Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Final Cut vs Adobe Premiere

Kalani Prince said:
Haven't checked with CS5 but ONE thing I absolutely miss about FCP is the ability to take unrelated audio/video clips and make a master clip that can be loaded and marked for in/out points.
Click to expand...

I´m not sure if I understand what you saying, but you can double-click on any audio clip and it pops up in the trimming window. Then you set your in and out points the same way, you would do with a video and send it to an audio track on the timeline.

Frank
 
Frank Glencairn said:
I´m not sure if I understand what you saying, but you can double-click on any audio clip and it pops up in the trimming window. Then you set your in and out points the same way, you would do with a video and send it to an audio track on the timeline.

Frank
Click to expand...

I created a new post to hopefully figure out how the pro's go about this workflow as it seems it would be chaotic trying to set in/out points on both audio and video separately.
 
I'm a Premiere user. The only annoying things about using it I've encountered so far: my editor friends constantly suggesting I switch to FCP, and the "well Avid is the industry standard" line. Um, yeah, I know and don't care, thanks.
 
Kalani Prince said:
Haven't checked with CS5 but ONE thing I absolutely miss about FCP is the ability to take unrelated audio/video clips and make a master clip that can be loaded and marked for in/out points.

why doesn't premiere have this functionality?

Can anyone confirm whether or not this is available in CS5?

I'm not talking about nesting clips either as they can't be loaded into the viewer for in/out points.

Much love
Click to expand...

You can make a timeline, and then use that timeline within another timeline, as though it were a clip.
 
Kalani Prince said:
I created a new post to hopefully figure out how the pro's go about this workflow as it seems it would be chaotic trying to set in/out points on both audio and video separately.
Click to expand...

Not chaotic - you can unlink video from audio, and then you can set in-out as you wish.
 
The Adobe suite is currently the best thing going IMHO. FCP is based on quicktime, and the rumor mill says Apple is actually planning to dumb it down in the future, targeting more people in the prosumer market. AVID is only good to 1080 (which they are working on but some of it is political as the hardware they have sold to customers won't go past 1080).

In Adobe Premiere, you can open R3Ds native, link to After Effects comps, render and replace to SoundBooth, and if you spend a little cash on some plug-ins you can also do some pretty advanced image mods (Colorista II for example). Add to this the ability to build a high horsepower workstation at roughly 2/3rds the price of an equivalent Mac Pro and I don't see how anyone in the Red realm could even think FCP is competitive. (I do miss Leopard though.)

Bob
 
Vladimir Cassel said:
I'm a Premiere user. The only annoying things about using it I've encountered so far: my editor friends constantly suggesting I switch to FCP...
Click to expand...

This used to piss me off. Now all my friends on FCP are asking me how to switch to Adobe. :laugh:
 
Peter Chang said:
Try 1/3 :hand:
Click to expand...
I just built a pc with 16gb of ram, 2tb hdd, blu ray burner, amazing motherboard, quad core processor, and a EVGA 1g graphics card.
Plus alot of other things external and internal.
Overall I spent 1300 including a nice 23 inch monitor. My computer is a beast, and very cheap in comparison to how much a standard 4g of ram mac would cost.

I couldn't agree with you more Peter.
 
I fear Fcp is approaching (EOL) End Of Life, Apple has other priorities.
I tried CS5 Pr on a rather large project, using RED RAW files, I think I have a lot to learn cause it was rather slow and cumbersome, part of that was probably my lack of experience, part of it was probably that my maching and drives were too slow, but at least Adobe is working on it, Apple appears to be completely unable to focus on anything but iPad and iPhone. (and they used to be the first to introduce new media, they were first with DVD, but there is no blu-ray in any of their products yet.... and there should have been... two + years ago)

It seems more and more obvious the future for the working pro is not going to be Apple, which is sad, but it´s Apple´s choise not ours. (I hope I am wrong)
 
Michael Millichamp said:
I just built a pc with 16gb of ram, 2tb hdd, blu ray burner, amazing motherboard, quad core processor, and a EVGA 1g graphics card.
Plus alot of other things external and internal.
Overall I spent 1300 including a nice 23 inch monitor. My computer is a beast, and very cheap in comparison to how much a standard 4g of ram mac would cost.

I couldn't agree with you more Peter.
Click to expand...

Yep, a $2500 980X PC/Hackintosh build with the smoking new Nvidia GTX580 (Fermi 2.0, not available on Mac) would easily outperform a similarly spec'd Mac Pro at $7500+, which can only be configured with ATI cards not compatible with CS5 Mercury Engine.
 
Peter Chang said:
Yep, a $2500 980X PC/Hackintosh build with the smoking new Nvidia GTX580 (Fermi 2.0, not available on Mac) would easily outperform a similarly spec'd Mac Pro at $7500+, which can only be configured with ATI cards not compatible with CS5 Mercury Engine.
Click to expand...

Just got a mac pro with a quadro 4000... Just buy the graphics card from another company, and buy hardware upgrades from OWC. You really can't get a cheaper workstation, unless you get consumer parts.
 
Steven Swigart said:
Just got a mac pro with a quadro 4000... Just buy the graphics card from another company, and buy hardware upgrades from OWC. You really can't get a cheaper workstation, unless you get consumer parts.
Click to expand...

Well we're not talking about Maya here, are we?
You don't need a Quadro for Adobe CS5. In fact, it seriously lags for just about anything NOT Autodesk, and 3DSMax is all about CPU and RAM (no advantage to having the Quadro).

For Adobe CS5, you're just wasting money with the Quadro - it is way underspeced vs the GTX580 at double the price.

