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 :)

It's time to STOP bitching!

David Battistella said:
I am not going to blame the "workflow" questions on specific NLE's, but I would suggest that there are far more people "dabbling" in post with no clear understanding of how to use any workflow other than copying P2 and editing or digitizing a DV tape and editing it.
Click to expand...

Of course, and there will always be "dabbling" as with any other thing. "Dabbling" is one of roads to "clear understanding".

The thing which is not helping in reducing "dabbling" is inert platform developer focusing on phones and ignoring picture inconsistency, hardware optimization and limiting features on most widely used pro platform. Not sure what you are suggesting here because it looks as "people are dumb, Apple rocks" post.

I do agree on your main point, though.
 
Tom Lowe said:
Can anyone point out to me how FCP is "better" than Premiere CS5 in terms of its features, etc? Is there something that Premiere is missing, in terms of functionality?

Is FCP tightly integrated with After Effects, Photoshop, etc, like Premiere is?
Click to expand...

Surprisingly Apple has worked pretty hard to make FCP play well with Photoshop and Illustrator. You can open a lot of these files in Final Cuts Studio apps, and even preserve layers, but its never quite perfect.

I expect that Premiere's integration is with other Adobe apps is far more complete and error free. Its Adobe... so it had better be very very close to perfect.

That said, Apple has excellent integration with other Apple applications. Why would I want to integrate with After Effects, when I have Motion and Shake integration? And Color, and Soundtrack Pro, Logic... etc.

Did I mention Color? Color alone is worth buying Final Cut Studio for. Of course, nowadays you can get DaVinci Resolve for $995 which I think is much nicer than Color. (I don't think the control surface is worth $30k. The Euphonix MC series and Tangent Wave put the lie to the pricing of high end control surfaces. Sure they are nicer, but they are worth I'd say $10000, not $30000.)

Final Cut has better tools for conforming media. Cinema tools is really very helpful. If you have a project with a lot of different frame rates, codecs and other "stuff" FCP is a lot better at making them all play together to a professional broadcast standard than most anything else on the market.

Final Cut has better audio controls. I'm not an audio guy, this is what the audio folks tell me.

Final Cut has better workgroup editing functions. (Oh these are very poor compared to Avid in my opinion, but leagues ahead of everyone else.) Let me put it this way: Adobe offers Bridge and CS Review, Apple offers iChat theater, Final Cut Server and XSAN

Of course Avid wins. Keywords Interplay and Unity. Basically they are Avid's versions of Final Cut Server and XSAN... but they are more established, more robust, have more features and simply work better.

The cool thing about Avid's winning tools... they work with Final Cut Pro, so you can really have a mixed Avid/FCP environment.

Premiere does some very cool things, "Rotobrush" and Mercury kick tail. Mercury works in Premiere, but also in Media Encoder. I like results from Compressor better than Media encoder, but most of the time speed matters more than quality. (Matrox MAX really helps my FCP work here... but Mercury is more general purpose.)

I like competition in the market. Today I have the creaky platform and a problem child camera that requires bleeding edge technology to work smoothly. Competition will take care of that.

I'll get native Rocket support or native R3D support in FCP or both. I also expect to get systemwide OpenCL- which is essentially Mercury for every OS X app that ties into that interface. I expect something like Rotobrush will be in every compositing application shortly- unless its already there and I missed it somehow.

Of course I could use those things yesterday.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
Of course, and there will always be "dabbling" as with any other thing. "Dabbling" is one of roads to "clear understanding".

The thing which is not helping in reducing "dabbling" is inert platform developer focusing on phones and ignoring picture inconsistency, hardware optimization and limiting features on most widely used pro platform. Not sure what you are suggesting here because it looks as "people are dumb, Apple rocks" post.

I do agree on your main point, though.
Click to expand...

Has anyone forgottten that FCP was the ONLY NLE solution for RED when it was released. It's taken this long for ADOBE and AVID to get caught up.

I believe that the next version of FCP will not dissappoint. Let's see what the next FCP brings and then start comparing. If you think the mercury engine is good, what do you think APPLE engineers are going to do on their own hardware?

All this switching talk might ust end with a new FCP.

As for NLE's that I am excited about:

Check out this article I just wrote on lightworks.

http://library.creativecow.net/battistella_david/lightworks/1

The next great NLE might be FREE and OPENSOURCE


David
 
Tom Lowe said:
I have a question for FCP users. Are you still using FCP for R3D footage? If so, why? Do you have to transcode? It seems like CS5 is a dream come true for R3D editing.
Click to expand...

