Andy Patterson
Forum Replies Created
-
Interesting info about Smoke/Flame. Perhaps we will get more information about other NLE.
[Walter Soyka] “There’s Creative Cloud. I know a lot of folks here are opposed to subscription pricing, but this is a major game changer for small and large agencies alike that makes costs both predictable and scalable and makes it easier to stay up-to-date.”
I don’t mind the concept. It is the price. We pay more and get less. For $14.95 it would be awesome.
[Walter Soyka] “Premiere specific advancements? Adobe didn’t invent multi-format editorial or GPU acceleration, but they certainly popularized both. Then there’s dynamic link, VR support, the panels architecture, HDR support, touch/gesture support in the UI, integration with the Premiere Clip mobile app, Adobe Story integration, Cloud features like Libraries and Team Projects, marketing integrations over social media…”
I have mentioned some of those feature to Bill as well but I don’t think he really cares. I think he only wants to glorify FCPX. I feel others just want to glorify FCPX as well rather than sharing information about NLE.
[Walter Soyka] “Apple and Adobe are both innovating and moving the industry forward, but they have very different approaches.”
I agree and I think Avid should get some credit. I first started editing on an $80,000.00 Media Composer back in 1998. I think Premiere Pro is better as of now but I am not going to bad mouth Avid. Avid had top of the line systems back in 1998 but things change. I don’t like the fact that Avid killed Pinnacle’s Liquid Edition but there are pros and cons to all companies. I wish Adobe would bring back the CS but that is not going to happen.
-
[Bill Davis] “For Apple the FOCUS of content creation has been X from day one. For Adobe, the FOCUS is a suite of a dozen plus separate entities that all exist outside any central hub – and only link up when the user of one program needs to exchange with another.”
You can create content for the printing production and the web with FCPX? I admit Premiere Pro cannot be used for printing production and web webdesign.
[Bill Davis] “FCP X is surely different – it’s focus is currently still on single seat video editing acting as the HUB application for everything else – a position that I don’t think Premiere Pro will ever occupy in the Adobe Universe.”
Can you please demonstrate FCPX being used as the HUB for webdesign? Adobe’s CC is a multimedia solution for web design, printing production as well as audio and video production. Premiere Pro cannot do it all but neither can FCPX as far as I now.
[Bill Davis] “That’s not a criticism, it’s merely a fact.”
It is your opinion Bill. Having said that what does FCPX do that Premiere Pro does not?
I think it would be wise to say Apple is more focused on audio and video production where Adobe offers a complete multimedia solution. At one time Final Cut Studio users though FCS would get a unified GUI for all the FCS programs (like Adobe’s CS) and complete integration between programs (like Adobe’s CS). Some thought “FCP 8” would import native files from Color. That never happened because Apple thought it would be to hard and to costly to implement. Apple took the easy way out. That is not to say financial it was not a success.
-
[Herb Sevush] “[andy patterson] “For the record even Premiere Pro CS 4.0 could edit AVCHD natively with a Core 2 Quad. ”
So what. PPro 4 was a horrid piece of software. It didn’t begin to compete with FCP till version 6, which was still about a mile behind”
I included CS 4 and the mention of AVCHD because they very star of this thread is FCPX encoding AVCHD/h.264 10 times faster than Premiere Pro and thus speeding up the workflow. Having said that if you went back to 2010 when Premiere Pro could edit native AVCHD FCP 7 users would state AVCHD/h.264 is not a professional codec and should not be used. Transcode to Pro Res. Once FCPX could edit native AVCHD then it was cool to edit and export native AVCHD/h.264. Doesn’t that kind of correlate to this thread? In other words if Premiere Pro CC made use of Quick Sync and FCPX did not perhaps FCPX user would still say h.264 is not a professional codec. Do you kind of see my point? I just simply flipped the table of the Quick Sync paradigm. I should add I don’t think PP CS 5.0 editing AVCHD better that FCP 7 is a big deal but CS 5.0 edit all the codecs better than FCP 7. Actually PP CS 5.0 had better real-time playback then Premiere Pro CC 2017. The introduction of Open CL introduced slow downs because Adobe has to make the Mercury Playback Engine work with CUDA and Open CL.
[Herb Sevush] “It wasn’t until the CC versions began that a broadcast editor could begin to work with Ppro without pulling their hair out.”
Could you elaborate a little? I think The Tonight Show used PP prior to CS 6.0. There were several other places listed on Adobe’s website using PP prior to CS 6.0 for broadcast TV shows.
[Herb Sevush] “The fact that it could handle a couple of codec’s natively that FCP7 couldn’t in no way justifies this sentence of yours :”
My post should make it clear to FCPX users who think FCPX is so much better than Premiere Pro because it can encode h.264 10 times faster may not be accurate. I kind of turned the tables to Bill’s FCPX Vs Premiere Pro paradigm. Keep in mind CS 5.0 edit all the codecs better than FCP 7 not just one or two. I only listed two. As I stated prior CS 5.0 had better playback performance than CC 2017. I think you got to caught up in the AVCHD/h.264 paradigm and forgot that CS 5.0 can edit more than just a few codecs. As I stated I mentioned AVCHD/h.264 as a gag. Bill Davis used Intel’s Quick Sync as proof that FCPX is better than Premiere Pro. Do you kind of see my point now? I was flipping the table to Bill’s FCPX Vs Premiere Pro paradigm.
[Herb Sevush] “Only true if the entirety of your workflow was ingesting and exporting AVCHD. If you had to do any actual, you know, editing, that statement is absurd.”
