Final Cut Pro has been around for a long time, and is one of the most used pro video editing software suits. The idea that Apple would discontinue it is hardly realistic. It's not at all unlikely Apple will realize they make more money putting these developer resources to services and mobile-tools-apps instead of keeping low-profit old Video-editing, and office packages alive.
Lightroom 4 couldn't match Aperture 3 at all. But that was at a time when Apple left the pro Market, they stopped developing Pro hardware, all their Pro software was neglected or completely abandoned. Even Final Cut Pro, it was years without an update and lost almost all customers.
Now to those who believe FCP is too important for Apple But then the decided to abandon it all for the iPad. For Apple it was a good decision, for the customers it was horrible especially because Apple kept promising they will not abandon them until they did. Because Final Cut Pro X initially was a prosumer software that had nothing in common with the original. Apple is good in many things but not in reliability. I agree with melgross. When Adobe released Lightroom shortly after Aperture then Aperture was dead in the water.
Regardless of any technical superiority of Aperture to LR, the fact is that the Adobe name carried far more weight with that type of software. When Apple pulled the plug on Aperture, LR had already become the de facto industry standard.
The vast majority of serious photographers were using LR and it had become the common language of photo editing. FCP, on the other hand, is far more established. There are several big budget Hollywood productions edited on FCP.
FCP is not going away. I didn't like Aperture at all, it was horrid. I found Lightroom, for all its ills, a better suited programme. Prolly why I have used it from version 1. I just wished Apple continued the development of Aperture and released Aperture-X. Adobe must be laughing that in the years since the demise of Aperture no real rival has emerged to successfully challenge Lightroom. Aperture had superior output quality, better color rendering, actually the best after Nikons only Capture NX2, and faster editing speed.
It had the ability to double tools and use them as layers when other apps didn't have layer editing yet. And up until today it is unbeaten in it's file management capabilities. If you don't like the arrangement of the workspace or never could get friends with how the tools apply that's personal preference. And of course Lightroom has many rivials, technically Lightroom always was and still is a medicore RAW converter at best, Adobe ist just very good in marketing.
The long time best after Aperture disappeared is CaptureOne Pro. It has a different workflow that takes time to learn and not everybody likes it. But technically it just is not possible to get those colors and dynamic range out of a file with Lightroom. Horses for courses as they say. The user experience is every bit as valid as the programme's technical excellence. I just didn't like using Aperture just like I don't like using Windows, and that makes it not good.
Although Lightroom has many rivals they just have not amounted to any significant challenge. I do have a copy of C1, and although the colour output is better than LR and the output feels more 'natural' and pleasing, it feels clumsy and convoluted in comparison.
Lightroom has that blend of ease-of-use with a reasonably satisfactory output. I think that is where Lightroom has its appeal. It comes down to money and resources and for Apple the adoption for Ateure wasn't enough. Final Cut along with Logic were originally products made by third parties that Apple then bought up. Their dev teams still run as basically their own little units, and both apps are still widely used enough to justify the development effort despite the major hit FCP took with FCPX, which it has slowly been recovering from , so they get to keep doing their thing.
Aperture was an in-house team formed specifically to make Aperture and iPhoto , and Adobe is so absurdly dominant in photography that they simply couldn't keep pace. I had Aperture still have it somewhere but need to boot into an older operating system to use it. Aperture was VERY exciting when it first came out but it turned out to be frustrating. The file management was hopeless, unless you treated it like an iPhoto-type closed system, and the noise control was terrible.
A shame because it looked great and integrated well with other Apple software. Lightroom was better but I got sick of paying for it. I still have an older version for file management and printing but do most of my raw conversions on Capture One, which is vastly superior.
What would be wonderful would be the power of Capture One or DXO Photolab with the file management capabilities of Lightroom One and the simplicity of iPhoto in one package like Aperture and Lightroom sort of could have been. Shouldn't be too hard In your case your personal preferences are nailed by Lightroom and therefore for you no other software can compete. So great for you that Adobe offers you just the right tool for you.
But that doesn't mean that there is no competition as you implied, it's just that you don't want or with your workflow even can't to adapt to the userinterface of the competition. I have the same thing with Photoshop, I also bought Affinity Photo but never find the time to learn it properly and adapt my workflow so I stick to Adobe.
Still I can see that the other Software is good enough to be a competitor even though it's not for me. And you reply to that is that you feel demeaned and trolled, congrats, that's one way to lose all respect in a conversation, you just trolled yourself. I wonder if Apple have considered creating a distributed processing system with the M1 Macs. Imagine being able to connect two M1 Macs via Thunderbolt and effectively double the processing power.
An M1 Mac mini costs so little, it would actually make a lot of sense. My guess is that they wouldn't do something like that, because of the need to protect the Mac Pro.