Many people are still using FCP. Currently, as I see it, the two main reasons why people stick with FCP are 1> It's what they know and they're not going to change because they're a loyal user, damnit!!! 2> Apple Color is still the best low cost color grading application out there. Many will put up with the headaches of FCP R3D workflow just to get their project into Color without massive translations and XML cross conversions.

There are several ways to work with RED footage in FCP. FCP even supports native R3D RAW, the catch is you can't just drop the R3Ds into your bin because they're not a QT format. So you have to use the FCP Log and Transfer interface, where you select your R3D clips. It then "wraps" them into a QT file. This is not transcoding, it's just a container format and literally takes a couple seconds per R3D file -- literally just about as fast as it can copy them. Then you just edit away... Performance in FCP is not as good as in CS5 by any stretch of the imagination, but it's pretty similar to what we had in CS4.

Tom Lowe said:
Can anyone point out to me how FCP is "better" than Premiere CS5 in terms of its features, etc? Is there something that Premiere is missing, in terms of functionality?

Is FCP tightly integrated with After Effects, Photoshop, etc, like Premiere is?
Click to expand...

FCP integrates quite well with Adobe formats, but not as well as Premiere does. Premiere was lacking a lot of things before CS5. Both CS3 and CS4 had serious issues with timecode. But as far as NLE capabilities go, Premiere and FCP are almost dead even.

That said, I prefer Premiere's interface and working with CS5 is great with the exception of a few occasional bugs at this point. I'm demoing AVID MC5, but not sure if I really need to adopt it too, it's workflow is nice as well and is possibly (arguably) a more powerful NLE, but the performance isn't as good as the Mercury engine by any stretch.

The biggest benefits to having CS5 and possibly MC5 is they are available on both Mac and Windows. Being cross-platform is a huge benefit for those of us with lots of mixed workstations.

I find that I build my workflows and choose applications to use based on the size and scope of a project as well as the form of delivery required. There are still times when a primarily Final Cut-based workflow still makes more sense. Lately, using CS5 makes more sense most of the time. But I have no doubt that a new FCP will rear its head in a few months and will be a nice upgrade.

Adobe is kicking ass and CS5 is selling steadily. If Apple doesn't come out with an impressive FCP upgrade by the end of this year, there's a good bet Adobe could capture a huge portion of Apple's editing market. At times I wonder if Apple really cares about that anymore. But I don't see how they could not. Apple is trying to involve themselves into media creation more than ever, lots of things are changing if you follow various developments and acquisitions within the industry. For Apple to abandon FCP would not make any sense at all. In fact, I'm expecting the next version to be revolutionary... Hope I'm not wrong.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
If Apple doesn't come out with an impressive FCP upgrade by the end of this year, there's a good bet Adobe could capture a huge portion of Apple's editing market. At times I wonder if Apple really cares about that anymore. But I don't see how they could not. Apple is trying to involve themselves into media creation more than ever, lots of things are changing if you follow various developments and acquisitions within the industry. For Apple to abandon FCP would not make any sense at all. In fact, I'm expecting the next version to be revolutionary... Hope I'm not wrong.
Click to expand...

I think there are a lot of reasons why the end of this year is an unrealistic target. Maybe another stop-gap like FCP7, but not the 64-bit rewrite everyone wants. My own guess is it's tied to 10.7, which is 2011 at the earliest. I do think that Apple wants a solid ProApps division for the marketing value. It's just that their level of profit isn't in the iMoney range.

Another question is how upscale or downscale the product will become. I think there will be a lot of UI enhancements in a new version that won't be to everyone's liking. Not necessarily the "prosumer" approach discussed on a lot of forums, but just changes that will throw a few people for a loop.

Remember, that's in the Apple mindset. They've changed iMovie and DVDSP a couple of times. LiveType was dropped because they felt Motion was what you should use. They alienated iMovie fans because the new version was better from Apple's POV. Probably is, but that still caused ill will.

Either way, the product can either get better or worse. If the latter is true, then folks will simply stay with the current version until it no longer works for them.

- Oliver
 
I would venture a little guess.

Do you think Apple wants people capturing video on their phone and using some other product to edit with. I think they are build the app of the future. That is what they do. everyone wanted to hang on to OS9 and they went to OSX and the world has opened up. INtel same thing, iPod, Macbooks, iPhones, same thing.

I have a lot of confidence in Apple right now, but they are going to do something mind blowing, It's taken Adobe a long time just to match what the Apple Suite of apps has been doing for a long time.

Apple came up with the concept and Adobe refined it, FOR NOW. I don't see Apple quitting on PRO APPS, they want every creative person to be making their stuff on a MAC. That is what they are about and they know that we are on the cusp of the multimedia version of the DESKTOP REVOLUTION right now.

The PRO APPS will be a very important thing going forward.

David
 
I sure am looking forward to what Apple comes up with next. I am always on the lookout for best solution. For the moment, Vegas Pro 9 64-bit is the near-perfect app for me. I just wish it used the GPU as much as Premiere Pro CS5, but that seems like the only "flaw".
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
Well we disagree and agree.

We agree about Premiere's use in professional environments and the integration problem.

Where we disagree is online/offline production.

(SNIP...)
Click to expand...

In short: yes we disagree.

I love the ability to take an edit on a 3 year old laptop on the road, without worrying about my originals getting killed in an accident on the road.

Both to keep investments down and flexibility up - I just find an online/offline approach very usefull.

Also one can use people with specific talents and knowledge for each part of the production, without all the "just change the curve/gamma/iso/flut/exposure settings, and you'll see what I mean".

Online/offline in a larger workflow, allows people to be good at what they can.

I've been able to allow for RED feature productions in crazy-bad conditions (Think Iraq and next to none facilities), much due to an online/offline approach, and now working on the other end of the scale, it still is very practical to administer a 2/3 cam TV series due to an online/offline approach.

Where we DO agree, is that when I do my own stuff, I often just basically stay online a lot of the time. And if I edit from cam-proxies, I just know what I can do with the RAW in Color. I don't care if it looks bad in FCP at that stage - for ease of use. But I have come to like the security level and flexibility of an online offline approach even for my own projects.

Seeing disks die on a regular basis does something with your mindset...

I personally can fix most problems and know when to bother about what - sorta.

But that knowledge isn't in the wild and the important thing for my customers when I advice on a workflow, is that it is solid, tested, familiar, safe and fast.

Online/Offline fits all these criteria.

And I get a hell of a lot less frustrated calls after my initial advice.

That said:
FCS has miles to miles to go, but for longform productions, it is actually quite a working and solid and satisfactory tool. That is:

When you test in advance and make a workflow that fits the current production.

Currently I work with RedRocket. But I am not amongst those who say that it is impossible to work without one. Actually I can make CPU offline transcodes allmost as fast and then conform to online in the non RR supportive Color...

Have to admit though, that my approach to this has changed a lot due to the projects I have been working on. Initially I wanted everything to be online allways and FCP to play DPX's and other weird and unthinkable stuff... -:))

Cheers!
G

(Note to self:
OK.
Made my point.
Move on!)
 
I don't see where video on the iPhone and RED workflows have much in common. Editing iPhone videos - and soon iPad videos - can and will easily be achieved with iMovie. True that video IS important for Apple going forward. That doesn't impart the same level of importance to ProApps. Note that Randy Ubilos is now over all Apple video - not specifically attached to ProApps. Note also that DSLR video capabilities have been added to Aperture 3.

- Oliver
 
I personally don't think there any FCP or Avid Editors who don't have AE installed somewhere in their studio
 
Just to stir the waters for all you passionate FC fans: do you really want to trust the future of your editing software to a company whose primary business is selling telephones? The institutional focus of an Avid seems preferable, or at least an Adobe. Maybe there's a reason that FC has fallen behind... :)

Donning my flame-retardant suit,
Tim
 
Tim Morten said:
Just to stir the waters for all you passionate FC fans: do you really want to trust the future of your editing software to a company whose primary business is selling telephones?

...

Donning my flame-retardant suit,
Tim
Click to expand...

Yep. At least for now. (I am pretty willing to trust smart, creative people who have done me right for two+ decades.)
 
Tim Morten said:
Just to stir the waters for all you passionate FC fans: do you really want to trust the future of your editing software to a company whose primary business is selling telephones? The institutional focus of an Avid seems preferable, or at least an Adobe. Maybe there's a reason that FC has fallen behind... :)

Donning my flame-retardant suit,
Tim
Click to expand...


