You are here

final cut pro vs adobe premiere pro

rfigliolini's picture
Last seen: 5 years 2 months ago
Joined: 07/28/2009 - 4:52pm

I'm trying to make a decision on which editing software to use.
Adobe Premiere Pro or Final Cut Pro. Can someone convince me why APP
would be better than FCP? What's the advantages for a marketing company
wanting to take this in-house for some production work.



Tom Skowronski's picture
Last seen: 6 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: 09/29/2008 - 9:15pm

personally i'd go with Adobe, but thats because I feel like there is more that a user can get out of it. They both handle the same, equally as confusing at first but then they start to become more user friendly

Associate Editor
tskowronski@videomaker.com
VM Customer Support: 1-800-284-3226


Rob Grauert's picture
Last seen: 9 months 16 min ago
Joined: 02/16/2008 - 10:47pm

Honestly, I think for you to get a good answer, you need to give us more info. What are you trying to accomplish. What are you shooting? What do you want to do in post production? How do you want to deliver? Once all the questions are answered, we'll be able to direct you down the right path.


rfigliolini's picture
Last seen: 5 years 2 months ago
Joined: 07/28/2009 - 4:52pm

thank you Rob. I'm working in a marketing company that wants to bring some of the video editing in-house. Not something too complicated. I want to be able to edit video supplied from outside sources. Sometimes they come in .mov, wmv, P2 (a panasonic file), etc. The ability to strip audio, add my own, overlay tracks, add some special effects, type manipulation (that might have to be outside this program) and to grow with experience on that software. Final use would be mainly (for now) the web. Whether it's YouTube, Vimeo, microsite, website or other use like DVD replication for TV or computer monitor.

Currently we've had to work with a videographer that supplies a P2 format (native to a panasonic camera.) But, I know that we'll also get mov and mp4.

I've done some tutorials on Adobe Premiere (lynda.com stuff.)

Is After Effects a big deal for some effects - does it work best with AP?

I understand the pro suite of premiere will take FCP native files now too.

Th

Rico Figliolini, Art Director, Atlanta, GA


Rob Grauert's picture
Last seen: 9 months 16 min ago
Joined: 02/16/2008 - 10:47pm

I think the biggest issue is the fact that you will be getting multiple formats, and because you will be getting different types of formats to edit, I would get Final Cut because you can transcode everything to ProRes and work in a timeline that contains all the same codec.

Also, Final Cut Studio includes programs that edit video, create graphics, edit sound, high-end color grading, and program devoted to compression. All for $1000 bucks. I'm sure Premiere has a lot of the same capabilities, but I doubt it has anything like the ProRes codec and I dont think it has anything that comes close to Color, Apple's color grading program.

Also, After Effects works fine with Final Cut, but you can also use Motion, which is Apple's motion graphics program.


franko's picture
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: 12/28/2007 - 8:38am

I personaly prefer Premiere Pro. You can get it in a pack for about the same as Final Cut Pro Studio. And the Prodcuction Premeum pack has just about the same feature as Final Cut Studio, and more; including Flash Pro. Or you an buy both individually for about the same price if I'm not mistaken.

My prefrence may be of personal tast though, I have used Final Cut the most, as all of my Universities editing bays are Macs. And after using it alot, and even taking a work shop dedicated to it. I always strugle with it. somethign goes wrong that I didnt expect and I'm left spending hours fixing it. Where I have had no formal training in Premiere and I can get double the work done in the same amount of time. To me its just easier to use, yet both are complex and confusing at first.

In the end its up to you, try tirals for both. its all based on personal tast. And in all truthieness, Final Cut Pro is really just Adobe Premiere with a Mac finish. Good luck to you sir.



Ryan3078's picture
Last seen: 8 years 10 months ago
Joined: 12/27/2005 - 3:48pm

Multiple formats aren't challenging to work with. You can drop a .wmv, .mov, and .avi into a timeline in Premiere, all with different resolutions, hit the render key, and be on your way.


