FCP Certification

kkolbo wrote on 10/7/2008, 11:47 AM

I am currently taking the Final Cut Pro Certification Training. (Two weeks of cramming)

FCP has a lot going for it. It is an excellent tool with some great internal processes. What I find though is how much of Vegas I have taken for granted.

In Vegas we see the audio waveform with the picture. That makes it easier to accurately trim.

In Vegas we overlap clips to create transitions. We can easily slide the events around to change the overlap and more accurately control our edits.

We have have great access to commmands like swap and insert with events.

We can right click and access many useful properties and commands on events and media. FCP has right click menus that are helpful, but they have much fewer timesavers than Vegas.

We have great audio control right on the timeline.

We have easy access to properties of transitions and effects.

Vegas is hands down more stable.
Last night in class, in a class of 18, two machines had to be rebooted because of lock-ups. I have 14 stations of Vegas in my classroom and I have NEVER had a lock up on a student. The teacher at the FCP class has Apples in constant rotation for service. I have had two machines have any hardware failure in four years. (BTW, I have locked up Vegas, but that has always been working with exotic media trying to find methods of working with the strange media.)

I love FCP's handling of HDV and overall it is a professional tool. I just have to admit that the user interface of Vegas is a smarter paradigm and much faster to work with.

KK


Comments

GlennChan wrote on 10/7/2008, 12:04 PM
I learned FCP first and found Vegas backwards compared to FCP. (And it would've probably gone the other way around.)

In Vegas, you do an edit first and then you ripple afterwards.
In FCP, you select the right editing tool (roll, ripple, whatever) and then you do the edit.

Pan/Crop in Vegas is the opposite of how FCP does things.

2- FCP has its own little tricks and pitfalls.

e.g. with FCP's nesting feature... FCP seems to keep two separate databases. When you throw sequence A into sequence B, the nest is a copy. So if you edit your original sequence, I don't believe those changes will take effect in sequence B. (Something like that.) Very, very aggravating.

Both programs give you rope to hang yourself with (e.g. single track ripple is dangerous but its hotkey is f, yet multitrack ripple is crtl shift f)... you just have to use the program enough to know what to watch out for. Though I find that there are a lot more time-killing bugs in FCP... like phantom timecode breaks when capturing, the media mangler, corrupted project files (where you fix it by deleting the invisible buggy item), etc.
Overall I think the Vegas interface is slightly better.
blink3times wrote on 10/7/2008, 12:40 PM
[I]"Vegas is hands down more stable."[/I]

Funny... I kept trying to mention this in another thread but people don't want to listen. PP cs3 is crash city and FCP is right up there with its own problems as well. Given the rather large multiple of tasks that Vegas does.... it's an extremely stable program.

It is true that there is the 'standard' method of editing and then there is the Vegas way.... but if you ask me, the Vegas way SHOULD be the standard.
CorTed wrote on 10/7/2008, 1:44 PM
Not being a professional, I am just curious what the pros are using to develop TV broadcast shows. If every piece of software crashes that much, how do they get their job done???
farss wrote on 10/7/2008, 2:09 PM
They use Avid, FCP and Edius mostly. NBC recently bought a lot of seats of Edius Broadcast, our national broadcaster has gone to FCP. I know of no broadcaster using Vegas as a front line editing system. No one seems to have anything that comes close to Avid's Unity system.
A not very accurate straw poll of the people we do business with indicates that Vegas holds around 5% of market share. I don't know what Blink has been smoking but his ongoing assertion that Vegas is "up there with the rest of them" is beyond laughable. A simple walk in the door at NAB would reveal how absurd that is. Last NAB I was at and that Apple and Avid were at; You could not get near the Apple stand. The Adobe stand was well attended by 100s. The SCS stand had seating for maybe twenty people and those seats were mostly empty. Looking at the content they were using to demo Vegas made me cringe.

Bob.
CorTed wrote on 10/7/2008, 2:53 PM
So you feel Avid has "cornered" the market for high end editing used by studios?

I just can't see them using FCP, PP, or even Vegas for that matter given the amount of trouble one has with appearently each of them, and Studios just don't have time for that, and they need something that works 24/7

Ted
Jessariah67 wrote on 10/7/2008, 3:10 PM
Mixed media is a big deal as well. To me, FCP stops with no automatic crossfades. Can't believe they still don't have that. I've played with it and think it's a cumbersome mess.

I only wish that SCS would take a stab at the film people. 4K would be nice. I understand their niche is event videographers, but there's no reason why they couldn't try to go after some of the feature market - especially since more and more movies are digital these days.
blink3times wrote on 10/7/2008, 3:19 PM
"I don't know what Blink has been smoking but his ongoing assertion that Vegas is "up there with the rest of them" is beyond laughable."

No Bob.... you must be smoking something because I NEVER said anything like that. What I said (and maintain) is that Vegas usage is on the rise. Is it rising in the Pro arena.... not likely, not at the rate of FCP anyway.... but it SHOULD be.

