Dennis Radeke
Forum Replies Created
-
I’m pretty sure that the current version of FCP utilizes two CPUs(cores) and around 4GB of total memory. Compressor I believe can use more CPUs
Wiser people will correct me if I’m wrong. 😉
-
[David Roth Weiss] “That part isn’t the issue Chris… It’s really all about the learning curve. Learning to do in Premiere what you or Dave know how to do now in FCP is not going to save time just because there’s a little less rendering and/or transcoding to do up front.”
Well, that’s true, but the similarities between any two editors are more than the differences and that’s particularly true of Premiere Pro and FCP as they ultimately have the same guy who started them.
Furthermore, with CS5 we included FCP 7 shortcuts – which, while not perfect, nevertheless make the jump from one NLE to another a relative snap.
I’d like to say more, but hesitate as it will sound like a commercial! 😉
Dennis – “Adobe guy”
-
Well, we’ll agree to disagree on some things and leave it at that. 😉
-
[Thomas Morter-Laing] “Dont edit in H264!”
Ack! Never say that to an Adobe person! We can and do edit H.264 quite well with Premiere Pro, though I agree that temporally based codecs are designed more for acquisition or distribution than editing. Darn that editing – sandwiched between acquisition and distribution…
-
One of the ten commandments for video systems would be ‘thou shalt not have a single drive for OS, applications and media.’
Definitely pop in another hard drive, move all of your media over there and you will see a world of difference.
-
Let me clarify – I’m with you, but my statement was in the context of priorities. If I had title import that was cleaner but messed up the actual clip import, it wouldn’t be very useful.
I agree that we have room to improve when it comes to title import. I would love for all that are interested in seeing this (or any Adobe feature) to use this link to make their feature requests – we actually look at and tally them all the time.
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishformDennis – An Adobe guy
-
Yeah, titles and title engines are not very compatible. If you use the basic text tool in FCP, Adobe will give it a go, but honestly, I think we want to focus on getting the clips and their attributes (position, scale, etc.) across more than titles.
If you’re using Photoshop to create your titles and save as a .png or like in FCP – you could offline the .pngs in Premiere Pro and reconnect them to the original PSDs for further tweaking. Definitely one pro of Premiere in this case is the handling of PSDs in the timeline.
-
I’ve not tried this myself yet but here’s what you could try. Create a preset in the Adobe Media Encoder on the Mac that has both Adobe and Apple products. This preset would batch process all of the MXF files to ProRes .mov files. Once that’s done, you should be able to offline the media in FCP and connect it to the .mov files.
However, like I said, I haven’t tried this myself. Good luck and let us know if it works.
-
[Jeff Greenberg] “Know that Imagineer has a GREAT roto tool – not intuitive (nor cheap) but great for this sort of work.”
Mocha for AE is included in CS5 so you could either using AE’s Rotobrush tool or the Mocha tool.
Dennis
-
I would say that your issue isn’t with an editor per se but with getting a good final output. I’ve always felt that encoding was still more of an art than science and I deal with questions on encoding all of the time. I would do research on why you’re not getting the final output you want and then worry about which editor you want to use. A starting point is to look through Adobe Media Encoder and the many presets that are available. Creative Cow also has a DVD on encoding that is available and good.
In the end, FCP is a capable editor. So is Premiere Pro. Use what feels best.
Dennis – Adobe guy (literally)