Premiere Vs. Final Cut

[amrrahmy]

that's only in a precise light condition, cuz of the fixed iso.
it has to be in a controlled environment.

still taking in the 4by where red is not.okay dude whatever,
one color in 12bit doesn't mean it's 12bit rgb, if it doesn't store that info, what you think is not important,
it's not 4:4:4 when there is a s#$% load of color shift made by the assumptions in the camera to fill the huge gaps that make low light condition worse than 8bit rgb all these are facts, why are you arguing?
i'm done here.

 

[Mike Harrington]

amrramy....

looking at most of the threads your involved in,(i especially liked the one where you told David Mullen all about cinemetography) they usually get closed by a mod, followed by a warning to you from a mod...and 5 or six people adding you to there ignore list.....

I have a schizophrenic brother....and learned not to argue with him, as he could not follow logic....he's much better now though....good medication...he calls it "Liquid Straightjacket"...

 

[amrrahmy]

not liking what i say doesn't dispute the fact that it is real.

 

[Mike Harrington]

that what my brother would say:biggrin:

 

[amrrahmy]

okay, show me one test in low light against any other camera, where red footage is better as you say.

 

[Mike Harrington]

when did I say that???

feel free to PM me.....even though your the only entry on my ignore list
PS adding you to the ignore list means I can't see your post....so I won't see your response....so don't bother

I think it's time to stop hijacking this thread before it get's closed like the other ones you right in....

 

[amrrahmy]

you started the 12 bit rgb not me, we might get to somewhere fun where you find out that adobe 4k is not of the best interest to the image quality compared to 2k,

maybe we can get somewhere here,so you don't agree that your saying it's better,

so, it's not better, you know why it's not better?

 

[shashbugu]

this is very true

this is very true

fcp cuts at least 3x faster than any other nle,
going to ae u can use a reference file, or just send the portion that u want as a mov file or a tiff or png sequence for photoshop and ae, and bring back that portion in a couple of clicks, it's still much faster than the adobe workflow.
and that's fcp and ae, not even going to say how much faster fcp to motion is, or even color.

FCP cuts faster than all NLE's period.

 

[Santiago Marti]

FCP cuts faster than all NLE's period.

CS4 is really ahead. integration is tight, period. amrrahmy, when you say "send" y read "render", that is not fast at all. Rendering a .mov out of fcp to ae is not fast nor convenient. Cut and paste 4K .r3d files between premiere and ae looks better to me. Motion is not a serious program, to compare it against ae is plain ignorance. Color is ok thoug, but not for 4K or .r3d. Is color able to import dpx files? i don't know. Anyway, after trying premiere cs4 i decided to use the whole suite, it is really excelent. Unbeatable. Period. For now, FCP is anything but convenient. It is like buying an NLE from nokia or motorola.

 

[amrrahmy]

i remember talking about dynamic link in adobe and fcp to motion, didn't compare ae to motion.
sending a reference is not the same as rendering a self contained mov file.
if you want to justify to yourself that you dont need fcp, or that premiere is better, that fine, but dont share it with others.and dont repeat other peoples thoughts, or what they try to convince themselves with, only a nerd would judge a program better because it's newer.

 

[Santiago Marti]

amrrahmy, i will stop here, cuz it is obvious you don't have any idea of what you are talking about and you are talking just like a macfan. if you want to show your love for steve is ok but don't share it with others :sarcasm: i've been editing for 13 years now, so you won't tell me i repeat other people thoughts. yes i am a nerd. saying that FCP is 3 times faster is the stupidest thing i heard in a really long time. it is like saying that my shoes run faster than yours.

 

[Mike Harrington]

feel free to carry on the discussion...
I believe we have the first reduser banned on the basis of incompetence

so long amrrahmy
you were truly one of a kind:bye2:

 

[Mat@imageWork]

md,

Do you use adobe suite in a day to day basis? What do you think about new progress of CUDA, GPU accelerate progress? In fact, I'm uppon to invest in suite, not only for RED project. As I have a mac I "use to edit" with FCP. As long as we only do commercial with quite a lot of effect, I don't stick a lot in nle, and ship ASAP to comp. CS4 and worklow means a lot saving time to me. Also, my background is on smoke-Flame...I have been almost protected from bug appz. How CS4 deals with bug*? * Let's say Color have for me been the biggest nightmare ever seen, and smoke on tezro the most gentle suite ever build...FCP is not a finishing system to me as long as 10 bit yuv is NOT enought as long as effect and CC are involve a lot...

Thanks in advance...

 

[Mike Harrington]

I don't want to discredit the FCP workflow....
a alot of talented people are using it for Red projects right now.

The only thing I see in the Adobe workflow is the potential for end-to-end 4k at full bit depth....self contained

People using FCP in combination with Scratch for example have no issues whatsoever....but without the inclusion of something like scratch (Smoke/Flame would also qualify) FCP is not in itself a complete solution.

Does PPro have problems....you bet.
Is AE the best compositer out there....not really(it is getting better all the time though)
But they do offer support where the numbers count....in resolution and bit depth.
It's more of a financial (idealistic) choice.

If you can afford scratch smoke flame filmaster ect....then cutting in Final Cut could very well be the best workflow going.
But for an indie style budget, the best quality end-end finishing will be Adobe.

The time will come in the next few years when some of the big boys will have to adjust there prices. If Adobe had a grading suite...like color(but working)there would be no need to leave the suite. (Color Finesse would almost do but it needs some tracking, and takes too long to do a long form project)

Similar to 3d packages like maya 10 years ago cost $50,000...why
because the modern PC of that time did not have the power to run them and people needed specialized equipment.

A similar thing is going to happen with high end finishing...why
cause right now to run a smoke or flame a large raid array is needed to power them and out of the price of most small companies.
With compressed codecs such as Cineform and Redcode coming into play....there soon will not be a reason to go to DPX other then for final film out. Not to mention were likely on the edge of a revolution in storage with proper SSD`s coming on line, and that last mechanical bottleneck on the PC will soon vanish.

 

[Mike Harrington]

What do you think about new progress of CUDA, GPU accelerate progress

still in it`s infancy...and somewhat overated
the next couple versions though it could be a huge help

Nvidia had a redering plugin for maya called Gelato that was supposed to be faster because it passed off most of the calculations to the card.
While it helped it all eventually failed(you can download it for free from Nvidia...used to cost like $3500) because it didn`t offer the speed gains that you would think over modern rendering algorithms using the CPU.

BTW Nvidia has since bought Mental Ray and probaly would be working on GPU accelerated verion of that....which would be very bad for AMD

I asked David Newman about implementing this in cineform and here`s the answer I got

Until a GPU don't slow us down, we will stick with the CPU. Compression, particular high-end compression, is not a good fit for GPUs. While a hybrid codec that does some CPU work and some GPU work is fine, that design is best for presentation only, not for post-production where the output of the decoder may be feed into other CPU based operations (the ping-pong from GPU to CPU is still a bottleneck.)