[Herb Sevush]

Aanarav –

Seeing that you are a certified PPRO expert and therefore have an investment in time, at the very least, in the market success of PPRO I’m willing to cut you some slack on your posting. But this line – “I have worked on plenty of NLEs and by far I have found PPRO is the “fastest” editor” – is a little on the rediculous side.

Unless the “plenty” of editors you worked on consists strictly of previous versions of Premiere it would be impossible to make this statement honestly.

You’ve totally ignored the previous posting by Michael Webb, but I would suggest that if you had a shoot where you had 1 camera with different mikes assigned to tracks 1 and 2, and where you needed to use 1 or 2 at various times, but not both together (this situation comes up all the time in documentary shoots) you would be hard pressed to find an NLE that is slower than your beloved speed demon.

Even in normal editing situations I don’t find PPRO to be any faster, or any slower than FCP, and both are much slower than Discreet Edit* – for speed of editing that’s like comparing a tricycle to a motorcycle.

This is not to say that I don’t like PPRO, I find many things about it quicker and better implemented than in FCP for example – but to make the claim you did simply invalidates anything else you say to anyone who knows anything.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

I believe you can add the other 3 cameras to your multi-clips, even after you’ve done a first pass. Check the manual on this.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

Dan –

If you shot the footage at 30fps and want to edit with a 30fps timeline, then the best way to ingest is via firewire. The frame rate converter is for when you want to shoot at one speed (say 30) and edit at another (say 24) for either slow or high speed motion effects. But if you just want to edit at normal speed you don’t need it.

And yes, the camera always shoots at 60 and discards certain frames according to the desired standard speed, but that is not something you will ever have to deal with — it’s invisible to the user.

There is some debate about wether it’s better to ingest Uncompressed 10 bit or in the cameras native DVCPRO HD Codec via Firewire – but it’s the same debate that goes on with DV: The material is already compressed – uncompressing it gains you nothing unless you are going to render the material for compositing reasons, in which case the original DVCPRO Codec gets uncompressed and then recompressed. The general consensus is that if you are doing mostly straight cutting go firewire and save the disk space – if you are doing lots of heavy compositing go uncompressed.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

I second that emotion (to quote from the hymnals of Smokey Robinson.)

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

Les –

I haven’t used PPRO much in the last 9 months so I maybe forgetting / overlooking some things, but off-hand.

In general PPRO is leaner and meaner. Less menu’s, less buttons, more consistency in commands – at the price of less functionality.
Now to Specifics.

Logging and Capture –

PPRO is much better about capturing thru time code breaks. This is a major plus as far as I’m concerned.

CG –

FCP’s internal CG is incredibly primitive. Even if you get third party plug-ins that enhance the basic CG it still pails when compared to PPRO. While NOT in the inscriber category, especially for making a series of stills, PPRO CG allows you to create any sort of graphic you want with your video as a background if desired. You have to go into one of the external software solutions; i.e. motion, livetype, graffiti, to do anything like that and these programs all require rendering.

Data Management –

While any Mac application makes it very difficult to keep an organized file structure PPRO is no Edit*. Both programs basically stink at keeping things organized and helping you delete and/or store job information easily. PPRO has the limitation of 1 job open at any time, whereas FCP is unlimited. Both programs allow for unlimited timelines open within a job. My recollection is that PPRO’s Bins are more limited than in FCP, but off-hand I can’t be more specific. Here, as in other places I would say that FCP is more confusing but more versatile.

Editing –

PPRO is terrible in handling a matrix of audio tracks. If you use 2 tracks on a tape to record different audio, rather than as 2 stereo tracks or 2 redundant mono tracks, PPRO has no reasonable way to deal with this and still keep the audio in sync with the video. This is ridiculous but true. Also PPRO has nothing like FCP’s new multi-cam feature that is, as you should know by now, very dear to my heart. The rendering function in both system’s are very stupid, not nearly as sophisticated as edit*’s when it comes to understanding when something truly needs to be re-rendered. FCP has the incredible bug of destroying all renders if you mute a video track – this bug has been around for so long they no longer even try to fix it. At least PPRO doesn’t have anything as heinous as this. But FCP has many more way’s to doing any of the basic editing tasks and seems much more flexible. In addition it’s time-code overlay window, which I always use, is much better than the hidden properties menu needed to find time code info in PPRO. All in all I find FCP much easier to cut with but much harder to learn.

Output –

PPRO has the ability to burn DVDs from the timeline; unfortunately this feature rarely works, at least in my case. It’s export to tape module is a pain in the ass but then again so is the FCP edit-to-tape function. Since I’ve only done Firewire input and output with both systems I can’t give firsthand info here, but from what I know I think that PPRO, with the right third party software controllers, is much more capable of handling RS 422 control. This is an area to look closely into when thinking about either system.

As far as File export and import, both are about the same – PPRO is AAF, FCP is XML, ability to transfer timelines between each and Avid is possible with third party software (I believe, not sure here.) Both export the full gamut of MPEG’s and Codecs, FCP handles both DVCPRO-HD and HDV natively, I think PPRO handles HDV with 3rd party software and DVCPRO-HD not at all.

