-
MacBook Pros “underpowered?” Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
-
[Herb Sevush] “So how has X “advanced the industry” to use your definition?”
Maybe it’s just my perceptions.
I got skimming six years ago. A year or two back, it showed up in Premiere Pro.
I got a robust “proxy workflow with a click” in X ALSO six years ago. A year or so back, I was reading everyone on the Premiere Pro boards lifted their virtual cups to their new “proxy workflows!”So I’m probably just over projecting, foolishly. Never mind.
As to subscriptions, Lumberjack does subscriptions just like Lynda.com does them.
You want to subscribe, click here. You want to Unsubscribe, click here. Use it as you like, when you like, stop when you like any time you like. Simple.
That has NOT been my experience with ADOBE subscriptions.
Not in any way, shape or form.
Even with Lumberjack, I might not have full and complete access to something I’ve left on their website as to an on-going “in progress” edit – but EVERYTHING on my X timeline that results from the rental continues to function perfectly with no further payment.
So I can get locked out of NONE of my own intellectual property. Only the service I was subscribing to. To me that’s a fair approach.
Just yesterday, somebody claimed that it’s now easier to dive in and dive out of Premiere Pro on a pay as you go, monthly basis. (tho, sadly, not my Lightroom/ Photoshop subscription????) I may investigate that. But it doesn’t solve the issue that if I use my rental to do anything OTHER than to translate content – if I actually use Premiere Pro to CREATE a timeline and put energy into perfecting it – and then stop paying – that creative effort all gets locked away from me.
Not cool, IMHO.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Steve Connor] “and Bill will no doubt tell us what a great move by Apple that is”
Nope.
I’m sure It SUCKS for the fraction at the top of the industry that needs that type of capability.
But not every car maker competes in the space that the guys building NHRA dragsters do.
That’s just how the world works.
BTW, isn’t it interesting that the new electric cars are WAY faster “off the line” than the vast majority of gas powered vehicles? May be something to learn from that. Or not. Who really knows?
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “I actually use Premiere Pro to CREATE a timeline and put energy into perfecting it – and then stop paying – that creative effort all gets locked away from me. “
Yep, you lose access to the rushes, any master files you’ve made, any EDL’s you’ve outputted it’s terrible!
Thing is, anyone who’s a Professional using CC, carries on paying the subscription, because it’s NOT a very large amount at all, easily written of against tax and billed in an hour a month!
-
[Shawn Miller] “What’s really kind of interesting and exiting in the world of 3D right now is the rise of powerful, inexpensive renderers that can give you fast previews of your work. With enough CPU or GPU power, you can now limit the number of times that you have to render out previews”
I’ll second that. It makes a massive productivity difference in a 3D workflow.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Bill Davis] “BTW, isn’t it interesting that the new electric cars are WAY faster “off the line” than the vast majority of gas powered vehicles? May be something to learn from that. Or not. Who really knows?”
Not really, the gas powered cars will soon be passing the electric cars afterwards 🙂
-
[Bill Davis] “[Steve Connor] “and Bill will no doubt tell us what a great move by Apple that is”
Nope.
I’m sure It SUCKS for the fraction at the top of the industry that needs that type of capability.”
That’s the thing though – we’re not just talking about the top of the industry. The kind of artists I’m talking about span the media creation landscape from no budget, indie filmmakers to teams of top end motion graphics and VFX folks.
[Bill Davis] ”
But not every car maker competes in the space that the guys building NHRA dragsters do.”What keeps Apple from offering more powerful GPUs and CPUs in the workstations they do make though? That doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the offerings of other PC integrators…
Shawn
-
[Bill Davis] “I got skimming six years ago. A year or two back, it showed up in Premiere Pro.”
No matter how many times you say this, it still remains factually incorrect. Skimming was in Ppro by April of 2012, within a year of the X release, because it was being worked on concurrently. X got there first, but influenced nothing.
[Bill Davis] “I got a robust “proxy workflow with a click” in X ALSO six years ago”
Proxy workflows go back decades. Every time a new format (now 4K) shows up, with it’s heavy i/o demands, proxy workflows come back. Then disk speeds and capacity catches up, and proxy workflows die. Apple has influenced nothing in this realm since it predates the original FCP, let alone FCPX.
And I’ll get back to the main point. Nobody at the time of it’s release said – Wow, revolutionary, FCPX has proxy workflows, let’s throw everything out and start all over because this is something great.
The things that made X innovative were the magnetic timeline, roles, keyword ranges, & auditions. You’ve posted about how keywording has changed your editing life for the better, we get constant postings about how the magnetic timeline speeds up editing, Charlie Austin posts about how roles have dramatically improved his versioning requirements – these were the innovative tools unique to X at the time of release and are still unavailable in any other NLE to this day. FCPX made it’s statement and the rest of “the industry” has ignored it, at least up to this time. That isn’t a value judgement by the way, it is just a factual description.
[Bill Davis] “So I’m probably just over projecting, foolishly. Never mind.”
Bill you have, by your own admission, zero experience or interest in NLEs that don’t start with the letters FCP. You’re entitled to your opinion, but they are based on a singularly narrow viewpoint. You are the proverbial blind man describing an elephant after touching his tail.
[Bill Davis] “Even with Lumberjack, I might not have full and complete access to something I’ve left on their website as to an on-going “in progress” edit – but EVERYTHING on my X timeline that results from the rental continues to function perfectly with no further payment.”
And now we are splitting hairs. I don’t like subscriptions, I avoid them whenever I can. When I can’t, I use them. Either you own something or you don’t. If I drop my PPro subscription I still have every piece of media I have ever created with it, I have the timelines and projects that I can open on someone else’s system, I have whatever XMLs I decided to export. Just like with Lumberjack what I don’t have is the ability to use it right now. Which I can get back on a monthly basis whenever I pay up.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
[Bill Davis] “Do you recall when PPro released hover scrub?”
2012.
https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/premiere-pro-hover-scrub/
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Steve Connor] “Yep CS5, it was SOOO great that it was widely used across the Industry and there were LOADS of Freelance jobs around for it, whereas that FCP7 that you think isn’t a wise choice was hardly used and there was NO Freelance work for it.”
You are using the old argumentum ad populum. It is a fallacy. Actually Edius was used heavily for Broadcast in the Asian countries back in the FCP 4,5,6 and 7 days. Does that make Eduis better than FCP 7? It doesn’t matter if the program is widely used or not. What matters if it can speed up the editing process.
If background rendering and GPU acceleration speeds up the editing process of FCPX VS FCP 7 as FCPX users claim then wouldn’t logic dictate that Liquid Edition would have been better than FCPX? See my point? I am using critical thinking where you opted to use a logical fallacy : )
[Steve Connor] “But you feel free have a race, because that’s what Editing is – a race!”
Most comments are directly related to Bill’s post just in case you cannot figure it out. If FCPX can encode h.264 faster than Premiere Pro that is really really really awesome in the eyes of FCPX users. On the other hand if PP CS 5.0 makes transcoding h.264 obsolete that isn’t a big deal. See my point?
-
[Herb Sevush] “[andy patterson] “For the record even Premiere Pro CS 4.0 could edit AVCHD natively with a Core 2 Quad. ”
So what. PPro 4 was a horrid piece of software. It didn’t begin to compete with FCP till version 6, which was still about a mile behind”
I included CS 4 and the mention of AVCHD because they very star of this thread is FCPX encoding AVCHD/h.264 10 times faster than Premiere Pro and thus speeding up the workflow. Having said that if you went back to 2010 when Premiere Pro could edit native AVCHD FCP 7 users would state AVCHD/h.264 is not a professional codec and should not be used. Transcode to Pro Res. Once FCPX could edit native AVCHD then it was cool to edit and export native AVCHD/h.264. Doesn’t that kind of correlate to this thread? In other words if Premiere Pro CC made use of Quick Sync and FCPX did not perhaps FCPX user would still say h.264 is not a professional codec. Do you kind of see my point? I just simply flipped the table of the Quick Sync paradigm. I should add I don’t think PP CS 5.0 editing AVCHD better that FCP 7 is a big deal but CS 5.0 edit all the codecs better than FCP 7. Actually PP CS 5.0 had better real-time playback then Premiere Pro CC 2017. The introduction of Open CL introduced slow downs because Adobe has to make the Mercury Playback Engine work with CUDA and Open CL.
[Herb Sevush] “It wasn’t until the CC versions began that a broadcast editor could begin to work with Ppro without pulling their hair out.”
Could you elaborate a little? I think The Tonight Show used PP prior to CS 6.0. There were several other places listed on Adobe’s website using PP prior to CS 6.0 for broadcast TV shows.
[Herb Sevush] “The fact that it could handle a couple of codec’s natively that FCP7 couldn’t in no way justifies this sentence of yours :”
My post should make it clear to FCPX users who think FCPX is so much better than Premiere Pro because it can encode h.264 10 times faster may not be accurate. I kind of turned the tables to Bill’s FCPX Vs Premiere Pro paradigm. Keep in mind CS 5.0 edit all the codecs better than FCP 7 not just one or two. I only listed two. As I stated prior CS 5.0 had better playback performance than CC 2017. I think you got to caught up in the AVCHD/h.264 paradigm and forgot that CS 5.0 can edit more than just a few codecs. As I stated I mentioned AVCHD/h.264 as a gag. Bill Davis used Intel’s Quick Sync as proof that FCPX is better than Premiere Pro. Do you kind of see my point now? I was flipping the table to Bill’s FCPX Vs Premiere Pro paradigm.
[Herb Sevush] “Only true if the entirety of your workflow was ingesting and exporting AVCHD. If you had to do any actual, you know, editing, that statement is absurd.”
Once again you are focusing on AVCHD/h.264 even more than Bill Davis. I would never think that editing h.264/AVCHD would make one NLE better than another. You should now me better than that. My point was that in 2010 FCP 7 users looked down on h.264/AVCHD. Now h.264/AVCHD is the star of the show. Once again I don’t think AVCHD/h.264 is a big deal. Bill Davis does. I was simply flipping the table on the paradigm. I was pulling gag. Having said that PP CS 5 and even CS 4.0 did not just edit AVCHD faster than FCP 7 it edited all the codecs better than FCP 7. The Red One R3D, HDV, MJPEG, AVCHD etc. I know many people that switched form FCP 7 to Premiere Pro CS 5.5 (CS 5.0 same thing). All of them stated they loved Premiere Pro. They all stated Premiere Pro was slick compared to FCPX. They loved the Mercury Playback Engine. I admit their editing needs were probably different than yours.
[Herb Sevush] “Currently I work with Ppro CC and I’m quite happy with it, but lets leave the hyperbole out of this discussion.”
I was merely turning the tables to Bill’s FCPX paradigm although for most editors CS 5.0 was better than FCP 7. Walter Biscardi from the Creative Cow switched to CS 5.5. I am not saying FCP 7 was not a better option for a select few. As I sated what exactly did FCP 7 do that Premiere Pro CS 5.0 did not do?
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up