Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A good vid editor friend of mine who's been in TV for years was saying that Premiere Pro CS6 has come a long way as an editor and that ppl were starting to switch over. I want to start with some relatively simple edits (imagine a short trailer/commercial) but before anyone starts to suggest iMovie, i wasn't too keen on my experience with it yrs past.

My only q? is more whether or not it's too much to take on or should I go w/ Premiere Elements 11??

I'm getting into some more web dev and don't plan on doing full on made for TV edits, but just want something that will look kinda slick. I'm comfy w/ both Illustrator and PS so the integration i've been told is lovely. BTW, I have legal access to both editors for cheap so as odd as this may sound, $ is no real issue (Adobe products that is)

Just looking for testimonials.

Thx as always.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,311 Posts
It really depends on your editing style, how you work, and what you're editing. In a few cases, I've used FCP X successfully and it did speed up my work over a "traditional" editor. But 80% of the time, FCP X has been horribly frustrating to work with. It's over-simplified at the expense of fine control. If all you're doing is simple editing with transitions, it's probably fine, and will have a shorter learning curve than Premiere. But if you're doing anything complex (external audio sync, speed control, keyframing, effects, etc), stay away. Also worth noting, my FCP X crashes 10-20 times per job.

Premiere CS6 is like an improved version of the old FCP. It's a more standard and traditional editor with a lot of control. It may feel overwhelming to someone who has never done real editing, but it really is a great program. I can't really comment on Premiere Elements as I haven't used it, but it looks decent for home movies or quick and dirty work.

Avid Media Composer 6.x would be another great choice if you want to go more pro, but expensive.

A7
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,010 Posts
FYI - topical? - this appeared today:

Apple launching Final Cut Pro X campaign to win back skeptical professional users

Apple is beginning a campaign today to win back the video-editing community that abandoned its flagship video-editing software after the release of its controversial Final Cut Pro X. The LA Times reported that following several updates to the software over the last two years to fix some of the criticisms, Apple is launching a number new ads on its website today that feature professionals using Final Cut Pro X. The campaign is apparently timed to lined up with upcoming National Association of Broadcasters convention and aims to win over professional video editors by featuring professionals such as editors at the Globe and Mail newspaper
+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


(9to5mac)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Hold on - they're going to try to convince "professional" editors to use FCPX by citing the video work that appears on the Globe & Mail's site?

No Walter Murch? No Bunim/Murray Productions? No BBC?

I don't want to be too catty about this (since I do use FCPX) but newspaper video is not what I would consider a shining beacon of light in terms of form, content or presentation. Appearing on Canada's National Newspaper's site notwithstanding.

Back to the OP's question. Premiere Pro CS6 is great, yes, I use it regularly. Not sure what it was about iMovie that turned you off...I agree that it's a frustrating program but that's coming from my perspective (so called "professional" editor) rather than yours.

We use an older version of Premiere Elements at work and it's perfectly fine, handles whatever we throw at it (it's usually used for format conversion rather than editing).

You really can't go wrong with iMovie/Premiere Elements/FCPX/Premiere Pro/Avid Media Composer/Smoke/whatever because they all deliver great results. It's a matter of how much you want to spend & the way you want to work. We live in wonderful times when there is so much choice at nearly every price point.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,010 Posts
Hold on - they're going to try to convince "professional" editors to use FCPX by citing the video work that appears on the Globe & Mail's site?
Don't shoot the messenger, man! The intent was more to the point that Apple is beginning a campaign regarding FCPX. Sorry the video wasn't up to your standards! :eek:

Cheers! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Oh geez, no, I was just surprised at who Apple considers to be evangelists for FCPX. FCP 2-7 had Walter Murch, I guess FCPX has to start somewhere.

As a side note...newspaper video is much better than it once was...but I still find it to often be beautifully shot with gaps in storytelling. Broad generalization I know (and not everything should be a 90s bit on the 6 o'clock news, either) and I guess I shouldn't get all elitist on newspaper video editors. Editing is editing, after all.

Sorry if I offended.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
801 Posts
I've been editing for 20 years, and just finished my 7th project using fcpx,and the more I use it the more I find going back to traditional timeline based editing a little clunky.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
I guess it's about 20 years of editing for me, too.

I'm ambivalent about FCPX's timeline; it's just another way to get the job done to me. What I do like about it is the database (even while it still confuses me), multicam and the seamless optimized media/proxy media business that goes on under the hood.