I do however agree with you on Edius. It's muscling its way in at a pretty good rate
blink3times wrote on 10/7/2008, 3:31 PM
"So you feel Avid has "cornered" the market for high end editing used by studios?"

Avid is a wash. They're on the way out. Used mostly by old timers now and the younger generations aren't biting into it. Express has been discontinued, Liquid and Liquid Chrome are discontinued and they have slashed the price of MC in 1/2 to try and compete with FCP. Their stock is dropping as well. There is a new CEO at the helm to try and turn things around but I have my doubts about that one
John_Cline wrote on 10/7/2008, 3:40 PM
Final Cut's lead programmer is Randy Ubillos, who conceived and wrote the early versions of Adobe Premiere (up through v4.2.) The fact that FCP seems a lot like Premiere is more than just a coincidence.
michaelshive wrote on 10/7/2008, 4:01 PM
"Vegas is hands down more stable."

I'd love to listen but this is simply a false statement. I use them both all the time and since 8 came out Vegas has lost it's best feature: stability. We have several machines at work and I have a few at home and all of them are problematic since 8. FCP across 7 workstations at work and 1 at home are stable.
winrockpost wrote on 10/7/2008, 5:31 PM
blink.... liquid aint avid, never was,, just a stupid move by corporate...
avid is not dead,, fcp is gaining for sure and vegas...well i like it for what i do,, but if i was doing a big budget film ,,, I''d drop it in a nanosecond. Of course no big film in my future that i see, so its edius and vegas for me.
blink3times wrote on 10/7/2008, 6:12 PM
"blink.... liquid aint avid, never was,,"

Never said it was. In fact shortly after buying Pinnacle and moving Liquid up the ladder and over to the Avid side, (and giving it the official Avid name), they then made the decision to bring it back over to the Pinnacle division and back onto the Pinnacle boards. Of course these series of flawed decisions were followed up by killing Liquid altogether. Just the Liquid debacle alone is enough to show how screwed up Avid is. They have no idea whether they are coming or going.

Avid has problems. They don't replace a CEO and cut the price of their software by 1/2 just for the heck of it.

And I never said they were dead... but they have slipped some thing awful.
Jessariah67 wrote on 10/7/2008, 8:09 PM
if i was doing a big budget film ,,, I''d drop it in a nanosecond.

Dave - with all due respect - WHY? Unless it was shot on film, why would FCP or Avid be better - just because they're more popular? I'm not asking a rhetorical question here. I'd really like to know why people think you can't cut a large feature in Vegas?
farss wrote on 10/7/2008, 8:21 PM
One simple answer to that question came from a speaker at a conference I was at last year. He couldn't get a completion guarantee unless it was cut on an Avid system. All his previous works were cut in FCP. I'm having a brain freeze remembering which camera it was shot on now, whichever one Russian Ark was shot on.

Bob.
GlennChan wrote on 10/7/2008, 9:01 PM
Avid has problems. They don't replace a CEO and cut the price of their software by 1/2 just for the heck of it.
Regarding replacing the CEO... I think it would be a good move. Avid should be a highly profitable company. Even though their market share is shrinking, they still have a lot of market share. And when you're a tech company, the margins on your product are very high which means that high volume = high profits. Avid has managed to LOSE money. Something is seriously, seriously wrong with their business (not their product, the business). If you're a tech company and can't turn a profit with high volume... the company is in trouble from a business point of view. SCS has a fraction of Avid's revenue and it manages to make money (as far as I can tell); Avid as a business is seriously screwed up.

As far as their product goes, it's a good product for mid-high-end broadcast. So is FCP (but you can tell that FCP does not come from a broadcast background... e.g. the default way it makes EDLs is silly).

2- As far as cutting the price of media composer in 1/2, I'd argue that they should've done that years ago. Now they actually have something that might compete in the desktop/low-budget segment of the market and something that would actually compete well against FCP. They missed out on a new market and let FCP gain a lot of market share.

3- There are other players in the high-end market (for online editing / finishing systems anyways). Avid is not the only game in town. Smoke, iQ, Mistika, etc.
zcus wrote on 10/7/2008, 9:01 PM
Blink - u keep saying that Liquid is droped and dead.... I used that software and thought it had many features but was too bloated and took over your desktop.... but it still appears to be available:

http://www.pinnaclesys.com/PublicSite/us/Products/Consumer+Products/Advanced+Video/Liquid+Edition/Avid+Liquid+7.htm
GlennChan wrote on 10/7/2008, 9:07 PM
I'm not asking a rhetorical question here. I'd really like to know why people think you can't cut a large feature in Vegas?
One could argue that Vegas is weak:
- In the way it handles EDLs. CMX style EDLs are not officially supported anymore.
- Cut lists not supported? (for photochemical film finishes)
- OMF / AAF export.
- The way it handles timecode, e.g. for sync sound. And it can't do TC burns of original timecode from tapes (though this is not a big deal).
- Workgroup editing. Ability to share sequences and not step on other people's toes.