Quadro 4000 has 256 CUDA cores $928 at OWC
GTX580 512 cores $500
GTX480 480 cores $400
GTX470 448 cores $200
GTX460 336 cores $160

Even the crippled GTX460 trumps the 4000: http://www.refractivesoftware.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4334&start=0
And forget trying to play any games... :rolleyes:

"consumer parts" vs "workstation"/"professional" parts = marketing. This is apparent from those who bios flashed their "consumer" Geforce cards and made them into Quadros. Nvidia intentionally cripples "consumer" Geforce cards for certain apps (Maya) to milk the "professional" market. Plenty of pros use "consumer" grade Geforce cards to do great work.
 
Peter Chang said:
Well we're not talking about Maya here, are we?
You don't need a Quadro for Adobe CS5. In fact, it seriously lags for just about anything NOT Autodesk, and 3DSMax is all about CPU and RAM (no advantage to having the Quadro).

For Adobe CS5, you're just wasting money with the Quadro - it is way underspeced vs the GTX580 at double the price.

Quadro 4000 has 256 CUDA cores $928 at OWC
GTX580 512 cores $500
GTX480 480 cores $400
GTX470 448 cores $200
GTX460 336 cores $160

Even the crippled GTX460 trumps the 4000: http://www.refractivesoftware.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4334&start=0
And forget trying to play any games... :rolleyes:

"consumer parts" vs "workstation"/"professional" parts = marketing. This is apparent from those who bios flashed their "consumer" Geforce cards and made them into Quadros. Nvidia intentionally cripples "consumer" Geforce cards for certain apps (Maya) to milk the "professional" market. Plenty of pros use "consumer" grade Geforce cards to do great work.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing completely with you, but the way you stated in your first post made it seem like you can't buy an affordable mac workstation. The Quadro 4000 is the cheapest 'official' solution for the 'mercury playback engine' on the mac. Sure you can easily hack a 'consumer' card, but depending on the work environment 'hacking' might not be allowed, or desired.

I think you misread that was was inferring that 'consumer' products are inferior, when in fact I was trying to state that you can get a mac 'workstation' as cheap, if not cheaper, than most PC workstations with equivalent parts.

Sure 'workstation' parts come at a premium, but the technology is different, and it's not 'just' marketing.

But we are artists, and our tools don't define us. If one used a late 1980's amiga to make the best movie ever, it would still be the best movie ever.

BTW, I like your Japanese cultural doc.

edit:

My ideal work workstation:
base 6-core 3.33 mac pro w/ educational discount and tax: 3600
2 1TB hard drives and 16 Gigs of ram from OWC: 418
Quadro 4000 amazon: 795
 
Peter have you heard about this GTX 590 with 1024 CUDA cores? I think I am going to wait for that, then step up. I'm still on this GTX 285.
 
Steven Swigart said:
I'm not disagreeing completely with you, but the way you stated in your first post made it seem like you can't buy an affordable mac workstation.
Click to expand...

I simply prefer maximum performance bang for the buck (ie overclocking - I run a 12-core Hackintosh running at 4.3Ghz, although these days I'm running Windows 7 99% of the time). Why pay 3x more for the same or worse performance?

Steven Swigart said:
The Quadro 4000 is the cheapest 'official' solution for the 'mercury playback engine' on the mac. Sure you can easily hack a 'consumer' card, but depending on the work environment 'hacking' might not be allowed, or desired.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a bit silly that the cheapest "official" CS5 Mercury solution on the Mac costs 5x the PC solution?

Steven Swigart said:
I think you misread that was was inferring that 'consumer' products are inferior, when in fact I was trying to state that you can get a mac 'workstation' as cheap, if not cheaper, than most PC workstations with equivalent parts.
Click to expand...

That's a dubious claim.

Steven Swigart said:
But we are artists, and our tools don't define us. If one used a late 1980's amiga to make the best movie ever, it would still be the best movie ever.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I think it's good to realize that one doesn't have to pay the hefty "Apple tax". Take all the money you save and put into your work.

Steven Swigart said:
BTW, I like your Japanese cultural doc.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

Steven Swigart said:
My ideal work workstation:
base 6-core 3.33 mac pro w/ educational discount and tax: 3600
2 1TB hard drives and 16 Gigs of ram from OCW: 418
Quadro 4000 amazon: 795
Click to expand...

$4813 gets you a LOT of PC. With the above specs, the PC equivalent would cost ~$1600 to build. And I could make it run OS X like a champ. $4813 with no proper RAID array or SSD's or even a monitor and only two 1TB hard drives? :skep:
 
Peter Chang said:
$4813 gets you a LOT of PC. With the above specs, the PC equivalent would cost ~$1600 to build. And I could make it run OS X like a champ. $4813 with no proper RAID array or SSD's or even a monitor and only two 1TB hard drives? :skep:
Click to expand...

Please spec identical parts, it's not possible to build it for around 1600, and it's 3 1TB, including the base harddrive from the mac pro. And you can build some basic raids on a mac pro with out a raid card. And an SSD is easy to install into a mac pro, no reason to buy it from apple either.

The processor alone will run you almost what you say you can build an identical system with: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...=intel_westmere_6_core-_-19-117-242-_-Product

Like I said in the previous post, I think we agree for what's important, that tools don't define the artist, the rest is either semantics or just preferences in technology.

Hackintoshes are great if you have the time and patience, and don't mind potential stability issues. I'm all for supporting the 'hacker culture', and it's your right to configure your hardware how you like.

Edit: But that's not to say I don't get frustrated with Apple's lack of options with it comes to designing computers, but for every computer they do offer, spec for spec, there really is not much of an 'apple tax', if you pick the right options and upgrade the right options by yourself.

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