Rob Grauert's picture
Last seen: 9 months 16 min ago
Joined: 02/16/2008 - 10:47pm

i dont mean mixing .mov with .wmv. I'm talking about mixing DVCProHD, DV/NTSC, Beta, .mp4, etc.

And yes, you can mix all these in timelines, but the point of ProRes is to keep your timelineconsistentto avoid having to render. It's also a better codec to work with when using motion graphics, compositing, and color correction/grading because it's a 10-bit codec.


rfigliolini's picture
Last seen: 5 years 2 months ago
Joined: 07/28/2009 - 4:52pm

so let me get this straight. Essentially they seem to be comparable. There are tastes and preferences yes. I see that. But, Rob you're telling me that the ProRes is the turning point on this. I'm not sure I understand it well enough to make a judgement on it. I do understand - tell me if I'm wrong - that using ProRes means I can:

  • mix formats if I need to
  • I don't have to render the video every time I make a cut, move or edit
  • Final Cut Pro comes with programs that edit video, create graphics, edit sound, high-end color grading, and program devoted to compression
  • I most likely won't be getting DVCProHD, DV/NTSC, Beta - I may be forced to sometimes mix formats like .wmv, .mov, and .avi

From the others like Franko I can use Premiere Pro Premium (which I think also has after effects.)

Rob can you bullet the benefits more compellingly with the ProRes codec. I know you like it, but I'm not understanding it's compelling qualities. Can you make me understand it better?

Thank you all. It's been a good learning process. Hope to hear from you Rob

Rico Figliolini, Art Director, Atlanta, GA


Rob Grauert's picture
Last seen: 9 months 16 min ago
Joined: 02/16/2008 - 10:47pm

I guess I should have said codec. DVCProHD, HDV, DV/NTSC...those are codecs, and when you get multiple codecs to work with, post production becomes a nightmare. So that's where ProRes comes in. Transcode everything to ProRes and you will be working with media that's all in the same codec.

Also, understand that formats, such as .wmv or .mov, are encoded with a codec. So you could have a DVCProHD .mov, but you could have a DVCProHD .wmv too. You can have a DV/NTSC .mov, but you can have a DV/NTSC .wmv too. And so on, etc, etc,

You pretty much have it right about ProRes. Here are some of the major qualities:

-If you have multiple formats, transcoding everything to ProRes helps streamline post production because you will be working in one codec, ProRes.

-No need to render so much because all media is in the same codec.

-If it's HD, ProRes is full-raster HD (1920X1080) as opposed to 1440X1080.

-ProRes is a 10-bit codec, so graphics, compositing, and color grading will have better results.

-Final Cut Studio comes with many programs, each designed to target a specific area in post - cutting, sound editing, graphics/effects, color grading, compression, and DVD Authoring.

Now, back to your .wmv, .mov, .avi thing. FCP works best with .mov. So if people are giving you .wmv or .avi, you need to convert them to .mov. I never had to do that before so I don't know how to go about doing that. I guess if you have a Windows Media Player you can convert to .mov.


rfigliolini's picture
Last seen: 5 years 2 months ago
Joined: 07/28/2009 - 4:52pm

Great. Thank you guys. You have been very helpful.

Rico Figliolini, Art Director, Atlanta, GA


jerronsmith's picture
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/2008 - 1:24am
Plus Member Moderator

Final Cut Studio and Creative Suite Production Premium have very similar tools sets. There are two main differences that I see between them though, one is in the programs in the suite and the other is in regard to the way the video editing programs handle different video formats and codecs.

Final Cut pro chooses to use an intermediary codec to handle different media. This means that you should transcode your media files into the ProRes codec and then work with them in the suite. Adobe choose to go with native format editing of media files which basically means that Premiere can import and work with a wide variety of video types right on the timeline without first transcoding them. Opinions vary on which is the best way to work with files, I personally prefer the way premiere does it as I don't have to spend time on the transcoding process before I can work with my files.

