FCP 7 vs. Adobe Premiere CS5

[Todd Clark]

"The biggest problem I have with it (and the same complaint came from my clients) was the Premier GUI. It's very dense compared to FCP without any real benefit to a user with basic editing needs. I found it to be more dense than AE which itself can be tough with complex projects."



No offense but I really don't understand this statement at all! The Premiere Pro GUI is the best out of any of NLE's that I use. I use the three major players and find Premiere to be the easiest to navigate and I can find anything I need in an instant. The first time I ever opened it...it just made sense.

[Scott Hayes]

I think one of the biggest issues I have is the whole transcode. I am shooting all AVCHD, and CS5
can edit it natively, even on my mac pro. Add a separate blu ray burner and toast, and you're
in the game. I love Apple hardware and OS, but at this point I wouldn't mind dumping FCP7
for CS5. Guess we'll have to wait and see what iFCP has to offer for codecs before making
a final decision.

[Steve Kalle]

Originally Posted by William Hohauser

The biggest problem I have with it (and the same complaint came from my clients) was the Premier GUI. It's very dense compared to FCP without any real benefit to a user with basic editing needs. I found it to be more dense than AE which itself can be tough with complex projects. None of the clients are really concerned with 64bit as they are not doing anything that computers haven't been able to do in HD easily for a few years now.

Premiere's GUI / Interface can be greatly customized to suit just about any editing task. You can easily move windows around and save each interface setup, and the setups can be either recalled manually or saved as part of a project.

Obviously, your clients are not aware of the benefits from 64bit software, which is understandable. If you demonstrated FCP and Premiere CS5 next to one another, showing the entire workflow from ingest to output, I guarantee that your clients would be impressed by CS5 for several reasons - 1) FCP requires transcoding for most video so Premiere will save your clients time right from the start; 2) Premiere does not require rendering when using different frame rates, codecs, multiple layers and many effects - again saving your clients time; 3) add a curves effect and a vignette, and even CS4 struggles to playback realtime but CS5 has no problem; 4) take a clip into After Effects and Premiere does not require any rendering. Heck, you can even see it automatically update in Premiere. However, FCP requires you render from AE first; 5) Now render/encode the video. Premiere CS5 blows away anyone and everyone thanks to CUDA processing and being 64bit native.

If your clients knew how much time (time=$$$) they could save, I bet they would certainly care about 64bit and Premiere CS5.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

1) FCP requires transcoding for most video

HIGHLY inaccurate. Some of the long GOP MPEG formats, yes but "most" is woefully inaccurate.

[Steve Kalle]

AVCHD, XDCAM EX, DVCProHD, R3D - don't all of these require transcoding? What about HDV? The first 3 are some of the most widely used formats, which is why I used the word 'most'. Before someone goes all technical on me, XDCAM EX requires re-wrapping to MXF, but Premiere does not.

[Steve Oakley]

AVDHD : yes . pretty much true for any h264 format in FCP including EOS

HDV NO. edits Mpeg2 pretty well

XDcam, depends.

DVCpro HD NO. it was FCP that drove DVCproHD and DV50 to become so popular in the first place

R3D : yes

[Steve Kalle]

Steve, thanks for the info.

For DVCPro HD, FCP still requires using Log & Transfer to create MOV files which are then used for editing. Technically, its not transcoding - its re-wrapping.

To fix my prior statement about FCP needing to transcode most formats, I should have said that FCP requires re-wrapping or transcoding most formats.

[William Hohauser]

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

Premiere's GUI / Interface can be greatly customized to suit just about any editing task. You can easily move windows around and save each interface setup, and the setups can be either recalled manually or saved as part of a project.

Obviously, your clients are not aware of the benefits from 64bit software, which is understandable. If you demonstrated FCP and Premiere CS5 next to one another, showing the entire workflow from ingest to output, I guarantee that your clients would be impressed by CS5 for several reasons - 1) FCP requires transcoding for most video so Premiere will save your clients time right from the start; 2) Premiere does not require rendering when using different frame rates, codecs, multiple layers and many effects - again saving your clients time; 3) add a curves effect and a vignette, and even CS4 struggles to playback realtime but CS5 has no problem; 4) take a clip into After Effects and Premiere does not require any rendering. Heck, you can even see it automatically update in Premiere. However, FCP requires you render from AE first; 5) Now render/encode the video. Premiere CS5 blows away anyone and everyone thanks to CUDA processing and being 64bit native.

If your clients knew how much time (time=$$$) they could save, I bet they would certainly care about 64bit and Premiere CS5.

Guess what? Many people don't import different frame rates, codecs, etc. They use a single camera and export to one format. No need for filters, multiple layers or complex effects. They don't use AE (I do but I'm working on complex projects). There are lots of people doing professional work that only requires a simple yet professional editing system. Now once I get a decent paying effects job that covers the cost of the CS5 edit suite, I'll get it for exactly the reasons you list here. In the meantime, AE CS4 / FCP7 works fine and quick on a MacPro. My experience covers professional broadcast work and institutional video work. The needs are different. Premier is now a powerhouse but it's not user friendly in certain ways that are important to professional users who are not video professionals. FCP is stil better in that regard. But we have to give credit to Adobe for recognizing that they have a hill to climb, which is why they are offering the free month of CS5. I am just reporting the feedback I've received from clients who are professionals but not high level video professionals.

[Paul R Johnson]

This is just a circular argument that happens every time FCP or Premiere go up a version. I also get it from audio professionals when they argue the toss over Logic or Cubase. The truth is that it's your own personal opinions and beliefs that are the issue. I've always believed that you might be able to change opinions, but not beliefs - so why bother. If people really don't want to use Premiere, then why attempt to change their minds, if they want to use MACs, let them, if they want PCs - fine. There is no point whatsoever getting a client to agree to something they really don't want - they will never be happy, ever. We can detail every negative and positive point and use those to support our viewpoint. What we cannot do is prove these points have equal worth.

I'm a content Adobe use for good or worse. If my colleagues love FCP, I'm content with that.

[Tim Kolb]

Boy do I agree...circular argument. In fact, it's usually one I don't participate in at all unless an FCP user takes a shot at Premiere Pro typically...

As far as rewrapping...Steve, doesn't DVCProHD get rewrapped? That's the reason why I can't edit any DVCProHD QT media that FCP has handled on a PC without AJA software/hardware installed, or a software add-in...HDV fits this scenario as well AFAIK. With XDcamEX, the essence file way down inside the file structure is a QT wrapper, but if you do the deep dive and import it without log and transfer acting on the entire file structure, do you get the pertinent metadata?

Corey: I'm scratching my head at your post...did you even attempt to simply chose the DSLR native setting and just drop your 7D footage on the timeline and edit? I have a pretty modest Windows system in the CPU dept. by today's standards (I have a Q4800 display card, but this is decode we're talking about) and I can edit it just fine...in CS5 on a non-GPU accelerated 2 year old dual quad Mac, it works fine as well.

FCP works with ProRes of course, but interestingly enough, PPro on a PC can also handle ProRes pretty easily (I have a video on Adobe TV where I take 720p60 ProRes from an Adobe MAX event and edit and output in Encore, no sweat on Windows. In fact, I actually did most of that edit in CS4 on a dual core Windows laptop...and the inability to encode ProRes on Windows wasn't much of a restriction.

The 8 bit on Windows vs 10 bit on Mac thing was rumored to be some restriction in QT, but it's a matter of calling ProRes for a 10 bit decode, and while I'm reasonably certain that CS5 now calls the decode at 10 bit on Windows, I know that with my AJA LHi hardware/software, I'm decoding ProRes at 10 bit.

As far as the intuitiveness of the user interface of either of these programs...everyone's right. You make such judgments based on your own experiences. I've used FCP and I find it to be more similar to PPro than different, frankly. There's a few areas that I think there are advantages for one or the other, but most of those are a matter of preference.

The base titler in PPro is one of my favorite everyday utility features and the titler tool(s) in FCP leave me cold, but again, that's a personal preference thing. Everyone has Photoshop and titling can ultimately be done there for whatever NLE you have...

Density of interface...I guess I can see that as a perception of PPro. I've been using PPro for some time and I'm accustomed to it. I also run my UI across three monitors... :-) I use PPro on a laptop, but I know what I use and I have a strategy for the interface...it maybe TOO customizable for a new user. PPro was known to simply stop spacebar playback to auto-save, which was mind-bogglingly stupid...I need to crank up the auto-save increments to see if that issue is still in there...

As far as making enough money to pay for the Production Premium Suite... It costs less than AE alone did not so many years ago. I don't see how anyone can complain about the price of anything these days. I remember buying Media100 instead of Avid because I could buy two for $100K vs only one Avid, and the capabilities of either at the time would be laughable next to any solution you want to compare it to these days whether it's FCP, PPro, Vegas, Edius...and of course, modern day versions of Media100 and Avid as well. I think price is sort of an absurd argument these days when you can pay for any of these solutions in one job.

As far as real-time support is concerned, PPro has got that one vs FCP I think, regardless of a GPU being present or not. DSLR, AVCHD, XDcam in just about every variety including Canon's new format (except Convergent Design files for some inexplicable reason), DVCProHD P2 has been quite fast and easy for a couple versions now...without any rewrap/duplication of data of course... I was running un-processed RED RAW on a dual-core Windows laptop in CS4 (I needed to drop the play res down of course, but I had the RAW processing controls right there...no flattening or conversion necessary).

FCP runs pretty darn well when you are using it as it was designed, as any product does, including PPro. I think you need to examine any of these products, at least somewhat, within the context of their design philosophy. We've all got it so good now, that we have forgotten how many compromises we used to have to make (I'll take "what format/resolution/dpi restrictions existed for still graphic import into Media100 or Avid in the late 90's" for 200, Jack).

I've now run CS5 on enough different machines with GPU accelerated effects preview...without GPU...with AJA I/O...Windows...Mac. I think it's the real deal and Mercury works impressively, even without a GPU.

So...ultimately I think it's coming down to what interface works for you vs. what workflow you find yourself in, and where you're willing to compromise on one to serve the other if necessary...

...now I suppose we can all argue about what constitutes a "compromise."

[Steve Kalle]

Tim, its very nice to have you on my side :)

Now I have several questions for you:

1) Can you give me the link to that AdobeTV video of you editing ProRes? I really want to get the Aja Ki Pro, but it records to Pro Res and I thought there would be issues editing 10bit ProRes HQ on a PC.

2) Do you know if Cineform can transcode Pro Res.

3) For Tim and anyone else with DisplayPort video cards: with my Quadro FX 3800 connected to my Eizo CG243W via DP (on my HP Z800), the Eizo says there is no connection while booting up but DVI works. Can the DisplayPort be used as the only connection or must it be used for the 2nd monitor?

4) How well does your Kona card work with Premiere CS5? What sort of issues are there? I have a matrox Mini that I tried with CS4 but there were too many issues and problems, such as a 3-5 second delay when switching from source to program/timeline and vice versa.

[Tim Kolb]

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

Tim, its very nice to have you on my side :)

...I can't tell you how much I am attempting to not take sides...

Adobe TV video:

Digital Video CS4 - Production Premium CS4: Creating an event DVD | Adobe TV


I know that ProRes is called at 10 bits with the AJA card installed. I haven't gotten an answer I'm confident in regarding PPro CS5 by itself yet, but I'd be surprised if they're calling for 8 bit. The stuff I was editing in CS4 a year and a half ago looked pretty damn good if it was 10 bit ProRes decoding at 8...

I do not know if CineForm will process ProRes...but if you have a Kona card, attaching the KiPro like a mastering deck will give you a master output ProRes file if you need to round trip to a colleague on FCP.

I still like CineForm the best as its just so efficient and the color correction and adjustments in First Light in the decode engine are features that are unique. However, ProRes is definitely a format most of us can't ignore if we wish to interact with other post facilities, so it's helpful to have a plan for that too.

I know that Premiere Pro will have some delays depending on the speed of your harddrives and CPU power as PPro needs to "cache up" before it sets off, and how fast you can get ahead of the decode depends on how fast the data can reach the CPU, and then how fast the CPU can process it.

[Steve Oakley]

old me... I was thinking of DVCproHD in terms of direct tape capture :) or feeding some flavor of HD into your capture card to DV100. if you made a QT DV100, you're fine. I started working that way when HD became part of my life.

of course now everyone thinks of P2 / MXF... yes that requires re-wrapping with FCP.

as for Prem Pro, MediaCore handles a number of common QT codecs so the adobe apps don't need to use QT when working with the files. this dramatically improves I/O with these formats including off the top of my head :

uncompressed 8/10 bit
DV25
DV50
DV100
photojpeg
animation
Mpeg2
h.264

basically the most common codec's you'll need to deal with. I"m pretty sure I left one or two out. Since apple controls ProRes and doesn't publish a spec ( or maybe they do, please correct me if I'm wrong ! )
we are stuck. however, adobe has done some work to improve ProRes handling in their apps, so I often use FCP to capture HDV->ProRes, then edit in PP.

[Tim Kolb]

Originally Posted by Robert Bec

Even Edius runs in realtime better then FCP

Edius runs in realtime better than anything I've ever seen...on any platform.

[Tim Kolb]

Originally Posted by Steve Oakley

Since apple controls ProRes and doesn't publish a spec ( or maybe they do, please correct me if I'm wrong ! )
we are stuck. however, adobe has done some work to improve ProRes handling in their apps, so I often use FCP to capture HDV->ProRes, then edit in PP.

I have no issue editing ProRes on my Windows PPro systems...you used to have to separately download the decoder for it, but I think it's included now...or it seems to be in QT Pro anyway. That app is just too damn handy to go without to save 30 bucks...