Andy Patterson
Forum Replies Created
-
Out of Stock! I imagine supplies will be in demand for another 4-5 weeks. Having said the Coffee lake seems like a winner.
-
[Gabriel Spaulding] “Apple’s Pro Apps run much faster on lower powered machines than are required to run Premiere Pro (for example) at similar speeds. This is not a critique of Premiere Pro —I am merely pointing out that the Pro Apps are better optimized and specs alone do not always paint an accurate picture of reality.”
If I switch of GPU acceleration on my PC, FCPX can play more layers of H.264/AVCHD on the Mac Mini than I can using Premiere Pro on my PC. If I enable GPU acceleration on my PC it will kick the crap out of FCPX running on the Mac Mini.
If you have a low spec laptop with an i3 CPU and no dedicated GPU and edit h.264/AVCHD then FCPX will have a big performance advantage over Premiere Pro. FCPX uses Intel’s Quick sync but that is nothing to brag about because Premiere on a PC with an i7 and GTX 1060 can hold it own against a $3,000.00 Mac Pro. You FCPX users leave that part out.
Performance on a low spec system is a non issue because my Mac Mini costed $990.00. A $990.00 PC running Adobe would out perform FCPX on a $990.00 Mac Mini hands down for editing. FCPX would render faster for h.264/AVCHD but that is all. I admit FCPX would run better on the Mac Mini than Premiere Pro but like I said it is a moot point when you put Premiere Pro on a PC against FCPX. FCPX will loose every time! Keep in mind a $699.99 Mac Mini using FCPX will render h.264/AVCHD faster than a $6000.00 Mac Pro.
-
[Gabriel Spaulding] “”Whenever I hear a comparison between FCPX VS Premiere Pro from someone who edits using FCPX I think they always have a need to make Premiere Pro seem much harder to use that it actually is.”
I did not sense this at all in the article. Rather, compared to FCP X certain tasks in Premiere Pro simply are slower by comparison. This is not a critique of Premiere Pro, it’s just one of the strengths of FCP X.
I don’t believe the part about you have to get things right the first time when setting up folders in Premiere Pro. That simply is not the case nor was it ever. That is making Premiere Pro look worse than actually is. In fact Randy could have stated Premiere Pro is not as ridged as the instructor implied but why fight a good smack at Adobe. There will always be a need to take a dig at Adobe. Be honest about that. Having said that keyword, keyword collections and favorites were in Adobe’s Bridge long before FCPX was released. Randy forget to mention that. I don’t doubt Randy used Adobe’s Bridge prior to implementing those features into FCPX.
[Gabriel Spaulding] ” Having used both, organizing footage in FCP X is leaps and bounds faster and more flexible than it is in Premiere Pro.”
I have both programs myself. I am hip to keyword and keyword collections. Could you do a short tutorial/demo between the two programs for your workflow? Keep in mind I am not saying FCPX is not your best bet. I just want to see how FCPX is leaps and bounds faster and more flexible than Premiere Pro for everyone. I say that because I have found many obstacles when using FCPX.
Just recently a die hard X user stated that FCPX allowed to him to edit in ways not possible in any other NLE. He stated that is the beauty of X. When all was said and done, not only can I edit the exact same way in Premiere Pro I had posted a video about it two years ago. That person really thought X saved him a lot of time over using Premiere Pro when it simply was not the case. Some people really want to hype every little feature of FCPX when there really is not a reason to do so. In fact it can be annoying at times. That is why I would really like to see a demo comparing FCPX to Premiere Pro for your workflow. That is what this forum is all about. It would be good info for everyone.
[Gabriel Spaulding] “Premiere Pro definitely has its strengths. It doesn’t have to be a fight to the death every time the two are mentioned in the same sentence.”
It is unfortunate that Premiere Pro is made to seem much more difficult to use than it actually is.
What I am saying is you don’t see Avid editors saying Avid allows them to edit in way not possible in any other NLE. There is a few things unique to FCPX but the same could be said of all the NLE in 2017.
I am looking forward to your demo but until then this person is stating Premiere Pro (not FCPX) works better for his workflow. How can that be? My guess is everyone’s editing needs is different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l96ockhkzvw&t=7s
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
Your hard drive may not have enough throughput for 4K Pro Res. It could be the CPU as well. How much of the CPU is being used? What kind of speeds does your hard drive get?
