prefer FCP X for the editing speed and the new thinking of the trackless timeline and magnetic timeline. Very cool.

If I don;t have a deadline and can edit leisurely, I like Lightworks traditional workflow. And it's only $60.

nwstudios
07-14-2012, 07:16 PM
Apple not making a "real" desktop computer other than the Mac Pro was a major factor for me.

mcgeedigital
07-14-2012, 07:42 PM
Apple not making a "real" desktop computer other than the Mac Pro was a major factor for me.

I've had several editors I know, myself included, switch not only to CS6 but over to PC too.

C'mon in, the water is fine.

BillinSC
07-15-2012, 08:01 AM
I am not all that hung up on FCPX vs. PP. I like Mac, and I liked FCP. I have been using it since version 1.25. FCP X weirds some folks out as they think the magnetic timeline is something like bad magic. In practicality, now matter what NLE you use, you have a main video track and anything and any video layer on top of that track will be the one you are watching. You can still overlay any other video track on top of the magnetic track. It just makes the connected clip sticky so that if you add something else to the mix or trim in various places, whatever is on top stays stuck to that point where you connected it. You can still move the connected clip.

Beyond that, it is still a matter of edit points, in/out, edits, sound tracks, transitions, etc. Granted, there are certain issues with the way they set up the handling of media, but once you understand that this too is very manageable, you really won't find FCP X all that bad. Their are some other short-comings, but they all have some issues. The only thing that bugs the heck out of me is that Apple does nothing for the towers. Their latest upgrade offering on the towers was an total failure. The lack of thunderbolt was ludicrous and their insistence that thunderbolt not be available via an expansion card is crazy. Throw in the soldered RAM on the top of the line retina display MBP, and I will just stick with my 17 inch MBP. Apple is either planning a killer offering in a tower or they have lost their collective minds in terms of the professional market. Perhaps too many of the folks at Apple are going retro to the original idea of a Mac that could not be upgraded.

Creative Suite 6 is very promising, and will likely gain me as a customer if I switch to a PC. HP has some terrific workstations as well as laptops. I see this as a viable move. At the end of the day it is all about the creative vision and skill in slicing and placing the snippets that make up the piece into a decent story, not the hardware or software to get there.

Sincerely,
Bill

VMT
07-15-2012, 08:27 AM
Apple not making a "real" desktop computer other than the Mac Pro was a major factor for me.

It's disappointing to be stuck with old tech in the Mac Pro. Hopefully the new redesigned Mac Pro will be worth the wait, and speed up FCPX considerably.

gonzo_entertainment
07-15-2012, 09:29 AM
You don't have to transcode DSLR footage in FCPX; just import it and work native. No problem.

I know 3 or 4 guys who edit exclusively (for a living) and a dozen or more film makers who sometimes edit, not a single one of them uses X. When I say Final Cut I mean 7.

VMT
07-15-2012, 09:42 AM
I know 3 or 4 guys who edit exclusively (for a living) and a dozen or more film makers who sometimes edit, not a single one of them uses X. When I say Final Cut I mean 7.

Are you saying that there's something wrong with these editors? <sarcasm>

nwstudios
07-16-2012, 10:28 AM
It's disappointing to be stuck with old tech in the Mac Pro. Hopefully the new redesigned Mac Pro will be worth the wait, and speed up FCPX considerably.

Xeon workstation just seems like overkill these days. Fast I7 4 or 6 core with a decent graphic card and internal RAID would suit me just fine.