10 great Premiere Pro CC tips for FCP 7 refugees

[Marcus Moore]

[Andrew Kimery] “If I remember correctly they did ask a few select people for feedback (one of these editor’s gave a demo at LAFCPUG a couple of years ago but I can’t remember his name) and the feedback was promptly ignored. Like you said, Apple had a vision and the stuck to it. I’d imagine the requested feedback was more to gauge reaction than for shaping the software.”

I know who you’re talking about, but I can’t remember his name either. That initial preview event was in February of 2011. FCPX was demoed at NAB in April, and launched in July.

I think, realistically, it wasn’t that his feedback was ignored so much as there wasn’t time to implement it before launch. It would be interesting to go back and see how much of that feedback has been implemented now.

While I think most of FCPX’s new methodology works very well, IF 10.1 is as big an update as some are theorizing (it having been a year since the last feature update), this will be the time to see if there are any major “course corrections” back to Legacy ideas. We might have already seen Apple do this by bring back the Program monitor (though that could have always been part of their plan, we’ll never know for sure), and I’m sure if ultimately one aspect or another of FCPX just isn’t working out the way they have planned, I don’t doubt for a minute that they’ll fix it. For instance, there’s been a lot of people wondering if the advantages of Event/Project structure outweigh the disadvantages.

[Andrew Kimery]

[Marcus Moore] “I know who you’re talking about, but I can’t remember his name either. That initial preview event was in February of 2011. FCPX was demoed at NAB in April, and launched in July.

I think, realistically, it wasn’t that his feedback was ignored so much as there wasn’t time to implement it before launch. It would be interesting to go back and see how much of that feedback has been implemented now.”

After some Googling I think I’m thinking of Michael Wohl (who was one of the original guys behind FCP way back in the day). I thought I remember him telling a story about seeing the software about a year before it’s release and getting a “well take your thoughts into consideration” response when let Apple know they’d probably end up with a riot on their hands. lol

All this is water under the bridge though and your overall point is correct. Apple wanted to chart new waters and ‘peer review’ isn’t much of an option when you want to do something no one else is doing.

[Gary Huff]

[Herb Sevush] “I was going to respond in a much harsher fashion, as unfortunately is my wont.”

I would sum up my appreciation of Walter’s point with this: One should never be proud of ignorance.

I should also add that I had some work I shot edited by someone who was described to me as being an excellent editor…and my 16:9 video was rendered out as a squished 4:3…does that kind of ignorance help or hinder “art”?

[Herb Sevush]

[Bill Davis] “The point is that anyone can cherry pick “abilities” that NLE X does that NLE Y does not. “

True that, but it’s an argument that cuts both ways.

[Bill Davis] “The real issue is whether that ability is still in demand.”

Absolutely. As opposed to whatever you do with Bosco, editors all over the country are still getting paid for tape ingest, tape delivery, OMF delivery and EDL delivery. The day will come when that is no longer true, but that day was not two years ago, it’s not now, and it won’t be next year.

[Bill Davis] “My overarching point is that there are quite a few things in the class of “important to editors like Herb” but that do NOT intersect on the Venn diagram that shows “needs of modern digital video editors in general””

Bill, you don’t know what the needs of “modern digital video editors in general” are and neither do I. I know my needs, and the needs of the editors I work with and the same is true for you. The simple fact is that FCPX cannot create those deliverables at this point without going thru some silly third party workarounds. I would like to see your list of deliverables that Avid and PPro can’t satisfy – not processes, not tools, but actual client paid deliverables.

[Bill Davis] “You have got to admit that one large section of this whole nearly two year debate is coming from editors who simplyl don’t want to have to change ANYTHING about how they edit.”

First of all it’s my clients who determine my workflow and I don’t get to tell them what I should and should not deliver. There are many things about the way I edit that I want to change, but unfortunately none of my options match my desires. FCP was never my ideal, it was simply the best of a bad lot at the time discreet *edit was EOL’d. My ideal NLE has not yet appeared. When it does, I’ll change in a flash.