-
[greg janza] “Before Premiere Pro’s rebirth a few years ago it was a completely janky product that was rarely used by any real professional.”
It has become very buggy since the CC. I find bugs in every new release. Some get fixed others do not.
-
Perhaps the instructors at the school were using old editing methods. Premiere Pro can make good use of metadata. Premiere Pro does not have keywords. Keywords, keyword collections and favorites are in Adobe’s Bridge. Premiere Pro has metadata fields that can serve a very similar function.
“They spent a day going over importing and logging and how you had to choose how you wanted to organize your material because the folder structure would determine how you looked for things later and you had to get it right from the start”.
I am not sure why a day was spent on importing and logging. I am not sure I agree that you have to get it right from the start. You can add and delete folders in Premiere Pro and make alterations to the structure throughout the entire editing process. I think Premiere could do that even back when Randy himself wrote the code for it. Does he think Premiere Pro got worse since he left? Having said that whenever I hear a comparison between FCPX VS Premiere Pro from someone who edits using FCPX I think they always have a need to make Premiere Pro seem much harder to use that it actually is. If you want to say FCPX is better that is OK. It is personal choice. It is the need to make Premiere Pro seem much hard to use than it actually is that I find odd.
-
[Steve Connor] “What is FCPX never happened and Apple had released something similar to the current Premiere Pro – would we have all been happy? Premiere Pro is very good, lots of stuff to like in it, I do prefer FCPX, for me it’s more fun and faster to edit with, it’s my my first choice to edit with every time, but honestly if it didn’t exist I think I’d have been more than happy with a PPro-alike FCP8.”
We have to also mention FCS.
Many people at the time had thought FCS would get a revamped GUI for all the FCS programs. Most people thought the revamped GUI would give all the FCS programs a uniform look like the Adobe products. Some people thought there might even be integration between Aperture and FCP 8. None of that happened.
What did happen!
Premiere went 64 bit. FCPX went 64 bit. Premiere Pro had great metadata. FCPX got metadata. Premiere Pro made use of the GPU. FCPX made use of the GPU. Premiere Pro was codec agnostic since I can remember. FCPX is codec agnostic.
FCPX does make use of Quick Sync Premiere Pro does not. We can talk about the magnetic timeline and roles layout of FCPX but we can also talk about Adobe Anywhere and Adobe Story. In the end it is all personal choice. Some people prefer roles with jelly and others like a hot biscuit with butter.
The video below might be interesting to some of you.
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ”
And if I have sync audio, and the audio recordist has kept track of mice during the shoot, the names of of the mic or character or situation is already in the audio metadata and transferred to Roles on import, making this process go much faster. At that point, I name the camera audio Role something simple like “Guide Track” or “SOT”, and the sync audio has the tracks names as recorded. It’s extremely useful, and very fast. Much faster than assigning tracks to every clip that goes in to the timeline, and much faster than mapping track to channel outputs on export.”You set up a totally different paradigm then Charlie. I am not bad mouthing roles. I am not doubting roles work great for your needs. I was simply stating I can setup alternate titles and graphics and export them real super quick without the need to create multiple sequences/timelines. If we are exporting a “one off” tracks and roles may be about the same. I can see how the roles templates would pay off if you need to do the same export over and over again.
-
[Charlie Austin] “[andy patterson] “Even then on export you have to mouse click after mouse click after mouse click to get the correct export of audio elements. You have to hope you don’t forget about turning on and off sub roles as well.”
No, you do not. You do it once for each version and save a preset. Then, for all subsequent versions of different spots, it’s 3 clicks for each export, you need pay no attention to anything but the second click where you select the preset, that’s the beauty of it. ☺ You always need to QC the exports, but that’s true in any system.”
I stated you have to setup the template but once that is done I can see how it would be useful. Some people need advanced audio export options other needs advanced closed captioning options.
[Charlie Austin] “[andy patterson] “I don’t have to mouse click after mouse click after mouse click to mute and solo tracks”
Again, you do not need to do any of that. You *do* need to do that in a track/mixer NLE for digital file output. It’s not just soloing, and this workflow is not for one cut. It’s for situations where you have 5 or 6 different spots, with 5 or 6 different versions for each. Individual versions will have different track configurations, and may require both Stereo and Mono comps of the same material in the same file. In advertising, this is the norm.”
