I have been looking into these programs. There seems to be a lot of discontent regarding the direction Apple is going in with their film editing program. A lot of pros are jumping ship because they feel the quality Final Cut has been diluted . Any opinions as to which would be a better program. Thanks.
If you are just getting started with video editing, or are a casual user, then i think Final Cut Pro X is a great solution for you. Editing is fairly straightforward, and the changes they made make sense for people in these categories.
The issue film editing Pros had with the Final Cut Pro X release i think can be summed up like this (in my opinion). The Final Cut X release dropped support for opening a project from a previous version of the program. If you were in the middle of editing a project, or work for a living and need to access projects from the past as a part of your work (typical), then this is a big problem. Second, there was no support for input from analog tape. Not an issue if you only use a digital video camera, a big problem if you are a pro that needs to use a $60,000 analog video tape recorder in your facility as a part of your work flow. Third, no support for multi-camera shoots and associated editing, quite typical in pro level projects (apple is apparently addressing this in updates).
The other issue is that the whole way it was released played into the perception on the part of a lot of professional users of Apple products that Apple doesn't really care about the pro creative market anymore. That what they really care about now is i-devices, end of story. And are basically willing to kill a long time product or feature(s) at a whim. Look at the lack of support for running legacy applications via rosetta, it's missing on Lion. There is no technical reason for this, it's purely a marketing decision on Apple's part. Look at the uncertainly with the future or upkeep of the Pro Tower line of computers. Look at video editors waking up one day and the product they have integrated into their workflow they use to make a living is suddenly radically different, with no heads up from Apple prior to the release. So if you depend on things working a certain way, or features being present for your livelihood, then you take a long hard look at whether you want to continue to use a platform for that livelihood if it appears to be unstable or could just go away at any moment. So Avid and Adobe picked up a lot of pro customers because of this.
The other factor was that it was just different. People who take the time to learn and use the new editing metaphors typically like them. And if you have never used a professional video editor before, you aren't even going to know what all the fuss was about.
Here's what ArsTechnica had to say about the ridiculous Mac ProTower update today.
During a wide range of new hardware announcements at its Worldwide Developers Conference on Monday, Apple made no mention of its languishing Mac Pro workstation. However, the company did ever-so-slightly revise the configuration options for the dual-processor version, standardizing on six-core Xeon parts using the now outdated Westmere-EP architecture. There is also a 3.06GHz build-to-order option for those wanting to pay top dollar for what is now a grossly out-of-date design.
The machines still come with the positively ancient Radeon 5770 GPU, as rumored earlier today, as well as Intel's last-generation server CPUs.
Most pro users will be sorely disappointed with what Apple is offering, which is essentially three-year old hardware in a 10-year old tower design.
Here's a review of Final Cut Pro X 10.0.3 that came out today.
Thanks, John. Great help.
That goes a long way towards reassuring me. I am a total novice at this. because I teach I can get a great price on the Adobe products. Apple does not give an educational discount on this software. So it really comes down to an issue of quality and reliability of the the software.
Final Cut Pro X is diffierent. If you're invested in the "tracks" paradigm of editing its a bit of a challenge at first to wrap your head around. I tend to prefer it, but I can't say that its better or inferior to Premiere Pro or Avid or legacy versions of FCP. There are things that it makes easier, syncing audio is much simpler in FCP X than just about any other NLE I've worked with. And its trimming tools are pretty solid.
One of the most exciting features (for me at least) is the intergration FCP X and Motion 5. In earlier versions, you could always send footage straight from your timeline in Final Cut Pro into Motion, where you could do whatever effects you needed to do, and then send the file back to FCP with changes intact. While that functionality is currently missing from FCP X, you can build effects in Motion and save them as effects templates that can then be used in FCP X as effects. Things like split screens become a lot easier to do. Rather than building a split screen design from scratch each time or co-opting an existing project to use for a new design, you can now build a template in Motion 5 and then use that template in FCP X as a effect. Really enjoy that.
Premiere Pro has some nice features too. It opens and edits a ton of different formats and codecs. You can import and edit .flv (flash) files as well as RED, h264 (though I don't recommend using native h264 for editing) and a butt-load of frame rates and frame sizes. One of its biggest strengths is its integration with Photoshop and After Effects. Similar to Final Cut Pro (legacy) and Motion, you can organize your clips in Premiere Pro, send them over to After Effects or Photoshop, alter the clips in those apps and then send them back to Premiere Pro for output. PP can open up XML files from older versions of FCP and it can behave essentially like a FCP rig if you re-map the keyboard commands. Useful (FCP X can do this with the aid of third-party apps).
As I said before, I prefer FCP X. I'm probably the target user - my work is destined nearly exclusively for online distribution, I tend to use a one-camera setup, I'm generally my own editor and shooter, and though I cut my teeth in post-production, I don't have any particular loyalty to the parts of the workflow that don't suit me.
If you're still making up your mind, I'd suggest trying out the trial versions of both.
It looks like Fate is determining which one I try first.
I just discovered that Adobe has offered the Design Department I teach at an incredible deal on the Master Suite including Premiere Pro with After Effects for much less than I could buy either FCP X or Premiere Pro solo.
It's a win win situation because I will be getting upgrades in the package for other software that I will need for free.
I will also download FCP X as you suggested and play with it. As with Studio Artist, I don't expect the learning curve to be a short one.
Thanks for all the help.
Less than $300 for the Master Suite? That's a no-brainer my friend. That's cheaper than even the student discount. I'd still suggest you check out Motion 5. There isn't a trial version that i'm aware of but it $50 and more than worth it I think.
Thanks Chris. I feel very fortunate. I am not sure I could afford to work in graphics without these discounts. Software in general is very expensive, especially with the yearly upgrades.
Is Motion 5 a stand alone program? Will it work in Conjunction with Premiere Pro? I ahppen to love typography. Titling would be a breeze for me.
Have used both and dont like them. I bought the fourth Avid to be produced back in 1991 and have loved the interface since then. FCP has always had an awfully amateurish interface although in many ways its more powerful than Avid. Avid rules.
There used to be an issue with avid quicktime codecs where you had to use certain specific pixel dimension sizings or they wound crash (so you couldn't have any old arbitrary canvas size). Do you know if that's still the case, or if that part is more flexible now. It was a tech support issue that came up years ago, but i'm curious if it's still an issue (for back and forth between Avid and Studio Artist).
What quicktime codec format would a Studio Artist user want to use to move movie files back and forth to Avid if they were editing their final composition on Avid?
I must admit to not being an expert in codecs but I gather if they download the Avid codec to their machine they should be able to export to that. That said I've not had any recent problems inporting almost any file into my Avid Composer and its not the most recent version either. They used to have big problems with importing but I think in recent years that's been less of an issue. There are also lots of 3rd party apps that will transcode files to and from different formats if issues arise.
Thanks Mike. I am glad I dragged my feet before I made a final decision. I did a bit of research on it. This new possibility seems like the way I want to go. It seems like the best of the best.They also have great Academic Pricing.