November 20, 2012

Check Out This Thorough Presentation Comparing Final Cut Pro X vs. Premiere Pro CS6

In post production, I've always been a fan of the products from Adobe. I cut my teeth on programs like Photoshop 7, After Effects 5.5, even Image Ready (remember that?). But for editing, I never really got into Premiere Pro, and instead focused my attention on Final Cut Pro (from version 3 onwards). However, this year I finally made the decision to migrate to Premiere Pro CS6, as Final Cut Pro X has some infamous issues. Granted, Final Cut Pro X has come a long way, and it continues to be a true "pro" tool, but there are some quirks worth comparing against Premiere Pro CS6. Both suites are tools that should be compared objectively. Ric Lanciotti from The Pacific Northwest College of Art made this great video comparing the two editing suites. Though he takes the perspective of an educator looking for solutions for students, I think there are still lessons for all of us -- especially those of us who only edit in one suite or the other. Check out his full 45 minute presentation after the jump:

Though some points are far from news to me, I really like the pacing and visuals Ric put into this. And like I said, this video clearly has the tone of an educator looking for solutions for students, not professionals. It may be old hat for you too. However, I implore you to keep in mind that this site is called "NoFilmSchool" for a reason -- it's not anti-film school, but suggests you can get some of the same education online as you would in film school. This video is a wonderful example of that.

Some key takeaways for me:

At around 9:56 Ric mentions one of the biggest points of contention from the great FCPX backlash -- compatibility with FCP 6 and 7 projects. He mentions the 7toX we mentioned back in February, which seems to be working out well for my FCPX friends. A bit annoying that you have to fork out an extra 10-spot, but it's there.

One of the things I personally learned from Ric's video was that apparently Preference Corruption is now a non-issue in both Premiere Pro CS6 and FCPX. I've had a ton of problems with this in the past, trashing preferences is second nature to me. Working in Premiere Pro CS6, I guess I just didn't notice what I didn't notice. I'm really happy Preference Corruption may be a thing of the past.

I echo Ric's opinion at 23:17 on Premiere Pro CS6's great integration of After Effects. I just cut a :30 spot that featured a parody of those talking baby ads, and I took a stab at liquifying and warping the face myself for the first time. It was so great to jump into AE right from Premiere, and back.

This video isn't perfect, of course. I do have to say I deviate from Ric's point about "interface overload" at 11:33. One of the worst things about FCPX to me is the over-simplified interface... I actually like the interface of FCP7 a lot. I've heard other editors lament that FCPX is "iMovie Pro", and the watered-down interface is another reason why. I also have to disagree with not including Avid Media Composer in this faceoff from the get-go. Many post houses cut in Avid, and I think there's way more to be said on that front. But those qualms stated, still an excellent overview and presentation.

After watching, I find myself un-wavered in my decision to switch to Premiere. However I'm happy to be a bit more versed on the current state of FCPX. I have high hopes that some day FCP will return to the former glory of version 7... *sniff*

I'm sure there are a couple of points of view out there on this subject, and I'd like to know what you all think -- where you do stand on the divide between Premiere Pro CS6 and Final Cut Pro X? Do you Final Cut Pro X editors think it's time to move back from Premiere?

Link: FCPX vs Premiere Pro Full 45 minute presentation

Your Comment

77 Comments

Seems like this guy is more interested in coddling his students than keeping up with industry standards and encouraging organization and good workflows.

November 20, 2012

0
Reply
Tim

Perhaps. My profs back in my early editing days didn't coddle me at all, and troubleshooting tech issues myself was a required skill. However, it might be worth looking at in another light - he wanted to take the platform that would get his students editing fastest, which to me says he's more interested in teaching technique than tech. If that's where he's coming from, then that's commendable right?

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Benjamin Dewhurst
Writer
writer/director

Agreed. It doesn't sound like his students are all primarily editors, but rather students who need to edit for projects (the performance artists, etc.)

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
David S.

First and foremost you want to be employable. There is a lot of competition out there, and being able to be as proficient as you can helps.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
moebius22

I agree, but unfortunately, this is a tech industry. If your technical skills are not up to par, it will not enable you to express yourself artistically in the best way possible. It's great if they can get in there and just start editing, but if they are trying to make a profession out of this, it is very important that they understand what is happening under the hood.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
Tim

This conversation reminds me of the few I had with friends in regards to Auto-Correct. Yes its handy, simple and allows you to focus on other things but, It can, if your this type of person, make you dumber only for the reason of loosing repetition. Personally I feel editing softwares are like cameras. Depending upon the situation or job, one is better than the other.

