Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › Technique › Editing › final cut pro vs adobe premiere pro
July 28, 2009 at 5:06 PM #46927
July 28, 2009 at 5:20 PM #193210
I’d go with FCP actually. The new Final Cut Studio bundle has a lot of nice new features. Plus, there’s the Apple ProRes codec.
July 28, 2009 at 8:53 PM #193211TomInactive
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
July 28, 2009 at 9:58 PM #193212
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.
July 28, 2009 at 10:28 PM #193213
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.
July 28, 2009 at 11:51 PM #193214
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.
July 29, 2009 at 7:00 AM #193215frankoParticipant
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.
July 29, 2009 at 12:46 PM #193216
“And the Prodcuction Premeum pack has just about the same feature as Final Cut Studio”
It doesn’t have anything like Apple’s ProRes codec, which is essential if you’re going to be given multiple formats to work with.
July 29, 2009 at 1:35 PM #193217Ryan3078Participant
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.
July 29, 2009 at 2:19 PM #193218
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.
July 29, 2009 at 8:43 PM #193219
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
July 29, 2009 at 11:27 PM #193220
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.
July 30, 2009 at 5:07 PM #193221
Great. Thank you guys. You have been very helpful.
July 30, 2009 at 5:49 PM #193222
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.
August 4, 2009 at 9:04 PM #193223AnonymousInactive
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.
August 5, 2009 at 6:53 AM #193224AnonymousInactive
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.
August 5, 2009 at 4:01 PM #193225
>>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.<<
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.
August 5, 2009 at 4:05 PM #193226
>>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.<<
For motion graphics I wold actually recommend using a codec that has no color compression, like Animation.
August 5, 2009 at 4:05 PM #193227
>>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.<<
For motion graphics I would actually recommend using a codec that has no color compression at all, like Animation.
August 5, 2009 at 4:40 PM #193228AnonymousInactive
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.
August 5, 2009 at 6:08 PM #193229
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.
August 5, 2009 at 9:16 PM #193230
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.
August 6, 2009 at 1:46 AM #193231AnonymousInactive
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
August 6, 2009 at 2:07 AM #193232
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?
August 6, 2009 at 2:44 AM #193233
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.
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.
August 6, 2009 at 2:45 AM #193234
you really must live under a rock or out in the boonies if you think FCP isn’t used in professional broadcast. Sorry if that’s mean, but you need a reality check.
August 6, 2009 at 10:16 PM #193235AnonymousInactive
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.
August 7, 2009 at 1:03 PM #193236ChrisParticipant
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?
August 7, 2009 at 1:55 PM #193237
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.
August 7, 2009 at 5:23 PM #193238
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.
August 7, 2009 at 5:33 PM #193239
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.
December 9, 2009 at 5:52 AM #193240geraldprostParticipant
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.
December 13, 2009 at 1:04 AM #193241YayaParticipant
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.
December 13, 2009 at 2:30 AM #193242
“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
December 13, 2009 at 5:15 AM #193243MarkParticipant
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
April 15, 2010 at 7:08 AM #193244AnonymousInactive
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 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.
April 15, 2010 at 11:09 AM #193245
both programs can do the things you need them to do, however, FCP has closed captioning support. I’m not sure if Adobe does.
April 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM #193246AnonymousInactive
Thank you so much! which is easier? I have a deadline!
April 15, 2010 at 12:02 PM #193247
they should both be pretty easy to learn. They’re very similar.
April 15, 2010 at 3:00 PM #193248
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.
April 21, 2010 at 8:16 PM #193249hmuellerParticipant
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.
April 22, 2010 at 7:21 AM #193250AnonymousInactive
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!
July 28, 2010 at 11:32 PM #193251JoelParticipant
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
July 29, 2010 at 12:48 AM #193252
“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
“Superman Returns” 2006.
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.
August 4, 2010 at 4:06 PM #193253
Funny. Bet you made that with photoshop….
September 13, 2010 at 9:44 PM #193254
@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.
September 14, 2010 at 12:07 AM #193255
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…
September 14, 2010 at 12:43 AM #193256
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.
September 14, 2010 at 1:16 AM #193257
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.
September 14, 2010 at 3:37 AM #193258
“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.
September 14, 2010 at 7:21 AM #193259
@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.
September 14, 2010 at 8:11 PM #193260
“I find myself defending my position against the “industry-standard”
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.
September 14, 2010 at 9:21 PM #193261
@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.
September 14, 2010 at 11:33 PM #193262
“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.
September 15, 2010 at 2:34 PM #193263
“… 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.
March 30, 2011 at 12:19 PM #193264AnonymousInactive
I 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?
March 30, 2011 at 2:23 PM #193265
“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.
