FCP X vs Premiere Pro

Elmer_Lang

Elmer_Lang

Well-known member
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?
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...


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/
 
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.
 
simonpwood said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
J Davis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not if your timeline is a higher quality than your export will be (applicable for h.264 for web, for example).
 
refocusedmedia said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Last edited:
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top