[Gary Huff]

[Erik Lindahl] “I don’t however feel very “safe” in the application yet given our issues with either corrupt projects “

Are you having these issues currently in CS6? I have been bitten by corrupt projects before, but not with CS6 so far, though I still make backup projects myself as a kind of “best practices” workflow.

[Erik Lindahl] ” Given the “all native” approach this potentially is a problem when dealing with less than optimal H264-files from unknown sources. Some kind of bullet proof validation-process would be appreciated here.”

What kind of “corrupted media” do you mean? H.264 files with pixelated frames and whatnot? Because if the file is corrupt to where it won’t play at all, Premiere doesn’t accept that. If it has “pixelated” frames, I don’t know of any other NLE that will reject it either, nor do I know how you would program it to make that determination without also introducing instances where it refuses media that’s actually fine.

[Gary Huff]

[Jeremy Garchow] “For people that need multichannel output all the time, Pr can be frustrating when you come from FCP7 as FCP7 had a few more options to change things around during the edit.”

Thanks for clarifying that. Just wanted to have a head’s up about it in case I ever run across that potential issue.

[Gary Huff]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Do you ever have to export multichannel outputs or do you mostly work stereo?”

Always stereo.

[Gary Huff]

[David Eaks] “Personally, I think the launch was terrible, but that FCP X is quite good.”

Yup.

Your thoughts?”

It’s definitely head and shoulders better at this point than 10.0.0. Does it bring anything to entice users who are already editing primarily in AVID/Premiere? I don’t think so. I think it might snag some users of FCP7 once they look to move off to something more up-to-date, but there are some things that absolutely need to be fixed.

First and foremost, the third party plugins bug. Having been bit by this already (requiring me to remove all third-party plugin usage from my project), this is a showstopper for a NLE that relies heavily on third-party plugins for extra features (including RGB Curves).

Second, the Event Viewer needs to be able to either playback or at least show a frame from the Project, and not just Events. This is useful for matching with a shot that might already be color corrected.

Third, I found the color board slightly counter-intuitive from the color wheel, which is found in every other NLE and color correction platform out there. That means that if you’re able to wrap your head around using the color board for any significant grading process, then you’ll probably find everything else counter-intuitive. I don’t necessarily think this is a good thing, especially since I fail to see how the color board is an improvement over the color wheel. It’s just different.

Since FCPX ties into online sharing services directly within the software, I want to see it upload to, say, Vimeo as it renders. There’s no reason I can think of that it can’t do this after it reaches a certain point, and would help with longer-form projects that need to be uploaded to the web (had this happen just last week).

[Gary Huff]

[Erik Lindahl] “no WMV-encoder (well AME is just as bad on the last point)”

Only on a Mac, where licensing issues prohibit it (you can easily export WMV under AME in Windows) just like you can’t export a ProRes Quicktime under Windows.

[Erik Lindahl] ” Batch-chainging how a series of files are interpreted is a lot of point > click > point > click.”

The easiest fix will allow a right click menu option to export sequences from the Bin, and to select multiple sequences in AME when you open a Premiere project. I would also add that setting default encode and output location settings would alleviate this issue as well.

But I guess Premiere and Adobe don’t get a pass for things they can add “in the future” like Apple and FCPX can?

[Gary Huff]

[Lance Bachelder] “Hilarious – you just proved my point – the idiotic way you have to noodle around to find sync. I stand by my statement – it’s garbage and has no business being in the same suite as Photoshop and After effects.”

See, Lance, this is why your statements betray an ironic bent in your need to validate your chosen NLE software from a mega corporation.

Because you follow it up with this:

[Lance Bachelder] “Why should anyone have to “dig deep” to find things that are plane as day in Vegas, FCP7 or Avid.? And yes I do miss sync indicators in FCPX and hope they’re added soon.”

The cognitive dissonance is staggering! (edit: and it’s “plain as day”).

[Lance Bachelder] “the list of missing and poorly thought features in Premiere is endless and not worth any more of my time”

Still no specifics, tisk tisk. Perhaps you have a point, perhaps not. But so far, your biggest argument has been “Premier’s sync indicators aren’t easy to find.” Hey, fair enough. But then FCPX doesn’t have any…at all.

At least Erink Lindahl gave a specific, one that I agree needs to be addressed:

[Erik Lindahl] “Exporting of timelines in PrPro is quite bad compared to FCP (even FCPX from the little experience I have of it). The human interaction before you can actually achieve a batch-export is far from optimal. This could be part of the “more clicks than I’m used to” phenomenon. Why on earth Adobe hasn’t just implemented an AE-like export in PrPro is beyond me.”

But, then again, neither does FCPX without having to go through the “clunky” interface of Compressor, one whose output leaves a lot to be desired (I’m often tasked with churning out the occasional DVD via Encore/Media Encoder for associates who are unhappy with the MPEG2 output of Compressor), and an interface that hasn’t changed since the early ’00s.

[Gary Huff]

[Lance Bachelder] “There isn’t a single thing, not one. that Premiere does as well or better than FCPX 10.07”

Third party plugins don’t randomly place green frames in your footage. That’s one thing Premiere does that’s better than FCPX.

Premiere can import an After Effects project and use it like footage without the need to render. That’s a second thing Premiere does that’s better than FCPX.

Premiere has tracks. I see no benefit for the magnetic timeline after using it. It’s about 50/50 for me in doing what I want it to do and it fighting me.

Premiere can freeze a still from footage in a sequence in one monitor window and then you can move the skimmer head to a different point in the sequence to show it in the other monitor. You can’t do this in FCPX, something Premiere also does better. (the Event Viewer that was finally added can only show clips in the Event window, so you can’t color correct one clip in the storyline to another clip in the storyline after grading has been applied).

I can archive an entire project in Premiere by moving just a single folder instead of having to manually wrestle with projects in two different folds if I want to keep everything properly organized. Sure, I can have a RAID archive with “Final Cut Events” and Final Cut Projects”, but then, what projects are in there? I’d have to open up the folders to see. Instead, with the way Premiere works, I can just have the folder properly named and save a list of all the root folders on the archive, thus knowing exactly where each project is, and only needing to copy ONE single folder back to a work drive if I have to redo it. Plus, that old project that was done in CS3? Yep, I can re-open that, no problem. Can’t do that in FCPX.

[Lance Bachelder] “As far as your jazz analogy – I’ve played guitar since I was 10 and love all forms of music – not just jazz – so shut your Phrygian pie hole you elitist prick.”

Sadly, this is pretty much the expected attitude from someone championing FCPX.

[Gary Huff]

[Dave Jenkins] “So I went into CS6 with that state of mind. I couldn’t change the audio tracks and had to copy everything out of that timeline into another timeline with the correct audio set up.”

Could you explain this issue more?

[Gary Huff]

[Lance Bachelder] “As far as the extra clicks, the only way to show this would be to do a live side by side with other NLE’s to show just how clunky Premiere 6 is.”

I don’t think you’d need to go that far…you just kind of, you know, be more specific.

“Clunky” means nothing to me. In the other thread about FCPXs shortcomings, I very explicitly listed issues I had encountered while editing a complete project in it, things that I am actively utilizing in Premiere with the project I’m currently working on. I find Premiere CS6 to be nearly elegant in usage and incredibly powerful. I love the addition of the trim commands that closely mimic the controls in FCP where you can trim in and out points on the timeline for instance. I use those all the time. I love the fact that it works with practically every single piece of footage I could possibly use.

I do agree that the Sequence creation is clunky in needing to pick the overall codec that is in use, and that’s something I’m sure Adobe will end up address. Ultimately, I think it’s a not the end all breaking point, just something that could use spiffing up. I love the addition of the adjustment layer, love Dynamic Link. I love the ~ key command that maximizes whatever portion of the interface your mouse is currently hovered over. I love how the key-framing works.

I love the fact that if I use a 3rd party plugin, that it won’t cause green frames in the video.

I love the fact that I can do psuedo-After Effects-lite compositions using embedded sequences with Photoshop layers and keyframes.

So many specific things I have just mentioned. Always helps if you talk in specifics, and not in just generalizations because then people have a hard time whether you have a point, or are just talking shit.

[Gary Huff]

[Mathieu Ghekiere] “And although I think the round tripping with Motion could Be better, I advise you to check how all the publishing and rigging features work in Motion5/FCPX.
Because If you are working with lower thirds, I think the new workflow is much better.”

Well, except that my lower thirds are almost never reused. Every new project requires a new lower thirds (unless it’s coming back for the same client), so I’m not sure how publishing a lower third effect from Motion is really the way to go. Seems like all I end up with is a bunch of “orphaned” published effects.