Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
To be honest, I don't really see the logic in being tied to any one editing application. I have FCP and Premiere on my system, along with a trial version of Avid MC5. Knowledge is power.
Which editing software will you use for AF100 projects?
- Thread starter Mike@AF
- Start date
Only if I transcode first. If I use Premiere Pro the real advantage will be in editing with the native footage. I'd then have to transcode to ProRes and then send to Color since Color won't work with AVCHD. Unless Color will work with re-wrapped AVCHD (via Clipwrap). I haven't bothered to test that though.
EDIT: Also, one of the biggest reasons for the change would be the Quicktime gamma bug, but I don't know if there's a way to get around that with Premiere Pro CS5 either.
Last edited:
hadi-dimachkieh
Member
Im doing 12 gigs on a i7 quad as well i doubt i will really need 24... but we'll see
I agree. I have FCS and Adobe Master Collection installed. But I think everyone has their primary "go to" editing software. I'd certainly keep FCP, but might change the editing app I use the most.
Joe Walker
Well-known member
None of you have "manned" up and purchased a Smoke system? You bunch of sissies!
Jarek Zabczynski
Veteran
That should change with the next OSX release. Apparently they have to make two different builds, one for Leopard, one for Lion, because of the different QuickTime implementations.
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
How the hell does Smoke cost more than Maya and Combustion combined? That must be a mighty good nle for 15k.
It will still rely on Quicktime and knowing Apple I wouldn't count on native editing. The version for Leopard/Snow Leopard will likely still use QT7 and the version for Lion will likely use the completed QTX framework and possibly bring the suite up to 64bit. Personally I'm not really expecting much more than any of that. In reality, Apple doesn't really need to do much. I'd be happy with 64bit, full use of multi-core processors and multi processors, and finally fix the gamma shift bug. Native editing would be a bonus, but I'm not counting on it. At best they'd just do a rewrap with every format like they do with DVCProHD/MXF files from P2 cameras, basically building Clipwrap's functionality into FCP. If they do that I'll stick with FCP, otherwise I'll probably just flip over to Adobe.
Ha! Someone finally picked up on that. I wasn't expecting anyone to actually be using it. The first nonlinear editing app I used was Discreet Logic Edit*, which is basically a predecessor to Smoke, so I threw it there for kicks.
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
Speaking of early non-linear editors, I'm disappointed Editdroid is not listed.
That reminds me, Lightworks just went open source. Has anyone used it before or since?
Justyn
Veteran
I'm going to transfer to 3/4 and then to SVHS and edit off two SVHS decks and a controller.. AHHH darn that pesky control track and the single edits one per hour...
I think I'd shoot myself to have to go back to how I started doing this crap.... Talk about stone tools. Who in their effing right mind would ever edit linear tape, or even film print for that matter... Not this guy.
I think I'd shoot myself to have to go back to how I started doing this crap.... Talk about stone tools. Who in their effing right mind would ever edit linear tape, or even film print for that matter... Not this guy.
I almost included that one as well, but I hated it so much when I used it I opted to leave it out.
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
That good, huh? LOL
Agreed. Oh the hours that were wasted when I went to film school and they forced us to shoot and edit film. I found my own work around though. I projected the film dailies in one of the classrooms and shot that with a camcorder, then went home and edited our project using Adobe Premiere 5.0. When the edit was done I recorded it to a VHS tape and went back to school and cut the film to match the video cuts one at a time by finding the right frame. It was a hassle, but it still saved a lot of time and we didn't have to spend money on a telecine for the edit.
Shooter
Veteran
I dont think there are any limitations to be concerned with as regards Adobe Apps. I do think you should trial it first ( but beware of the limitations of the trial version as advertised).
As regards CC... natively PRPRO has plenty of grunt including Secondaries and plugins such as Colorista II / Synthetic Aperture really fill the toolbox with more serious CC power for ower users.
I think dynamic link within the Adobe Apps will show you what a lame complex process FCP uses to link with 'Color' and even the Titler in PPRO will show you what you have been missing.
After Effects just adds so much extra power to whatever you want / need to do with your images ( eg masking and compositing)
You wont miss the "intermediate workflow" of FCP.
BTW : I have used both but as along time user of Premiere since the get go.... I couldnt get rid of FCP fast enough.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
I am a trained smoke editor.
It by far has one of the WORST editing interfaces.
It is a good finishing tool, but it sucks for editing.
Jarek Zabczynski
Veteran
Anyone use a FAST VIDEO MACHINE? Shoot SuperCams, edit SVHS, master to 3/4, send sound to other room, mix sound, send sound back, pray everything is in sync at every turn. :badputer:
PS...TRACKBALL!!!!! :furious3:
powervideo
Well-known member
Sorry but that is baloney, whoever you are hearing that from. Premiere with it's Mercury render engine is a more powerful AVCHD edit engine. I use both CS5 and FCP7 on the same MacPro and I always use Adobe for encoding against Compressor for many reasons besides just quality.
Starscream
Active member
smoke primary, sometimes FCP.
but FCP is really pissing me of lately. Might have to check premiere again.
but FCP is really pissing me of lately. Might have to check premiere again.