FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

T

TangMotorPictures

Active member
Alright guys, which one should I get?

Dual G4 - 1Ghz, 1G Ram, large hard drive with Final Cut Pro pro ?

Dual G4 - 1Ghz, 1G Ram, large hard drive with Avid?

Dual G4 - 1Ghz, 1G Ram, large hard drive with Adobe Premiere pro 1.5?

OR a PC with Avid Mojo?

or PC with Premiere?

Going to need all your experience to help this newbie out. Please help. Pros and Cons will help
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

Nix the premiere in all of your equations...I didn't even think they'd ported a version of premiere 1.5 over to apple...

Vegas on PC is much preferred to premiere on a PC.

My $0.02 says that Final Cut Pro gives more bang for the buck then Avid, so I'd put it between Vegas and FCP.

I use both, but I prefer FCP because I've used it longer.
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

Thanks for your input. I wasn't sure which platform i should edit on. I personally like pc than mac. But i heard fcp is the editor software of choice.

do you really hate premiere? I did edit on premiere before on pc and Speed Razor. Have you heard of speed razor. But pc most always crash or freeze on me.

i am looking at a dual processor on a g4.
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

There isn't a clearn "editor of choice" really...the truth is that the software is only as good as the editor operating it. People choose their platform for the hardware underneith, the design of the interface, and the integration with other applications primarily. Reputation is something to be considered, but not over comfort in most cases.

I personally dislike premiere. I've found it to be an extremely unreliable peice of software that is very much affected by your system's configuration. I'm constantly told stories of how Premiere works like a rock on certain well-maintained systems, but then I hear far more tales of crashes and general instability.

The machine I edit on for work has a copy of Premiere installed on it and the program crashes constantly whenever you try and make opacity changes to overlaid clips. On this same machine, Vegas 4.0 runs like a rock and has never once crashed since it was installed. THe trial version of vegas 5.0 has already crashed twice in the past two weeks, so honestly you can't ever tell how a PC is going to react to software.

My experience tells me that it is far more difficult to keep a PC optomized for editing then it is to keep a Mac clean. Obviously, both systems are subject to mistakes by their operators...but you'll find that the majority of problems reported online with FCP/FCE are typically because they are pirate copies of the software, or they've got some third party software conflicting within the system. Final Cut does crash from time to time, but I didn't experience the same level of instability that I have with every PC editor.

The real strength for apple is that they are a hardware and software vendor. Because they manage the hardware that goes into a Mac, they don't get the same amount of driver conflicts that you get with a PC...also because their OS is built on top of a well tested widely developed standard, it's far more stable then any version of Windows.

AVID was the standard for ever, but I perceive it to be a bit of an expensive solution for DV. Others might disagree, but I'd choose it every time over premiere.

A Dual G4 is a fine system to edit on, and you would probably be pleased with that as a solution, but in the end you're going to have to make your decision by what you're most comfortable with.

If there's an apple store neer you, check and see if they're having any introductory classes in Final Cut Pro or Express. THat can give you a good primer on the interface.

But obviously, don't take just my word for it...get some other opinions before you buy anything.
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

I find Premiere Pro to be very stable on my computer. Most stories I've heard about Premiere are about the old versions. (and have encountered as well).
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

I have Premier Pro 1.5 and Avid 4.0. Avid is pretty stable and great to know if you ever plan to be a professional editor as they have the market locked in.

Premier Pro looks very much like Final Cut Pro now. It is real nice BUT...If you edit a 24p project (as apposed to 24p advanced) you are gonna see a real sucky strobing effects when you have overblown highlights (I have a mountain shot with some sunlight highlights that look like an SOS morse code signal). Adobe so far has not anounced a fix, a patch or even acknowledged that it is a problem. My guess is they will make a new verison 2.0 and charge for the fix. That is my $0.02.
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

..adobe announced some time ago that applying the broadcast safe filter to a video which exhibits the strobing wshould solve the problem. the strobing is introduced because the program does not render the new frames with a white luma value of up to 110 IRE and instead limits the new frame to a maximum IRE of 100 which of course luma clamps the frame, and results in the strobing that you see. if you apply the broadcast safe effect to all the footage, it should luma clamp ALL of the footage to the 100 IRE value, and  eliminate the strobing.  this should be corrected as well as some other little nitpicks per the 24p functionality in upcoing versions.. adobe doesnt generally put out patches though, and we wont likely see a fix until the next version uprgade is available and as stated above, we will likely have to pay for it.. but it will come with other functionality as well.

as far as looks, premiere actually looks like After Effects now, and has the same layout albiet bieng an NLE layout vs compositor, and much of the same functionality .. including the ability to swap most filters and presets for filters.. and copy and paste directly between the apps as well as import projects and other functionalities due to tight adobe integration.

all of the NLE s can be tried out by downloading a trial version for testing.. just check them out and see what you like, and which will fit ito your editing style and workflow the best, and integrate with the other apps youd like to use for your entire production workflow. i personally use the Adobe video collection 1.5 professional version, and wouldnt trade it for the world, but people on vegas and DVD architect and the SONY group of software like that too.. and MAC users are keen to their FCP. it all boils down to what suits you best.. its a choice of working style, and preference of user interface to accomodate your style.. they are all capeable of doing the same thing in the end for all practical issues. so just make your own informed decision by testing them out, and reading on thier functionality and whatnot with all the info available. :)
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

The reponse I saw on the Premier Board from DVA (David Vasquez Premiere Pro Team ) pretty much told (in great detail, and that is VERY nice of the employees there) how to apply the fix. However in his message he states..

"By bringing the shadows and highlights of the unclipped frames within the range of the clipped frame (somewhere around 0..100IRE) the strobing effect should be reduced (although not completely eliminated - there is likely to still be some subtle chroma strobing as well)."

It is not completly eliminated. I will have to test to see if that is true for me, but that is what he said. Again, my $0.02. I do not know if there has been a follow up to this.
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

My solution to that problem is that if you're using premiere pro 1.5 and are using 24p, just use advanced... solves your problem...

I personally like premiere. I have always been a windows user and have not experienced any issues with it on a computer that is well maintained. You put crap on your computer and it's bound to interfere with other programs like premiere. You keep it clean, you're more likely to experience perfect running conditions. Windows XP is remarkably stable compared to previous versions of windows and IMO is comparably stable with Mac OSX as long as you keep it clean.

Another thing about PCs is that you can supercharge them to say the least. Apple has very limited configurations for their systems. While this can be a good thing, it's also a bad thing...

You can pump up a PC with some of the latest processors, an almost unlimited amount of RAM and the industry's top video cards. This will set you back a pretty penny though... as will a good Mac system. I wouldn't recommend pumping up a PC unless you're going to be building it yourself or getting someone you know to build it. It becomes too cost prohibitive to go to another company for those kinds of PCs...

PCs tend to offer a wider variety of software as well giving you more options in the end.

Now i may sound like a pro-pc kinda guy, but i do know where apple offers pluses as well. Their display systems and interface are much easier on the eyes. This sounds like a minor thing, but when you're sitting in front of a computer screen for hours on end, this makes a pretty big difference in the quality of your work as you're not straining as you work and is easier on the mind thus, allowing you to work better and more efficiently.

Mac OS X also runs like lightning due to the fact that it's unix based. As Barnes stated because they make both the software and the hardware it tends to work better together, or at least more efficiently. This means that a Mac at a slower quoted speed processor and specs, will run equal to a PC that is quoted as being faster in the specs simply because of the efficiency that it runs at.

I've done quite a bit of work trying to determine which is better, Mac or PC and I've been unable to come to a conclusion. My ideal situation is to have 2 editing systems, one of each for different projects and have the best of both worlds... It's really all preference. Things you should consider are: Price for what you need. Editing DV isn't going to need quite as much as HD or 2k files. Avid isn't really needed in that case if that's what you're going to be sticking to. I have never used vegas so can't comment on it.