LMFAO !!!!!!

That was an excellent statement.

ALl this said I have to say that long ago I refused to position myself with any one tool. I edited AVID, FCP, Media 100, *EDIT and many others.

I never wanted to be one of those dicks who refused a job because it wasn't on "their" software.

David
 
David Battistella said:
LMFAO !!!!!!

That was an excellent statement.

ALl this said I have to say that long ago I refused to position myself with any one tool. I edited AVID, FCP, Media 100, *EDIT and many others.

I never wanted to be one of those dicks who refused a job because it wasn't on "their" software.

David
Click to expand...

David - hats off to you for maintaining expertise on multiple editing platforms. For me, I really don't want or have the time to do that. I gave up on Premiere on its last run (before it went PC only for a while) and switched to FCP. I haven't looked back because, perhaps until recently, it really was a leader and did everything I wanted/needed. I suppose if Apple doesn't do something in the next few months, I'll start to reconsider and if a year goes by with nothing, I'll be long gone. Until then, I guess I am a dick?

But, I really can't see the rationale for switching editing platforms every time one of these companies "one-ups" the other with their latest feature. Usually, the "other guy" comes around within a few months and is in the lead again, at least temporarily. It's just the software business... and competition. Everyone has their approach. I know enough about Apple to believe they are still interested in pro level video production. So I wait - not always patiently - for my new Mac Pro and for FCP to "catch up." Not everyone will. Perhaps some of them will change editing platforms several times in the next year or two. Whatever works.
 
Terry,

My basic belief is that all of the software is the same and does teh same things. They are all inching in here and there, but essentially its a basic route to the same end.

One does this, the other does that. This new feature that nspeed bump, blah blah.

I don't think you are a dick, but I will clarify. When FCP was getting ready to steamroll AVID I heard of many AVID editors refusing to work on anything but AVID. I think that is a dick move. I never forced a client to go with a piece of software and there was a time when AVID editors were shitting their pants because they had just shelled out 100K for a "system" that did less and was less flexible than FCP.

Or they claimed that they could not "edit as well" with a different piece of software. I take the position that no piece of software represents my talent as an editor so I do not want to be a slave to it.

This is why I will be all over lightworks if it is release as FREEware.

Better to have many tools for any situation than the one tool. Free the mind a bit, that is how I feel.

David
 
David Battistella said:
...Or they claimed that they could not "edit as well" with a different piece of software. I take the position that no piece of software represents my talent as an editor so I do not want to be a slave to it...

Better to have many tools for any situation than the one tool.

David
Click to expand...

When I first used FCP (v1.5 i think it was) I immediately remapped the keyboard to match my avid custom key map... which is exactly like avid MC key map plus my custom F keys. With in about a day I felt completely at home on FCP... from an editing standpoint about the only difference in feel was the response from the space key. I never understood editors who took the anti-FCP line and I still don't.

With video card products from AJA, BMD and RAID options from many manufactures, very quickly you were able to break away from the proprietary I/O and RAID hardware Avid mandated you use. Avid's software dramatically lagged behind FCP in terms of mixed resolution and time base, mixed codecs, etc.. It's early solution for .R3D workflow was like something out of a science fiction novel.

The beauty of what FCP did for the market place persists. Premiere has morphed into an application that can take advantage of the same non-proprietary hardware schemes. If you already have a FCP system, for the price of CS5 you can have a Premiere system too and buy upgrades for both.

The whole "Apple is a cell phone company" rhetoric is tired and holds no water with me. Adobe is a print design software company that under-developed Premiere for over a decade. Discreet is an architectural software company with a much smaller division of (exquisite) post software. Avid acquired Digidesign and SoftImage and then stymied and co-opted those brands respectively. Big deal. The proof is in the tools and your ability to push them to the limit.

Software companies will continue to leap frog each other with features and updates; that is innovation. The best thing you can do in this economy is be flexible to new innovation regardless of it's source... provided that it's an economical path to a superior product.

It IS time to stop bitching. Go make something with what you have access to; in this "internet-age" you are spoiled for choice.
 
Brandon Kraemer said:
It IS time to stop bitching. Go make something with what you have access to; in this "internet-age" you are spoiled for choice.
Click to expand...

Amen.

The FCP vs. this that or the other is bithcing.


Let's talk about craft!


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