[Simon Ubsdell]

[Oliver Peters] “But, as I stated in the blog, I don’t work with one workspace. I have several configurations, depending on what I’m doing at any given time, just like Media Composer’s workspaces.”

I think for me this was the most important takeaway from your blogpost. Having your own finely-tuned workspaces for particular tasks is a great way to work and I do think Premiere allows you more flexibility in this than other offerings. The approach is not new but it’s been very well thought out so as to put the editor in control of what s/he wants to see or not see at any one time. To my mind it’s the tabbed panels approach this offers the biggest benefit here.

I also find that swapping workspaces as the day progresses is a good way of refreshing the process – a very slight change of focus can help to give perspective or simply avoid staleness.

For me the attraction of the Adobe method is that I’m not having to succumb to anyone else’s idea of how I should be editing. Other players (like Apple, but not only Apple) want to dictate terms – I’m sure someone will tell me these players know more about editing than I do, but I’m too old and cranky to want to hear anything about it.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Erik Lindahl] “I will give Premiere the edge on flexibility regarding its GUI, sadly it’s quite buggy and the flixbility often does render it quite ugly.”

For four or five years after the FCP X launch, I refused to consider Premiere as a serious possibility and was determined to use FCP X as my next primary NLE after FCP7. As much as anything I hated the way Premiere “looked”.

Then last year I finally understood how Premiere’s workspace customisation could work for me – and that was the clincher.

Suddenly FCP X looked very much less attractive. And since then it has taken more and more of a backseat. Premiere’s workspace customisation opened the door for me to all the other ways in which Premiere suited my needs better than FCP X. I still like and enjoy many aspects of FCP X but it’s having to play second fiddle these days, perhaps until a new and genuinely exciting update swings the balance back the other way.

Disclaimer: this personal anecdote has no worth whatsoever, just like all personal anedcotes.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Scott Witthaus] “(All in jest, of course…)”

I’d be fascinated to know how many more, or fewer, views would be generated if this forum were strictly limited to “on-topic” posts about FCP X.

Are hordes of people driven away, as perhaps Bill would contend, when they discover that there are topics discussed that don’t directly relate to FCP X?

Or, contrariwise, do a significant number of people come to hear random chat about all sorts of entirely “off-topic” subjects?

Tim?

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Bill Davis] “I’m just one voice articulating that working WITHOUT that external stuff can sometimes be AS EFFICIENT as working with it. “

But you’re not quantifying how it’s more efficient, which means it’s hard to gauge whether you’re right or not.

I don’t know whether or not you have ever graded with a control surface, but if you have, I cannot believe you would claim that grading with your laptop controls is anything even remotely as fast, flexible or accurate. My estimate is that my Artist Color makes grading 3-4 times as fast as I could possibly ever grade without it – perhaps faster.

I’d be happy to be proved wrong so I could clean up my desk and not bother with the hardware that clutters it, but the reason I accept the clutter is that in each case it makes me exponentially faster. I tried doing without the hardware for a number of years before realising it wasn’t helping at all. “Faster” means not only that I can get the work out of the door quicker but also that I can make it better. The relatively modest investment pays off over and over and over, every day of every week.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Scott Witthaus] “This is the Premiere Debate Forum, right?”

Maybe Tim will tell me I’m wrong but I’ve long thought of this as the “Let’s Talk About Interesting Stuff” forum.

Anyway, isn’t the FCP X Debate officially over?

😉

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Michael Gissing] “Touch screens for mixers and DAWs have been around for a long time as well and not compared favourably.”

I think the question of audio mixing really helps to highlight the inadequacy of using anything other than dedicated hardware.

Even the simple question of faders makes it obvious enough. Trying to slide your finger smoothly over glass is an almost impossible task – the moistness or dryness of your fingertip will create a completely unpredictable effect that will adversely affect the result, either too resistant or too lacking in resistance. And then there’s the question of not being able to locate the “fader” without looking for it. More or less the same issues apply to using a mouse (or other pointing device) to control a virtual fader – you simply won’t get a completely smooth result to compare with a physical fader, and again you have the issue of having to hunt for the fader rather than have your fingers remember where it is. And of course you can’t manipulate more than one fader at a time.

But faders are almost the least of the problem. Virtually everything else is controlled using virtual knobs, including panning and almost all major effect parameters. A virtual knob has to be the single worst user interface known to man – why we still have to put up with this skeuomorphic abomination is beyond me. In no way could it ever replicate the usability of a physical rotary encoder, which of course mimics the analogue “pots” of old. Again the speed of use and accuracy of physical rotary encoders is a huge advantage that I don’t see any virtual interface getting remotely close to.

It’s not to say that the future doesn’t hold something superior to the current hardware conventions, but there is not even the remotest sign of it on the horizon.

Audio mixing so obviously benefits from the tactile feel of physical hardware and is always compromised by virtual simulations. And virtual simulations is all that we are currently offered.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Herb Sevush] “Simon didn’t mention this, probably because he’s too modest to mention he is the software designer who created it, but it’s a great keyer.”

Thanks, Herb, for the mention of Hawaiki Keyer.

I don’t like to spam these forums with plugs for our plug-ins, but since you have so kindly given me the opening, I’d just like to mention that there’s an exciting new version of Hawaiki Keyer (HK4) coming out this autumn which will include several more unique features you won’t find in any other keyers as well as further major improvements to the core algorithm.

And yes, we are working towards a PC version in the near future, all being well.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Bill Davis] “This new fangled “sheet of glass” as a control surface SUCKS.”

So true:

https://www.fastcodesign.com/3063238/why-wont-apple-fix-the-iphones-one-huge-design-flaw

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Oliver Peters] “I would also add, that from a DAW perspective, it’s also missing the hardware roundtripping available in ProTools, Logic, etc. “

The hardware issue is significant from another point of view too. Using my AVID Artist Mix control surface, I can mix with ProTools, Logic and Premiere, but not with FCP X.

https://www.avid.com/products/artist-mix

The benefits of hardware faders are no to be underestimated. Just as with a control surface for grading, you can work so much quicker and produce better results much more easily.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Martin Kruul] “My keying techniques are getting better and better each day – but can someone please finally explain exactly what Pedestal is?”

“Pedestal” is the same thing as “Lift” or “Set Up” – it’s a black level adjustment that compresses the black values.

In terms of what it does in a typical keyer, and I assume you are using Premiere’s Ultra Key here, what it does is it crunches down the black values in the “raw” greyscale matte which renders the background more transparent and removes more of of the semi-transparent pixels.

It is a matte post-processing effect which is best used with extreme moderation as it results in compromised edge pixels – and soft, greyscale edge pixels are the one thing you want most of all to preserve in your matte.

Therefore pushing this value up to the maximum is generally speaking not a good idea at all.

Never, ever compromise your edge pixels if you can possibly avoid it – always use garbage matting to take care of as much of the unwanted backing as possible.

Consider using a better keyer.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki