FCP 7 OR Premiere Pro CS5??

Dale Guthormsen · January 5th, 2011, 10:17 AM

Good Morning,

I have used most video editing softwares, Taught computers sense the first apple; If I have learned anything it is that all software has its problems and none do it all and do it well!!!

It is for this reason that I always have two working editors on my work station. I still have adobe 1.5 on my shelf but have found much more comfort in Vegas pro and Edius 5.0.

A good editor can do great work on anything, even windows movie maker!

Recommend, I would stay with what you know already, get really competant, and then if you need it to do other things make a move then!!!

Bill Davis · January 5th, 2011, 02:44 PM

Many good thoughts here.

Here's my take.

If your career vision is just you and the machine editing, then there is NO wrong choice. Any path - even changing paths - presents little or minor penalties. So use what you like.

If, however, you ever aspire to collaborating or working with others - it IS useful to understand the market dynamics behind software choices.

The farther up the chain you go in becoming competent to operate in the professional editing world, you'll find most editing platforms falling away in favor of Avid and/or FCP.

That's not a blessing nor a curse, nor even a comment on their relative merits. Just a statement of fact. In most broadcast journalism programs and upper end editing training, AVID and FCP are the tools used and taught.

Again, if it's YOUR seat, you're free to enjoy the tangible positives that CS5 thru Edius et al uses to DELIGHT their base. And there's no reason to believe that with the constant improvement, Premier Pro or Vegas won't hit on some "killer feature" in the future that will draw more editors in their direction. But for now, the MARKET has established that knowing either AVID or FCP (of better yet, BOTH) will let you sit down in virtually any business oriented edit suite on the planet and go to work.

Maybe time will change this. Maybe not.

For what it's worth.

Steve Kalle · January 6th, 2011, 01:43 AM

For the simple fact that Photoshop, Illustrator and my favorite, After Effects are all integrated extremely well with Premiere Pro, I could not see myself using any other editing program. For DVD authoring, Encore has no great competition from Avid and FCS especially seeing as Avid's DVD program is Windows only. Plus, Encore is very well integrated with Premiere via Dynamic Link.

Start learning the integration between After Effects and Premiere Pro (called Dynamic Link) and you will see what I am talking about.

Look in the Adobe section to see if you can enable CUDA acceleration with your Macbook Pro. I remember seeing a special trick to enable CUDA with the 512MB video cards on the newer MBP's.

Furthermore, once you start making a living with video, you will realize that wasting money on a 2nd NLE package would be better spent on video production hardware or better/faster computer hardware. $1000 can get you a very nice NEC 24" LCD and i1 calibrator in order to get very accurate color. This brings up a major difference between FCP and Premiere: you can USE the Program window in Premiere and accurately see what your video looks like whereas FCP requires an external I/O box (Apple has stated that you cannot use FCP's canvas for an accurate representation of your video).

Read this article: ProVideo Coalition.com: TecnoTur by Allan Tépper

As a newbie, FCP, Quicktime and their gamma shift issues will cause you to tear your hair out.

Btw, I just tested something tonight, and discovered that I can get a 10bit output of After Effects through Premiere Pro by dynamic linking an AE comp in Premiere. This is so sweet! (I have a Quadro connected via Displayport to an Eizo CG243W, a 10bit LCD and Premiere is capable of displaying 10bit - something FCP cannot do)

PS I have an HP Z800 comparable to the dual 6 core Mac Pro and Adobe CS5 has been utterly rock-solid.

Bill Davis · January 7th, 2011, 04:21 PM

Steve,

You were doing SO WELL until the final few paragraphs of your post.

Then, for some reason, you had to resort to "other platform bashing." Please don't do this.

I understand that one way to make ourselves "feel better" about our own choices is to criticize those of others. But I believe it's more sensible, and more instructive, to simply promote what we've experienced to be valuable - and leave things there. (Particularly in such a fast moving area as software design, where, for example, a flaw might exist, be corrected, and people still cling to the idea that it's still relevant LONG after the issue has been addressed.)

The 2 Million++ registered FCP seat users on the planet, including those working in features, network television, and industry are NOT all idiots who blindly overlook utility diminishing aspects of our tools just so we can say "I use Brand X" to edit.

You clearly enjoy using Premier and the CS5 suite. That's great. But please leave the "testimonials" - confined to what you have current and on-going experience with. In essence, please don't attempt to make YOUR choice seem superior to mine - or belittle my lack of "understanding" of my systems flaws.

Essentially, I won't trash YOUR software of choice if you don't trash mine. OK?

