POLL: Which NLE will be the "industry standard" a year from now?

POLL: Which NLE will be the "industry standard" a year from now?

  • Premiere Pro

    Votes: 62 35.6%

  • FCP X

    Votes: 39 22.4%

  • FCP 7

    Votes: 8 4.6%

  • Avid

    Votes: 59 33.9%

  • Vegas

    Votes: 3 1.7%

  • i movie ;)

    Votes: 1 0.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Total voters
    174
Editing is already for the mass market with the "built in" iMovie on Macs and Windows movie maker on Pc's.

FCPX is what Aperture is to photoshop- not the industry standard, a prosumer app ( I use it) for photo enthusiasts with some pro features, but lacking the versatility and features of photoshop. Is Aperture a success in the professional market? Not really. But it costs 99 USD, a bargain compared to photoshop. So hobbyist buy it. But photo industry professionals use Photoshop. While FCP was "the photoshop" of the video industry, now it changed into "Aperture". Broadcast professionals want the versatility and functionality of "Photoshop", not "aperture". And seeing that "photoshop" morphed into "aperture", they will move to "Coreldraw" .
 
SPZ said:
Editing is already for the mass market with the "built in" iMovie on Macs and Windows movie maker on Pc's.

FCPX is what Aperture is to photoshop- not the industry standard, a prosumer app ( I use it) for photo enthusiasts with some pro features, but lacking the versatility and features of photoshop. Is Aperture a success in the professional market? Not really. But it costs 99 USD, a bargain compared to photoshop. So hobbyist buy it. But photo industry professionals use Photoshop. While FCP was "the photoshop" of the video industry, now it changed into "Aperture". Broadcast professionals want the versatility and functionality of "Photoshop", not "aperture". And seeing that "photoshop" morphed into "aperture", they will move to "Coreldraw" .
Click to expand...

Huh? Basically every photographer I know uses Aperture or Lightroom (two similar products). So Aperture is definitely used by pros on high-quality sets. But you cannot compare the Aperture-Photoshop analogy with NLEs. One is a tool to manage your content and to make the best possible image BEFORE it gets into secondary creation processes and finally publishing.

NLEs have to combine these jobs and FCPX definitely is a step ahead with its way to manage your data. Maybe it is now behind in the creating-something-out-of-it and publishing part, because it misses a few features, but it has a very special feel to it - especially when you get back to the "old ways" of working after having FCPX.
Is it for everyone? Nope. Neither is Photoshop...because there are Illustrator and Lightroom around it. Every software has its uses.

I have here in my studio Avid Liquid Edition, Edius, FCP7 and FCPX. Guess what....every now and then everyone of them gets a spin depending on the work I need to do or the legacy project I need to fix.
But from here on out I stick to FCPX because it combines the best pieces of them all. But that´s my feeling; maybe I just don´t like messy timelines.
 
SPZ said:
Editing is already for the mass market with the "built in" iMovie on Macs and Windows movie maker on Pc's. .
Click to expand...

iMovie and MovieMaker are limited as to be a frustration. Many people have moved beyond the capabilities of these built in apps, but still don't want to mess with a full featured system like FCP7, PP, and Avid.

I like the idea that apple is challenging the status quo and seeking to meet needs in an evolving environment. It is obviously not for the old(current) industry standards. It is for the web iGeneration. But who knows what 3rd party vendors will turn it into. From a business stand point, FCPX seems like a good move, but a lot of pros are rightfully pissed that they are left hanging.

Rant done. I really need to stop reading this thread and get back to using Adobe products.
 
I also like the idea, I just don't like the fact they call it final cut pro since it's obviously a lesser product for professional broadcast and film. If it was called IMovie Pro, or something new entirely I would not have a problem with this.

Let's see by next NAB how the NLE playing field will be. Last time Apple proudly showed a graph with activations and industry use. I want to see this next year.
 
SPZ said:
I also like the idea, I just don't like the fact they call it final cut pro since it's obviously a lesser product for professional broadcast and film.
Click to expand...

What all encompassing, defined by one objective and agreed upon definition of "professional broadcast and film industry" would that be?

I can accept that FCP X has some collaborative limitations in its current iteration, but how can anyone buy into an objective definition of what constitutes the "professional broadcast and film industry."

There is no consensus definition of what that constitutes, nor do or others believe that anyone can claim FCP X isn't a capable tool for every professional shop or editor.
 
I say professional broadcast and film, not Solely professional. If your shooting for the web or doing marriage coverage and other events straight to DVD it should work. As for the importance of accurate broadcast monitor monitoring, use of colorbars, I suggest you guys check the creative cow forum for FCPX, some engineers and top broadcast professionals post there. There's a dedicated thread explaining why it's so critical to conform to certain standards for broadcast work. And this simply cannot be done in FCPX because it's not in there.
 
SPZ, we are currently working on two doucmentaries for two international networks with high quality standards and make them in FCPX.
We only need to leave FCPX for the output of 8 dedicated audio-tracks, but all imagery and even audiowork is done in FCPX.

do i miss my broadcast monitor? Oh yes. But for now I rely on the videoscopes and we do render fullrez previews in the background every now and then to check, but so far it looks great.

I use FCPX because I have to create 3 different films (these two broadcasts plus a film for festivals) from one 9-day shoot and the way FCPX organizes my data is just so superior it saves me days of work.

And in a few months when the broadcast monitoring works and the audio-bus works I will be up to speed.
But I understand it won´t work for others especially when in a tape-environment.
 
I think that the ad agencies, who I might add are facing a diminishing market every year with companies cutting them out and finding alternatives will have minimal impact. Television is no longer broadcasting, it is narrowcasting and becoming more and more viewer specific every day. Smaller budgets for projects now reflect the ease at which hight quality production can be achieved and there is much more competition.Clients and viewers alike expect that what they watch look excellent and with the amount of choice out there, they make no hard commitments, if it isn't to their taste they are gone. The indy film market is exploding and the new generation (mean most of you guys) support this system.
I have used/owned every Mac based NLE since they came out and currently have two edit suites based on FCP. I bought PP a while ago after Barry Green had written something profound about how it dealt with my HMC150 codec. Sure it is cool and not very different from the FCP I work with now. The bottom line, is it is a tool, I have not tried FCP X yet, don't really need it to be frank. My current system more than handles everthing I need at least for now and when it comes time that it does not, I will buy the best tool for the job then. The bottom line is that Uncle Charlie and the Kid who does You Tube videos are a reality that we all have to accept. The elite"private club" that this business used to be is a thing of the past and video/media literacy is second nature to many these days. We used to have a saying when I directed variety television: "they don't go home hummin' the set." It is about content, always has been and always will be. And Apple Inc. is a business whose responsibility is to make money and exploit the biggest and most profitable markets possible and so far that is what they have done well.
Brian

(After editing 16mm on a Steenbeck my first video edit system was a linear vhs offline first with a horita and later a pc linked to a convergance controller and edit lister software. We conformed to 1" and added effects. I thought it was incredible compared to the overnight sessions on 2" Quad machines when I used to edit variety and sports for major broadcasters.)
 
Last edited:
In the end it really does not matter what you use, if it works for you and you are able to give a very good end product then that is the best product to use, warts and all....... LOLOL We are not mind readers and will never know if FCPX will ever be come what FCP7 was or even better , Apple will do what they feel will help their pockets and so will Adobe do etc.... and we as users will just have to make the choice and accept it or change.
 
For news, nothing is fast as GrassValley Edius. ABC bought about 200 boxes, along with P2 card Panasonic cameras. Instant editing off the cards, and then upload to FTP. Man, my VNR's are up faster than ever before.

JohnnyD
 
I think we will see more of a blend of all three NLEs, assuming FCPx can learn to play nice with the other tools. The shake-up that Apple has caused will force the major houses to consider the risk of focusing on only one editing system. You do not want your enti business model to come crashing down if a companychNges directions or flames out. From a capability perspective all three NLEs are approaching parity (again given Apple the benefit of the doubt that they will add the necessary tools bac) so you will use the best tool for the job you are doing: maybe
Fcpx for the short, run and gun news story, PP for something that needs to round trip to AE and MC for the long form movie.

Time will tell.
 
Jisgren said:
The shake-up that Apple has caused will force the major houses to consider the risk of focusing on only one editing system. You do not want your enti business model to come crashing down if a companychNges directions or flames out.
Click to expand...

So far, that has been only Apple. It is ridiculous to think that a business WON'T focus on only one editing system.
 
Interesting:

QC survived, FCPX a success-story?

So the file is with the broadcaster, we can reflect on the last 3 weeks of FCPX as in 10.0 experience.

Do we like FCPX? yes, some of it.
Does it frustrate us? yes, a lot at times.
Is it ready for broadcast. Definitely not, not on its own. You can produce good results with it, but not without help from FCP7. And that needs to be addressed fast or they lose their fanbase VERY VERY quickly.

Where can I start?
Click to expand...

http://fcpxmegatest.blogspot.com/
 
JohnnyD said:
For news, nothing is fast as GrassValley Edius. ABC bought about 200 boxes, along with P2 card Panasonic cameras. Instant editing off the cards, and then upload to FTP. Man, my VNR's are up faster than ever before. JohnnyD
Click to expand...
Yeah but every editor that works at ABC hates the grass valley editing system whether it be Aurorua or Edius editing programs we are forced to use. Almost all the editors prefer Final Cut Pro 7 hands down. Edius is awful and Aurorua is even worse. I don't think anyone at ABC even asked the editors what they prefer they just bought whatever they could get the cheapest. Why they didn't go with a system proven to work like Avid or Final Cut is beyond me. Grass Valley sucks at making editing systems they should stick to making switchers. I think Windows movie maker is more feature rich.
 
Premiere works in realtime with native P2 media (actually with every media from DV to 5k RED raw and uncompressed), how can Edius be faster than that?

And yeah, Edius can´t even handle RED raw material.

Frank
 
Last edited:
Considering that Avid currently has less market share than Adobe, the really botched release of ProTools 10, Avid just laid off 600 people, just reported not so great financial statement, let a top level exec go, demand for CS4 is weak, they closed a physical site, I don't see Avid being that healthy. I hope they do a better job with the new NLE release and don't screw it up like they just did for PT10.

Also, with the plans Apple has for FCP X, it's going to be a very interesting year coming. Automatic Duck now supports FCP X and is free, more and more plugin developers are on board, more high end features are coming out (including legacy FCP support in one form or another), it's going to be a very, very interesting 2012.

But I don't see Avid doing much of anything. Adobe has just left them in the dust, and FCP X will be growing faster then either will keep up with.

And have you actually used Edius? It's the most assbackwards, clunky, non-intuitive, slowest workflow I've ever seen. It's all marketing hype, and outdated garbage, IMHO.
 
I've been using FCPX for months now, and can honestly say I prefer it over FCP7. There are things at times that irritate, but when has that not been the case with a NLE? I honestly feel like we edit quicker and smarter with FCPX. Albeit we are a fairly small shop, the workflow we have put together over a NAS works like butter. I'll be making a write up of it soon.

FCPX isn't perfect. There are definitely issues, and i don't think it is for everybody. Scratch that. I think FCPX is for EVERYBODY, and it might not work as desired by the top-niche. But for 70% of video work out there, I think this $299 ticket is a REALLY good ticket.
 
Like many, and despite being a long term Apple fella, I have begun to consider my options. Especially so if Apple discontinues the MacPro line. FWIW, Avid has been bleeding red ink and they just laid off 200+ people, 10% of the company. Not the sign of a healthy robust company going forward.

Grant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top