Adobe has great integration with other adobe products. Photoshop, After Effects, Encore, Audition... this is something to take into consideration. Will you be requiring the use of these other programs? Adobe may be the way to go...

Sorry I could've have given you a more definite answer... there really isn't one... the reason all these products exist and continue to be successful is because they are all used pretty equally... try to find what you'd be most comfortable with. If you don't have experience with any of them, just pick one and learn it and you'll become one of the advocates for that one :P
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

I do not want to come off sounding anti-premier, as I am not. It is actually the NLE I use along with after effects, encore, etc. I was mentioning one irritating drawback for DVX100a users. I really like the integration between the products. Copying the timelines from Premier to After Effects is very cool. It is far more stable than previous versions too. And I have it set up to look alot like Final Cut Pro. I was just mentioning a very irritating limitation.
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

I've been through this path through and through.

FWIW:
Back here, DIY PCs are a whole lot cheaper than outright Macs :( (Would love to have a dual G5 running FCP, just for the sheer fun of it) so after spending sooo much on DVX and accessories, I went with a PC (since I've been using PCs more than Mac in my lifetime)

Then comes Prem and Vegas. (Or Edius/Liquid edition ...)

As much as I hated Prem from 5.5 onwards to 6.5, I can get Matrox RTX 100 pro and adobe prem, audition and encore DVD at cheaper than Vegas with dvd architect, Canopus + Prem/Edius, or Liquid edition.

Plus, however you hate Adobe, Photoshop and After FX are still really leaders in their field and fully compatible.

so I decidely, with much thought, to go with Prem Pro.


(Most stable platform I've runned before ? - Media 100 iFinish = also most basic , i.e. no bells and whistles.)
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

I wouldn't say that After Effects is a leader in it's field...a leader in it's market, yes, but not in the field. Descreet seems to have that sewn up right now...but that's just me nitpicking.

Photoshop is great, which is why premiere is so consistently disapointing and lackluster. Adobe really bumbled their video editing platform, and if they'd put more money into (perhaps underengineering?) premiere...it would be the dominant package across all platforms.

The truth is that the best editing software and hardware is the one that allows you to work as fast as possible. If you're a new editor, having a dual processor overclocked PC still isn't going to increase your speed, technique or efficiency. If you're a seasoned editor, a single processor G4 isn't really going to slow you down either...

It's the person in front of the machine that turns out the final edit and people tend to lose sight of that when selecting a system based on obscure horsepower comparisons.

Pick the software you want to learn, not the hardware you think you can upgrade. Editing houses don't upgrade their workstations every time a new processor comes out because the benefit does not outweigh the cost in upgrading. It's no different for a single user. Having the ability to upgrade whatever machine you use doesn't mean that you should spend the money to do it, as every dollar dumped into that box eats a piece of your profit margin.

Keeping your system current doesn't make you compeditive. Your client isn't hiring your machine, they're hiring you. If you're constantly dumping money into your equipment just for the sake of improving it, then I think it's probably safe to say that you've got a toy rather then a tool.
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

J Barnes,
I understand what you mean. You really put that into light. When it comes down to it, it is the person in front of the system. It is the person behind the camera.

Bottom line, I know it is up to me and my preference on which software to go with. I am just curious on anyone out there that have experience editing with multi platforms with different software.

There is difference in preference. But I would like to know their reason for going with one program over the other. That is why some use Vegas, some use Premiere, and some FCP.

My experience:
I edit on Adobe 6.0 (3 years ago)
I edit on in-Sync Speed Razor (3 years ago)
I had a dual 450 G4 with FCP 2.0 ( 3-5 years ago)

I like Adobe premiere, because it's on a PC. But hate the fact that it crash consistently. So hopefully, if I upgrade my computer it wouldn't crash. And I hope that the Premiere Pro 1.5 solve some of those issues.

I use in-Sync Speed Razor, but don't have and don't want to shell out $2-3k on a TARGA 3000 board.