March 30, 2011 at 3:23 PM #193266
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.
March 31, 2011 at 5:15 PM #193267AnonymousInactive
Thanks, 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!!
April 7, 2011 at 6:32 PM #193268AnonymousInactive
Ditto! Thanks Rob, Composite1, and everyone else who contributed to this thread. My situation is almost identical to mattPAISLEY’s and your experience and opinions have helped a great deal. Couldn’t find info as good as this anywhere else. Thanks again!
May 22, 2011 at 11:25 PM #193269AnonymousInactive
So I always find these sorts of discussions to be, if nothing else, entertaining. Some folks can get so testy hah. In all seriousness though, I’ve been editing video professionally for about 4 years now after working as an intern and a student for the 6-7 years before that. I have both PP & FCP although I really never use PP. It’s come a long way in the last ten years and like any editor who actually wants to work … I keep up with most NLE software. In reality, they all do the same things (for the most part) with the only difference being how many clicks it takes to get from point a to point b.
I remember the day back in 2000, freshman year at film school, when I switched from Premiere 6.0 to FCP 1.0 and unlike my Premiere editing experience, I was SHOCKED to discover draggable and snapping clips on the timeline, no crashing-to-desktop, no blue screen of death, no randomly corrupted video files and no need for FAT32. And in the last ten years of pretty steady editing, not once has my FCP system crashed, corrupted or in any way freaked out. FCP is what works for me. That said, it might not be for everybody. So, in my opinion, here’s how it breaks down:
1. Avid Media Composer: hands down the best (and still all around industry standard) editing system for classic continuity editing. The ability to preview multiple takes/angles at the same time can’t be beat if traditional, narrative, continuity editing is your thing.
2. Adobe super-duper-creative-mega-design suite with premiere pro: CS5 is a long way removed from Premiere 6.0 and considering the last time I really used it was on a “gasp!” pc … I’m really not the guy to talk about how awesome it is, even on mac. For a beginner, it’ll do the trick but first impressions being what they are, its just not for me. Mostly I just use After Effects, Photoshop & lightroom. On Location looks awesome if I ever used a camera it was compatible with. But I don’t ever use the other stuff except to learn how to use it … you just never know what a producer or client wants you to use. AE is better at 3D animation than Motion (i think) so for titling … i stick with it and Photoshop just sort of goes without saying. Now as much as I don’t like Premiere, I do like that it has AVCHD now as part of its native workflow although you sacrifice Apple’s 10 bit Pro-Res soo pick your poison.
3. Vegas: I used it once like five years ago … no real complaints other than what seemed at the time a total lack of support for any camera other than a Sony. Weird digital artifacts with Canon and a lot or problems with DVCPro codecs.
4. Final Cut Studio: unlike Avid or Premiere, this wasn’t designed to schmooze people away from linear video or Steinbeck film editors. The first NLE software to add HD to it’s workflow (almost a year before avid). The only NLE with a native quicktime workflow. The first to allow real-time previews of HD. The first to allow draggable video clips on the timeline. For me, its extremely user friendly with all of the main tools being right there on the front end rather than stuck in some submenu somewhere … I just think its a more intuitive system for editors. But I don’t think its hard to learn. If any one is coming from a PC, the hardest part about the switch to FCP is going to be learning Mac OS … not FCP. Import, drag to timeline, tweak, and export. Compressor is about as easy a software as I think I’ve ever used for transcoding or conversion. You see your file, its preview and a huge list of highly organized presets that are totally customizable per your needs. Now the Adobe Media Encoder is more or less the same thing with one big exception … it takes (for me anyways) a lot longer to encode but necessary if you want to convert to flash. (Although vimeo, youtube, and blip.tv do that for you.) Motion is very easy to learn but limited compared to after effects (I can say that though because I’m not an animator.) And sure, Soundtrack Pro isn’t as big and bad as say Pro Tools, but I’ve scored with STP, designed sound tracks in regular stereo to dolby digital 5.1, for animations including a commercial for General Mills.
So if its my money, I’d go with FCP because for me, I’ve always been able to do more with it and with a lot less headaches. I don’t have to be an IT guy. I can just edit some video and send it out to the client.
May 30, 2011 at 11:11 PM #193270AnonymousInactive
Thank you everybody for all the great information. I would love your opinion based on my situation. I am not currently in the business but would like to purchase either the Apple or Adobe NLE ( I do not know what that stands for. Ha!) I would like to have software that I can grow with. I will also be getting software to edit photograph. I am considering Photoshop, of course. I used to shoot photography years ago, and would like to get back into it and add video at the same time. I plan to make short video for families, of their children, which will include photographs. I have a new iMac. The only upgrade i got was the intel i7. So here is the question. Should I purchase ‘Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 Production Premium Student and Teacher Edition which is on sale now for $404.00.( I get a teachers discount) or FCP, or FC express? Do I still need ‘Light Room” for my photographs if I buy Adobe Creative Suite?
