Workflow and hardware implications of H264 4k for FCP X vs Premiere?

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Joe Marler] “people on Premiere CS6”

er, you’re asking this in relation to CS6?

PPRO CC can cut 4K AVCHD coming off a GH4 like, you know, butter – on a three year old laptop. it did for me.

PPRO CC works as well or better, with more formats, than FCPX, on older hardware. I think most people on here who use both would agree on that.

https://ogallchoir.prosite.com/
producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Jerry Wise]

Larry Jordan just finished a webinar on this subject.

[James Culbertson]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “PPRO CC works as well or better, with more formats, than FCPX, on older hardware. I think most people on here who use both would agree on that.”

FCPX or Premiere appear to cut 4K subjectively better based upon each commenters biases. I have not needed to cut much on Premiere in the last year or two, but FCPX cuts 4K like butter too. So I guess we need discuss the relative merits of butter to get to the bottom of this conundrum.

I’d also question whether the industry as a whole is moving towards 4K; It’s way overkill for most projects so I hope not.

[Michael Gissing]

[James Culbertson]”I’d also question whether the industry as a whole is moving towards 4K; It’s way overkill for most projects so I hope not.”

Depends on the area you work in. For me in doco post the main deliverable is still HD but camera aquisition is rapid moving to larger frame sizes. With all the low cost 4k cameras out there and the fascination with reframing, 4k is being shot a lot more. I am about to start a production that will go until early 2017 and we are shooting 4k or larger and posting in 4k for cinema and TV release. 4k TVs are selling well and within a few years 4k will be perfectly normal just like HD has become.

For web delivery I see little point in 4k but broadcast is going 4k.

[Michael Gissing]

I get more feedback on Pr than X simply due to the fact that the majority of editors who are feeding work into my post facility to grade & mix switched from Legend to Pr. But all report that h264 4k can easily be cut on either so I doubt there is a clear winner.

Obviously having a computer with processing grunt and a beefy graphics card will make things easier but it isn’t hard either way. I recommend the latest versions of Pr & X as well. The simplest post workflow is not to transcode to proxies but cut with original files if the system copes.

[Gabe Strong]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “Re: Workflow and hardware implications of H264 4k for FCP X vs Premiere?
by Aindreas Gallagher on Nov 25, 2015 at 6:06:03 am

[Joe Marler]
PPRO CC works as well or better, with more formats, than FCPX, on older hardware. I think most people on here who use both would agree on that.

https://ogallchoir.prosite.com/
producer/editor.grading/motion graphics”

Mmmmmm…..I don’t have CC but I tried a trial version of it
and I would certainly NOT agree with what you say.
This is with a 2009 Mac Pro, maybe what type of
‘Older hardware’ you have matters…..

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com

[Tony West]

[James Culbertson] “I’d also question whether the industry as a whole is moving towards 4K; It’s way overkill for most projects so I hope not.”

I must agree here. Way overkill with those giant file sizes.

I don’t see a real demand for it in broadcast TV until somebody starts broadcasting in 4k over the air.

You gonna shoot the coaches press conference in 4K, why?

I remember shooting 3D for ESPN. It was gonna be the next big thing. it never went anywhere in the end.

I can see it for the big screen though.

[Bret Williams]

For web delivery 4K is doing very well for my last couple projects where delivery is 720p. Enables me to reframe up to 300% for a pixel to pixel ratio. Sure it helps cut up an interview, but it also allows broll to be stretched 2-3 times as far, or give you 2-3 times as many choices for cutting a scene together.

I see it as less useful for 4K broadcast where you lose the opportunity to reframe. In 1080p broadcast it’s very useful for reframing run and gun news or interviews,

Takes me back to that brief period where we were editing anamorphic SD for DVD, but everyone had started shooting HD.

[Bret Williams]

What GPU matters. Both rely heavily on the GPU so if your 2009 doesn’t have the right GPU, yeah.

[Tim Wilson]

[Bret Williams] “Takes me back to that brief period where we were editing anamorphic SD for DVD, but everyone had started shooting HD.”

Or that very long period where people shot on film for delivery to SD broadcast and VHS.

The notion of identical acquisition and distribution formats is an incredibly brief aberration in the history of video and film production. They’ve historically had little to do with each other, and in most contexts, they still do.

I promise you there was never a conversation that went, “Why are we shooting Gilligan’s Island on film? It’s not like people have movie projectors at home.”

Most people do what most people have always done: choose the production format that offers the most advantages for production, and treat distribution as a separate issue.

You know the old saying: fix it in telecine. LOL

You’re absolutely right to bring up web video in this context, Bret. From the beginning, it showed even more starkly than DVD the advantages of high resolution input for higher quality compression.

For that matter, devices show even more starkly than tvs the advantage of density. We can argue all day whether or not people can tell the distance between HD and 4K on their TVs, but it’s actually pretty striking on a phone or tablet.

And now that the economic and workflow considerations of 4K+ are just that — something to consider, rather than some massive obstacle — decoupling is happening more and more broadly.