I don't like Apple that much, but everytime I used FCP on the Apple it NEVER crashed!!! Something I like, but not the Mac OS interface.

You would probably then say, since you don't like Apple, then FORGET about FCP. But see, most people say that if I have tooooo much other programs on your computer, that I would run into Trouble. If I was to use it only as an editing station, then no problem.

So is it worth buying an Apple dual G4 1.GHZ w/FCP worth it just for editing? Or upgrading my PC?

So going back, which EDITING SOFTWARE do you like to use, and Why? What are the PROS & the CONS?

Thanks though Barnes, I really don't want to shell that money out, but sometimes have that impulse.
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

Something that is very important to consider with people who have used Premiere in the past is what operating system they were running it with. PCs have been notorious for their crashing and stalling due to the Windows operating system. Windows 98 and ME run with a completely different operating system than the newer versions of windows...

Here's a short little lineage of PC operating systems. MS had two departments running their OS development around 1994 or so. One team was in charge of producing an operating system with higher multimedia capabilities and to make it more user friendly and capable of running on newer machines. The other system was designed for computers in business specifically for the purposes of advanced networking and productivity. Here we have Windows 95 and Windows NT... both came out around the same time I believe. It's possible NT came out a tad later or seemed that way because it wasn't marketed towards consumers but to business...

From these two operating systems came further upgrades. Windows 98, Windows ME and Windows 98SE. Windows NT hadn't developed anything new because their system was rock solid and they just added service packs so businesses had a cheaper method of upgrading... the turnover with consumers was much higher and the marketing of new software made way more sense. Eventualyl computers became better and the NT people came up with Windows 2000. Windows 98 was very much still DOS based from back in the day. NT had developed a completely original interface with the processor seperate from DOS. Windows 95,98,ME were more or less DOS shells...

Now as hardware became more and more advanced, so did the demands on the software and it's ability to perform. Sadly the original DOS systems were lacking and had difficulty keeping stable with new processors. MS continued to try to market this to consumers and that's how ME (worst OS ever) and 98SE came out (a rengineered 98 when they realized ME wasn't working). After the poor performance and crashing of these two OS's Microsoft decided to abandon old DOS style operating systems and decided to go with the newer, properly engineered windows NT line... After windows 2000 (best OS for any underpowered PC) came Windows XP.

The reason for windows XP was to appeal to the consumer market which needed something for the faster computers out on the market that could handle multimedia and still maintain stability. The team that was working with ME trying to make it more multimedia friendly joined back up with the 2000 guys and their stable program. Now you have a consumer based OS that runs faster, more stable, and still provides the average consumer with what they need on a PC. Instead of having a completely different OS for consumers and for business, they came out with XP home edition and XP Pro...

Windows XP is considerable more stable than any older operating systems so you can't judge Adobe in it's performance on running on these older operating systems. It's not Adobe crashing, it's the operating system that runs Adobe that's crashing. All processes run under a windows system runs through the OS, whereas Unix derived systems (such as OS/X) run straight through the processor and bypass the operating system. Unix based systems are better at delegating where Windows has to have control of everything.

The new versions of Windows are IMO just as stable as OS/X as long as you take care of the software and don't muck up the computer with useless crap. Same goes for Macs though, if you muck them up they'll start to crash too...

(wow, that was a long post... hope people find it interesting though)
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

Wow!
Do you work for Microsoft? Haha. Jk, thanks for the backstory. It helps and it makes sense. It put things into light. Yeah, when I was using in-sync speed razor and adobe premiere (i think 5.1) maybe if that even sounds familiar, it was on Windows 2000/NT.

I do agree that OS/ XP is a whole lot better. Fluidity.

----------"All processes run under a windows system runs through the OS, whereas Unix derived systems (such as OS/X) run straight through the processor and bypass the operating system. Unix based systems are better at delegating where Windows has to have control of everything. "---------------

Can you explain more about this???