Some people need these features to work, and have documentation for it.

*I don't work on Hollywood features. Somebody who does would know better than I would about their niche.
PeterWright wrote on 10/7/2008, 9:12 PM
> "And it can't do TC burns of original timecode from tapes"

Glenn, if Time Code FX is applied at Project Media level, this will pickup the original camera timecode.
blink3times wrote on 10/7/2008, 9:48 PM
"Blink - u keep saying that Liquid is droped and dead.... I used that software and thought it had many features but was too bloated and took over your desktop.... but it still appears to be available:"

Yup... that's for sure. They're still selling it and with not even a mention as to its EOL (end of life) status. Mighty nice of them isn't it!

The fact is that Avid has yet to officially announce it, but its EOL status was told at the last Liquid meeting by Liquid officials. Liquid 7.2 is the last version. It was also stated that there will be some kind of replacement sometime in 2009, but it was hinted that it would not be at the Liquid level and if we wanted to continue editing at the Liquid level then it would be wise to upgrade to MC. We Liquid users, and express users were given a deal for an upgrade path ($1000 off) but I opted NOT to take the offer. Even at $1000 off that's still $1500..... for something I most liekly would not use too much. They don't even have some kind of trial for MC so you can't even test it.

If there is any doubt of its EOL status then you can see it right from the mouth of one of the moderators:

http://forums.pinnaclesys.com/forums/post/196826.aspx

There is also a sticky at the top of the avid liquid forums titled "Jan's Keynote speech". In it contains a video of the speech given by Jan (Avid official) noting liquid's EOL status.
Patryk Rebisz wrote on 10/8/2008, 12:46 AM
Well, any farm of machines is prone to troubles especially in student classroom environment. Sometimes you create a great Mac machine that never freezes and sometimes it's the case with PCs. I noticed that V7 and 8 are totally unstable on my machine (that was handling V4 no problem) -- of course the issue is that nowdays i'm trying to edit HD content on my old machine but this is beyond the point. Truth is even on my brother's pimped out PC V8 struggles to be reliable.

That said i had a FCP user the other day be amazed on how intuitive and fast things get done in Vegas, but... he was just a casual user of FCP. When i watch a good friend of mine (who's a pro editor working on Avid and FCP) i can only wish to have such speed with my Vegas (because he's a pro and know what he's doing while i'm just a casual user of Vegas). In other words it's not the software but the person behind. And in his words even though he prefers FCP to Avid he would be afraid to edit a feature shot on film in FCP.
Steve Mann wrote on 10/8/2008, 2:00 PM
"Not being a professional, I am just curious what the pros are using to develop TV broadcast shows. If every piece of software crashes that much, how do they get their job done???"

They are paid by the hour?

No wonder they love FCP so much!
Coursedesign wrote on 10/8/2008, 6:15 PM
Most professional editors I've talked to who are proficient in both FCP and Avid say that they can work twice as fast cutting on Avid.

So why would they bother with FCP?

Two reasons: editors don't always have a choice about what to use, and those who do broadcast graphics often think they can do more with FCP+Motion than with Avid+Boris (Avid Media Composer comes with $3,000 worth of fully integrated Boris RED, Boris Continuum Complete 5, Sonic DVDit Pro, Sorenson Squeeze 5, and Smartsound Sonicfire Pro).

By "cutting" above I mean what I call "elbow editing," where you don't do any massive tinkering with composites etc., you're just editing the story for maximum effect.

For that, Avid can't be beat. And if Boris RED tickles your fancy, it is nice to have it fully integrated.

Coursedesign wrote on 10/9/2008, 11:43 AM
Video editors often confuse the stability of their machines (hardware + OS + required utilities) with the stability of their NLE.

You've all seen in this forum how some people seem to have no problems with Vegas, while others who do exactly the same work with the same kind of footage are ready to hang themselves in despair.

There is no question that Avids are overall most stable. Far more than any other editing systems.

So better software, right?

No, not necessarily. Avid makes very tight recommendations for which exact computer models to use, which OS version/Service Pack to use, and which exact version of Quicktime to use (QT is much more than a media player).

FCP on the other hand comes with an "Ah, don't worry about it!" attitude, with many unwise users suffering in their NLE work after they mindlessly accept the latest OS update and the new spankin' QT version.

What about Vegas?

As you may have noticed, it has become more difficult for SCS to support an ever increasing functionality on a huge variety of platforms. The question is whether they will publish some kind of recommended system configuration that is declared optimum,

I suspect not, but hey, who knows. Stranger things have happened, and Vegas' previously unbeatable reliability reputation is a bit frayed at the edges.

GlennChan wrote on 10/9/2008, 2:59 PM
Of the time I briefly used a Media Composer (not really for editing but just for capturing), it crashed on me. Supposedly (this is what I've heard/read from other people), Avid's Adrenaline version had some stability issues.