The other major difference is in the programs that come in each suite. With the exception of video editing and color grading, Adobe offers a much stronger line of products. Adobe software is the industry standard for both the creation of graphics and animation. The Adobe suite comes with After Effects, Illustrator, Photoshop and Flash. Each one of these is an industry icon in it's own right. For example Motion is a very good and powerful motion graphics applications but is considerably weaker than After Effects is, and the Apple suite lacks programs for creating 2-d and 3-d graphics such as Illustrator and Photoshop. Additionally, Adobe has for the last several versions been pushing the idea of a seemless integration between the programs and has in many aspects achieved this in the CS4 release. But this is also why the Adobe suite is more expensive.

Jerron Smith Editor-Animator-Educator blog: www.thepixelsmith.blogspot.com


chrisbyrnes's picture
Last seen: 5 years 2 months ago
Joined: 08/04/2009 - 9:00pm

Since you are in a business environment you might have one other consideration. If your comapny uses Windows pretty much exclusively you may have difficulty bringing in (and getting any support for) a Mac. The Adobe suite runs on both Windows and Mac. Other than that, Jerron rules! Listen to him.


zoobie's picture
Last seen: 6 years 7 months ago
Joined: 03/18/2008 - 8:40am

After Effects, Final Cut, Creative Suite Production Premium, Sony Vegas Pro, Premiere Pro, Edius, Magix, Pinnacle, etc, etc, etc. There's a new one released every month.

The only thing that is industry standard about them is the fact that they are made bystandard software industries. It is only standard consumer level software for the masses...and it shows. This is why there's no real consensus on your question.

The actual, real, genuine, authentic industry standard for editing film and videohas software whose names you've never heard of.

This is why it's a crapshoot...I'd suggest DL'ing each editor you've researched and try each out.

Another world's first! - www.BuskerAlley.com - Busker HD on the web!
In Production - Busker Alley - The Movie!
Want to make a small fortune in videography? Start with a large fortune!


jerronsmith's picture
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/2008 - 1:24am
Plus Member Moderator

>>The only thing that is industry standard about them is the fact that
they are made bystandard software industries. It is only standard consumer level software for the masses...and it shows. This is why there's no real consensus on your question.<<

Zoobie,

I'm sorry but that is a massive over generalization. There is a great deal of proprietary software used especially in the CG industry and even more proprietary plug-ins and extensions that have been created. To say there is no standardization is just wrong. There is software and hardware for that matter as well that have achieved a level of standardization in the professional television and video industry. At least in the major markets. In NYC where I am at for example the major networks are still using Avid for editing while many of the production companies that feed them and and much of cable TV is using FCP. While no one software has been the single industry standard for a long time (most of the ones that were were the first to market like Quantel), to say that there aren't industry standards for which software is used and for what is just not representative of the modern landscape.

Jerron Smith Editor-Animator-Educator blog: www.thepixelsmith.blogspot.com


jerronsmith's picture
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/2008 - 1:24am
Plus Member Moderator

>>It's also a better codec to work with when using motion graphics,
compositing, and color correction/grading because it's a 10-bit codec.<<

Rob,

For motion graphics I wold actually recommend using a codec that has no color compression, like Animation.

Jerron Smith Editor-Animator-Educator blog: www.thepixelsmith.blogspot.com


jerronsmith's picture
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/2008 - 1:24am
Plus Member Moderator

>>It's also a better codec to work with when using motion graphics,
compositing, and color correction/grading because it's a 10-bit codec.<<

Rob,

For motion graphics I would actually recommend using a codec that has no color compression at all, like Animation.

Jerron Smith Editor-Animator-Educator blog: www.thepixelsmith.blogspot.com


Eventvideoguy's picture
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: 03/06/2009 - 8:12am

It all depends on whether you own a MAC or not. If you don't own a MAC then I would definitely go with Adobe.

Why buy more equipment just to run a program?

But if you do have a MAC, you could use either.

Really it is just more of a preference. There seems to be more documentation about Adobe products and more tutorials, etc.

I use FCP but that is just a preference. I have absolutely nothing bad to say about Adobe.

