Gary Huff
1
COW Coin
Forum Replies Created
-
[Steve Connor] “So as of their latest versions what “professional features” does PPro have that FCPX lacks and vice-versa?”
Dynamic linking with Motion as Premiere does with After Effects. I do this all the time, even for basic elements like lower thirds, and it was frustratingly “old school” that FCPX cannot do this with Motion.
The re-linking doesn’t work if you change something about the video itself, even as simply as including an audio track. To wit, I transcoded hacked AVCHD footage from a GH2 using 5DtoRGB and told it not to include the audio, mainly because I didn’t need any of the audio from the original footage, and I find the “scrubbing” noise through audio to be irritating (plus it kept the transcodes smaller). A few clips I ended up needing to hear audio, but FCPX won’t re-link to them if I re-transcode with audio, something that Premiere doesn’t freak out over. Granted, this is an incredibly specific scenario, but it’s still something that doesn’t make much sense.
No adjustment layer. I just played with this in a Premiere CS6 project, and it’s awesome, but requires a third-party plugin purchase in order to do it in FCPX. This is also the case with Curves. There are no RGB curves to use in FCPX, just the color board (there is in Premiere). This leads me to:
Extra cost. This is a touted “benefit” of FCPX, but there are so many little hidden plugins, all third-party developed that cost extra. Want to output a traditional XML format that can be read by software that hasn’t yet been updated for FCPX’s XML format? That’s an extra $100 please. Seeing all these additional little plugins that cost Y dollars is kind of annoying to make the package as feature-complete as Premiere CS6 comes at $30 (currently) per month.
A corollary of that is bugs with the plugin architecture. I could not use any of my Red Giant plugins that work in FCPX because the bugs kept interfering with the visuals, requiring me to completely step back from some of my original intent with the project I just completed on it. I wanted to craft a “grungy” 16mm-like presentation for some flashback sequences, but I kept getting image bugs when using the Looks plugin. How can we be expected to spend more money to extend the basic functionality of FCPX when the plugins can’t even be counted on to work correctly?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I truly think its a mistake to claim Pr works just like fcp7. It does a disservice to Adobe for all the hard work they’ve done, it sets false expectations, and while there are commonalities, they are really different and follow different logic especially when it comes to workflow.”
What about the workflow is different? I used FCP7 extensively last year for the first 6 months, and then got Premiere CS6 when it came out. Of course there are differences in the details, but as far as a typical “workflow” goes, aside from the loss of the need to transcode in CS6, it’s very similar.
-
[Marcus Moore] “I was sort of hoping for Affleck.”
Ditto.
-
[David Powell] ”
But alas, I hate working without tracks and the trimming in X is extremely cumbersome compared to avid.”I have the same problem. I just feel that half the time X gets in the way of what I want to do.
-
[John Davidson] “FYI, The 27″ spinning drive is 7200rpm for the fusion drive. I helped perpetuate that so now I’m trying to fix it :).”
Bad John! Bad, bad John! 😉
I’ll amend my opinion from here on out.
Still, it’s something to consider. Get a Fusion drive, stuck with it. It’s impressive, for sure, but I think I’d suck it up and spend the extra for the full SSD.
-
[Joseph W. Bourke] “Ultimately, it’s all about working with these tools, not standing around arguing about them. Let’s hope that in this new year we all can stay busy with more work than we can handle, no matter what tools we choose.”
Well, no, because as Bill has stated many times before…those of us who didn’t choose FCPX will soon be out of work because it’s so much better at something or another.
-
[Gary Bettan] “If you want the best configuration for a new iMac for video editing, Videoguys recommends the 27 inch iMac with:
• Intel Core i7 processor
• 32GB RAM
• 1TB Fusion Drive
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX GPU”I second the i7, but I believe you should get the 768GB SSD instead of the Fusion drive (the spinning mechanical drive is only 5,200 RPM). The hard drive is going to be the primary bottleneck, and you can’t upgrade it in the new iMacs, so you should go all out.
I’d also get 2GB of RAM instead of the 1GB for that very reason as well. Sure, you may not need it now, but better to have it in case you could use it in the future if none of the other specs on the machine require you to purchase an entirely new system.
-
Danielle, I played it on my MacBook and it played just fine. No problems whatsoever. Straight from the Crucial M4 SSD that’s the primary internal drive.
-
Considering that the iMac’s RAM is the only upgradeable component at the moment, I’d just bite the bullet and go for the pricey 768GB SSD option over the Fusion drive.
-
And is that likely to change in 2013? And if not, then where does that leave the likelihood of a traditional Mac Pro arriving this year? I highly doubt Apple will release a machine without Thunderbolt. I highly doubt Apple cares about supported add-on PCIe cards for GPUs. I highly doubt that Apple is interested in pursuing any kind of connectivity outside of Thunderbolt.
Which brings us right back to the iMac as the standard desktop machine for “Pros”.