The audio tools are still not that great and the colour board is a bit backwards for me after using a 3 way colour corrector all these years.

The biggest, and more egregious hassle to me (aside from bugs like pulldown removal not working) is the fact that that the new FCPXML doesn't talk to some 3rd party software properly. I have some multicam projects that I am trying to grade in Resolve, for example, but either the FCPXML doesn't support multicam or Resolve doesn't...I have no idea who to blame. It's easier to just grade all the raw footage and then edit, but it'd be great to just send the multicam sequence to Resolve and be done with it.

FCPXML seems to be on a bit of an island.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
801 Posts
The bonus is they are constantly improving it. I love the multi-cam.. 16 cameras is pretty sweet.

Apple also lays out the roadmap for upgrades to it, which I appreciate.

Ultimately, it's still a tool.. I'll use anything, but I'm finding the more I use FCPX the more I dig the workflow,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Just out of curiosity, Garry, what kind of work are you throwing at FCPX? I've done a few documentary style cuts with it that have been pretty seamless and now the multicam stuff. Would be interesting to try out a short film or something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
801 Posts
I've thrown a multi camera music video, 2 corporate videos, one small short film, and a video with a mixture of gopro and dslr footage


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
285 Posts
I think Apple is going to have a steep hill to climb ahead of them trying to win back the pro video market. First they let the software (FCP7) get _very_ old in the tooth and didn't bother to resolve some issues they promised they would resolve for years (*cough* gamma issues *cough*), then they pulled the rug out from under those same pro users by not only killing that incarnation of FCP -- they also pulled the _entire platform_ in one fell swoop. I know quite a lof of final cut server users who had invested a lot of time and $$ just to find out they lost support overnight. Xserve RAID went poof, then XServe, then FC Server and FCP + Color. Yep, that really pissed off some of the big $$ spenders in that realm. Within 2 years they went from having a pretty killer platform top to bottom, hardware and software, to faint wisps of smoke drifting in the air while everyone was frantically researching how to move their suites to AVID and Davinci without breaking the bank -- again. In all my years working with the mac professional world I've rarely seen a mass exodus like that one. Usually pros try to hold on to that aging program and squeeze a couple more years out of things, but not that time around.

I still do most of my editing in FCP7. The last one I did was a 9-up 1080p setup and at the time FCPX wasn't up to the task without a lot of hoop jumping so I just went back to the tried and true (and somewhat clunky) FCP7 multiclip setup.

The engine behind the scenes in FCPX has some good potential, it finally feels reasonably modern with the behind the scene proxy stuff, etc, but I still really stumble around in the UI. I suppose I have to spend more time with it ... but unless I really need to get serious with it to be compatible with clients in the future I would honestly probably go back to Premier when the time comes that FCP7 just won't work for me any longer.

Lastly I have to agree that using a Canadian newspaper web video as "proof" that the pros are back into things is a bit of a stretch. No offence to newspaper video shooters/editors, but it ain't the bright lights of hollywood and ENG and/or talking heads certainly doesn't push the limits in terms of editing. It feels more like an iMovie commercial than a serious attempt at looking "pro" ... If Apple wants to impress someone they need talk James Cameron into editing Avatar2 in the FCPX "suite" ... (LOL) ... FCP used to live in a lot of hollywood editor's suites at one point, but honestly, how many of those same suites do you think rely on FCPX?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
All good points...and having worked in TV news for 10 years I wouldn't hold ENG editing up as a great paragon of creative editing, either.

Everything I have seen over the last, what, year or so when it comes to FCPX related angst is that the very concept of what a "professional" editor is has become more and more fluid which makes defining who or what a product is made for and marketed to a sort of personal crusade.

I liked Garry's comments about FCPX, in the end, being just a tool. It's totally conceivable to run Media Composer, FCP7, FCPX and Creative Suite on the same machine (and you'll eventually be able to add Lightworks to that, too) and pick-n-choose the right platform for the job. Pretty wicked if you ask me and that serves to distract me about worrying about what Apple will or won't support in the future.

Has anyone gotten a lot of use out of Motion 5? I have to admit that I didn't purchase it or Compressor. (I really dislike Compressor.) I used to use Motion for lower 3rds and simple mograph and liked the intuitiveness of the interface but once FCPX hit I have been gradually teaching myself After Effects just to make sure that I am inoculated against further platform upheavals.