A friend, who is, a professional photographer told me that she had a hard time taking her photos out of Aperture and into Photoshop, so I was wondering if I would have a hard time using Photoshop and FCP together.
Any thoughts? I would really love your knowledge. What is going to be best for me long term and why?
May 31, 2011 at 4:15 AM #193271
May 31, 2011 at 10:46 PM #193272pseudosafariMember
You should be able to import photos into any NLE, but one feature I like about Premiere Pro is the ability to import Photoshop projects and play with the layers (for example, set upkeyframes so one layermoves above another layer). Check out this video to see what I mean. Maybe you can do this in other NLE’s–I don’t know. But this is key for me:
June 1, 2011 at 11:46 PM #193273AnonymousInactive
Thank you, I really appreciate all the tip’s.
July 28, 2011 at 3:44 AM #193274fadlywychowvskiParticipant
I’m sure by this time, you would’ve already bought FCS or APP. Just make sure to be wary if you purchased the notorious Final Cut Pro X though. I like both softwares, both for their own reason. Why I like fcp is because I grew up with it, hence It’s very intuitive for me, I also happen to work with it the longest hence I know every nook and cranny. Meanwhile, for APP, I’d want to use it if my workflow involves alot of adobe photoshop & after effects etc integrated in it. It’ll make adjustments alot easier. I can also go another alternative and introduce ‘Automatic Duck’ so that I can cross platforms between final cut and adobe. Unfortunately though, I don’t have automatic duck!
I happen to have alot of articles and websites on my blog that might prove useful if anyone wants to compare the two NLE softwares. Do check out fadlywychowvski.blogspot.com
July 29, 2011 at 8:59 AM #193275AnonymousInactive
Thats almost a given that the Adobe Systems are taking over. I have worked on Sony Vegas, and Final Cut……..and now Adobe Production system. Adobe is way more versatile and with the dynamic link, you can move to and from Adobe Premier, Adobe after Fx, Illustrator and Photoshop. Once you learn the Adobe System it makes life soooo much easier. All of our new videos are done on Adobe, including the After FX.
Check out some of the Videos we did, and be sure to hit the Linear Black Box video for the Motion graphics in After Fx
July 31, 2011 at 7:50 PM #193276
in this case, it shouldn’t be a vs thing at all. Heck, they are both cheap as hell. Get em both if in a decision tissle. Time is dimes.
August 1, 2011 at 5:12 AM #193277TonyParticipant
Yeah, their both prettyequivalent.
September 18, 2011 at 9:50 AM #193278
September 18, 2011 at 2:06 PM #193279
Because yu can pick your render settings in all the apps you listed.
September 21, 2011 at 1:38 PM #193280JackalParticipant
I’m just a hobbyist but I haven’t edited in a long time. I’m a PC user but I used Macs while in school so I’ve used FCP and Adobe. I like them both but if I was going to as a profession I would invest in a High end Mac and use FCP. But since I’m just getting back into this stuff for fun I’m going with CS5.5 for all the package has to offer.
I actually came over here to find a topic about capture cards and saw this topic. I built my new PC for Vegas Pro but I think I’m going to go with CS5.5. FCP and PP both have their pros and cons but I guess, for me, it’s about what kind of projects I want to do and budget. I haven’t done any of this stuff in so long that I’m going back to square one.
September 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM #193281JaimieParticipant
I love these religious-type arguments! If it is so hard to decide which software/platform to use then it doesn’t matter which one you choose because they are about the same.
Personally, I have used different brands over the years and have come to the conclusion that the most important feature is reliability. The system that starts up every time, runs hour after hour, day after day without crashing, slowing, blue screening or exhibiting the endless variety of performance degradations that NLEs are prone to is the one for me.
All platforms are difficult to learn but offer great creative possibilities if you climb the learning curve. But nothing stifles creativity like frequent crashes or glacial-speed performance after you add a few effects etc.
Currently, I’m running CS5 on a high-end Windows 7 machine and it is very friendly. A friend who runs the latest “big Mac” with FCP says that performance problems with earlier systems seem to be fixed and he loves his newest platform.
October 26, 2011 at 7:44 AM #193282rafasbeardParticipant
I have both FCP and Premiere installed on my Mac Quad Core 14GB Ram.
I hate using FCP, by the time I’ve set up my project in FCP I’ve nearly finished it in Premiere. Just seems to take ages to do anything and the constant rendering is a massive pain.
I also find Premiere accepts a lot more file formats with out having to process them or requiring extra codecs. In short FCP is strict were as Premiere is very forgiving, which for a beginner is ideal.
