Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
loyallion

premiere vs finalcut pro

Recommended Posts

It's that time again.

I'm sure most of you mographers have been editing either your own pieces or for some side jobs.

I kind of think that mographers sometimes turn out to be better editors because of the sensibility.

Well, get to the point, what advantage do FCP has over Premiere or vise and versa?

 

One of my client insist on using FCP for some reason. Not that he knows or have used neither of them. :mellow:

 

I'm talking in general of TV and short film. Any thoughts?

Edited by loyallion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento
It's that time again.

I'm sure most of you mographers have been editing either your own pieces or for some side jobs.

I kind of think that mographers sometimes turn out to be better editors because of the sensibility.

Well, get to the point, what advantage do FCP has over Premiere or vise and versa?

 

One of my client insist on using FCP for some reason. Not that he knows or have used neither of them. :mellow:

 

I'm talking in general of TV and short film. Any thoughts?

Being that they're both on the verge of a major release, I'd say the time for this might be three months from now. Very shortly you won't even be able to buy the current versions anymore, so why compare two things you know are changing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my humble opinion FCP really has no advantage over Premiere Pro, especially when dealing with motion graphics. If you have the Production Studio, the dynamic link is an amazing tool to overlay mographs/composites onto your video plate. And most importantly there is no need to render from AE first. Also all the issues that Premiere could not do previously (multi track/HD/....) were added to the newest version. FCP Pro HD does come with more codecs, so not as much need to find them as with Premiere, but it is really not that much of a pain. Also the scene detect capture option eliminates alot of the need for logging that you have in FCP. And for some reason I have really never found a great way to capture 24P 16:9 footage in Final Cut.

 

Well there's one opinion . . . . interested in hearing what others have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am actually quite interested to see what people have to say here. Off the top, let me say that I dont edit. But I have overseen maybe 500+ jobs, and in my humble opinion, its not the program, its the talent which makes the difference. We cut our first videos on a lap top in 2000, and while we've become more sophisticated since then, again, I will always say it is the talent, not the tools, which makes the difference. I know this post was for the tech issues and I am interested in seeing what people prefer, just pointing out that again its that talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento
I am actually quite interested to see what people have to say here. Off the top, let me say that I dont edit. But I have overseen maybe 500+ jobs, and in my humble opinion, its not the program, its the talent which makes the difference. We cut our first videos on a lap top in 2000, and while we've become more sophisticated since then, again, I will always say it is the talent, not the tools, which makes the difference. I know this post was for the tech issues and I am interested in seeing what people prefer, just pointing out that again its that talent.

For the most part, you're right. All the editing applications can make a cut. That accounts for 99.99% of what it needs to do. Further integration into a workflow, like that provided by Premiere, or AutoDuck is a plus. As far as who has more star wipes and layers of star wipes on top of stock footage, who gives a crap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, FCP is leaps and bounds ahead of Premiere. Depends on the task at hand I suppose. Interested to see what the upgrades will bring.

 

In my humble opinion FCP really has no advantage over Premiere Pro, especially when dealing with motion graphics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

based off not knowing all the shit that's about to drop in a few months (like sao mentioned), here's the short list...

 

- premiere can kick out an edit to AE so you can have the source footage (with handles) in an AE timeline ready to go-- for free. if you wanna do this with fcp, you gotta buy automatic duck for $500 (the same plugin will accept avid exported projects).

 

- if you wanna be compatible with the rest of the world/post industry when it comes to accepting/revising projects & EDLs, then fcp has approximately a 280928709134814040139841309841843094384373415987% adavntage over premiere, because fcp is near ubiquitous in the industry... nearly every post/editorial house can deliver a fcp project (even if they cut on avids, because they usually have the separate avid-to-fcp automatic duck plugin). i'm not sure if there's a way to get fcp or avid projects into premiere, but i'm assuming there's not (someone please correct me if i'm wrong).

 

- either can 110% do the job of doing a offline/roughed-out cut job for pre-mography/AE work.