I consider it to be a real achievement that FCPX's optimized/proxy workflow stuff works great even without Compressor. That is great thinking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
801 Posts
Has anyone gotten a lot of use out of Motion 5? I have to admit that I didn't purchase it or Compressor. (I really dislike Compressor.) I used to use Motion for lower 3rds and simple mograph and liked the intuitiveness of the interface but once FCPX hit I have been gradually teaching myself After Effects just to make sure that I am inoculated against further platform upheavals.
I've played with motion, that's about it. it seems flexible.

Has anyone else used the Dashwood plugin for editing 3D in FCPX? THAT is the cats meow!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
285 Posts
I used motion for a (very) short while, but ended up going back to After Effects for most stuff as well. I share the dislike for Compressor as well, it never really did it for me. Slow and clunky compared to other free stuff (like MPEG Streamclip for one). I've used a bunch of other ffmpeg based conversion tools and they are all better than Compressor, better threading, using more cores, faster encodes. I didn't buy the newer compressor or motion either. After what Apple did with their other apps I figured I'd stick with something that is likely to stay around and keep compatibility in the future. AE, while a bit clunky for some things compared to Motion is at least still able to open old projects ... I fear that Motion stuff may not be able to going forward. Pretty much lost all confidence that Apple cares much about backwards compatibility these days and don't want to end up having to redo things down the road if I need to re-render anything for a client :(

I agree that FCPX is just a tool -- but tools that don't feel good/work for you are more likely to sit on the shelf and not get used -- which is exactly what my copy of FCPX is doing ATM :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
801 Posts
I agree that FCPX is just a tool -- but tools that don't feel good/work for you are more likely to sit on the shelf and not get used -- which is exactly what my copy of FCPX is doing ATM :(
Interesting.. I feel the opposite.. I'm finding that Premiere and FC7 are gathering dust and FCPX I'm using more. I've cut some Red footage lately, and FCPX has handled it very well.

I'll have legacy Final cut on my machine for a while just in case I have to revisit a project, but I'm ok with that.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
285 Posts
Interesting.. I feel the opposite.. I'm finding that Premiere and FC7 are gathering dust and FCPX I'm using more. I've cut some Red footage lately, and FCPX has handled it very well.

I'll have legacy Final cut on my machine for a while just in case I have to revisit a project, but I'm ok with that.
Yep that's the way it goes with tools sometimes ;) I honestly haven't spent a lot of quality time with it because I have such a knee jerk reaction to the interface and the few times I did decide to try and spend some time with it it was unable to do what I needed for those particular projects. At some point I'll probably have to do some serious work in it and that may change my mind, but at this point it's on the shelf.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,084 Posts
I think Apple is going to have a steep hill to climb ahead of them trying to win back the pro video market. First they let the software (FCP7) get _very_ old in the tooth and didn't bother to resolve some issues they promised they would resolve for years (*cough* gamma issues *cough*), then they pulled the rug out from under those same pro users by not only killing that incarnation of FCP -- they also pulled the _entire platform_ in one fell swoop. I know quite a lof of final cut server users who had invested a lot of time and $$ just to find out they lost support overnight. Xserve RAID went poof, then XServe, then FC Server and FCP + Color. Yep, that really pissed off some of the big $$ spenders in that realm. Within 2 years they went from having a pretty killer platform top to bottom, hardware and software, to faint wisps of smoke drifting in the air while everyone was frantically researching how to move their suites to AVID and Davinci without breaking the bank -- again. In all my years working with the mac professional world I've rarely seen a mass exodus like that one. Usually pros try to hold on to that aging program and squeeze a couple more years out of things, but not that time around.
I'm not a 'pro' shooting for tv, hollywood, but for home users, I edit various pieces of footage for home consumers. Tape based and HD transfers so for me, FCX works.

For the pro shops out there, I completely get why they left.

I do follow some of the pro folks out there on twitter and some of the forums.

You are correct - mass exodus is a bang on description.

Folks were waiting to hear from Apple and when they did, they didn't like and were instantly gone (and most likely forever, if not a long, long time).

I don't blame them either. It's a finicky market in a touchy economical times. People want tools to help them finish projects quickly and effectively so their bottom lines are achieved. They have to remain competitive.

Taking a step back, as many saw it, wasn't acceptable.

But to me, there's a missing piece not yet mentioned - what about hardware? No new updates on the Mac Pro probably doesn't have folks running to order more new systems?

Sure, I've seen some reports of using iMacs, but I think for Apple, the hardware relates to the software. I think Apple needs to update their MPs or they may lose more users when those folks need a new system.

Cheers,
Keebler
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top