Good luck


rfigliolini's picture
Last seen: 5 years 2 months ago
Joined: 07/28/2009 - 4:52pm

This is the first time I've actually posted to a forum and I tell ya it's been extremely enlightening. I've used Premiere a bit and I've used FinalCutPro (without previous exposure and lessons in it's use.) But, one to the other seemed easy enough. But, the ProRes conversion bothers me. It sounds like before I edit any video I need to convert the video - even if I know that I won't be using half of it I still need to convert to see it. Rendering was an issue for me. I've been able to use Premiere without any of that. Am I missing something?

THank you Jerron and Rob. You've been very helpful.

Rico Figliolini, Art Director, Atlanta, GA


jerronsmith's picture
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/2008 - 1:24am
Plus Member Moderator

ProRes422 is what is called an intermediary codec. It is intended to allow you to consolidate multiple formats (HD and SD) into a single format. This allows FCP to work with the different video better in a more consistent way since the program no longer as to perform intermediary renders as it does when you try to mix and match different formats in the same project or sequence. The idea behind this is that it will free up system resources that would otherwise be devoted to constantly processing the video.

Jerron Smith Editor-Animator-Educator blog: www.thepixelsmith.blogspot.com


zoobie's picture
Last seen: 6 years 7 months ago
Joined: 03/18/2008 - 8:40am

jerron...the idea of yours that the professional film and video industry uses FCP or any consumer software is laughable at best

like I said before, professional houses use custom software that's available only to them with names you've never heard of

Another world's first! - www.BuskerAlley.com - Busker HD on the web!
In Production - Busker Alley - The Movie!
Want to make a small fortune in videography? Start with a large fortune!


jerronsmith's picture
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/2008 - 1:24am
Plus Member Moderator

Zoobie,

So your saying that most tv graphics especially at the cable level aren't created in After Effects and Photoshop?

That AVID isn't used as the main editing ap for Film and TV?

It's funny, I work at MTV. I have friends and colleagues building graphics and editing at every level of the industry. I have worked with editors and graphics producers from a very wide variety of companies throughout the USA.

Who do you work with that you think I am wrong?

Jerron Smith Editor-Animator-Educator blog: www.thepixelsmith.blogspot.com


Rob Grauert's picture
Last seen: 9 months 16 min ago
Joined: 02/16/2008 - 10:47pm

Zoobie,

First, FCP isn't consumer software.

Second, the only thing that's laughable is the fact that you think there are no standards. If things are made for broadcast, 99% of the time they are cut on an Avid or with FCP. Hell, big studios have entire Avid systems installed because if it's stability. I've heard of places still using Avids on G4s.

If graphics are being made, Illustrator, Photoshop and After Effects are always used together.

3DS Max and Maya seem to be use all the time for 3D work.

A Di Vinci is always used for color grading, although Color seems to be gaining ground.

FCP hasn't really gained any ground in Hollywood features...that's ALL Avid with maybe a few exceptions. FCP seems to be mostly used for broadcast.

I've never walked into any broadcast environment and saw editors using Vegas, or even Premiere.

There may be houses that use "custom software" but I would assume that is extremely rare. What if they need to bring in an outside editor? Is he or she supposed to learn their "custom software." Yea, that's practical.

Jerron,

About the motion graphics, you are right, render out an Animation codec from your graphics program. What I meant was bringing that graphic into your ProRes timeline in FCP will better preserve the quality of that graphic rather than working in a DV timeline or even DVCPro HD. Sorry. I should have clarified.



Eventvideoguy's picture
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: 03/06/2009 - 8:12am

Many films use AVID. Or at least I assume they use it since at the end of the credits in a movie, when it says, "Thanks to: AVID, KODAK, ETC, ETC" it means that they were used in the films. I have noticed that more and more. Some say Apple or Final Cut, with their logos.


Chris Harmon's picture
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 05/10/2007 - 12:04pm

For someone entering the field, it looks like FCP is the way to go. Am I wrong? I can't afford Avid, but I want to become proficient on an industry standard.