But like everyone said it’s a taste thing.
January 3, 2012 at 3:02 AM #193283AnonymousInactive
Hello everyone! I’ve been using FCP for about 5 years now and I love it! However, I do use certain Adobe products as well like Soundbooth and Affect Effects. I find FCP is little bit more user friendly for me although, if I had the time to really sit down and learn Premier, I am sure I would like that as well!
June 12, 2012 at 7:48 PM #193284AnonymousInactive
Well, Premier pro was used todevelopAvatar. But for what you want to do I think you can use any editor for basic editing. I use Vegas and just started with Premier CS5.
June 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM #193285JoelParticipant
I went on somewhat of a rant about a year ago on this forum and spoke very poorly of Premiere Pro (PR) in comparison to Final Cut Pro (FCP). I have now been using PR CS5.5 on a daily basis for just over two years now and I have warmed up to it quite a bit.
It essentially has much of the same functionality as FCP and what differences remain between the two seem to become less and less apparent with each release (not taking FCP-X into account!). There are just a few quirks, bugs and inconsistencies to PR that still annoy me, but you cannot deny that this is absolutely a powerful and very professional editing tool.
FCP will always hold a special place in my heart however, as this was the first tool I started editing with nearly ten years ago. Adobe is here to stay though and I am proud to be a faithful Adobe follower and I am extremely grateful for the arsenal of weaponry they have given us all!
October 4, 2013 at 11:49 PM #208759KeiserSozaiParticipant
I am assuming if I had a PC and wanted to edit HD, my only option would be Premiere Pro right? I am going to be documenting a trip around the world and am hopeful I might get cable if not tv play… Well that's the plan anyhoo. If I can keep it HD that would be awesome. I want to future proof my work as best I can. I will be putting my work on a website I am developing so I will have more control over it with regards to keeping ownership. I am hoping to not have to go to Apple as I've never used it, but if it comes to that I may. Sorry if adding this to an old thread is taboo, but I was conflicted as where/how to edit my work and this thread came up in search….
October 5, 2013 at 7:54 PM #208763KeiserSozaiParticipant
Sony Vegas Pro eh? I remember that program from about 15 years ago… you could buy it for less than a hundred dollars even back then it was pretty powerful… not as powerful as Premiere, FCP or Avid… Seems like things have changed. I am actually going to be buying a AVCHD Sony camera when I've figured out which one is for me… I don't suppose the camera would come with Vegas. I remember a few years back some cameras did come with a version of it… Not sure if it was full featured tho…
I also wonder if it comes with all the things you need to adjust color grading and correction and also whether or not you can create After Effect like effects without using After Effects or other 3rd party software? I have a yearly subscription to Adobe so it looks like I will be using this unless someone can point out troubles I may avoid if using Sony Vegas…
October 6, 2013 at 7:44 AM #208764gldnearsMember
I have no experience with Vegas Pro, but many on these forums speak highly of it. One thing for sure: if you're going to use a Sony camera you can be sure that there will be NO NEED for transcoding in order to edit in Vegas Pro. My best bet would also be that you can edit " natively " in Premier Pro. But if you want to use FCP, you MUST buy a Mac . . . . and if I'm not mistaken, you must transcode in order to edit in FCP.
October 10, 2013 at 6:49 PM #208811EddieValiantParticipant
This thread really has some legs!
In the years since the thread was first posted, there's been a lot ofchanges to NLEs. FCP was lobotimized in version 10. Subsequently, many die hard FCP users dropped it. Adobe made a lot of changes to PP and many have made that their NLE of choice.
Adobe has had some flak thrown at them because of the Creative Cloud concept. No more buying the software and running it forever. Creative Cloud is a subscription service, currently about $50/month or $20 for educational customers.
I started using PP with CS5 and have decided to stick with it using the Creative Cloud. It can be on either Mac or Windows, and the constant stream of updates insures I'll have the latest and greatest Adobe has to offer. The subscription model is not for everyone (hobbyists for example), but for professionals that make at least some of their income from videography, $50/month is a small nut. A user can install the software on up to two computers, so one on your desktop workstation and one on your notebook is a possibility.
Adobe's tight integration with the other apps (Audition for example) make this a very professional suite.
October 5, 2013 at 7:20 AM #208760gldnearsMember
" Replying to an old thread . . . " gives rise to the hope that more list members would take the time to do so! More than often a new thread is begun by those who DON'T take the time to research their questions, wasting other's time and bandwidth! As for editing HD on PC, an alternative to PremierPro might be Sony Vegas Pro. I use Adobe, so I really don't know, but don't assume that the olny alternative to Adobe is FCP
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.