It would be very useful, though. You could hook up a large number for rendering and other more scientific software. Yeah, I remember those days. Used that on occasion, but it was a bit of a hassle compared to what I was doing with PCs 3D rendering , so I didn't take it all that far. With the interfaces being so fast these days, it should be a really simple matter of plugging in another Mac, and selecting what you want to do with it.
There's not much reason not to go down that road really, as it could boost sales, and increase capability at relatively low cost. It's just not Apple's sort of thing, though!
I think there is an opportunity here for them, but I'm just not at all sure they're going to grasp it. Francis Sawyer. But nope. While those new to video editing prefer timeline based vs track based, I read that experienced Premiere users have a more difficult time switching to magnetic timeline. If you really are interested in looking at FCPX, you need to get a tutorial or class to take full advantage of what it can do; otherwise, you will quickly become frustrated.
But I think you will find that it is a fully mature product, and very efficient and quick. Much like the M1 chip, they will move headlong where technology leads, damn legacy. What they didn't realize was that it was a complete rebuild with bit application designed for speed. The magnetic timeline allowed for quick and efficient editing vs track based making it easier to use.
Now with the M1 chips, they are leveraging hardware with software for efficiency and speed, which then brings down production costs. All good things. They have a history of making very expensive leading edge software, at a price most everyone can afford, forcing entire industries to follow. I switched back to Final Cut Pro a couple years ago and so glad I did. So much faster and actually more intuitive once you learn how it works. It was a long time for apple to fix every component on the motherboard.
The SoC, the drive, memory sticks no longer sticks. But M1 just meets every standard. Simply impeccable in video editing. It's also impressive that M1 does not fly into 70dB fan noise, does not chew hundreds of watts of power, does not make your aluminium laptop body a fry pan, nor makes huge batteries out of juice in seconds, while giving highlighted results. I'm really looking forward to seeing what can be done with the newer generation of ARM chips, and how Wintel and Nvidia can improve their performance.
It's just like GFX for the medium format camera market, literally a dinosaur comes and hunts in the forest. This is just one example of how Final Cut "Pro" isn't pro at all. Then you have to consider its effort to stymie frame-accurate editing by being "helpful. It sucks that FCP is popular with schools, because kids are learning brain-dead, incorrect terms and workflow for no benefit.
Meanwhile, this article's useless. It doesn't discuss anything but rendering times. What about UI or media management? How do you gather up all footage that was actually used in the project and archive it or copy it for color correction? Premiere's buggy Project Manager sometimes lets you find all your used footage, but Premiere incredibly has no global "relink footage" function to choose color-corrected copies.
Francis feedback is always appreciated. FWIW though, I think the article was pretty clear in what it is and isn't: "How quickly you can edit a video from start to finish in either Premiere Pro or Final Cut is largely a matter of personal preference and familiarity with each application's quirks.
This is only the beginning of our ramping up of photography and video-centric content related to software and high-end computing. Full reviews of some of these pieces of software may very well be coming down the road, but we've already planned some hardware-based reviews for which we ran these benchmarks anyway , and decided they were interesting enough to merit their own article.
I apologize if it wasn't as valuable for you as it could have been. What "walled garden" - this is a claim I never understood - other operating systems have also limitations in use and I find the walls even higher at Windows or Linux since I can't administrate them the same easy way as I can use my MACs.
I find no limitations of whatsoever kind other than my own ability to use the devices in the right way - in fact I find it much harder to make e. It might be a perception thing from people not able to see the bigger picture. In many ways windows seems to be a much more walled garden with respect to privacy - only difference being that the wild animals can slip through the wall easily whereas at Apple the latest improvements in browsing and mailing are nothing short but amazing for most users.
In case of the MacOS operating system, the term 'walled garden' is ludicrous. It is as walled or not walled as Windows or Linux. Which is not the case on MacOS at all. That doesn't make it a walled garden. There are loads of business tools made by Microsoft that will only run on Windows. Is Microsoft now a walled garden too? The author is referring to the hardware configuration. Prefer 1TB? But of course with no competition in their walled garden they can do and charge what they please.
By comparison, 18 months ago I added a 1TB M. I'm not defending the non-repairability and the tons of needless e-waste, but the very single minded focus on Apple alone. I've got a surprising insight for you: no one obligates you to buy anything from Apple.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. But stop being fake-woke. Rossman has problems. What a useless test, comparing it to 6 year old Intel architecture with half the cores in a laptop known for bad cooling.
How about a comparison against Ryzen H. For those who are strongly biased, what they prefer themselves will win hands down - every time! I wonder how Resolve would stack up in a test like this? The free version is still pretty powerful too. Resolve is the king of throwing another screenful of redundant, incorrect, and just plain dumb UI at users every year or so.