Going FCP does limit you to buying Mac, which are MUCH more expensive than the new Windows offerings. On the flip side, Windows Vista has been a major letdown as far as reliability, and who know what Windows 7 will be like.

Do most of you have both FCP and the Adobe suite on your Mac?


Rob Grauert's picture
Last seen: 9 months 16 min ago
Joined: 02/16/2008 - 10:47pm

Can't go wrong learning FCP and/or Avid. And yes, Macs can be pricey, but they are used by many in the industry. And lets face it, this isn't a cheap industry. Just as a tip though, you don't need to get the biggest, baddest, fastest Mac to edit. The more important part is the components you add to your Mac, such as a Kona Card, a RAID, external monitor, etc. It's those components that allow for smooth editing, not necessarily fast processors. Editors work with uncompressed video on G5s, not because they have fast CPS...they don't, it's because of the components they have with their computers.

I have only FCP in my edit bay, but there is nothing wrong with having more than one NLE loaded to your computer.


jerronsmith's picture
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 06/04/2008 - 1:24am
Plus Member Moderator

I agree with Rob's assessment except when it comes to the processor. I would always recommend getting the computer with the fastest and most numerous processors you can afford. I don't know anyone who edits on an older, slower computer because they want to.

Jerron Smith Editor-Animator-Educator blog: www.thepixelsmith.blogspot.com


Rob Grauert's picture
Last seen: 9 months 16 min ago
Joined: 02/16/2008 - 10:47pm

i guess i should have said if you if you don't have a large budget, you don't necessarily need the fastest mac that's available. i think it's better to save some cash and get some extra components. Of course don't go out and look for a G5 now. My G5 example was just to show that older, slower computers are capable of editinguncompressedvideo because of other components, not because they have really fast processors.


geraldprost's picture
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 11/13/2009 - 6:22pm

Just switched from PP CS4 to FCS. I like Premiere and I have worked with it for ten years. When I switched to HD I began to have some problems. My son edited a feature-length movie in HD with PP CS4 on my MacBook Pro. I know you can do it. When I started with HD on my 24" iMac 2.93 ghz it initially worked but this last project had me pulling my hair out. It kept locking up during encoding. I checked all of the hardware, it was fine so I reformatted the machine and reinstalled everything (sounds like a windows solution doesn't it?). I bought FCS because of the ProRes codec and because it was cheaper that buying an i7 iMac. Ok, that's the story of how I got here but now that I'm here, I can say I like FCS'm v. I've only been on this for a few hours and I can say that I'm very happy with my purchase. I have edited a two camera shoot of a 80 minute piece of theatre. It was much easier to sync the cameras in FCS. The whole process went much faster, even though the program was new to me. There are lots of little things that make your job easier. There are lots of thoughtful little additions throughout the suite. I think if you been with a software product for a very long time moving to a new platform makes you rethink the way you do things. Gerry in Calgary.


Yaya's picture
Last seen: 4 years 10 months ago
Joined: 12/12/2009 - 10:26pm

I havea very similardilemma. I use FCP for production at school, but for home, I'm soon planning to buy my own setup, but cost is keeping me slightly bound. I love FCP and have been using it for a year and a half, but for my home editing, it seems that I would be better off getting Premiere Pro for cost reasons. At the surface, PP seems very similar in interface, features, and quality, but past those aspects I do not know anything about it.


Rob Grauert's picture
Last seen: 9 months 16 min ago
Joined: 02/16/2008 - 10:47pm

"At the surface, PP seems very similar in interface, features, and quality, but past those aspects I do not know anything about it."

Mmm...I disagree with that. Premiere doesn't have an equivalent to Apple's ProRes codec. It also doesn't have a color grading program. FCS has Color, which is amazing for color grading. People never seem to realize it, and I don't know why, but you get a hell of a lot out of FCS for only $1000


Mark Speer's picture
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 12/13/2009 - 4:45am

Zoobie wrote: jerron...the idea of yours that the professional film and video industry uses FCP or any consumer software is laughable at best...like I said before, professional houses use custom software that's available only to them with names you've never heard of

Zoobie, why so adamant? First of all, most TV and film productions are cut on Avid Media Composer or a variation of one of the Avid products. Coming up right behind it is Final Cut Pro, with Reality shows glomming on to it. A few episodics have been cut on FCP, such as "Scrubs" and there's at least one published claim that the Spiderman movie was cut on Vegas (Sony was the studio, and Sony owns Vegas).