November 22, 2012

0
Reply
Sean

FCPX isn't an over simplified program nor is it a non professional one either. Just because FCP simplified the layout from 7 to X doesn't mean that the way the program functions is any less powerful. Much of the lament I feel is due to inability for some to accept change. Yes, the program lacked some functionality when first released but after this last update, 10.0.6 I don't understand why there should be a debate any longer on the issue of if FCPX is professional or not. FCPX, Premiere or Avid, it doesn't matter what you edit on, they all are powerful pieces of software that function similarly and one isn't better then another. It's just a matter of which one functions best for the way you like to edit.

November 21, 2012

2
Reply
Chris

Nicely put.

November 22, 2012

0
Reply
Loughlin

This dude is WAAAAY off about audio editing. Logic is nowhere close to being the industry standard for music production.

For video Premiere is the more useful choice overall. Its the classic Windows and Android vs. OSX argument. With Windows you can customize to your hearts content and its complex because it expects complex users who want to go to edge of current capabilities while OSX doesn't cater to that audience. It markets to the non expert, hobbies, beginner crowd who don't want to know about technical stuff.

The products are almost two different markets.

Since Premiere has a Windows 8 version I can write a windows shell script to automate a lot of tasks for me. Not something I can do on a Mac. If you know C# you can have premiere do a lot of things by itself while your away.

Overall, Adobe doesn't know how you will use the product, so it has lots of feature that you can dig into when needed. While Apple is trying to force a method. It all depends on what style you like.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
hypnoman

I'm not much of an audio editor outside of ProTools, so I wasn't entirely sure where he was going with that. For the record, I'm a huge fan of Soundtrack Pro's noise reduction... probably because I actually know how to do it : ).
Also what's this about knowing programming languages and automating Premiere? Have any handy links? I'm very into automation when I can use it. I'm not a programmer, mind you.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Benjamin Dewhurst
Writer
writer/director

Um... if you think Windows is superior to OSX in terms of shell scripting... I don't even. OSX is based on a unix-like shell, which is infinitely more flexible than DOS. I don't say this as an OSX fan, I say it as a Linux fan. I would argue that since Windows Vista, OSX is no longer significantly more "user friendly" than Windows and Windows is no longer significantly more customisable than OSX. In actual fact, given its unix-like core, OSX has always been more fundamentally customisable than Windows since it exposes a lot more of the OS to you. Windows has been more customisable mainly on the surface, but not so much underneath.

I'll give the caveat that I've never tried automating Premiere in any way, in either Windows or OSX, so it may be that Premiere for some reason can be shell-driven in Windows but not OSX. But if so, that's not down to Microsoft or Apple.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
Luke

Windows hasn't been DOS based in a very long time...

November 21, 2012

1
Reply
Gabe

by how clunky it's been, it could have fooled me...

January 17, 2013

0
Reply
A Mous

You should try a version of Windows made in the last ten years. It's not the 1990's anymore.

January 17, 2013

0
Reply
Gabe

Agreed. This guy is making up stuff as he goes. Pro Tools is the professional standard along with Reason and Ableton Live.

November 22, 2012

0
Reply
Razor

I'm no pro, and I'm aware that Pro Tools is the industry standard for music production for most people, but there still are plenty of folk who prefer Logic and Cubase for pro work. From what I understand, PT is superior in the audio editing department, whereas Logic is better at composition/MIDI and Cubase is the happy middle ground.

As far as automating tasks go, OSX ships with Automator and Apple Scripts, so I'm not sure what else you need. Sounds like you haven't used the Apple environment much tbh, which is fine but maybe limit the bashing a bit. There are tons of ways of getting the job done, on Windows, Linux and OS X. Choice FTW

November 25, 2012

0
Reply

Agreed that Logic is often a personal preference for Apple users, but factually it's not an industry standard. The Pros use: Reason, Pro Tools, Ableton, Studio One, Cubase and a dash of Reaper.

November 28, 2012

0
Reply
Razor

Sorry to say, but preference corruption still occurs in CS6. :-\ although im a long time premiere user and lover (2005-present)

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
Gareth Graham

In my opinion, the fact that this video is geared towards supplying an educational institution with new software kind of makes it irrelevant to professional users due to the fact that students and professionals have vastly different needs.

Also, Ric's attitude seems to be that students should be using dumbed down software because they're just beginning to learn and because they have bad organizational skills. I honestly think that teaching based on this attitude will lead to a bunch of lazy, disorganized editors who have little regard for the fundamentals of editing. Not to mention that if these students ever end up in a legitimate post-house, they'll likely faint at the sight of an Avid system.

Lastly, while I think FCPX has come a long way in a year (it's finally where it should have been when it was released...), and while it's probably the speediest program out there for basic editing, I still think that Premiere CS6 and Avid take the cake in terms of the reliability of the workflows and the reliability of the programs themselves.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
Robert

Also, the fact that he thinks Logic is the industry standard for music creation is kind of silly. Pro Tools is and will likely remain the standard for years to come.