This would have been water off my back - however, I've come to realize how many newbies read these posts and take what they read here as a critical source of decision making. And that puts pressure on ALL of us, to be as careful as possible in what we claim.

Thanks for listening.

Steve Kalle · January 7th, 2011, 04:35 PM

Hi Bill,

I don't see any comment where I was 'bashing' FCP. I was simply stating some rather important facts for a newbie such as gamma shift issues, no 10bit output and the canvas cannot be used for accurate color.

If he already had FCS 3 and was considering Adobe or Avid, I would tell him to stick with FCS and spend the money elsewhere. But because he already has CS5, I was trying to drive the point that he should not waste his money on another NLE package when the money can be better spent to improve his actual productions with more/better hardware.

I apologize if it seems I was trying to bash FCP. That was not my intent. I understand where you are coming from because I can't stand people trying to bash one NLE over another.

But again, I reiterate that none of my comments were in the 'bashing' realm.

Craig Parkes · January 7th, 2011, 05:21 PM

Steve, for 10 bit color to be relevant for monitoring on either platform in a practical environment, you need a hardware card feeding a monitor that is broadcast compliant. In saying that Final cut does do 10bit YUV processing, and you can certainly monitor in 10 bit out of a kona card in Final Cut, I do it every day.

So, maybe not bashing, but not correct statements either. Also, FCS offers Color, which is much better at dedicated color correction than Premiere or After Effects, and in my opinion remains the most compelling tool that differentiates FCS . Much like After Effects is the compelling tool for video in Premiere offerings.

Whether you need both, one or the other,depends entirely on whether you want to own the most effective tools for your workflow, get freelance work as a dedicated offline editor in a partiular environment, or simply familiarise yourself with the many varied facets of media production.

You cant state that FCP could creates issues for newbies because of issues with Quicktime gamma issues, when quicktime is a heavily used deliverable and transport throughout all broadcast production. It, unfortunately, creates issues for EVERYBODY, on all platforms and all NLEs.

Bill Davis · January 7th, 2011, 05:31 PM

Accepted.

I'll just note that while "gamma shift issues" was a much discussed factor before the latest Quicktime rev - I haven't heard anyone complain about it much since. And no project nor client I've delivered finished work to has complained to me EVER about my video having "image problems" even tho it's been seen by some VERY sophisticated eyes. So it's a complete non-issue for me - and I suspect for the vast majority of working FCP editors today.

As to 10 bit output, while important to keying and some forms of motion graphics work, I'm starting to be convinced that raster density is actually MORE important than bit depth in most conditions. My keying experiments with DSLR footage is MUCH more satisfying than the time I spent trying to fight the difference between keying 4:1:1, 4:2:2, 4:2:0 or even 4:4:4 at a "video raster" - so I suspect that as raster density improves in the next generation of cameras - this concern for 10bit processing might just fall aside. Either that or we'll get BOTH - which would be nice.

Finally, I'm not sure ANYTHING will ever convince me that a monitor system based around LCD technology will EVER have the necessary color response to make me trust it as a color source.

Well, let me amend that. For graphics work, where colors are computer generated - fine.

But I work largely in field produced video where it's significantly more common for screen images to be captured under real-world (real light) conditions. And EVERY SINGLE non-tube monitor I've ever seen has revealed unacceptable issues in reproducing real world color-temperature related information. And unfortunately, if I can't SEE a problem on the monitor, I can't do anything in the field to FIX it. And that makes me grumpy.

So, I understand why you love your software. But I suspect that's at least partially because your work standards - while every bit as valid as mine - are simply not the SAME as mine. And that means neither of us has the qualifications to judge what is a superior method for the other. Precisely what I was originally trying to point out.

The danger is always any attitude that presumes that everyone should do things like *I* do - which is ALWAYS, IMO, a suspect position.

Take care.

Pete Bauer · January 7th, 2011, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Davis

...I suspect that's at least partially because your work standards - while every bit as valid as mine - are simply not the SAME as mine...

Absolutely. I think all of us who have been trying to be helpful to the OP in this thread are at least a little guilty here of trying, well, maybe TOO hard.

I'd suppose it doesn't particularly help Gregory -- as he is about to take his first step into video editing as a solo hobbiest -- for us to argue and pontificate the nuances of merging vs linking vs nesting clips, nor how many installed seats have been claimed for a piece of software, nor 10 bit color will pass through from AE to PPro via Dynamic link (although I appreciated hearing that...I'm considering trying out a 10 bit monitor on CS5 since I need to replace a failed monitor anyway).