Certain pro houses use proprietary products for R&D, and perhaps data management or as an adjunct to a particular product, or even as a patch. But proprietary software means proprietary editors. I know of no editor who will allow himself to be saddled with one product, less he locks himself out of the market for gigs on anything else. Likewise, I know of no post house that would offer only a proprietary editing system, again, locking themselves out of the marketplace with a closed universe editing system. Producers just wouldn't buy it. Producers simply want the best, the cheapest, the fastest, and the most reliable. I know of no such proprietary product that would fill that bill. And finally, no software manufacturer in his right mind would crate a product only to make it available to "pro" facilities only.You're talking about a marketplace of a few hundred, compared to a product that consumers might buy, which increases your potential marketplace to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. This is why even the "pro" manufacturers such as Avid and Grass valley, all have products in each price range. Perhaps if you were to tell us the name and function of these exclusive products, we might have a better understanding of your argument. - Markeditor


janette@cohoots.co.za's picture
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: 04/14/2010 - 1:15pm

Yes. this is a great topic. I need help!

I am about to either buy AP or FCP.

I am new at using this software. But need to know what would suite the progra

Firstly which would be easier to learn given that I am a mac user proficient in most adobe programmes.

This is what I need the software to do.

I am bringing in a screencast from camtasia. I wil need to import my own vecor/graphic arrows, highlights, speech bubbles etc (with some basic movement) to help explain the tutorial. I will need to edit the voice over (take out ums and ahs). Join numerous screen casts together. Add page ref numbers throughout.

I will need to add close captions in other languages (African languages)

Basically I would like it to look similar to www.lynda.com except that mine will have graphics in it.

I really hope someone can advise me which of the 2 is best for my needs.





composite1's picture
Last seen: 7 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 12/11/2008 - 7:54pm
Plus Member Moderator

Janette,

Adobe Premeire Pro CS5 has advanced CC support. I haven't worked with FCP but the guy who created Premiere also helped make FCP so as as Rob said they're very similar. The diff is whether you get a mac or pc unit.

FCP does have a higher learning curve according to my FCP guru. If you work regularly with PC's then there's the whole learning to work with a mac thing to deal with. Mac's and PC's have some night and day differences that can be aggravating when trying to learn to use on a deadline.

If you get premiere (particularly in the production bundle) you can have it for mac or pc and the files can be transfered to either platform (very helpful when working crossplatform!) The bundle is a little bit more expensive than FCP, but you get many of the tools you were going to need anyway (phoshop, afx, flash, etc.)

The main advantage FCP has is the ProRes color grading. People tend to confuse color grading with color correction. Color Correction is the process of creating color continuity whereas color grading is the process of enhancing the color or 'finishing' the final product. Even Sony Vegas has some great filters that can be used for both color correction and color grading. Oh and Vegas is really easy to learn but similar to FCP, it's for PC only.

H.Wolfgang Porter, Composite Media Producer Dreaded Enterprises Unlimited, Inc. www.dreadedenterprises.com


hmueller's picture
Last seen: 1 year 6 days ago
Joined: 07/03/2009 - 6:12pm

Obviously both Adobe and Apple products have their fans as seen from the many posts. In addition to editing, I also have to create the other marketing materials. So I use the full Adobe suite, including InDesign, Illustrator and PhotoShop. Their integration and common user interface makes it worthwhile.

Heidi


janette@cohoots.co.za's picture
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: 04/14/2010 - 1:15pm

You guys are the best! I have been learning PP and it is fantastic seeing as I also use all the other adobe product and the integration is awsome!