And while we're talking about audio programs, Audition is a far more capable program in terms of mixing audio for film. Logic is better for making music. Yet he seems to think that his film students would do better with Logic? Yikes.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
Robert

Robert, on your first point, I did note in my post that Ric's video was geared for students/educational institution, and not professionals. So if 100% of his video is old news to you, well you watched at your own peril. But I'm with you on the fact that he should keep in mind the need for students to learn troubleshooting and media management. Likewise, I share your opinion on FCPX.

November 21, 2012

-1
Reply
avatar
Benjamin Dewhurst
Writer
writer/director

I completely agree with Ric about "interface overload." I'm also an editing instructor at a Film School, and we had extremely similar discussions about changing over. If you're experienced with Premiere or After Effects, you're not going to like it being so simple, but if you've never opened the software in your life--keeping what you need to see active and what you don't hidden is a big bonus. I've been editing for years and even I like the interface of FCP more because it gets rid of the clutter. Screen real estate is a necessary thing when editing and the Adobe Suite isn't very good about keeping its interface clean.

The overall takeaway that people should get in their comparisons is that Premiere is best for those that want the traditional editing feel and work with visual effects a lot. Final Cut is for beginner editors and professionals that only handle editorial, leaving the other aspects to different workflow elements.

We give students Final Cut Pro and Adobe CS6, and teach them Final Cut Pro, Avid Media Composer, and Avid Symphony. CS6 is for their own use, because few students are into VFX.

November 21, 2012

-2
Reply
Rob S.

Well on the Pro Tools vs. Logic comparison I can actually speak from some degree of authority, having used both daily since way back in the 90's. Pro Tools is a brand most in video/cinema recognize because it's the best for audio post and mixing. It's very good for editing as well. Logic you may be less familiar with but much of the music for your soundtracks etc. gets made in Logic (or one of the other non-Pro Tools DAWs e.g. Cubase, Reason, Ableton Live, Performer, etc.). Those DAWs have focused on production more than audio post and mixing, and Pro Tools frankly is way behind them in those departments. I will record and edit some things into Pro Tools but by far the most into Logic, but I only mix in Pro Tools.

Avid/Pro Tools is going flat broke and sold off most of its production-oriented divisions such as AIR and M-Audio, and it appears it is willing to settle for being the next Euphonix. For those in audio post, this is a non-issue and may even be a benefit, but for those trying to create music in Pro Tools they ought to look into one of the competitors. Logic X/10 has been long rumored and should have been out in the spring from some reports, but it does appear they are actively developing it. The other DAWs continue apace...stick with what is comfortable for you to create in.

As for FCPX, there is an outstanding reason they built it off the iMovie sourcebase and everyone denigrating it for doing that is just displaying their complete lack of grasp. By sharing source with iMovie just like Logic does with Garageband, the core of the program is hammered on by millions of clueless users, flushing out all the bugs and ensuring optimal 64-bit performance. If iMovie sells at only $10, 10 million purchasers will finance all FCPX development and then some. Adobe and Avid have simply no means of matching this; Avid raised the white flag and sold Pinnacle off to Corel after failing miserably at catching up.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
Peter

I'm not a big fan of Pro Tools' real-time bounce for movies. 'Still waiting for PT11. It's supposed to be a rewrite. Meanwhile, PPCS6 and Logic 9 seem to be a good combination.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
lemur

Yeah although PT11 is going to at least initially take away more than it adds. It's a ground-up rewrite as they couldn't drag the 20-year old codebase into 64 bit.

The way the pro's in post get around the lack of offline bounce in PT is via destructive record mode. Also audiosuite editing and consolidate clip is faster than realtime.

Funny you like PP and Logic and I like FCPX and Pro Tools for post. Brand loyalty isn't as important as some would have you believe.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
Peter

There is another factor here as well. $$$. While i have made good use of the 'free trial' versions from both apple and adobe, If i was actually buying one or the other I would much prefer the $300 FCPX than the $1900+ CS6. That $1300 would go a long way to other equipment which will make a bigger difference to your productions than what NLE you use. It could be a killer hackintosh for faster rendering, some nice lens which could last you potentially the rest of your life, or leave you more money for your first(2nd, 3rd...) camera.

I know there is the creative cloud option but even then it is cheaper to buy FCPX outright than rent cs6 for a year.

November 21, 2012

1
Reply

To be fair, $1900 or $30/$50/month is for the full Adobe suite of video applications... $300 just gets you an editor in FCPX's case. If you're still going to buy Photoshop and/or AE, Premiere makes a lot more sense purely from a cost standpoint.

November 21, 2012

-1
Reply
avatar
Ryan Koo
Founder
Writer/Director

And the monthly plan gets you more than the video applications, too, if you use those tools.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
David S.

I don't know where he got his numbers. the educational verision of CS6 Production Premium is $450. That comes with PP, EN, AE, PP, Au, tons of stuff. Then when CS7 were to come out you get the upgrade price to go to the normal version, you don't have to buy it fully new. The current upgrade from CS5.5 Production premium to CS6 Production Premium is $375. I would imaging similar pricing when moving from 6 to 7 or the like. The non-upgrading on educational software is so you can't upgrade from edu to a new edu. And you get a hell of a lot more than just an editor. I don't understand his numbers at all.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply

Issue for me is two-fold. If I'm hired as an editor can I sit down and use the suite? Avid, yes. Premiere, yes. FCP <7, yes. FCPX, no.

I also have my own in house equipment to consider. Presently FCP7 & one machine also running CS5.5.
(one is also Mac Pro with Blackmagic Sdi card) the pro is a generation too old to run fcpx and I still have to ingest and output tape for some clients. Do I take the leap to a new mac pro (need the pci slot) and have a 16gigRAM 64bit tower and OS running a 32bit application? Do I go for the same but spend the extra £1k on the mercury engine gfx card to get the most out of CS6? Do I switch to Fcpx, which still restricts me for audio, for interface, for TRACK BASED EDITING! Or do I just get a cheaper more powerful PC that plays nice with CS6 and can even do FCP7 shortcuts?

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
Paul13walnut5

If there is one thing that I have been noticing, it's that Apple is getting less and less interested in the professional market and many other people agree. Sure, FCPX is now up and running smoothly, but look at where we've come from studio and then consider what Adobe has offered all along and still offers. Seeing a trend? I wouldn't put it past Apple eliminating motion and compressor in the future as well. So the question stands, why should Apple be trusted when it comes to the future of professional editing software?

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
Ben Corwin

Ben, I tend to share your pessimism. That's why I really haven't put much time into Motion, though I do think it has it's strengths. I'm going to miss Compressor, though.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Benjamin Dewhurst
Writer
writer/director

Motion is fantastic. It's also the effects engine for FCP X's transitions, effects and generators; it's not going anywhere. It doesn't do everything that AE does, but it can do several things that AE doesn't. Text, replicators, behaviors, and parameter behaviours are all fantastic, but the #1 feature is that I can make my own FCP X effects, transitions and titles in Motion. Awesome.

November 22, 2012

0
Reply

I use Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 for 1 year now. (for docu's and business presentation video's)

As a long time Adobe user (Photoshop, InDesign) the PPro user interface feels pretty familiar to me. What impresses me most however, is the easy integration of Adobe Premiere with all the other Adobe tools. (Photoshop, After effects, Encore etc.). When you get PPro, you also get seemless integration with all the other Adobe graphic design and video tools. I think that is one of its strengths.

Erwin

November 21, 2012

1
Reply
Erwin

This school is an odd teaching philosophy. They're going to have to deal with many of the issues that the faculty is trying to avoid with FCPX.

My school is going more in the direction of AVID due to it's use in film and TV. FCPX on the other hand?

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
moebius22

I mean to say "has" instead of "is".

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
moebius22

If cost is a huge factor, it's worth mentioning the cost of the machine as well - its well-accepted that it is more inexpensive to buy or build a Windows machine than a comparable mac (hackintoshes excluded). So if an editor is willing to go the Windows route, that is more money saved there, plus a much less expensive upgrade philosophy than Apple, who's virtually only upgrade path these days is to buy a new machine. This is a money-saving advantage of Premiere Pro.

Now if Adobe would only move to Linux, then we could have cheaper and better hardware PLUS an ideal OS :-) It's a pipe dream, I know.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
David S.

Total Cost of Ownership comparisons have Macs doing just fine when compared to PCs. And it's not true that you can't upgrade Macs, you just have to buy the right one. I just popped a regular PC-type Nvidia GTX 570 in my Mac Pro, no additional drivers required. I've upgraded the RAM twice, and I have (oh dear) six internal hard drives. (Yes, iMacs are harder to upgrade.)

Since FCP X was released, there have been no charges for any of the upgrades, either.

November 22, 2012

0
Reply

today the best tools for pro linux vid is resolve, from blackmagic design, and piranha, from ifx. It's expensive for some people (same price as da vinci resolve). For free solutions you have to hack around cinelerra (works better if you compile your own shit instead of using packages) and blender 3D nodes adapted to color correction and stuff... BUT i'm beta testing the lightworks for linux in my personal notebook and i'm liking it a lot! My ignorant guess is Lightworks at gnu/linux gonna be a great solution, plus resolve and piranha, it's very cool set of tools under gnu/linux. :)

November 22, 2012

0
Reply
guto novo

what is this guy talking about. which software is the best for unprofessionals? i mean who cares what students, who don´t have any idea of video editing, like?

November 21, 2012

1
Reply
ben

I posted this on a different comment, but he might want to focus less on the tech and more on the technique. The easiest tool a student can use to learn technique, the better, perhaps?

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Benjamin Dewhurst
Writer
writer/director

i mean he says things like: "oh there are so many options which you can export from premiere, this is very confusing for my students. this is not good. they wonder if they should export 25 or 30 fps"
what are your students studying? i hope it has nothing to do with editing!!! because if it has, they should know which frame rate to take!! oh and in premiere you have to decide where to put your footage. this is not good, my students get confused if they have to decide this on their own...
poor students

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
ben

Yeah. If he want's to make it so easy for the students, why not just pay the $10 and get them all iMovie, and forget this 'learning to be a professional thing.'

November 21, 2012

0
Reply

good idea and then they don´t have to worry about frame-rates, codecs and other strange stuff:)

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
ben

I love FCP X and now exclusively use it for professional work. The interface of FCP X is the only NLE on the market that feels innovative and conceptually a leap ahead from its predecessor. I honestly don't care if other editors felt slighted by Apple's haphazard launch. I just care about which software works for me.

It might be different if I had to regularly share projects with other editors, but for the most part, my projects stay on my machine.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
Swested

Totally respectable stance, Swested! I hope to someday feel comfy "coming back home" to FCP.

November 21, 2012

-1
Reply
avatar
Benjamin Dewhurst
Writer
writer/director

compared with software like adobe photoshop or after effects, any NLE is a pretty simple thing and mostly made for putting clips one after another. sure there are more useful features but for me the most important thing is that i can work fast with this software. with FCP7 it´s NOT fast to edit. I don´t want to render anything, i don´t want to convert stuff. I mean this is totaly yesterday. i only tried final cut x when it came out and i was really not happy with it. maybe it´s better now. i will stick to premiere cause it´s for my work the fastest NLE I know. the best things for me are the after effects and photoshop integration and i wonder who would doubt that these tools are the best for motiongrafi and co and for photos? so if you use after effect there´s really no need for using final cut x. also this thing with the file management in fcpx is really unprofessional. my last project was 5tb and i wonder how to deal with this in fcpx. i needed several external hdd´s for one project and we where 3 editors in 3 different places sending us project files via email. that´s normal. but as far as i know not really easy with fcpx.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
ben

This feels like another Final Cut bashing review but in the end, Final Cut X wins out for student's needs. I learned at NYU and they taught us using Avid Express initially, then we could get into Avid if we wanted to. I think it's a good system to teach the simple interface first. I just don't think X is a better interface than any adobe product. They have perfected this suite year after year. It's so perfect, they perfected the release schedule.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply

Having FCPX and Logic Pro experience on a resume when the industry standards are Avid MC and Premiere Pro and Pro Tools for audio is not going to help the students at all. Learning FCPX and Logic is a waste of time.

November 22, 2012

-1
Reply
Razor

He he... the moment he said "Logic Pro" was the industry standard in audio is the moment I knew he was clueless.

November 22, 2012

0
Reply
Razor

Logic gets the job done for a lot of folks in the industry; you may not like it, but you do have to deal with it. Where do you get off being so self-righteous anyway, or maybe youre just repeating yourself because youre paranoid your previous posts will disappear or youve got Alzheimers or dementia? In any case, you lose credibility...

January 17, 2013

0
Reply
B Copeland

I was as frustrated and skeptical as anyone when FCPX came out. But I never update anything when it first comes anyway. So I waited....

Then I started to see some veteran, high-end editors praise it. Then I saw the massive updates in 10.06. So I decided to give it a go. I threw down the 40 bucks for Ripple Training's excellent 5-hour tutorial. I'm only about 1/3 of the way through it, but it was enough for me to cut my first project on FCPX. I plan to write a review of my experience, but I think this could actually be the NLE of the future (if I recall, a lot of veterans in the industry poo-pooed FCP 1.0 when it first came out too. They said, how could a desktop based NLE take the place of the $20,000+ power house of an Avid System. The rest is history.

I do edit significantly faster in FCPX then I did with FCP7. That's saying a lot considering I've only used it for two days and I'm still learning it. I've been using FCP since 2001, so I know my way around and NLE. Not only is it faster, dare I say it makes editing "fun" again.

I agree that it's hard to beat the round-tripping to AE that you get with CS6. But FCPX is quite something. I see it being the tool of the up and coming filmmakers, just getting out of high school and college, shooting on their DSLRs and their BMCCs, and being their own private studios. Once the current and older generations die out (literally), I could see a program like FCPX being the leader.

If your job is an indie, contract editor, it behooves you to know a few NLEs. But mark my words, I think Apple may have actually sparked a revolution that pro's won't be able to ignore.

One last thing...making something "complicated" doesn't make it more "professional."

November 21, 2012

0
Reply

Ron, be sure to hit us up with your FCPX review and perspective once you have it written. I'd be really interested in reading it/possibly covering it here.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
avatar
Benjamin Dewhurst
Writer
writer/director

It would be my pleasure. Hit me up with an email.

November 22, 2012

0
Reply

Ron, I'd also love to read or watch your report on FCPX.

November 23, 2012

0
Reply
Stuart

I wholeheartedly agree. Editors who continue to completely dismiss X because of its early stumbles are missing out on a powerful piece of software, particularly for editors whose work is mostly web or short-form. I give it another year or two until it regains the market share that legacy FCP once had, especially so if Apple provides a significant update to the Mac Pro.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
Swested

Agreed. I'm an FCP X trainer; I spent today, and will spend tomorrow, teaching FCP X to a class of mixed students, more than one with experience with Avid and/or Premiere. Everyone is impressed with FCP X so far. It's a capable NLE and much easier to learn than FCP 7 ever was.

November 22, 2012

0
Reply

Ron, I agree. I used to edit with fcp7 and premiere 3 back in the day. And when fcpx came out I was skeptical because I hate iMovie, but after taking a few training sessions, I realized it wasn't iMovie at all. And my experience was that it is FUN. I know you pro's have your workflows and your 50Terrabyte projects and whatnot, so it's maybe not what you need. I won't argue with you. But I quickly learned all the ins and outs of fcpx and motion 5 (which will most likely be just as integrated with fcpx as ae is to premiere. I was able to completely create a complex animated fully 3d animation with motion and fcpx.)

The fun aspect makes me want to edit again professionally. I now have a job that requires me to edit with Premiere and I am pulling my hair out trying to get simple tasks done that I think FCP does so much more effortlessly. It's like learning to drive a stick shift again after driving an automatic for years. That said, now I have both systems on my computer and will use whichever one will get the job done fastest or most efficiently.

December 29, 2012

0
Reply
doug

My school, maybe the same as others, has gone with AVID and away from teaching FCP7/X as they did when I did my specific editing courses. I find it an odd choice as we all get keys to CS6 in the first place for being a student, they instead could have gone with Premier so that the students don't have to shell out more. Oh well. Anyways.

In the past I've used FCPS2, Premier, even iMovie when budget was tight. I think Premier now gives you more. But I primarily find myself using FCPX. When I started school FCPX was the cheap option of FCPX or FCPS3. The school wasn't handing out the keys to CS so I got what I could afford on a very tight budget and actually getting into editing and making it more than a hobby. The reason I find myself using FCPX more is time. Editors really have little time, and the background rendering is great for that. But there is another aspect, I'm techy, I was at first focusing on CIS back when I first came of college age, but found I love to create. But with the older software no matter if it was mac or windows, premier or FCP, I would spend time waiting on rendering and having to troubleshoot(especially windows). But since Lion, FCPX, I have had to spend less time troubleshooting and fixing problems and have gotten more time to edit. Something huge really. Editing is about being creative with what you have at times. And if your NLE is not as feature and plug-in full as FCPX is. Then you find ways until it's something that is standard or you just get the plug-in. When these programs first came out the features that were added later were done because people asked and did it different ways that added time to make it happen. Now those items are standard and people are upset because new software doesn't have them. 1) Times are changing some of those features aren't needed. I will end up being a small business owner with some side movie projects. I don't want to work for Film or TV. So I don't need tape. I'm using solid state media instead. FCPX is ready for a lot of changes like that. 2) FCPX is worked from the ground up only a year old new. If we are patient, voice our wants of the programs, Apple, if they truly are the company they claim to be, will listen and add them. They brought in second monitors as a feature that wasn't there before as an example.

In time FCPX may end up being the standard over FCP7 and do more. We just have to voice our wants and give them a little time.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
Jonathan C

I love FCPX. It has an overwhelming feeling of intelligence about it. A single main track with all other tracks attached. Easily collapsable (and instantly expandable) groups into one track. It just feels smart and modern. Perfect if your the only editor.

November 25, 2012

0
Reply
Steve

As an owner of both programs and one that was entirely against the initial stripped down version of X when it launched, I have grown to embrace programs as both make certain tasks easier for certain types of projects. As someone who had taught TV Production in K-12, I can see how FCP X is better suited for media journalists who cut their own packages or for the indie journalist who doesn't have extensive fimmaking background.

It seems as if this industry isn't happy unless they are griping about which NLE is better or which camera is better. All cameras can produce acceptable quality as long as the storytelling is sound just like all NLE's can cut together the same story if it is sound.

Some NLE's do things easier while others provide much greater control. But both certainly have a place in every workflow for different types of projects. Would I cut long form on X? Not as likely. But I would cut a news package or a small web spot on X in a heartbeat.

November 21, 2012

0
Reply
Patrick Masters

Interesting Choices on FCPX vs Premiere. I will be curious to see how the next batch of editors fare when switching between software when FCPX is their starting point.

The only thing I seriously disagree on is about where the industry is going. Do I see Adobe and Avid copying some of what FCPX has done? Yes. But the way FCPX handles media and how little control you have over where it goes, and how you get it from one machine to another, really needs to be fixed in a bad way.

November 23, 2012

0
Reply
David Sharp

I found this interesting as I just got FCPX 10.6 last week. I've found myself going from "Wow, this is great" to "What where they thinking!!" My biggest complaint has to to with file management and trying to keep all parts of a project on an outboard drive as I do in FCP7. FCPX keeps putting things on my computer drive and not ALL on the outboard drive making it hard to move between different computers. Also the limitations on export sizes and formats, considered good in the presentation is NG. They went to far to simplify this.

November 23, 2012

0
Reply
Dennis M

That sounds like you haven't set up your external properly, as I have no problems utilizing FCP X with an external drive. And there are no limitations on export sizes or formats if you utilize export via Compressor, and you can create as many custom export options as you'd like.

November 23, 2012

0
Reply
Swested

Totally +1

November 25, 2012

0
Reply
Steve

FCPX is the fastest editing suite I've ever used. I think as always it's the material you create not what you edit with. New generation of editors won't have the issues we seem to gripe and debate about, they'll choose and work through it. Funny, reminds me of the debate editing film and editing non-linear... true editors edit on film, blah blah... Now we argue software. It's all silly to me.

November 23, 2012

0
Reply
Mauricio

Logic Pro is the "industry standard"? Sorry, this guy obviously doesn't know about ProTools. Zooks!

November 23, 2012

0
Reply
Rusty

'An', rather than 'the', would probably be more accurate

http://www.macprovideo.com/hub/audio-software/logic-9-vs-pro-tools-9

November 26, 2012

0
Reply

Excellent point, G!

Logic, ProTools, etc are all just tools in the ol' tool belt.

Use what you need/have, feel comfortable with; they should be secondary to the creative impetus, not drive it.

Someone standing up and peeing over the tools that someone else uses, just likely means they arent that creative, or they work for the other company...

January 17, 2013

0
Reply
X Mangus IV

I'm not disagreeing with the point that FCPX offers a fresh editing perspective and may alter how we edit in the future, but the entire argument for the use of FCPX over Premiere seemed to be one of fixing student mistakes, negating potential issues due to their inexperience, or actually preempting editing decisions. This is madness! It encourages (or at least doesn't discourage) complacency, and will generate filmmaking negligence. We learn through our mistakes. We should make mistakes and say 'Oh, that's bad...I won't do that again. Lets try again.' Not the consistent usage of 'Never mind, we'll fix it in post', or, even more absurdly, 'FCPX will fix it for us...it automates it...its great....I don't even need to think about it'.

November 26, 2012

0
Reply
Rob

The audience and market is divided just like the products are. A bunch of professionals are sticking to their guns and mastering their tools. Pick one which will be convenient to your workflow and market. Done.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply

This video forgets to mention that the #1 film school in America USC School of Cinematic Arts has gone with AVID. Im not a student there, but I pay attention to what they use.

March 13, 2013

0
Reply
Jason

Thank you for the video but please learn to a microphone or fix it with adobe audition....

March 29, 2013

0
Reply
Leonledragon

I tried Logic earlier this year, and hated it instantly. I've used a variety of editing programs (Pro Tools, Sound Forge, Soundtrack, BIAS Peak), and found Logic to be the most unintuitive piece of audio software I've ever used. Not one thing worked the way I expected it to. Within three hours I'd already arranged to get a refund from Apple.

April 6, 2013

0
Reply
Lennbob

One thing I want to say is that I'm not afraid of change. FCPX defenders always throw that out first so let's forget that one. I moved to Premiere Pro. This was a change. I was not afraid.

Also, I'm not a hater or a mac lightweight. I've been C-64, Amiga, Mac, XOPC / Linux, and now I'm working on a sweet Hackintosh (thank u, Nofilmschool!!). I love Mac. But I HATE FCPX.

FCPX lovers also say, "Why all the hate?!?" To them I reply, "WHY ALL THE LOVE?!" Are your emotions more valid than mine? Is thy love stronger than mine hatred? Canst thou empathize only with those who feel as you do?

I started teaching Premiere at the local video co-op (http://tinyurl.com/cdzfcbu ) here in Vancouver because I think it is the better way for video artists / editors to go. More control, more hands-on with your materials. You are closer to the file system, where your media lives, not separated by a slick barrier of eye candy. You should organize your projects into project folders, not have FCPX handle the "movie events" while iphoto handles "picture events" and itunes handles the "music."

FCPX I recommend for people who don't want to learn to edit, but just want to get their projects done. It's much easier to get rolling, but if you plan to open the project a year from now, something will go wrong, that's what my gut tells me (I used i-products enough not to trust their memory, and FCPX feels like one of them... idvd will destroy a whole project if you so much as wiggle the 'date modified' on one of your files).

Track-based editing is way better for me. I also hate the idea that I would have to tag stuff for it to be organized into stems, folders, collections etc. And then instead of looking at my timeline and knowing instantly where all the subtitles were vs intertitles, or music vs f/x vs dialogue I have to search for tags?

When I drag something into the timeline I build a picture in my head, and I hate seeing it get rearranged almost randomly based on where FCPX wants to shuttle the tracks. Hate it. How can I keep it all straight?

And grrrr - audio dissolves. Shift-Command-D in Premiere, Shift-Command-T in Final Cut 7, but in FCPX it's click, drag, click, drag, etc etc... tiny little rubber bands to drag. It can't work the same way because the tracks have to keep swapping around all the time? Or what? I make audio dissolves 50 times a day. Don't take away that simple power, FCPX. I hate you.

And who needs automatic tagging of their shots into "2shots" "closeups" etc? That's lazy and dumb, I think. Watch your footage. Get to know it.

okay maybe I sound like a hater but I've done a couple of short project son FCPX just to see what I was missing. It's improving now but too little, too late, and the attitude is all wrong for me. Definitely a media artist wants to see the seams in the system, the cracks and edges, not be protected from the means of production by idiot-proof pretty toys...

April 12, 2013

0
Reply

FCP7 was always flaky over about 20 minutes, so I transitioned to FCPX for a long form doco just completed. It was main edit on X, another editor on 7 and onlining/ finishing in an avid suite. Long story short, the latest upgrade made all the difference( particularly with footage ingestion, timeline shortcuts and colour grades etc) plus a massive 40 hour tutorial program purchased prior. If you find out how to open X up properly in the timeline all the old complexities and finesses appear - so many of the comments I have read above have a simple but different keyboard solution; or familiar visual interface. Currently testing a transition program to Avid which we didn't have time to experiment with - set up two suites and sent changed clips back and forth as needed. Conclusion - X is not there yet, but getting close; 7 however looks pretty tragic in comparison now; and premiere was to ugly an option for me, avid for mac more likely and is the back up plan. Hanging in, it will be worth it.

July 30, 2013

0
Reply
Scott Xavier

One man's sunrise is another man's sunset. Ultimately, sunrise and sunset are mere illusions...relative views from different points in the world turning on its axis. From the point of view of the sun itself...there is neither sunrise nor sunset! The wiser people here have shared their more enlightened, more universal perspective: it really depends on what you are going to use the software for, and what style your totally unique personality prefers to work with (because each one is the only one of his kind in the universe, and that uniqueness must be respected! This is not about absolute right and wrong, not about a war between editing software, which can be won by only one side. Neither is this a war between "professionals" and "students". We are all students, since learning is a continuous life time endeavor...where "professionals" are really just paid "students" :-) Of course there will always be the bigoted gripers, complainers, put-downers, war mongers, who are clueless that by choosing to have a negative attitude and act in a separative and fragmentary way, they only succeed to confess and bare themselves naked to not being an artist...because the nature of a true artist is creative and unifying, not destructive and fragmentary!

But I thank Benjamin Dewhurst and his kindred positive spirits here, who in spite of disagreements in view points are clearly not in conflict or at war but simply in the mode of sharing their experiential knowledge towards helping people like myself caught at this point in the crossroads of which editing software to use. I have achieved relative mastery over FCP7 but simply lose blood waiting for constant rendering that disrupts the flow of the creative energy. Though I used Avid for off line and Quantel Henry for final on line in the 90's, I started to edit my personal work with Edit DV, where rendering created a rendered track that you can actually use...where if you did a minor correction in a long scene, only that part will be re-rendered...unlike in FCP7 where it will re-render everything in the long scene! Except for this rendering blues, however, I loved FCP7, which gave me full control of creative and effective storytelling, using layering effects that were imperceptible, which is the way I like effects to be (not to upstage the story which is the main star!) And now, FCPX and PPCS6 seems to offer more powerful editing capability MINUS the rendering blues...so I need to choose which turn in the fork to go.

I started my career as Director/Cinematographer/Editor in 35mm. I loved editing in 35mm...I had the picture and sound tracks in my hands, like my very own life! Now I shoot and edit with HD, but my experience with 35mm is a priceless foundation! I have fully embraced digital filmmaking unlike many who have become attached to the past and resist adapting to change. And changes will continue in leaps and bounds in the digital domain and we will simply have to learn to adjust and adapt, which is the essence of creativity: not being reactionary but being response-able (not clinging to the past but staying in the present). Being reactionary comes from fear...being response-able comes from love. Love is the source of all creativity...that is why we are most creative when we love what we are doing.

Thanks again Benjamin and the others for your enlightening sharing!

April 4, 2014

0
Reply