Thanks to MS sales manager :).
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

lol, i don't work for Microsoft, I just make it my business to know the reasons behind a lot of things. It also helps to have a brother who's studying computer engineering and gets to learn about all of this as it's important to his future career...

By that statement I mean if there was a man who had people coming to him to use his computer facilities, ie, they needed to have something typed or printed or produced, they would come and tell him what they needed. Now, if that person was Unix, they would tell the person who needs the computer which one they should go to in order to do what they need and let them do it themselves. If that owner of the computer facilities was Windows, people would come up to him with what they needed done and the guy would do it himself and bring the product back. If you have a lot of people asking this guy to do stuff, he'll be slower than the guy who tells the people where to go and lets them each do it themselves. This is a physical example of what the software does.

On a Windows system only windows accesses the processor. Everything goes through windows. On Unix, all programs have direct access to the processor and Unix is simply the bridge between the two. It governs the way the programs interact with the processor rather than doing it itself.
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

I am a college student who uses Premiere Pro 1.5 consistently every day, and it absolutely blows away Final Cut Pro HD, even though my system is not the most high-powered machine on the market (AMD Baby ;D). I'm running a 15.4" notebook with an Athlon64 3400+, 512 RAM, 60 Gig internal and 300 Gig FireWire HD's, mobile Radeon 9000, and XP Pro, along with a second monitor. In addition to Premiere, I also run 3ds max 6, AE 6.5, PS CS, ACID Pro 4, and Encore DVD, and my machine works beautifully.
Contrary to what many people seem to be saying, Premiere is rock-solid, and the real-time rendering makes it run seamlessly. I have used FCP on several occasions (most of them were forced painfully upon me by my instructors before I convinced them I could do all the work on my own machine), and, though I wasn't expecting much, I was still disappointed. Trying to edit with any sort of efficiency in the single button dumbed-down environment so familiar to Mac users made even the simplest tasks take a painfully long time. Also, render times for both machines are within 10 seconds of each other for both DV and MPEG 2. Now, just so you get the picture, I'm talking my single processor Athlon64 notebook compared to this supposedly "cutting-edge" dual 2 GHz PowerMac G5 with a Radeon 9600 PRO Power Mac G5 Edition video card.
In short, if you like working at a lazy, home-movie-editing pace with a half-buried user interface, go drop $3500 for a Mac. If you need to work at real-world speed, and need flexibility and multi-app compatibility (i.e. Procoder 2, Boris, 3ds max, and the whole range of Adobe apps), you would be wise to spring for a PC. That is, as long as Steve Jobs hasn't brainwashed you yet...

Here's some basic numbers - you do the math

Total for the Macaholics: Dual G5 PowerPC: $2499
Final Cut Pro HD: $999

Grand total for me? Notebook: $1249
Premiere Pro: $699


Hmmmm......


Obviously, I don't expect many full-time Mac users to actually understand what I'm trying to say here, but that's ok. Everyone has their preference, and that's your choice. Besides, I have yet to meet a Mac user who could handle two mouse buttons at the same time.
 
Re: FINAL CUT PRO vs AVID vs PREMIERE

It's really hard to take criticism seriously when someone complains about an interface that they have no working understanding of. In all my years of experience working with professional editors of ANY platform, I can say this with great certainty...if you're using the mouse to edit, you're not an editor.

This is obviously a gross generalization, but the point being that most editors of any worth do all their editing on the keyboard. Criticizing an interface you have no experience in just shows that you have no experience in it. Your lack of knowledge of a working process does not mean that the workflow is flawed, that’s just broken logic.

A Professional Final Cut editor will kick the crap out of any average Premiere editor 10 times out of 10.

Likewise, a Professional Vegas editor will kick the crap out of any average Final Cut editor 10 times out of 10.

If you really understand that it's the person behind the machine that makes the product, you will also understand how moronic it is to argue the finer details of interfaces and horsepower as evidence of superiority.

Hardware is no substitute for ability. Software, no substitute for experience.

(that being said, I'm making my money by editing on a dual xeon with vegas 4)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top