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 editing uncompressed video because of other components, not because they have really fast processors.
final cut pro vs adobe premiere pro
(76 posts)-
robGRAUERT
Member
Posted 2 years ago # -
geraldprost
MemberJust 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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yaya
MemberI have a very similar dilemma. 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.
Posted 2 years ago # -
robGRAUERT
Member
"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
Posted 2 years ago # -
Markeditor
MemberZoobie 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. - MarkeditorÂ
Â
Posted 2 years ago # -
janette@cohoots.co.za
MemberYes. 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 http://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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
robGRAUERT
Member
both programs can do the things you need them to do, however, FCP has closed captioning support. I'm not sure if Adobe does.
Posted 1 year ago # -
janette@cohoots.co.za
MemberThank you so much! which is easier? I have a deadline!
Posted 1 year ago # -
robGRAUERT
Member
they should both be pretty easy to learn. They're very similar.
Posted 1 year ago # -
composite1
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.
http://www.dreadedenterprises.comPosted 1 year ago # -
Derek Sine
Member
CS5 is a force to be reckoned with.
Derek Sine
Trails Ventures, LLC.Posted 1 year ago # -
hmueller
MemberObviously 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
Posted 1 year ago # -
janette@cohoots.co.za
MemberYou 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!
Posted 1 year ago # -
JoelMertz
MemberAfter 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
Posted 1 year ago # -
composite1
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
composite1
Moderator
Funny. Bet you made that with photoshop....
Posted 1 year ago # -
JonnyPaula
Member
@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.
-
JonathanPosted 1 year ago # -
robGRAUERT
Member
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...
Posted 1 year ago # -
composite1
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
robGRAUERT
Member
nah, ProRes is the thing being colored while Magic Bullet is does the coloring.
Now Magic Bullet vs Color vs DiVinci Resolve...that'd make for a good debate.
Posted 1 year ago # -
composite1
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
JonnyPaula
Member
@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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
composite1
Moderator
"I find myself defending my position against the "industry-standard"
JP,
You're preachin' to the choir my friend. There was a time Premiere was a 'low-end' program, but those days are past. However, I had to listen to this same argument when FCP was coming up against Avid. All 'industry standard' means is 'that which the majority of professionals agree to use'. I guarantee you can still get a fist-fight going between Avid and FCP users if you push the right buttons.
The main advantage both FCP and Avid have over premiere is their integration with dedicated on-line editing setups. Avid and FCP have years and years of experience behind their programs for working with on-line editing arrays.
Adobe has mainly been a 'single workstation' minded software producer. Flash has been their primary focus for working in a server based environment. Moving the Creative Suite heavy-hitters like AFX, Premiere and maybe Soundbooth into the on-line environment would be IMO the last step in standing shoulder to shoulder with FCP.
My main beef with FCP has always been it not being cross-platform. Avid and Premiere are and I work with them regularly.
Posted 1 year ago # -
JonnyPaula
Member
@composite1 - Yeah, very good point - most of my experience in the "workplace/industry" is from smaller production houses where we didn't do much/any on-line editing, and I have a tendency to forget how important that aspect of The Avid/FCP can be in the real work markets. From a 'single-user-alone-in-his-office' standpoint though, the line (at least to me) is very blurred as to which is better going into 2011.
Posted 1 year ago # -
robGRAUERT
Member
"From a 'single-user-alone-in-his-office' standpoint though, the line (at least to me) is very blurred as to which is better going into 2011."
Believe it or not, after Apple dropped the ball this past NAB, everyone has their eye on switching to either Avid or Premiere since Apple doesn't seem to care much about Pro Apps anymore. Some even feel FCP has gotten to where it is today only because of all the third party support, like AJA, Matrox, Boris, etc
If Apple doesn't do something with FCP for this next NAB, chances are people will begin migrating.