Real-Time –

If you want real-time then get PPRO with Axio, otherwise there is no such thing on either system, except for draft resolutions. There is nothing like Axio in the FCP world.

My 2 cents –

PPRO 2 is coming; perhaps they will address much of what keeps them behind FCP – who knows. They basically started with a clean slate and the design idea of simply copying FCP’s workflow and functionality and doing it better. So far I think they are still way behind, but they might have an easier growth path without the legacy of workarounds that abound in FCP. And with Axio they really have something that FCP can’t touch.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

FWIW

I read so many of these “feature request” thread’s for FCP on this and other forums and I am constantly amazed at what people are asking for. There are so many BASIC adn essential editing features that are either missing or badly implemented on FCP and yet thread after thread asks for advanced this or that. It’s as though we were dealing with a car manufacturer who only gave you 3 tires with his car and forgot to include headlights adn all anyone asks for is either a better sunroof or more rear speakers.

How about asking for a medai manager that works. how about demanding that you be able to use the “solo” button on a video track without it blowing all your renders away. How about the ability to capture over timecode breaks. How about the ability to output timecode so you can crash record from the timeline with proper code. How about a decent CG, a la Inscriber, that creates simple graphics with alpha channel but with real CG functionality.

These are all essential NLE features that just about every professional (and many semi-pro) editing system has that are lacking in FCP.

How about we get some tires for the car before we ask for a turbo-charger. But this is unlikely to happen Becasue the marketing department loves to add sexy new features but there’s no great hype advantage for simply fixing the basics. I can see the ad now

“The all new FCP 6 – and this time it actually works right.”

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

Got it – I needed to click on the speaker icon in the audio tab while the audio track was selected.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

Noah –

Thanks for the suggestions, but I can’t find anything in the preference menu that would enable or disable audio playback. There are some options for looping audio when scrubbing and for what to do in case sync is lost, but nothing to disable audio. I’ve tried all the variations on these and they have no effect on the problem. Also, as I said, the audio plays fine in the audio editor tab. Any other suggestions?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

Leo –

I can’t argue the benefit’s of a 180* shutter. I’m not a cameraman and I didn’t know that a shutter was even necessary for shooting video. I always thought the point of a film shutter was to keep film from getting exposed during the time it was advancing in a camera. But if you tell me that it has wonderful properties for telling stories with pictures I have no reason not to believe you.

I do know that of the many people who have seen the shows we are shooting at 60FPS not one has said – Gee -that looks like a sports show. All they have said is Gee- that looks great. And when we shot our original tests at 24, 30 and 60 – with Producers, Directors and DP’s who are not without experiance and talent – not a one thought 24 looked “better” – different certainly, but not better. But that’s anecdotal and totally subjective. Just like we have rectums, everybody has an opinion.

I don’t like to use the word better. That’s too judgemental. What I’m talking about is more information vs. less information. From a position of more information I can discard what I wish – I can get less out of more, I can’t get more out of less. That’s why a DP such as yourself might spend $10,000.00 on a lens and then put a $20 piece of glass in front and rub some nose wax onto it, or put a tiny piece of netting behind it. Why not just use a lens with less sharpness to begin with and save yourself a few thousand. Because you want the control to throw away only the information you want. I feel the same way about temporal resolution – I want to start with all I can get, and then I’ll get rid of what I don’t like.

As far as film at 30 goes, while I’ve never shot 35mm at 30 I have shot 16mm at thirty and it knocked everyone out. I can’t count the number of people who thought we had shot 35mm. Back in those days I shot 16 exclusively and after my first experiance with it at 30 I fought for it every chance I got. But then again, that’s just me and my rectum, er, opinion.

My problem with your statment is the absoluteness of it – 60FPS is ONLY for sports – 24 is better – because it is. In my posts I’ve talked about the many problems in editing 720P60 but there are also the positives – what about the audio editing advantage. You tend to gloss right over that one. My guess is you don’t have to do that much editing or you might give it a little more wieght in your thinking.

The argument for 24 as being the “best” speed, ignoring the fact that it came about NOT becuase of aesthetic concerns but for purely finanacial and technical considerations, is “magical.” Even at 60FPS we are talking about still images that only create the illusion of motion. There are more than enough “gaps” at 60 to call on the viewers imagination.

Elsewhere in this thread Dale started speculating about the possiblity that a new generation, grown up on the very high frame rates of video games, might find that 60 or even higher has a “magical” feel to it and that a whole new media paradigm might emerge out of it.

All I suggest is that you give that idea some consideration when making your absolute statements about what is best.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Herb Sevush]

Dale –

I apologize if you thought I was getting too nasty and personal – I think I’ve been too long in the company of my teenage son and his friends to whom the phrase “what are you smoking” is merely a more entertaining way of saying “we have a divergence of opinions on this matter.”

The main thing I wanted to get accross is that there is nothing magical or mystical about 24fps. It is merely what we are used to. And my logic dictates that if I can use more informaiton in a production I will, and if artfuly presented the audiance won’t care what frame rate I chose. 60fps does not have to only be for sports adn 24P is not automatically the best choice for drama. Although it’s obviously the way to go if you are shooting HD for a film release.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions