Final Cut pro X vs adobe premiere pro CC

[Oliver Daniel]

1 hour ago, Michael Ma said:

If you are going to invest in one long term, I'd go with the safe bet which is Premiere Pro.  Apple OSX (now known as macOS) has been dying a slow death.  People might argue that the professional artist community is going strong, Apple has plenty of money, and die-hard Apple fans will never move to anything else.  But look at what happened with Aperture (the Lightroom alternative only for Apple users).  Apple killed it and replaced a professional app with a non-professional consumer-friendly alternative with less features.  What makes FCPX, the Premiere Pro alternative for Apple users, any different?  How long until Apple, which is busy doing a million other things, gives up trying to keep pace with the ever improving Premiere Pro?  Video editing software is a pretty niche market and I'm sure it's only a small percentage of the reason why people buy Apple laptops.  People in this room excluded of course.

The difference is that if Aperture was against Lightroom in a boxing ring, then Lightroom would knock out Aperture with a single blow. With FCPX vs Premiere, it would be a fight to the death. 

[tdonovic]

Ill throw my hat into the ring. There are four things that push my workplace, a highschool that teaches film amongst other things, into adobe suite, rather than FCPx. 

1) Licensing. We can get a site license for every machine on campus to run Premiere and every other CC app for some low(ish) price. We were looking at $200 a head for FCPx, without any of the other CC apps. On a site of ~2000 machines, we cant afford that. CC is much cheaper per year.

2) Legacy Usability. We used FCP6 universally before we moved to PrPro. Having the similar timeline and UI made the switch a lot easier for everyone that moving to a completely different one on FCPx. 

3) CC. Being able to use Illustrator for making titles is a lot better than the built in title editor tools. Being able to use Lightroom to organise footage is a godsend.

4) Windows. We are a Mac School, but the computer on my desk is a custom built windows box. If I need to take work home, my desktop is windows. Being able to run the programs on cheap, fast computers is great. Beats editing on a Macbook Air like we had to in FCP6.

If all you are doing is editing and you are on a Mac, I can see how FCPx might be the pick. But when you inevitably need to do a little bit of Photoshop, or someone asks you to use a graphic in a pdf and you have to separate it out somehow, or you decide you need a faster computer and don't want to cop paying out of the nose for a mac pro, nothing beats a CC subscription, you can actually do everything you have to without too much pain.

[An_Exceptiön]

On 6/21/2016 at 6:49 PM, Oliver Daniel said:

The difference is that if Aperture was against Lightroom in a boxing ring, then Lightroom would knock out Aperture with a single blow. With FCPX vs Premiere, it would be a fight to the death. 

I use lightroom. It's great in terms of learning curve and editing. BUT it's SLOW. Slower than just about every other editing software, and it get's slower with every major release. What it needs is a COMPLETE rewrite. To actually use Open CL in it's core, rather than the crappy GPU utilisation that has been bolted on top of inefficient code.

If you are using a lowish resolution display, sure it's fast enough. Once you start editing 36+mp files on a 5k screen it is hell. Other software simply performs the same tasks much faster.

In the below video, some of the issues have been fixed since LR6.2, but it's still a dog in terms of performance relative to other software.

With regards to FCPX vs Premier. Premier runs like a dog compared to FCPX.

This is the problem with adobe. Too much legacy code but they have a monopoly for the time being so don't need to do anything about it. Why should they? they don't need to convince people to upgrade anymore, people pay their subscriptions regardless.

Personally I hope the below company can deliver a compelling alternative to Lightroom, as the product seems to have the potential to be a lot faster. It just depends on if they get the usability aspect right. 

https://www.on1.com/apps/photo-raw/

[kidzrevil]

premiere by far. Final Cut Pro X might as well be renamed iMovie Pro

[mercer]

1 hour ago, kidzrevil said:

premiere by far. Final Cut Pro X might as well be renamed iMovie Pro

IMO, that comment is what makes FCPX so damn special, especially if you ever used iMovie HD. To me it seems like they took the best parts of FCP7 and iMovie HD and created this amazing hybrid. It's not for everyone, but I can appreciate it. 

[tomekk]

PP + after effects can make cool things: 

 

[Oliver Daniel]

On 5 July 2016 at 5:03 PM, kidzrevil said:

premiere by far. Final Cut Pro X might as well be renamed iMovie Pro

I personally think FCPX is more advanced and built for the future (compared to PP). 

It's rather intuitive, but simplified approach is often mistaken by amazing software development. It's an editor that helps you work faster, better and more fluid. There's more time for creativity, rather than battling error messages and slow responses. 

I don't care less what people edit on, however the negativity usually aimed at FCPX is no longer totally justified. It's come on a long, long way and works brilliantly. Early haters should try again.  

 

[Axel]

10 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

I don't care less what people edit on, however the negativity usually aimed at FCPX is no longer totally justified. It's come on a long, long way and works brilliantly. Early haters should try again.  

My Adobe-on-Windows friend came to see my new 5k iMac, maxed out and with Pegasus raid via TB. He couldn't understand why I spent a fortune on a consumer's compact unit, since he had volunteered to build a developable Windows system for me for a fraction. He brought a USB3 drive with almost 5 hours 4k (A7rii) of his recent journey to India and was curious how FCP X would deal with that much footage. A few weeks ago, I had seen Simon Ubsdells tutorial on Creative Cow about just ONE smart collection to rule them all:

 

... and, creating tags in advance I already knew would be appropriate from my friend's stories, I organized the media, which I had never seen a second of before, in no time. Just think of all the redundant clicks needed in Premiere, even for the simple task to play back a clip, not to mention sorting them in any practical way!

I deliberately spent a little more time in the media browser to allow FCP X to finish transcoding proxy copies in the background. The real time in the demo project's timeline was seemingly without limit. When he learned that it was all just proxy (he hadn't noticed), he made the expected remarks from an editor who is sworn to native workflows. I switched the view to original media. Surprise for him: the stuff continued to play back in real time, the skipped-frames-warning set to on, with no issues (there would have been occasional lags, stuttering or beachballs with that much UHD XAVC footage during a normal editing process probably, I have no intention to prove the opposite).

Afterwards he had to admit that the system was "useable".

[John Matthews]

I'm steering away from Adobe products ever since CC became their thing. I just prefer the pay-for-it-once model. Also, their site got hacked and I doubt it ever going to be secure. For that, they'd have to pay for and manage security experts, not to mention secure their other software (flash, etc.).

I like using FCPX, but I've recently decided that I won't be letting it manage my catalogue of videos. I tried this, but it just became too cumbersome. Now, I'm using it to just work on the videos for one specific project. The finder makes more sense to me, especially when backing up. Its ability to sync audio, use Filmconvert, and make my edits are the primary reasons for using it.

I'm still looking for free solutions when I make my imminent switch to Linux.

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

For those that think FCP X is not a pro app, this guy edited a 2 hour long concert with like 50cams with a MacPro and FCP X. Good luck to those wanting to do that on Premiere!!! The only smart alternative to FCP X if you don't want to go Mac or don't like magnetic timeline, is Da Vinci Resolve, imho. 

 

[kidzrevil]

22 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

I personally think FCPX is more advanced and built for the future (compared to PP). 

It's rather intuitive, but simplified approach is often mistaken by amazing software development. It's an editor that helps you work faster, better and more fluid. There's more time for creativity, rather than battling error messages and slow responses. 

I don't care less what people edit on, however the negativity usually aimed at FCPX is no longer totally justified. It's come on a long, long way and works brilliantly. Early haters should try again.  

 

to each his own. I wanted to like it especially since I paid for it but it just never performed for me as well as premiere did. I felt like they tried to force the apple streamlined experience into it and didn't do a good job especially with it being so slow in comparison on my MacBook pro. Regardless of which its an NLE and some people have created magic with it, it just aint for me....at all.

[fuzzynormal]

Cutting is cutting. If the handle of the knife feels a bit better than some other, that's cool. 

I mean, there was someone on here a year or so ago claiming he edited with After Effects. 

Not sure how that's the most productive thing, but if he made it work for him, why not?

Theres a legacy notion among technical/artistic careers that one needs professional gear to make professional product.  It's up to the individual to determine if that particular notion makes sense for them or not, based on what current consumer tech offers.

FWIW, I moved off FCP7 to Resolve and Premiere (mostly Premiere at the moment) 

[Errolwesson]

Now I am not using Final Cut Pro because it runs too slowly on my computer. It's too heavy for my PC and then I don't want to waste more time on it. Now I use Wondershare's Flimora instead. It's much easier to handle and it do help me get what I want. 

[Geoff CB]

I've moved over to Resolve entirely except for projects given to me. Premiere has just given me so many goddamn headaches.To many corrupt projects, failed stabilizations (Nesting being required to stabilize is the single biggest pain in the ass for documentary work.), and delay causing errors means I am finished with it.

I absolutely love working with color in Resolve, and the editing is exceptional for me. Though it requires a very powerful setup to run smoothly.

Would give FCPX a try, but I work mainly on Windows machines.

[djsatokiii]

As for me Final Cut has is more convinient for user , btw here is list of some resources with sound effects for ur video projects.

1.https://www.looperman.com/forum
2.https://www.lucidsamples.com
3.http://soundbible.com  

[Jerry Smit]

Final Cut pro X and Adobe Premiere should be used on a computer with high configration. When running either of them, my computer is always stuck in some windows. So I look for another software - Joyoshare Media Cutter to replace them. This software won't be slow even launching on Windows 7.

[BTM_Pix]

Two posts, both resurrecting years old threads to push whatever that Joyoshare software is.

Go and spam somewhere else "Jerry".