Andy Patterson
Forum Replies Created
-
[Brian Seegmiller] “Yes PP can add meta data to clips and whatnot but doing it in FCP X is faster and more efficient. For example: When creating a marker in PP and then dragging it out to make a range, does the video scrub as you drag the range? Um no. I have to guess and then scrub the video itself to find where I want it, and then drag range to that point. Flimsy at best. It is the time it takes to do things in PP that turns me off. Yes there are inefficiencies in FCP X but they don’t seem to affect my workflows as much.”
We can create subclips and add metadata real easy using Premiere Pro. We are not limited to using just markers.
-
[David Lawrence] “I think we’re still talking about two totally different approaches. It’s not even a matter of “old” vs “new”. Sure, FCPX’s database-driven approach is new, but even though string-out sequences have been around for awhile, Vashi’s “pancake” method is driven by the unique flexibility of the Pr Pro panel UI.”
New compared to what? FCPX does things a tad bit different but Premiere Pro is an awesome database with editing capabilities just like FCPX. Someone even posted a link to a plugin that gives Premiere Pro a timeline index. We can find content in our timeline without it so I won’t be making use of it but obviously Premiere Pro can do a lot as far as metadata is concerned. You can even add metadata to the markers. That is not to say FCPX and Avid cannot do the same. All the NLE have metadata capabilities. Keep in mind keyword collections was introduced in Adobe’s Bridge 8 years prior to the release of FCPX. Metadata from Bridge can be recalled in Premiere Pro. Premiere, AE Audition, Photoshop can all share metadata and have been able to do so prior to the release of FCPX. Also keep in mind metadata from Adobe’s Story could be shared between several programs as well. I don’t get how FCPX users can brag about how FCPX’s metadata capabilities are anything new. Sure all the NLE will use metadata a tad bit different but Apple/FCPX did not invent metadata although many FCPX users think Apple did just that.
-
[Bill Davis] “Pancakers must lay out those ingredients because they’ve never had a systematic facility to call up a pre-measured amount of the substance/spice you want, when they want it – instantly. If there was, pre-lining up a bunch of ingredients in “semi-bulk” form on the counter would be silly. Particularly if the “call up” system can expand or reduce the actual measure used by the cook precisely enough to satisfy their desire to adjust on the fly.”
Pancake editing can be done really fast and you already have a visual workflow of how the project will be from start to finish. We can use a metadata with Premiere Pro but why wast the time if you can just apply markers super quick? Having said that it might be helpful to see a quick video of your workflow. I don’t edit feature films but when Vashi Nedomansky was mention using markers with ranges I think my editing style is probably about 80-90% the same as Vashi Nedomansky.
[Bill Davis] “I can arrange dozens of virtual “pancakes” via keyword collections and instantly switch between them – focusing on each as I choose. I can also aggregate more than one into a new assembly. That gives me ALL the visual cuing pancakers get – but in a system that lets me adjust my visual focus as I choose, fluidly and efficiently.”
Perhaps a video tutorial of your pancake editing method might be helpful. We may all be getting lost in equivocation.
[Bill Davis] “Once again you’re going to be hard pressed to convince me that the system based on the older style has more than a shadow of the utility of the newer system.”
Older or newer? Adobe Premiere Pro has allowed you to add metadata and create subclips for over ten years. Keywords with ranges act like subclips. Adobe Premiere Pro has metadata fields. You can add as many metadata fields as you want and search for content in specific metadata fields but why add metadata if you can avoid it?
-
[Bill Davis] “It’s going to be very hard to convince me that a marker – essentially a fixed information storage point in time – will ever be able to assist the educated editor in a fashion equivalent to a system of tagged ranges that can not just “mark” – but concatenate, separate, overlap, exclude, aggregate and recall content – from a single frame( like the marker) to an entire scene capture – and let the editor tag and retrieve the groupings instantly and at will.”
Markers can concatenate, separate, overlap, exclude, aggregate and recall content. With FCPX a lot of the users think it is cool to apply metadata to everything prior to adding it to the timeline. Why add metadata if you don’t have to? Having said that using existing metadata is cool but having to add it is not. As everyone is saying both methods work. You can also add metadata to the markers if you want to. For some TV shows markers might be quicker for some movies keyword collections might be better.
-
If you want a visual or video tutorial you could start watching at 6:40 to 7:40.
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.
-
[Michael Gissing] “[any paterson]” I am not saying the audio capabilities of Premiere Pro are as good as Davinic Resolve I am saying the GUI looks familiar.”
The GUI is a blend of Resolve’s look and Fairlight’s GUI but what Fairlight brings is a vast improvement over any NLE’s audio. We are talking about a 1000 track DAW with multiple bussing with bus formats from 3D, Dolby Atmos, 22.2, 7.1, 5.1 etc all with the ability to fold down formats to produce multiple deliverables – all controlled by total automation of everything including VST plugins. It allows clip stacking on tracks, full EQ and dynamics processing on everything. Don’t judge it by the GUI.”