Once again you are focusing on AVCHD/h.264 even more than Bill Davis. I would never think that editing h.264/AVCHD would make one NLE better than another. You should now me better than that. My point was that in 2010 FCP 7 users looked down on h.264/AVCHD. Now h.264/AVCHD is the star of the show. Once again I don’t think AVCHD/h.264 is a big deal. Bill Davis does. I was simply flipping the table on the paradigm. I was pulling gag. Having said that PP CS 5 and even CS 4.0 did not just edit AVCHD faster than FCP 7 it edited all the codecs better than FCP 7. The Red One R3D, HDV, MJPEG, AVCHD etc. I know many people that switched form FCP 7 to Premiere Pro CS 5.5 (CS 5.0 same thing). All of them stated they loved Premiere Pro. They all stated Premiere Pro was slick compared to FCPX. They loved the Mercury Playback Engine. I admit their editing needs were probably different than yours.
[Herb Sevush] “Currently I work with Ppro CC and I’m quite happy with it, but lets leave the hyperbole out of this discussion.”
I was merely turning the tables to Bill’s FCPX paradigm although for most editors CS 5.0 was better than FCP 7. Walter Biscardi from the Creative Cow switched to CS 5.5. I am not saying FCP 7 was not a better option for a select few. As I sated what exactly did FCP 7 do that Premiere Pro CS 5.0 did not do?
-
[Steve Connor] “Yep CS5, it was SOOO great that it was widely used across the Industry and there were LOADS of Freelance jobs around for it, whereas that FCP7 that you think isn’t a wise choice was hardly used and there was NO Freelance work for it.”
You are using the old argumentum ad populum. It is a fallacy. Actually Edius was used heavily for Broadcast in the Asian countries back in the FCP 4,5,6 and 7 days. Does that make Eduis better than FCP 7? It doesn’t matter if the program is widely used or not. What matters if it can speed up the editing process.
If background rendering and GPU acceleration speeds up the editing process of FCPX VS FCP 7 as FCPX users claim then wouldn’t logic dictate that Liquid Edition would have been better than FCPX? See my point? I am using critical thinking where you opted to use a logical fallacy : )
[Steve Connor] “But you feel free have a race, because that’s what Editing is – a race!”
Most comments are directly related to Bill’s post just in case you cannot figure it out. If FCPX can encode h.264 faster than Premiere Pro that is really really really awesome in the eyes of FCPX users. On the other hand if PP CS 5.0 makes transcoding h.264 obsolete that isn’t a big deal. See my point?
-
[Jeff Markgraf] “[andy patterson] “Premiere Pro does have a nice GUI.”
Counterpoint: Premiere Pro has a lousy GUI. Crowded, fiddly, ugly, not at all pleasant to use on a daily basis.”
Are you serious or just trolling? Feel free to layout your GUI the way you like in your NLE of choice and I will see if I can mimic it in Premiere Pro. I will then customize a few layouts in Premiere Pro and we will see if your NLE can mimic what I have done.
Don’t back out on me, dude. Post some screen shots of your awesome GUI that makes Premiere Pro’s GUI look lousy.
I don’t see Avid or Premiere Pro users saying FCPX has a lousy GUI or that FCPX has an old and obsolete database or FCPX is slow and sluggish but I do see FCPX user saying those things about all the other NLE. Why do you folks think that is?
-
[Oliver Peters] “I’m sure the interaction is dependent on the app, but at least with Premiere, it doesn’t seem as responsive as something like the interaction in an iPad and apps designed for it.”
I am sure Premiere Pro CC will get refined as well as Audition. CakeWalk is supposed to support touch screen now. Some prefer using touch screen instead of surface control devices because there is no need to setup the function options of the device. Every user can use at is. Don’t get me wrong some users will always prefer the hardware devices instead of a touch screen.
-
[Steve Connor] “[andy patterson] “Would you want to edit native ACVHD using FCP 7 while I use Premiere Pro CS 5? ”
No, I had that choice but I chose to transcode and use the very excellent FCP7 instead of using the unreliable dog that was CS5 :)”
Don’t let anyone ever tell you you chose wisely. I have used FCP 7.
Having said that wanna race? You can use FCP 7 and I’ll use PP CS 5.0. While you are transcoding I will be editing : )
-
Premiere Pro does have a nice GUI.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “[Steve Connor] “Stretching credibility to the limits I think :)”
Isn’t that what this forum is for?”
I would tend to agree but I think my responses are more than credible.
I do wonder if some of the people that claim to edit on FCPX, Premiere Pro and Avid actually do? I have my reasons for doubting such claims.
-
[Steve Connor] “[Scott Witthaus] “[andy patterson] “Premiere Pro CS 5.0 was much better than FCP 7″
You seriously mean this?”
Stretching credibility to the limits I think :)”
You could make a snide remark or you could actually read my response and educate yourself : )
I could also mention Panasonic’s News Byte NLE but why bother? Having said that I don’t doubt there are other people here who have used some obscure NLE that may have had innovative features. I myself would love to hear about them.
Would you want to edit native ACVHD using FCP 7 while I use Premiere Pro CS 5? See my point? If according to Bill Davis encoding to h.264 will make FCPX 10 times faster than Premiere Pro wouldn’t editing native AVCHD make Premiere Pro 1000 times faster than FCP 7. I want to let you know I am being silly although there is some truth in what I said. Wouldn’t you agree?