-
KONA LH vs. Matrox Axio (redux)
After mistakenly posting this over at the Motion forum, here goes:
I’m not even remotely considering leaving FCP for PPro, but I am curious if someone can spell out the major differences, pros & cons between the two (apart from the application exlusivity of both).
Thanks -
3 Replies
-
Les –
I haven’t used PPRO much in the last 9 months so I maybe forgetting / overlooking some things, but off-hand.
In general PPRO is leaner and meaner. Less menu’s, less buttons, more consistency in commands – at the price of less functionality.
Now to Specifics.Logging and Capture –
PPRO is much better about capturing thru time code breaks. This is a major plus as far as I’m concerned.
CG –
FCP’s internal CG is incredibly primitive. Even if you get third party plug-ins that enhance the basic CG it still pails when compared to PPRO. While NOT in the inscriber category, especially for making a series of stills, PPRO CG allows you to create any sort of graphic you want with your video as a background if desired. You have to go into one of the external software solutions; i.e. motion, livetype, graffiti, to do anything like that and these programs all require rendering.
Data Management –
While any Mac application makes it very difficult to keep an organized file structure PPRO is no Edit*. Both programs basically stink at keeping things organized and helping you delete and/or store job information easily. PPRO has the limitation of 1 job open at any time, whereas FCP is unlimited. Both programs allow for unlimited timelines open within a job. My recollection is that PPRO’s Bins are more limited than in FCP, but off-hand I can’t be more specific. Here, as in other places I would say that FCP is more confusing but more versatile.
Editing –
PPRO is terrible in handling a matrix of audio tracks. If you use 2 tracks on a tape to record different audio, rather than as 2 stereo tracks or 2 redundant mono tracks, PPRO has no reasonable way to deal with this and still keep the audio in sync with the video. This is ridiculous but true. Also PPRO has nothing like FCP’s new multi-cam feature that is, as you should know by now, very dear to my heart. The rendering function in both system’s are very stupid, not nearly as sophisticated as edit*’s when it comes to understanding when something truly needs to be re-rendered. FCP has the incredible bug of destroying all renders if you mute a video track – this bug has been around for so long they no longer even try to fix it. At least PPRO doesn’t have anything as heinous as this. But FCP has many more way’s to doing any of the basic editing tasks and seems much more flexible. In addition it’s time-code overlay window, which I always use, is much better than the hidden properties menu needed to find time code info in PPRO. All in all I find FCP much easier to cut with but much harder to learn.
Output –
PPRO has the ability to burn DVDs from the timeline; unfortunately this feature rarely works, at least in my case. It’s export to tape module is a pain in the ass but then again so is the FCP edit-to-tape function. Since I’ve only done Firewire input and output with both systems I can’t give firsthand info here, but from what I know I think that PPRO, with the right third party software controllers, is much more capable of handling RS 422 control. This is an area to look closely into when thinking about either system.
As far as File export and import, both are about the same – PPRO is AAF, FCP is XML, ability to transfer timelines between each and Avid is possible with third party software (I believe, not sure here.) Both export the full gamut of MPEG’s and Codecs, FCP handles both DVCPRO-HD and HDV natively, I think PPRO handles HDV with 3rd party software and DVCPRO-HD not at all.
Real-Time –
If you want real-time then get PPRO with Axio, otherwise there is no such thing on either system, except for draft resolutions. There is nothing like Axio in the FCP world.
My 2 cents –
PPRO 2 is coming; perhaps they will address much of what keeps them behind FCP – who knows. They basically started with a clean slate and the design idea of simply copying FCP’s workflow and functionality and doing it better. So far I think they are still way behind, but they might have an easier growth path without the legacy of workarounds that abound in FCP. And with Axio they really have something that FCP can’t touch.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
[Herb Sevush] “And with Axio they really have something that FCP can’t touch.” but it comes at a price!
Come on BMD you guys like a challenge.
Steve Connor
Cardinal HD -
Thanks for the detailed response Herb. However I should have been clearer in the message body as to my request. Again, I’m only interested in the differences (realtime or otherwise) between the Axio & Kona LH cards. As for FCP vs PPro, unless my company decides to change editing platforms (again), or PPro bulldozes the LA film & video industry overnight, I’m not remotely interested in moving away from FCP or Avid. In any case, I’m also less optimistic than you about PPro’s immediate future – just by nature of it’s single project/single timeline limitation. IMHO it’s one of the more daunting challenges Adobe faces, since it may very well be built into the PPro architecture (of which I’m only guessing).
As an aside, edit was great in many ways, but also a hindrance in almost as many – or perhaps I’m a little more forgiving than you about FCP’s limitations, and (now) less forgiving about edit’s.
Regards,
-Les
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up