I still think the same ol' advice we always give to this kind of question is the best advice: download the trials and play around with them. If one of the others really grabs him, great. If not, he's already got CS5.

I'd kind of hoped when this thread slowed down a couple days ago it would go dormant. I think I'll elect to close it at least for now, since it seems more rancorous than helpful to the OP.

January 5th, 2011, 10:17 AM	#16
Dale Guthormsen Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 3,048	Good Morning, I have used most video editing softwares, Taught computers sense the first apple; If I have learned anything it is that all software has its problems and none do it all and do it well!!! It is for this reason that I always have two working editors on my work station. I still have adobe 1.5 on my shelf but have found much more comfort in Vegas pro and Edius 5.0. A good editor can do great work on anything, even windows movie maker! Recommend, I would stay with what you know already, get really competant, and then if you need it to do other things make a move then!!! __________________ DATS ALL FOLKS Dale W. Guthormsen

January 5th, 2011, 02:44 PM	#17
Bill Davis Trustee Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Posts: 1,538	Many good thoughts here. Here's my take. If your career vision is just you and the machine editing, then there is NO wrong choice. Any path - even changing paths - presents little or minor penalties. So use what you like. If, however, you ever aspire to collaborating or working with others - it IS useful to understand the market dynamics behind software choices. The farther up the chain you go in becoming competent to operate in the professional editing world, you'll find most editing platforms falling away in favor of Avid and/or FCP. That's not a blessing nor a curse, nor even a comment on their relative merits. Just a statement of fact. In most broadcast journalism programs and upper end editing training, AVID and FCP are the tools used and taught. Again, if it's YOUR seat, you're free to enjoy the tangible positives that CS5 thru Edius et al uses to DELIGHT their base. And there's no reason to believe that with the constant improvement, Premier Pro or Vegas won't hit on some "killer feature" in the future that will draw more editors in their direction. But for now, the MARKET has established that knowing either AVID or FCP (of better yet, BOTH) will let you sit down in virtually any business oriented edit suite on the planet and go to work. Maybe time will change this. Maybe not. For what it's worth. __________________ Classroom editing instructor? Check out www.starteditingnow.com Turnkey editor training content including licensed training footage for classroom use.

January 7th, 2011, 04:21 PM	#19
Bill Davis Trustee Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Posts: 1,538	Steve, You were doing SO WELL until the final few paragraphs of your post. Then, for some reason, you had to resort to "other platform bashing." Please don't do this. I understand that one way to make ourselves "feel better" about our own choices is to criticize those of others. But I believe it's more sensible, and more instructive, to simply promote what we've experienced to be valuable - and leave things there. (Particularly in such a fast moving area as software design, where, for example, a flaw might exist, be corrected, and people still cling to the idea that it's still relevant LONG after the issue has been addressed.) The 2 Million++ registered FCP seat users on the planet, including those working in features, network television, and industry are NOT all idiots who blindly overlook utility diminishing aspects of our tools just so we can say "I use Brand X" to edit. You clearly enjoy using Premier and the CS5 suite. That's great. But please leave the "testimonials" - confined to what you have current and on-going experience with. In essence, please don't attempt to make YOUR choice seem superior to mine - or belittle my lack of "understanding" of my systems flaws. Essentially, I won't trash YOUR software of choice if you don't trash mine. OK? This would have been water off my back - however, I've come to realize how many newbies read these posts and take what they read here as a critical source of decision making. And that puts pressure on ALL of us, to be as careful as possible in what we claim. Thanks for listening. __________________ Classroom editing instructor? Check out www.starteditingnow.com Turnkey editor training content including licensed training footage for classroom use.

January 7th, 2011, 05:21 PM	#21
Craig Parkes Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 444	Steve, for 10 bit color to be relevant for monitoring on either platform in a practical environment, you need a hardware card feeding a monitor that is broadcast compliant. In saying that Final cut does do 10bit YUV processing, and you can certainly monitor in 10 bit out of a kona card in Final Cut, I do it every day. So, maybe not bashing, but not correct statements either. Also, FCS offers Color, which is much better at dedicated color correction than Premiere or After Effects, and in my opinion remains the most compelling tool that differentiates FCS . Much like After Effects is the compelling tool for video in Premiere offerings. Whether you need both, one or the other,depends entirely on whether you want to own the most effective tools for your workflow, get freelance work as a dedicated offline editor in a partiular environment, or simply familiarise yourself with the many varied facets of media production. You cant state that FCP could creates issues for newbies because of issues with Quicktime gamma issues, when quicktime is a heavily used deliverable and transport throughout all broadcast production. It, unfortunately, creates issues for EVERYBODY, on all platforms and all NLEs. __________________ www.afterglow.co.nz

January 7th, 2011, 05:31 PM	#22
Bill Davis Trustee Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Posts: 1,538	Accepted. I'll just note that while "gamma shift issues" was a much discussed factor before the latest Quicktime rev - I haven't heard anyone complain about it much since. And no project nor client I've delivered finished work to has complained to me EVER about my video having "image problems" even tho it's been seen by some VERY sophisticated eyes. So it's a complete non-issue for me - and I suspect for the vast majority of working FCP editors today. As to 10 bit output, while important to keying and some forms of motion graphics work, I'm starting to be convinced that raster density is actually MORE important than bit depth in most conditions. My keying experiments with DSLR footage is MUCH more satisfying than the time I spent trying to fight the difference between keying 4:1:1, 4:2:2, 4:2:0 or even 4:4:4 at a "video raster" - so I suspect that as raster density improves in the next generation of cameras - this concern for 10bit processing might just fall aside. Either that or we'll get BOTH - which would be nice. Finally, I'm not sure ANYTHING will ever convince me that a monitor system based around LCD technology will EVER have the necessary color response to make me trust it as a color source. Well, let me amend that. For graphics work, where colors are computer generated - fine. But I work largely in field produced video where it's significantly more common for screen images to be captured under real-world (real light) conditions. And EVERY SINGLE non-tube monitor I've ever seen has revealed unacceptable issues in reproducing real world color-temperature related information. And unfortunately, if I can't SEE a problem on the monitor, I can't do anything in the field to FIX it. And that makes me grumpy. So, I understand why you love your software. But I suspect that's at least partially because your work standards - while every bit as valid as mine - are simply not the SAME as mine. And that means neither of us has the qualifications to judge what is a superior method for the other. Precisely what I was originally trying to point out. The danger is always any attitude that presumes that everyone should do things like I do - which is ALWAYS, IMO, a suspect position. Take care. __________________ Classroom editing instructor? Check out www.starteditingnow.com Turnkey editor training content including licensed training footage for classroom use.

January 6th, 2011, 01:43 AM	#18
Steve Kalle Trustee Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,554	For the simple fact that Photoshop, Illustrator and my favorite, After Effects are all integrated extremely well with Premiere Pro, I could not see myself using any other editing program. For DVD authoring, Encore has no great competition from Avid and FCS especially seeing as Avid's DVD program is Windows only. Plus, Encore is very well integrated with Premiere via Dynamic Link. Start learning the integration between After Effects and Premiere Pro (called Dynamic Link) and you will see what I am talking about. Look in the Adobe section to see if you can enable CUDA acceleration with your Macbook Pro. I remember seeing a special trick to enable CUDA with the 512MB video cards on the newer MBP's. Furthermore, once you start making a living with video, you will realize that wasting money on a 2nd NLE package would be better spent on video production hardware or better/faster computer hardware. $1000 can get you a very nice NEC 24" LCD and i1 calibrator in order to get very accurate color. This brings up a major difference between FCP and Premiere: you can USE the Program window in Premiere and accurately see what your video looks like whereas FCP requires an external I/O box (Apple has stated that you cannot use FCP's canvas for an accurate representation of your video). Read this article: ProVideo Coalition.com: TecnoTur by Allan Tépper As a newbie, FCP, Quicktime and their gamma shift issues will cause you to tear your hair out. Btw, I just tested something tonight, and discovered that I can get a 10bit output of After Effects through Premiere Pro by dynamic linking an AE comp in Premiere. This is so sweet! (I have a Quadro connected via Displayport to an Eizo CG243W, a 10bit LCD and Premiere is capable of displaying 10bit - something FCP cannot do) PS I have an HP Z800 comparable to the dual 6 core Mac Pro and Adobe CS5 has been utterly rock-solid.

January 7th, 2011, 04:35 PM	#20
Steve Kalle Trustee Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,554	Hi Bill, I don't see any comment where I was 'bashing' FCP. I was simply stating some rather important facts for a newbie such as gamma shift issues, no 10bit output and the canvas cannot be used for accurate color. If he already had FCS 3 and was considering Adobe or Avid, I would tell him to stick with FCS and spend the money elsewhere. But because he already has CS5, I was trying to drive the point that he should not waste his money on another NLE package when the money can be better spent to improve his actual productions with more/better hardware. I apologize if it seems I was trying to bash FCP. That was not my intent. I understand where you are coming from because I can't stand people trying to bash one NLE over another. But again, I reiterate that none of my comments were in the 'bashing' realm.