Andy Patterson
Forum Replies Created
-
You don’t have to have a $3500.00 broadcast monitor although you really would not want to go from you graphics card to a Broadcast monitor (you can). A HD TV will at least work in the correct color space. It will also allow for interlacing. Viewing interlaced timelines on a computer screen sucks. Broadcast is 1080i. Using products from Blackmagic, AJA and Matrox are money will spent if the end result is going to be broadcast. You can see the broadcast composition much better using 3rd party products. You may have 1080P video clips but if you drop them into a 1080i timeline using Premiere Pro they will playback silky smooth. Maybe the video link below might be of some interest. I also have other BMD videos that might be of some help. Having said that all monitors will have different color and contrast quality. For broadcast you can at least get the composition, color space and image quality (interlaced) correct. I don’t regret paying $180.00 for the Intensity Shuttle. I wish I had bought it sooner.
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.
-
I stated I was going to do a demo about the Premiere Pro’s GUI a couple of weeks ago. I just have not had time. How Oliver set up his GUI almost exactly like I did it (dual monitors). I was going to use the stock video clips from the Adobe competition just like Oliver did. They only thing I sometimes do his have two or even three bins panels open at the same time although all docked together. I also at times put the scopes on a separate monitor like oliver. I have always said the GUI of Premiere Pro rocks. I still plan on doing a GUI tutorial but the screen shots look nice. The only thing a GUI tutorial will ad is the use of the tilde key function.
-
[Herb Sevush] “Cherry picking instances where one NLE is slightly faster than another is pointless. “
It depends on how often you use the said feature.
[Herb Sevush] “If you need to be in the optimum efficient NLE for every single aspect of your work then I suggest you get comfortable using 8-10 different NLEs on every project. “
I am simply stating FCPX could be more efficient. Adobe just revamped Adobe’s titling system. I don’t think it was all that great but Adobe thinks titles are important. So should Apple.
[Herb Sevush] “The question is can you efficiently get all of your work done in the ecosystem of a given NLE – if the answer is yes, then it doesn’t matter if that ecosystem uses plug-ins or dynamic links or any other way to connect the various tools you need to complete your work.”
I agree but FCPX is not as efficient as it can be. I will be posting some videos soon. Keep in mind my response was for a Bill. I don’t think the FCPX/Motion thing is all that great. I know FCPX users think it is but it can make things more complicated than they need to be.
-
[Steve Connor] “[andy patterson] ” I am saying FCPX should have a decent titling system of it’s own.”
It does, it only seems to be you criticising it on here
“Some people don’t know any better. Having said that I will be doing some FCPX and Motion videos soon.
-
[Walter Soyka] “andy patterson] “Having said that FCPX on it’s own should be able to do simple mattes and masks.”
FCPX on its own CAN do simple mattes and masks.”
I am hip but as far as I know you don’t have the drawing tools and inner and out strokes as well as beveled edges. If FCPX can do all that could you please to a demonstration video? I would appreciate it.
-
[Herb Sevush] ”
This is a false distinction. The Ppro titler (which I like, by the way) bears no UI relationship with anything else in Ppro. It acts like a third party plug-in that just so happens to be included in the NLE.”You can dock the old titling system and even customize the GUI a bit. I don’t really see it as a third party plugin. I will admit I like the way the new titling system lets you work in the program monitor but the new titling system lacks a lot of features that the legacy titling system has. I have heard Adobe is going to make the new titling tool much better.
[Herb Sevush] “As long as the operation for the editor is fluid it does not matter how many programs or plug-ins are involved, in fact it can be hard to tell the difference. “
I hear you but what if in a side by side comparison a few things were proven to be a tad bit more efficient using Premiere Pro?
[Herb Sevush] “The only meaningful question to be asked is does the workflow allow for a fluid way to solve the problem? If the answer is yes it doesn’t matter how you label the various component parts – plug-in, dynamic link, Ppro Panel – if it works together it works. “
Something may seem very fluid until it is contrasted with another paradigm. That is not to say the FCPX/Motion paradigm does not have some cool features of it’s own.
[Herb Sevush] “If they included Motion as a “room” within FCPX the way the Ppro Titler is a “room” within Ppro would that somehow make it better?”
Why would Motion be a separate room in FCPX? That would probably not be much of a difference but perhaps the implementation could be very good. Who knows? I guess the best thing to ask is would you want to eliminate the titling system of Premiere Pro and just have a room for After Effects inside Premiere Pro? If you say you want Premiere to have a titling system to create simple custom titles, lower thirds and track mattes I would think you would expect the same of FCPX. I am not saying tethering FCPX to Motion does not work but perhaps I can provide a few examples where FCPX and Motion make somethings more complex than they need to be.
-
[Tom Sefton] “Motion/FCPX is a really powerful and very cheap tool for producing top quality video and graphics.”
I am glad you agree with me. I guess we agree : )
I have stated Motion is a great program for $50.00. I have also stated Apple could easily charge $100.00 or even $200.00 for it and it would still be a good deal. My criticism is that you really need two programs if you want to create custom titles in FCPX.
-
[Walter Soyka] “[andy patterson] “The FCPX/Motion connection is a tad bit over-hyped in my opinion.”
I disagree. From a design perspective, I think the possibilities here are usually understated! “
I think you read my post wrong. I didn’t say Motion is overhyped. I think Motion is a good program for $50.00. I am saying how the FCPX users talk about the integration between the two is overhyped. There are some cool things that you can do with Motion. Having said that FCPX on it’s own should be able to do simple mattes and masks. That is why I say it is the connection/integration that is overhyped. You shouldn’t have to use two programs to create custom titles for FCPX. That is BS. Apple can keep the integration but also put a robust titling system in FCPX so you don’t have to switch back and forth between programs releasing parameters. That wastes time. I would hate to have to always use After Effects just to create a simple track matte for Premiere Pro. Do you see my point?
[Walter Soyka] “Because we could build some robust broadcast graphics packages in Motion for the editors to use in FCPX.”
That is great if you already have Motion and want to learn Motion. As I stated why can’t FCPX have a decent titling system? Premiere Pro users can create temples using Premiere Pro. We don’t have to use a Premiere Pro/AE combo to create simple track mattes. Why should FCPX users have to use Motion to create a simple track matte and also have to waste time releasing the parameters of Motion into FCPX?
[Walter Soyka] “We could expose a few parameters to them that they could tweak right in the NLE. We could also easily limit what they could change to stay within our brand standards.”
I have already stated in several posts that templates can be useful but you know what could also be useful? Allowing FCPX do to all that with out the need for Motion. That way you only have to learn one program as opposed to two. Motion could be used for those times you want to take the titles to the cutting edge. AE can be used with Premiere Pro for that purpose as well.
[Walter Soyka] ”
I would encourage you to pick up a license of Motion and dig in before you judge it too harshly.”I already know what it can do. I am not knocking Motion nor have I ever. I am saying FCPX should have a decent titling system of it’s own. I am saying the FCPX/Motion connection is overhyped because you shouldn’t need to use two programs to create simple titles form start to finish for FCPX.
-
[Steve Connor] ”
With Motion I can make my own Titles, masks and mattes real easy too and easily use them in FCPX”Why create a mask, matte or title in Motion and then have to release the parameters to FCPX? Wouldn’t it be great if FCPX could create titles, masks and mattes? Why the need for two programs? Basically what you are saying is it would be better for Adobe to take the titling system out of Premiere Pro and force Premiere Pro users to use After Effects to create simple titles. There are times when After Effects can give you an edge over Premiere Pro’s titling system but both programs need a titling tool.
-
[Steve Connor] “[andy patterson] “and 80% of the canned titles included in FCPX are a tad bit cheesy to say the least.
”As they are in the new Titler in Premiere Pro”
With Premiere Pro I can make my own titles, mask and mattes real easy. I can also mimic the canned titles of FCPX super easy. Having said that FCPX is about the same as when I last used it. I will try to post a video soon. Overall FCPX works OK on the Mac Mini for 1920 X 1080 projects.