I understand it is for people who need to use the template over and over again. I get that. I can see the benefits of that aspect. All I am saying is I seen a lot of mouse clicking and drop down menus in the demo from 4:10-7:10. I also want to add that we can have the Spanish text in video track/channel 4 the French in track/channel 5 and the German text in channel/track 5. Same with the audio channel/tracks on 4, 5 and 6. I don’t see why in Premiere Pro we would need a separate project/timeline/sequence for each version as stated in the video. I don’t see it as being much different form enabling, disabling or soloing and muting tracks. I admit maybe I am missing something. Having said that I did a video about the tiling system in Premiere Pro and I demonstrated that I can easily enable or disable individual track matte elements and title layers. It is not like I had to create a clean version, a track matte version, a title version and also a version with track mattes and titles together. Or a version with with all the individual track matte elements. I did it all on the same timeline/sequence. I don’t have to assign roles to all the track mattes elements, adjustment layers or titles. Having said that I can see how stereo and mono options could be useful as well as the templates. I don’t doubt Avid and Premiere Pro could do what you want if there was a request for it. Did you ever make such a request from Avid or Adobe? You said it was for a TV spot. How does FCPX handle closed captioning for the different version? Just curious. I have never had to use closed captions but I know a lot of people do.
[Charlie Austin] “[andy patterson] “I can also EQ the entire audio track and clean it up in seconds. You can do it clip by clip as well. ”
Me too. ☺
This discussion is way off topic, but as I said, I’ve been doing this for a very long time, starting with Otari ProDisc and 24 track tape, slaved to video layed back to DigiBeta or D2. Then Avid Audiovision, DAT tapes, ADAT, Media Composer, FCP 7, Premiere, and FCP X. For the kind of versioning that needs to be done for movie marketing, FCP X currently cannot be beat. MC has some output presets now, but they’re not remotely as flexible or easy to use as FCP X and Roles.”
I have had to work with 3/4″, Beta, HDV, Digital Beta and a few others. I also had to cut and splice with an old Otari reel to reel but I don’t see how discusing technology from the past is relevant. Do you?
I am not saying the roles feature does not have merit or that it is not your best option. What I am asking is it everyone’s best option?
-
[Michael Hancock] “It’s just as fast in FCPX, but different. Assigning roles, especially for something as broad as “music”, “dialogue”, and “effects” takes a couple seconds for an entire project. Select all of your music and assign the audio role as Music.”
The music, effects and dialogue may need to be broken down into sub roles.
[Michael Hancock] “The only time roles is an issue is if you don’t assign it before you begin editing. After you’ve dropped a clip into your timeline there is no way to assign a role at the event level and ripple it to your sequence.
That is why I stated you have to put some forethought into it.
[Michael Hancock] “And roles are useful for more than just exporting splits. Like Charlie has talked about – it’s when you get a ton of specific requests for mixing dialogue/effects, music/effects, mono with stereo, etc… – roles make it easy to do all that from one sequence, and quickly. And you can save your role exports so you don’t have to mouse click like crazy.”
I stated saving the templates in FCPX can be useful.
[Michael Hancock] ” I have one saved that exports just Color, Graphics, 2Pop/Slate, and FINAL MIX. I set it up once, and that’s used for every master export I do.”
As I stated there are some exports that could be done real quick in Premiere Pro making a template a non issues. On the other hand FCPX will have and advantage for certain exports. It depends on what needs to be done.
[Michael Hancock] ”
Play around with it and you’ll see how versatile and powerful it is. I’d love to see a “roles” type export from Avid and Premiere, but with their track based system.”Can roles make use of control surfaces? I am sure with color coding something similar to roles could be implemented into Premiere Pro and Avid. I know the roles functionality of FCPX have gotten a lot better but as I stated there is forethought that has to go into it. I am not saying roles don’t have merit. I am saying it may be a non issue for some people. Just like Adobe Story and Adobe Anywhere may be a non issue for some people. For others they are a must have feature. To be honest a roles feature in Premiere Pro would not be at the top of my list but everyone’s list is different.