[Bill Davis] ” It’s admittedly a difficult time. Just less so for the editors who find it easier to change direction if they so choose.”

The idea that X is supported by the daring adventurous few is but one of the many myths you keep repeating to make yourself feel important.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Ronny Courtens]

I didn’t find this video interesting at all. I seriously think it would make more sense to post it on the PP forums instead. FCP people who seek info about PP usually would go over there in the first place. Or even better: they would give it a serious test-run and see for themselves if it fits their workflow or not. Personal experience is still much more convincing in the long run than internet blabber, as we all have witnessed with FCPX.

And while we are at it: this whole “FCPX Or Not” debate has really lost its meaning anyway. It has become quite obvious now that FCPX is here to stay and that it is rapidly gaining acceptance and popularity with a broad range of professionals and semi-professionals alike. Accept it and get over it. I hear more and more people say that they have been wrong about FCPX, although it clearly still is a work in progress. And I have the greatest respect for them. You would be surprised to see how many posters I have been assisting recently on another forum, who are learning FCPX while they currently use PP CC. One NLE does not necessarily exclude the other anyway.

As I said in another thread I could consider adding MC7 to our workflow when our film and broadcast shops come under the same roof next year. I think at this time Avid MC7 and FCPX combined offer the best of both worlds to serve a broad client base. Both excel in specific features that the other is missing or hasn’t fully developed yet. But before deciding anything I will wait and see what the end of this year brings for FCPX. Just like Herb I would love to see that one magical NLE that excels in every single feature any editor would ever want. But this NLE does not exist, and it probably never will.

– Ronny

[Mark Dobson]

[Ronny Courtens] “And while we are at it: this whole “FCPX Or Not” debate has really lost its meaning anyway.”

It’s the debate part of it that makes it interesting. A lot of editors still see FCPX as a very substandard offering when compared to FCP7, PP, Avid or the other NLE’s available out there.

I have heard that many FCP7 users still find it the best option for them and are quite happy to continue using it. I would admit to a high degree of skepticism when I first downloaded FCPX and my initial reaction was ‘is that all there is?’, but as each update rolled out, and the plugin and support software hit the market it has become a real contender to provide broadcast and other top end solutions.

I think that, with quite a few editors railing against Adobes new business and delivery model, the FCPX or not debate is still pretty relevant.

[Ronny Courtens]

[Mark Dobson] “It’s the debate part of it that makes it interesting… it has become a real contender to provide broadcast and other top end solutions.”

Good point. And now that I think of it: opinions about FCPX have indeed changed a lot since this debate started. So yes, I agree.

– Ronny

[Bernard Newnham]

[Nicholas Zimmerman] ” These kids don’t know what a codec is, they don’t care about timeline format, they just want to tell a story, i.e. edit. “

I don’t know what it’s like elsewhere, but the refusal of people to accept that they’ve got to learn a bit of technology to do a job seems to be endemic here in the UK. I used to run DV camera courses at the BBC, and the first thing I asked was “Who gave up physics at 15 and never wanted to see it again?”. Almost all hands – on this course for assistant producers – would go up. “Well, tough” I would say. These days I explain to students that Rembrandt would not have been able to paint that way unless he had learned a lot about paint creation and the use of canvas first. “Who’s Rembrandt?” is generally the reply.

You can’t “just edit” in the same way as you can’t just take good photos. You have to have training, knowledge, aptitude and application for both. And not knowing what a codec is means that when they’ve finished their amazing edit they won’t know what to do with it.

Teach them properly or don’t teach them at all. And if they can’t hack a proper editing system of whatever kind, point them at Windows Movie Maker or iMovie.

Bernie

[David Eaks]

A couple days ago the Terence and Philip show did a short episode about Adobe CC, if anyone is interested-

https://www.theterenceandphilipshow.com

[Mark Dobson]

I have to say that dipping into a forum is for me a work displacement activity, something to do whilst waiting for rendering . . . which just get faster and faster!