I love Resolve and it's my primary NLE but it still has some set backs. It's interlaced rendering is not very good when ingesting archival material. Also when mixing frame rates, it could do a better job interpolating. Also when it comes to reinterpreting framerates, premiere does a better job, and will also adjust audio properly.
Pretty much the top three reasons I keep premiere around. Great article! I've owned a few Macs but always installed Windows on them resulting in some of the best PCs I've ever had. What can I say There's just too many strange quirks and little things missing in OSX for my taste.
How does Premiere perform when running on Windows 10 on an M1 Mac? That's what I'd like to know! I know there isn't Bootcamp for the new M1 Macs, which is a shame since Bootcamp didn't suffer any performance penalties.
Thus the reason I'm so curious about finding out how Premiere Pro on Windows using Parralels or other emulator compares to running the Mac version of Pr on the same computer.
What was great about it? Sure, do the test before the pro-M Macs are out. That way you won't embarrass Intel too much. How could you possibly read that article as NOT being horribly embarrassing for Intel?
Rendering speed depends mainly on three things: 1. Unfortunately, in your test, you have no control over the first one on the Mac, which invalidates the results. It has the best color grading options in comparison to any video editing software can have. Adobe Premiere is a team alliance software. Popularly used for fast rendering. It comes with VFX Effects. Its utilization of GPU is commendable. It allows the user to edit videos using multiple cameras.
Final Cut Pro is independent of the resolution type of the videos It works on Real-time effects and graphics It is a more economical option since it costs a one-time purchase.
Presently, Final Cut Pro is the fastest video editing tool in the world. An organized software that is easy to use and understand for a first-time user. It is powerful software, but sometimes it is not understandable and easy on the ground level. Premier offers details over title text, with a huge number of fonts and adjustments like the shadow, tracking, stroking, leading and kerning.
But for 3D arrangements, the user needs to shift to Adobe After Effects. It supports Mac OS only. It does not work on a network, so it usually lacks in regular updates.
It suffers from a few basic compatibilities as well as format issues. Final Cut Pro X boasts a wide range of tech specs and features- you get a lot for the price you pay. Final Cut Pro X was designed to make video editing easy. The libraries feature of the app may not be the flashiest tech spec but, it is a helpful feature that adds to the simplicity of using Final Cut Pro X.
Final Cut Pro libraries allow you to store content together to use for multiple projects and can easily be backed up to protect your work. The paid version of Final Cut Pro X gives you full access to effects, presets and updates- the payment does not expire, and you are entitled to all future versions of the software.
Once downloaded, you have the option to connect Final Cut Pro X with a variety of extra plugins that boost creative potential and allow you to access a whole world of features and tools. Plugins are also available to download from the App store, and pairing them with the editor is fairly straightforward. If you want to install Final Cut Pro X, your device must meet the minimum system requirements. Firstly, the software is only compatible with macOS These requirements do mean that older devices may not be compatible with Final Cut Pro X.
Final Cut Pro X is designed for easy use and can be used by both amateurs and professionals. Complete beginners could install the free day trial before purchasing the full software to get used to using the editor. Final Cut Pro X has various preset options, which are great for people who are new to video editing.
Final Cut Pro X runs regular updates that keep it a leading tool for professional video-makers to use for their projects. The features included in the app are advanced and enable professionals to create high-quality content. Final Cut Pro X can be paired with a range of plugins that give professionals complete creative freedom and a variety of editing possibilities- even without these plugins, the app hosts many impressive features that are great for professional use.
Final Cut Pro X offers more effects and tools than iMovie so, it may feel a little slower to use. Once purchased, you can download Final Cut Pro X onto five computers. All complex editing functions are hidden initially which makes it much more approachable for beginner editors or those new to the software. This simple user interface means they can jump right in and start editing videos quickly. But the features and tools that are initially hidden can be easily opened and used on projects, so the software is no less sophisticated than its competitors.
However, for those that have edited on non-linear editors before it may be a little trickier to use. So veteran editors that are new to FCP X may have to unlearn old habits. FCP X feels like it resists projects that play with the chronology of a piece and instead is happier when working towards chronological editing that is, a project that follows a narrative from beginning, to middle, and end.
When a project is chronological the software seems to process much quicker than others. FCP X looks like it has thrown the preconceptions of previous editions of FCP out the window and revamped it in a powerful way that allows fast editing workflows, and has speedy render times even when working on large projects. Although multiple editors can work on the same project via editing servers such as Jellyfish, collaboration with other users on projects still feels a little stilted and is not necessarily a smooth process.
From here users can create 2D and 3D titles, transitions and real-time effects, as well as processing output content in myriad formats, including degree output, as well.
Used alongside Adobe Media Encoder, Premiere Pro also takes advantage of the available GPUs on your system to distribute processing loads, aiding higher speeds as a result.
0コメント