 

 

after all the new bundles are released, it'll probably be a very easy math/money formula to figure out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah . . . I think it really comes down to what you are working on and the workflow of the project. If a final video is the delivery, then Premiere has work best in most situations for me. If you are a video editor, then the EDL ability and industry standard of FCP would probably make sense. Also have to agree with the above, that in the end it is the talent of the person, not the program, that makes the product. I have used both FCP and Premiere for large and small mograph and video projects and they both get the job done. It will be interesting to see where this stands after the releases of all new versions though, but my guess is it will still depend on the job and client needs more than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many professional shops and stations use FCP. If you're thinking

about getting a job, you might be better off learning it.

 

The only person I know using Premiere is a guy who

works on his own doing small weddings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento
Many professional shops and stations use FCP. If you're thinking

about getting a job, you might be better off learning it.

 

The only person I know using Premiere is a guy who

works on his own doing small weddings.

In fact, if you're looking to work as an editor, it would benefit you most to know the higher end Avids, followed by FCP. I know both and prefer FCP, but many many agencies and post houses and promo departments still stick to Avid products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, if you're looking to work as an editor, it would benefit you most to know the higher end Avids, followed by FCP. I know both and prefer FCP, but many many agencies and post houses and promo departments still stick to Avid products.

 

true enough. we have 4 FCP suites, and 2 diva suites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Generally speaking, FCP is leaps and bounds ahead of Premiere."

 

'I don't even see how you could compare the two. FCP is much better."

 

Thank you guys for your in-depth insight. You really made it clear why FCP is better than Premiere Pro.

 

I find it funny when guys with low-end FCP set-ups look down at Premiere, as if they were using a Smoke or Inferno.

 

Let's be clear about something: as these posts show, Premiere has a prestige problem above all. In other words, the Premiere brand is not well regarded. It appears in the collective mind as an event videographer thing. There's nothing wrong with event videographers, of course, but succesful marketing (ie, Apple) manages to sell copies to wedding people while making everyone believe they're selling them to high-end shops. That's genius.

 

The reality of Premiere is much better than its' public image, though. Why they chose to keep the Premiere name, thinking the Pro addendum would heal it, is beyond my comprehension. Premiere Pro is a new program, just like InDesign is different from PageMaker. They should have picked a naming scheme that reflects this.

 

On the other hand, FCP is a very powerful tool. Make no mistake about it. But the quotes above shows that most of its' following comes from Apple's aura, not any actual advantage in feature terms (there a quite a few). They didn't care to say why it's better. It's better because it's Apple. Period.

 

Both FCP and Premiere are used in 90 per cent of cases by young kids doing really low-end stuff. Apple has been much smarter in making it seem as if FCP was used the most for Pro work (yes, it is used for that too, but it's not where Apple is selling thousands of copies).. That's their talent.

 

FWIW, FCP has much better format handling. For some people, this a must: native support for DVCPRO HD (P2 or tape), DV50, XDCAM, etc. If you use DV or HDV, then let me tell you that you're not using anything that different from Premiere. FCP also has an advantage when working with film, because of Cinema tools. The trimming tools are perhaps just a bit better, if you happen to be an editor (not a motion designer).

 

Premiere Pro has much, MUCH better keyframe handling. In fact, it has the same keyframing model as After Effects: with value/speed graphs for everything, ability to move ranges of keyframes and all those things at which FCP totally sucks. It also has many of the AE "generative" effects built-in. I hate to say it, but color correction is better in PPro than FCP: PPro has everything in FCP (three way, secondary color correction, match hue, etc) plus color curves and tonal definition. Dynamic link is a great thing, being able to bring a comp from AE directly. The same could be true for FCP and Motion, but we all know that for all the cool things in it, Motion is not a complete mograph solution in current incarnation.

 

Both of them are really awful in terms of the built-in keyers, masking, etc.

 

Bottom line: If FCP has an advantage, it's way more subtle than those quotes at the beginning imply. Choose the one that works best for you, depending on which format you use and how important AE integration is for you. For motion

 

PS: You guys are aware that FCP was spawn from the original Premiere team, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great insight, arozenfeld! I am a Premiere Pro user as I am on PC, but have run into situations, like DVCPro HD, where I needed to cut on a FCP workstation. Both are nearly identical (95%). I could move back and fourth effortlessly (from a comfort level perspective, not actually moving projects).

 

PS: You guys are aware that FCP was spawn from the original Premiere team, right?

It's true... History of Final Cut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento
PS: You guys are aware that FCP was spawn from the original Premiere team, right?

I love that we now have an official voice of Adobe around now. At least it makes it seem like someone is listening.

Yes, most people are familiar with the history around Randy U. Is that the excuse? The apps came from the same place, so they're equal?

 

Here's the problem - which happens to be the same problem Adobe's having across the board right now. Support. I know that I can expect FCP to support new codecs and technologies almost instantly. They did it with HDV, they did it with P2 media, and now they'll do it with the RED camera. I don't have inside info, but I can tell you with 98% certainty that FCP will work with RED cameras by the time anyone actually has a RED camera. Adobe can't even manage to support an OS, much less offer that kind of attention to detail. - Therefore, if I'm a design shop or post house, or someone who's gearing up, I'm looking to take advantage of all the latest stuff to minimize cost while maximizing flexibility of output. One of the key components of my business is that I'm selling ideas, not technology, so I need to be able to say to the client "I/O formats are not an issue" - "I can deal with whatever you've got" - "I can give you the final in any format you want". Which of the two products here would be more likely to back up that statement for me? The guys who have compromised my business because they can't keep up with my hardware, or the guys who have everything worked out before I need it?

 

(yes we've already been through the whole thing about how it's Apple's fault that Adobe's customers aren't served, etc.)

 

It's Adobe's game to win or lose. Become a clear winner and people will have no choice but to change their minds. Make excuses and you'll just get a refresher course on why Premiere for the Mac was discontinued in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ease the throttle a bit :)

 

I'm not an official Adobe voice. Or an official voice for anyone else. I'm totally independent, and midway in the Apple-Adobe conflict (my life would be so much better If I was more of the official kind of person, but I just can't avoid saying what I think).

 

When I say After Effects CS3 is amazing, for example, I say it as a very honest, indepepent opinion (and it seems stupid to me when people start commenting on how superficial the marketing bits are: that's what marketing is, geez, and in Apple's case, it works).

 

I am also honest when I say that 95 per cent of the perception in FCP vs Premiere is a public image thing. For example, I'm pretty sure everything I said about color correction and animating properties surely was deleted from memory as soon as I said it Why? Because that's what happens when you're in love :)

 

You'll be surprised to know I'm actually kind of a FCP poster chilld. I have been since 1999. I am constantly invited to be a spokesperson, demonstrator, trainer and evangelist for FCP. It changed completely the way it work when it came out (but not so much SINCE it came out). Anyway, IMHO the NLE segment is the most conservative area of the visual tools industry. Some 3D programs would call a .1 update what FCP, PPro or Avid call a full upgrade (in this regard, AE is glorious)

 

It's just that frivolous analysis made me feel sick. Being an Apple user since ever basically, it drives me nuts when people pick Apple because it's Apple. If we are to get philosophical, it makes me happy when people choose any product for good, heart-deep reasons, and really sad when people choose something for projected image reasons (being "cool", "professional", etc). I find the whole idea of "pro tennis players uses this brand of rackets" absolutely stupid. Especially when racket brands pay for players to use them.

 

The format aspects you mention are completely true. But let me tell you that FCP has been supporting those since 2004, and yet it "was" FCP already back then, if you know what I mean. Anyway, If you're working with DVCPRO HD all the time, then yes FCP is the best solution for you (mind you, DV100 is not a great post codec). Format support as a whole is overall much, much better in FCP. Yet I have the impression that's not what those quotes were about. They (or others) probably just use DV/HDV. You get the idea.

 

BTW, FCP was not first to support HDV. It was the first to support native HDV editing. That's another marketing coup: Any pro knows that native handling of a long-GOP codec is a nefarious idea, yet the paradigm of native transfers is so entrenched... they decided to do it anyway. Since they are not mean, they also offered an Intermediate codec for People who Cares®. Preremie Pro offered an intermediate codec from the set go.

 

One question: If the next FCP didn't support the RED codecs natively the day it comes out, would you switch to PPro? :)

Of course, no inside info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento

OK, I've pointed out a few key technical instances where Premiere is unable to compete with FCP. Regardless of hair splitting over wether instantly usable HDV is better or not, the larger point remains valid.

 

Let's pretend that they are exactly equal in every way except how they look and how they are marketed. Does perception count for anything?

A Toyota Echo is the same vehicle as a Scion xB - same engine, same chassis, same everything except the body, but the customer demos are very different. As long as the post houses and ad agencies perceive FCP as being cool, and associate Premiere with a bad CD-ROM experience they had in 1989, everyone's going to perceive FCP as being better. And if you want to work at one of those places, guess which one you better know? Being cool has a trickle down effect on everyone who wants to be cool.

 

Is FCP REALLY better than Premiere? What does that actually mean? - is the code cleaner?

I think the reality is that software doesn't exist in a vacuum. The rate of adoption within the industry DOES play a role. Perception DOES play a role in an industry that is built around creating perception.

 

Here's another way to look at it. When you have two things that are 95% the same (as you say), why would anyone do business with someone who's not looking out for their best interests? There are many brands of edit software, most of them do pretty much the same things - i.e. they are a commodity. That's great because now I can look at it from a business perspective. What are the chances of Apple dropping Mac OS support?

That leaves you to complain about how good Apple's marketing is and how bad Adobe's is. Where does that lead? (See above).

 

The only caveat is to recognize that workflow is more important than any individual application within it. Adobe and Apple both understand that and both use it to their advantage. They each have their strong points and their weak points. Adobe will try to gain market share through aggressive bundle pricing. They may even succeed. Does that make Premiere better? No, it just means that if it's thrown in for free and cooperative with the workflow, a lot of people will switch as they upgrade the rest of their apps, or just never do the upfront thinking required when gearing up. Will Premiere be perceived as being better? - probably not if Adobe's marketing dept. isn't able to muster up anything more convincing than quotes from the product managers.

 

The hole Adobe is in is one they dug for themselves. They created a lot of ill will with their temper tantrum. Can you blame anyone for being gun-shy after that? Pay $799 for something that's at V1 again? Nope - but it's not about the product so much - it's for the same reason I don't do business with Avid or Discreet anymore.

 

In summary, when you're a commodity, marketing really DOES matter. Add a smattering of actual technical superiority and you have a winner.

To me that makes FCP the clear winner for people looking to do things beyond putting their home movies or wedding videos into Flash Video format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for myself, all of the above arguments dont mean much for me as the tool sets are identical or most any editing job that I will encounter (i have yet to use the dynmaic linking feature). it has really come down to one factor only:

 

i drag can take a .m2t file from my XH A1 and place it directly on the premiere time line. no re-rendering to a format that fcp can use. for that reason only (well, ok... i find little use for my mac so far other than FCP), premiere is a no-brainer. i'm not going to waste my time messing around so FCP can be happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont do much editing(do the simple edits in AE :) ), and the occasional times I did with a client sitting in, was using FCP.

But the other day I decided to cut a reel, and thought....what the hell, I have the Production Bundle and decided to do it on Premiere.

When I launched it for the first time since seeing(whatever version it was back then) over 3 years ago, I was impressed. Seemed more organized, and easier to use.

So I decided to cut the reel with a bunch of mpegs so that I could work off of my iPod, and then when I was done with it, replace them with some lossless clips.

 

So I cut the reel and it was time to replace footage...

Well, that was not so easy... I would offline the footage and try to replace it with the lossless clip only to get an error window telling me that "the footage was not the same" No shit. And then there was only one button on the window...."OK" That really pissed me off and kinda flushed my Premiere Pro happyness down the toilet.

 

EDL export didn't help either, since for whatever reason(I assume retimed footage), when I exported the EDL back into Premiere the edit was messed up.

 

I ended up recutting the thing with lossless footage in Premiere a second time, with no problems. But it did inconvenience me quite a bit.

 

It seems there is quite a bit of discontinuity between the Bundle apps. Simple things that should work together/same way in the different apps(Replace footage ala AE, footage settings locations, etc....). I know in some cases theyre trying to keep functionality of these apps the same as their older/original versions(like Cool Edit for example) but it still feels like there could be more done... I know that an experienced Premiere editor could have taken a different path than I did to my problem... so its all just my opinion here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest dumbo

but does PPRo have bruce the wonder yak...?

 

BrianTheWonderYak.jpg

 

You can invoke Bruce as follows:

Final Cut Pro 4.5:

Press [Option-J]

Type [shift+b] then "ruce"

The search box will now display "[shift icon]Bruce". Erase the shift icon using the arrow keys and and backspace only. Do not press return.

A button should now appear named "Call Bruce". You can drag this button into any window where it will be added to the toolbars.

Press the button.

Final Cut Pro 5.x:

Select [Videoscopes] from the [Tools] item on the main menu

In the Videoscope window, hold the CTRL key and click multiple times

Bruce should appear at the bottom of the screen

Edited by dumbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i drag can take a .m2t file from my XH A1 and place it directly on the premiere time line. no re-rendering to a format that fcp can use. for that reason only (well, ok... i find little use for my mac so far other than FCP), premiere is a no-brainer. i'm not going to waste my time messing around so FCP can be happy.

 

Well, we now have misinformation from the other side. Your m2t file is not any less or more native than a Quicktime file with the same codec. They're both different wrappers for essentially the same thing. A pretty lousy thing native HDV is, if you want to know. Premiere Pro brings it as a generic MPEG-2 transport stream, FCP wraps it in a Quicktime containar. Still same thing: you don't have to convert it to anything if you bring it with FCP.

 

I already said what it mattered to me. There are valid reasons to prefer PPro over FCP (and viceversa). Just don't fool yourself thinking there's a "night and day" difference between them (in any direction). They're both amazingly democratic tools but also rather low-endish, with many limitations. FCP excels in some areas (format support being one notorious case), while PPro has other merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento
for myself, all of the above arguments dont mean much for me as the tool sets are identical or most any editing job that I will encounter (i have yet to use the dynmaic linking feature). it has really come down to one factor only:

 

i drag can take a .m2t file from my XH A1 and place it directly on the premiere time line. no re-rendering to a format that fcp can use. for that reason only (well, ok... i find little use for my mac so far other than FCP), premiere is a no-brainer. i'm not going to waste my time messing around so FCP can be happy.

That's exactly the question to ask - "which one is less likely to get in the way?" The answer is that it depends on what you're trying to do (and that the possibility that said obstacles may no longer exist or may be replaced by new ones in about 16 days).

 

edit: As I look into this a little farther, Adobe's timing is going to kill off Premiere as much as anything. If you're on a Mac now, and you do any editing, chances are that you are already using FCP. You paid anywhere from 1K to 1.3K to get it. If you own an Intel Mac, #1 on your to-do list is to get native versions of your important apps. I can do 99% of that in one upgrade from CS2 Web to CS3 Web. The only thing I'm still missing is AE. That means, that most likely, I'll buy AE as a one-off rather than drop $1700 on a bundle, most of which I already own. So does adobe really think that Mac OS users are going to bail on their investments and drop another $799 on Premiere? The most compelling reason to use Premiere is the integrated workflow with AE, but you could save $300 by just buying AutoDuck to work with the FCP you already have. That would also preserve your original investment in FCP.

 

All this will be moot once Adobe is actually shipping their production suite. Then they'll have a crack at persuading all the new mac users to try the Adobe path. For those of us who went through the hell that is Rosetta Adobe apps, I imagine it's too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...