You totally missed the point I was making. I even stated I am not saying Premiere’s audio capabilities are as good as DR. I was pointing out the GUI looks similar. The GUI of Premiere Pro gets bashed all the time and it does look like DR has a pancake editing mode. It sucked when Premiere had it but now pancake editing will be cool. My comments are about the GUI only not the capabilities. Having said that Premiere Pro’s audio mixer does do surround sound very similar to DR and did it back in Premiere Pro 1.0. You can ad EQ effects to Premire Pro’s audio board as well. As I stated I know DR has better audio capabilities. The Lumetri Panel in Premiere Pro is good but there are some cool things DR has that Premiere’s Lumetri panel lacks. As I stated I am talking about the GUI not the capabilities.
[Michael Gissing] “When you realise that the dedicated controller and mix panels are also part of Fairlight inside Resolve and the fact that Resolve removes the whole round tripping that many of us currently use then you begin to understand how significant this is. An NLE and grade/ finishing tool that for the first time ever includes audio facility for any level of program making including cinema.”
Did you actually read my post? Did I say Premiere Pro has better audio capabilites than DR? I did no such thing. I am talking only about the GUI not the capabilities. I am fully aware that DR makes good use of BMD hardware for color grading as well. Having said that I like BMD. I like their cameras, their ATEM products, their capture cards etc. In case you don’t know it I have a BMD Intensity Shuttle. I have been to BMD’s website many times looking at all their products. I am well aware of Blackmagic Design and their products but my comment was about the GUI similarities between DR and Premiere Pro. That is not to say that Avid and DR don’t have similarities as well. For some reason Avid and Adobe get bashed but BMD does not. I doubt anyone is going to say the pancake editing mode of DR is stupid even though they say it about Premiere Pro. Do you think anyone is going to say DR’s GUI is cringe worthy even though the GUI is very similar to Premiere Pro? I am not talking about capabilities only the GUI. Do you see my point?
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.
-
The timeline comparison tool at 9:50 looks a lot like pancake editing. I would like to add people are excited about the new audio capabilities in DaVinci Resolve (DR). I am not saying the audio capabilities of Premiere Pro are as good as Davinic Resolve I am saying the GUI looks familiar. I don’t doubt with DR you can have tracks on the bottom and the mixer above. With Premiere you can have the audio mixer to the left side the right side or stacked above. I imagine both DR and Premiere will allow for a total customized layout yet Premiere gets bashed for having a cringe worthy GUI. Wouldn’t DR’s audio editing GUI be cringe worthy? How you can go from a video editing GUI to an audio editing GUI and then to a color grading GUI in DR reminds me of Premiere Pro. I am not saying the color grading capabilities of Premiere Pro are as good I am saying the workflow is very similar. A simple click of the mouse and you have a totally different GUI geared towards the task at hand. I should also add that DR uses tracks. Premiere Pro gets bashed for using tracks. There are a lot of similarities between DR and Premiere Pro as one should expect. I wonder if BMD is thinking about developing a photo/graphic design program? Having said that I can only hope BMD will force Adobe to drop the price of the CC membership to $14.99 a month. Adobe cannot ignore what the competition has to offer for video editiors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL3gaLiezZA
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.
-
[Ricardo Marty] “For 299. (or free) you get fusion advance and fairlight. Plus a powerfull nle.
Wonder what’s happening in the minds of the powers that be at adobe or avid?
Now davinci will be everywhere that counts.
Kind of makes adobe production apps look like a lesser product. except PS and AE”
It makes the offerings from Apple look like a lesser product as well. You forgot to mention that. How come?
BMD has come a long way. Perhaps BMD will invest in photo editing and graphic design software before Apple. That is what you might want to be concerned about especially if BMD can allow for seamless integration. Don’t act like Apple is untouchable. Having said that for some Adobe will still be the way to go and for others Apple will still be the way to go.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “[andy patterson] “Create a cool track matte using only FCPX titling system. Create some lower thirds and animate them using only FCPX.”
?”
I am not talking canned title effects. I will create something in PP CS 4.0 and have you replicate it using only FCPX. I think you might find Premiere Pro’s titling tool offers a lot more than what you had first assumed.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “[andy patterson] “Thanks for posting. I should have stated a 3-D Hexagon like a polyhedron. ”
I’d encourage you to try it out for yourself. FCPX ≠C4D nor is it trying to be.”
That is kind of my point. What you did could be done with Premiere Pro real easy. Premiere Pro does not have a true 3-D rendering engine. It can fake 3-D animation to some extent like FCPX. As the hexagon rotated you didn’t see anything than other then text become transparent. There was no reflection or refraction like a true glass shaded object in a true 3-D animation program would have. What FCPX does is a shaded previews but not a fully blown ray traced rendering. Some People who use FCPX might not be aware of the difference. There was a time when I had to use wire frame previews with 3D animation software.
I do thank you for posting.