Joel Mertz's picture
Last seen: 10 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 07/28/2010 - 10:44pm

After having used both Final Cut Pro (FCP) and Premiere Pro in fast paced commercial environments over the years, I have to say that there is absolutely no comparison between the two. Hands down, Final Cut Pro is a more professional and sophisticated video editing tool. Premiere is just trying to keep up, which doesn't make any sense given the crazy-awesome, skull crushing power of After Effects!

Final Cut has superior color correction tools and many more effects and transitions (for both audio and video), which offer higher levels of control than those provided by Premiere (not to mention they look and sound a heck of a lot better).

You can't change your project settings (such as the frame size) after you've begun a Premiere project. You have no option for blend modes (add, overlay, etc.) for video tracks in Premiere. The frame blending in Premiere is awful and makes changing the speed of clips nearly impossible to pull off in a professional production.

As for the, "slick integration" between Premiere and other Adobe products, I see very little advantage here over FCP. Embedding an After Effects project inside of a Premiere sequence takes hours longer to render. In the end, it's more efficient to render out of After Effects and then import into Premiere. This is the same work flow as FCP's. Final Cut can also handle Photoshop files and Illustrator files with ease.

Overall, FCP provides users a higher level control over the audio and video of their projects. If you are serious about video, choose Final Cut Pro. It's no wonder why so many high end productions are created using FCP. I cut several projects for Nike with Final Cut at the core of my workflow and I've heard the Discovery Channel uses FCP as well. If anyone ever made a feature film with Premiere, it would go straight to DVD and then straight to one of those closeout DVD bins at the grocery store.

I have to use Premiere Pro everyday now and I hate it, it's like a stupid toy from Fischer Price with dumb little knobs you turn in order to ruin your video...

View my 2009 Reel Made with Final Cut Pro: http://joelmertz.net/video.html

[ j o e l m e r t z ] video : design : web


composite1's picture
Last seen: 7 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 12/11/2008 - 7:54pm
Plus Member Moderator

"If anyone ever made a feature film with Premiere, it would go straight
to DVD and then straight to one of those closeout DVD bins at the
grocery store."

"Superman Returns" 2006.

The BBC

NBC's "The Tonight Show"

Yup. All "Bargin Bin" setups.

Discovery Channel also uses Sony Vegas. FCP is just one of many good tools. Besides, you don't need Apple Color when you can get Cineform or Colorista II. Avid is a far more professional tool than FCP. FCP is based off of the Premiere format so instead of 'fisher price' it must be 'Duplo'. The goal is to get your work done in the manner you find most efficient and cost-effective. You've found yours in FCP, others in Premiere and other programs. It's a happy world after all.

H.Wolfgang Porter, Composite Media Producer Dreaded Enterprises Unlimited, Inc. www.dreadedenterprises.com



JonnyPaula's picture
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: 09/13/2010 - 9:31pm

@JoelMertz - Your comment is almost ENTIRELY wrong... I thought maybe it was published a long time ago, back when CS2 or CS3 were the only offerings, but no, it is dated "1 month ago".

1) You can change your timeline settings within a project in Premiere. This was added in CS4, two years ago.

2) Blend modes changes are also available (I believe this was a CS4, possibly CS5 addition)

3) Time-remapping controls were added in CS4, and are very useful, and "professional".

4) Yes, FCP Suite has "Color" - but I'd rather have AE and PS any day of the week over a color correction app.

5) The slick integration you spoke of is incredible, and an amazing time saver. Google Adobe's "Dynamic" link - that one AE/PP feature alone makes the Adobe suite better than FCP. (Depends on how much you use AE though) - It is not slower to link projects this way, not even close. Do some practical tests using the Mercury Playback Engine...

6) FCP can handle PS files easily - but it can't handle their blending modes separately, as PP can.

7)"It's no wonder why so many high end productions are using FCP" - yeah, because of close-minded, unresearched opinions like yours totally throwing under Adobe under the bus based on assumptions and false-hoods.

8) Mercury Playback Engine > ProRes Codec... hands down.