I really think if Adobe had a codec that was on the level of Apple's ProRes or Avid's DNxHD, Premier would be set. Get the Adobe Suite. Pro Tools for audio. DiVinci Resolve for color grading.
Posted 1 year ago # -
composite1
Moderator
"... if Adobe had a codec that was on the level of Apple's ProRes or Avid's DNxHD, Premier would be set."
I definitely agree with you there. As for which is 'better' concerning stand alone or online, I don't believe there's a 'better'. You only need online editing when you're working with a facility utilizing a server-based workflow among multiple editors at once. If you are working with other editors in an individually collaborative environment, you just need to workout what primary codec's you'll use and how/when you share the elements being made at a particular stage. It takes a bit longer, but it's a similar principle to onlining (potentially far less expensive too!)
Much fun as I poke at Apple, I do find it disturbing how they've all but told the users of Pro Apps "C-Ya!" I know right now mobile computing is where the money's going to come from, but it's going to be a while before you can do anything significant with a mobile 'iDevice'. But that's how business goes.
Yeah, I'd love to get a DVR, but when I contacted BMD they said no plans were in the works for making it windows friendly. However Magic Bullet Colorista II looks like a good option until then.
Posted 1 year ago # -
mattPAISLEY
MemberI have found this thread fascinating, as a newbie! I am getting started in wedding videography, and I am trying to do some due diligence, before buying/renting equipment and buying software. When trying to decide what editing software to use, I suppose I have a bit of an advantage, since I will be capturing my own video. Therefore, I can control the file formats and codecs, and I won't have to worry about using multiple video formats/codecs in any single project (although I will be adding music files and eventually AE elements to the projects). I have experience with Photoshop and Illustrator as a graphic designer and Audition to mix audio for radio broadcast production. The promo videos for FCP certainly make that suite look very compelling, but I would suppose that PP would work just fine for me, as I work on a G5 and I have the ability to use either software suite. I have access to the CS5 Master Collection, but that doesn't prevent me from investing into FCP, if necessary. I wouldn't say that "money is no object", but I can make the investment, if it is necessary.
Since I am just getting started, would anyone disagree that using PP in the beginning would be fine. As business and projects grow, how easy/difficult would it be to move to FCP, if I felt the need? I may not need to, based on the some of your comments, supporting PP. But if I felt that I wanted to make the jump to FCP, would I have to "rewire my brain" to be able to work with FCP?
Posted 10 months ago # -
robGRAUERT
Member
"I work on a G5 and I have the ability to use either software suite."
Unless you get an old version of Final Cut Studio, your G5 is preventing you from using Final Cut. Final Cut Studio 3 requires an Intel Mac. I'm assuming the same will go for their new release, if they actually release it at NAB...
From what I hear, going from Adobe to FCP isn't bad. I have no experience doing that, though.
Posted 10 months ago # -
grinner
Member
I think we can all go from one NLE to another with no problem. I've used em all and would not hesitate to book myself in any room with whatever software they have. It's just buttons.
that said, whetever ya dig is what you should go with today. If it matches your workflow and your budget, do it. It aint gotta be a this software vs that software anymore. With strengths and weaknesses in every app and with prices only getting cheaper, I see it more as a this WITH that world now.
Posted 10 months ago # -
mattPAISLEY
MemberThanks, rob & grinner!
To clarify, rob, yes, I am using an older PPC Mac, so I am limited to Final Cut Suite 2 and Adobe CS4. I will get my feet wet on this machine, and then when I am used to the software and my confidence level is much higher, I will invest my money in a beefier machine and current software.
Thanks, again, to you both!!
Posted 10 months ago #
Search
Hot Tags
adobe advice audio AVCHD beginner business camcorder camera canon Capture computer contest Documentary DSLR DVD edit editing FCP film final cut Final Cut Pro Footage green screen HD HDV HELP JVC lighting Mac marketing mic microphone movie music music video New panasonic premiere pro Production quality software Sony Sony Vegas sound vegas video video editing wedding Youtube
