Final Cut Pro X vs Adobe Premiere Pro

[Paul Perlow]

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.

[Chris Northcross]

Shake functions perfectly well as a standalone application in much the same way After Effects and Studio Artist do.  It will bring in clips from Avid (although I recommend using image sequences) and can composite them/effect them in any way you see fit.  

It does have some integration with Final Cut Pro (legacy version) built in but Final Cut Pro aren't necessary to be able to load footage into it or render footage out.

It will also run on Intel machines (I've run it using Lion 10.7.1 on a macbook pro) though Lion may be the last version of OS X that will.

[Paul Perlow]

Thanks again Mike. I was able to find it is a stand alone program. It looks excellent so I bought a complete version on Ebay used but cheap

[Chris Northcross]

Yeah, that is a bug that's gotten me a couple of times.  Frustrating to encounter.  I've been using it pretty heavily since late last year and I've had three instances where I've lost a chunk of work.  Seems to have improved since the 10.0.4 update but you're accurate in stating its a know and unresolved bug.  (I've learned to pay attention to the  'undo' function - if that is unresponsive, you're most likely going to lose work from that point forward.)

The new version of Smoke looks really intriguing.  I'm curious to see if the NLE part of it has improved any.  Its always been a great tool for finish but not the greatest for putting together an offline edit.  (It can do it, but its not the tool I'd suggest for doing a rough cut.)

Shake is a very cool app.  I've moved over to blender for some of my compositing work now because its still supported and does the nodal approach (and is free) but am still fond of Shake.

[Chris Northcross]

Oh, also meant to say that FCP X is worth checking out.  There's a 30 day trial.  It might work for you, might not, but I encourage folks to try it out for themselves (same holds for Avid, Premiere, Lightworks--assuming you're either willing to wait for a OS X build or have a PC--and Media 100.)  

With the diverse field of NLE software on the market now there's no reason to put all of your eggs in NLE basket.  I use FCP X, still use FCP 7 and am doing something I thought I'd never do again: giving Premiere Pro a shot.  When Lightworks comes out for OS X, I'll also give it a shot.  The key is to find the tools that work best for you and use them.

Here endeth the rant.

[Paul Perlow]

Thanks. i bought Avid, but have been so busy that i haven't even touched it yet

[Ben Balser]

Hollywood movies were pretty much 50/50 FCP 7 and Avid.  But cutting for Hollywood is not the same as editing for the rest of the world.  It is a huge myth to base what you buy on Hollywood.  FCP X is very powerful, very easy to learn.  I've been teaching post-production for years, and I've never seen people, newbies and season pros alike, pick up an NLE so fast.  Nothing handles digital workflows and media management (as well as editing) as easily and quickly.

As for Shake, the code got so outdated, it was too difficult to update, and other products were taking it over.  Apple dropped an aging dinosaur, simple as that.  Most, not all, but most of its features are now in Motion.

I have many students, consulting clients, and user group members who love FCP X, are cutting everything from TV spots to documentaries, short films, even feature length films.  I'm color grading and doing audio post for a feature now that was cut in FCP X. All of my audio work is in fact being done in side FCP X.  The color grade are 80% done in FCP X, going out to Resolve 9 for some rare shots that need some extra help.

Bear in mind that originally, decades ago, national broadcast and Hollywood were 100% of the industry.  Today, they are a very tiny drop in the bucket.  Most of us don't use their workflows.  And I can tell you first hand from my consulting for broadcasters today, they are starting to drastically change their workflows, because the outdated NLE GUI's and workflows have not kept up with the switch from tape to digital acquisition.

Nothing is as flexible, fast to learn, fast to use, handles media management as easily and as fast as FCP X.

[Mark Gould]

I see I'm responding to this discussion very late but wanted to express my opinion just the same for what it's worth, and echuioes pretty much what John said early in the thread about what Apple did to Final Cut Pro X and how most professional video editors reacted to it. People may have long ago made their decisions. Perhaps now there even may be insight about why Apple made the decisions it did; to essentially turn FCPX into a bloated version of iMovie :) in which case why wouldn't they just have made iMovie Pro or something and left FCP alone?

For me it's still a mystery. Like many video professionals, for years I made a living on using Final Cut Pro every day, and as mentioned, the UI was and still is a metaphor that professionals have learned since non-linear editing grew up more than 20 years ago. I'm sure Avid has changed, but there were things about Avid for me that were not intuitive about layers and composite tracks and so it was FCP for me. Why Apple would make this change without apparently any word to the video industry is still amazing. Every once in a while I open it and give it a spin; I still don't like it; so, yes, I'm giving Premiere Pro a spin, along with others.

Cheers,  Mark

[Ben Balser]

You'd be surprised who was beta testing it before its release.  I teach it, and have taught dozens of season pros who love it and never want to touch a traditional track based system again.  If you don't learn it properly, you have no clue what you're missing.  The ignorance here is staggering.  But use what you want, at the same time, don't fear what you don't understand.  If someone can't pick up FCP X with lessons quickly, I have my doubts.  And it is not for everyone.  But to say it is bloated iMovie or not professional is amazingly ignorant.

[John Dalton Synthetik Software]

Ben, could you elaborate on explaining the conceptual differences between the old and new FCP approaches to editing.

[John Dalton Synthetik Software]

Here's a recent article on Final Cut Pro X versus Premiere pro CS6. This is written by a professional editor that uses both in their daily work. He's trying to be un-biased in his analysis of the 2 systems.

[Chris Northcross]

Final Cut Pro X is worthy of a few labels.  "A bloated version of iMovie" isn't one of them.

[John Dalton Synthetik Software]

Just to be clear, the article i mention above doesn't make any statements like that. I think it's analysis is pretty objective.