This is my professional opinion, having used the both program suites professionally for many years. FCP is an amazing program, and as the "industry standard", it has it's place... but Premiere is easily the better of the two programs if you actually bother to give it a chance.

Oh, and @robGRAUERT - Have you actually used Premiere? You sound like a typical Apple fanboy.

-
Jonathan


Rob Grauert's picture
Last seen: 9 months 16 min ago
Joined: 02/16/2008 - 10:47pm

JPizzle,

Yes, I've used Premiere for a bit at an internship when I was in college and had no problem with it, but if stating facts about FCP and pointing people in it's direction due to my personal success with it makes me a fanboy, then so be it. The original poster of this thread simply wanted to know the difference between the Adobe suite and the FCS suite. All I did was feed him facts.

The fact that you think Adobe is better than FCP because you'd rather have AE and PS over Color is absurd. All three of those programs accomplish different tasks and are of no comparison. So really, your statement has more to do with YOUR needs, rather than trying to point people in the right direction for THEIR needs.

Same thing with your Mercury > ProRes statement. They're two completely different things. While ProRes is used for streamlining post to reduce rendering, that isn't it's main purpose like the MPE. ProRes was developed to maintain the most quality without eating up bandwidth. MPE, as far as I know, only allows you to play back anything...doesn't really have anything to do with the quality of your image throughout your workflow. Not to mention, all my posts about ProRes were either before the MPE was available or right around the time it was released and no one really know how it'd work in the real world.

Seeing as you label yourself as a professional, I'd expect you to understand how to appropriately compare products and that at the end of the day, it's about choosing the right tool for the job. Lose the attitude...


composite1's picture
Last seen: 7 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 12/11/2008 - 7:54pm
Plus Member Moderator

Now JP don't pick on Rob.

Of all the mac weenies/gurus on the forums he has exhibited little if any 'fanboy' behavior. He is right though about the MPE and Pro Res. Difference is like a hammer and a wrench. Both are tools, but each does something completely different. In Pro Res' defense, it is quite a useful tool for finishing and it comes with FCP. The MPE allows you to view unrendered video on the fly. Now, if you want to compare Pro Res to Magic Bullet's latest color-grading plug-in that's an argument I'd have your back on.

H.Wolfgang Porter, Composite Media Producer Dreaded Enterprises Unlimited, Inc. www.dreadedenterprises.com



composite1's picture
Last seen: 7 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 12/11/2008 - 7:54pm
Plus Member Moderator

"nah, ProRes is the thing being colored while Magic Bullet is does the coloring."

My mistake. That should have been Apple Color not Pro Res. Yeah, I would like to see a Head to head Colorista II vs DVR.... Just on the being able to afford it off the top without a control interface, I'd give Magic Bullet the nod.

H.Wolfgang Porter, Composite Media Producer Dreaded Enterprises Unlimited, Inc. www.dreadedenterprises.com


JonnyPaula's picture
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: 09/13/2010 - 9:31pm

@robGRAUERT - All fair points. You're right - my assessment that AE and PS are more valuable than color is just my opinion. But I trust I wouldn't be wrong in stating that if given a shopie's choice, most editors would go with Photoshop over Color. But maybe I'm totally off-base there...? -- And my apologizes on the ProRes/MPE comparison, I had forgotten about the age of your original comment. @composite1- I get your comparison of the "both tools" argument, but I don't seem them as two entirely different things. Idealy, both are used to facilitate speed/ease with your raw materials *before* editing. ProRes allows for uniform files, with low system resources, at the expense of up-front time. MPE allows for speed with un-uniform files, at the expense of system resources. To me, they seem more similar pre-workflow solutions than either of you are giving credit... but I appreciate the healthy argument either way.

If I exhibited an "attitude", I guess that's only because I'm excited to read/response to what seems like an intelligent debate amongst these two editing platforms. As a Premiere-guy, I find myself defending my position against the "industry-standard", when, from my perspective... I see the programs very close to equals. Perhaps I am a bit bothered not many others agree.

-
Jonathan


Pages