Prem vs FCPX – Panels

[Andrew Kimery]

[Simon Ubsdell] “I’ve been using the AVID Artist Color with Resolve for quite a while now, and I’d certainly second your point about the difference a panel (even a lower-end one) makes to the speed and accuracy of the process.”

A friend of mine used the Artist Color and really likes it. I was keeping an eye on Ebay and Craigslist for a gently used one (they’d usually go for $1000-1100) as at the time that was the cheapest point of entry (even if a bit overkill for my needs), but I never found one (and ultimately ended up with a Ripple).

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Oliver Peters] “It seems like this could offer some real advantages for FCPX. Thoughts?”

Getting back on topic here, I’ve been on Pr solid for about a month now.

I use the frame.io panel and the vimeo panel. I have turned on Creative Cloud syncing, and I can sync projects to and from desktop/laptop wirelessly, as well as kb shortcuts, layouts, and other do-dads.

I can say without a doubt, that I wish Adobe would spend more time developing the actual mechanics of the application, instead of developing everything around it. Working, I am speaking of actual editing, syncing, doing the work, is much slower than it is in FCPX. It just is. I don’t think it’s because I am unfamiliar with Pr anymore, or don’t know the shortcuts (or haven’t built them when they aren’t there). FCPX’s object based interface truly is faster. I can understand why people would like Pr. It is a familiar style. For better or worse, there are so many options, and ways to configure, arrange, move, and work. And I guess I could see how that is a benefit to users, and I can certainly see how that perceived benefit could be sold. People work and think differently, sometimes editing is very mechanical and less creative, sometimes you just need to be able to relink to something new that comes in, and not have to jump through hoops, or jockey xml, to get the media you need linked to your current timeline.

But then I go back to FCPX. I use frame.io and vimeo there, too. Instead of a panel, I get linked, directly, to a web interface from an OS X notification after export (a feature I miss in Pr, notifications that take you directly to the file/link you just created). Those notifications get stored in FCPX, and I can click on a link to get back to any versions that I need, later, right from within FCPX. The work, the actual day to day slog of editing, syncing, creating, is so much more fluid in FCPX. Trimming, dealing with multichannel audio, keyboard editing, multicam, compositing, effects control and manipulation is so much faster; it is simplified for the better, in my opinion. It is much easier to stay focused on doing the work, rather than focusing on editing mechanics. Yes, there are workflow considerations. Relinking requires other applications, trimming media requires other applications, interchange workflows (EDL/AAF/XML/Etc) require third party help, but they are all very solid and reliable. I can’t get the frame.io interface from within FCPX, but….it’s not a hinderance, and having to work within the web app, instead of a Pr panel is not a deal breaker. Syncing settings can be done with third parties (like Dropbox et al). Yes, it’s not as automatic, but it’s still pretty simple.

I appreciate Pr, I appreciate the people that appreciate Pr and all that it can offer, but it’s hard for me to see some sort of competitive advantage when I can get the similar panel results outside of FCPX, while keeping, in my opinion and for my work, a more creative interface for the actual work that I do most of: editing.

[Steve Connor]

[Jeremy Garchow] “I appreciate Pr, I appreciate the people that appreciate Pr and all that it can offer, but it’s hard for me to see some sort of competitive advantage when I can get the similar panel results outside of FCPX, while keeping, in my opinion and for my work, a more creative interface for the actual work that I do most of: editing.”

Great post Jeremy and some very interesting insight!