Final Cut Pro vs Final Cut Express question

[Kionon]

I bought my mac with FCP HD5 (studio 1) pre-installed. I saved a ton, because it was a limited time offer. I bought mac, I got FCP for free. I dealt with express earlier on work computers and did not like it.

Some of us are professionals. As stated, I used my mac for political commercials mostly. I do almost all my amv editing on my pc.

[mahler]

I have no doubt that some of you are professionals, and as such you would naturally want the pro version. I believe I said that earlier.

If NightMistress85 (the person who started this thread) is intending to go professional, then she should consider Final Cut Studio. If she is going to be doing this as a hobby, making fan videos and home movies and such, does she require Final Cut Studio? Will she use all of the features she'll be paying for (an additional $1000 or so)? What features will she require, that are only present in the Studio version?

She may feel that more media in LiveType is worth it. Or the inclusion of Soundtrack is worth it. (I'd recommend finding a copy of FCE 3.5 on eBay and using the LiveType media and copy of Soundtrack in it. It would cost far less than $1000.) Or she may consider Motion, Cinema Tools or Color worth it. If she does, then she needs Final Cut Studio.

If she's mainly concerned about editing fan videos and using effects like garbage matte and filters and transitions (which is all she's asked about), then (at least in my copy of FCE 4 and FCS 1) she might decide against paying the extra $1000 for Studio. Most or all of the third-party plug-ins that work with FCS should also work in FCE.

[LivingFlame]

No I don't think FCE HD is the latest: http://www.apple.com/finalcutexpress/

No mention of HD there. Sounds like you have version 3 or 3.5.

Yea, I looked into it; the university has 3.5. Not sure how much changed between the two versions.

If FCE felt clunky to you, then FCP probably would too. (My guess, since their interfaces are very, very similar. Almost identical at first glance.) I think a lot of it is your hardware, and what you're used to.

FCE's interface is actually quite similar to Premiere's. (Actually, I think one of the lead designers for Premiere also had a hand in creating Final Cut. That's just hearsay, though.) So it didn't take me long to understand how a lot of the program worked. That said, the hardware it was being run on probably just sucked. >_>

Don't misunderstand me here, I'm not trying to bash Final Cut or anything. It's probably just one of those instances where I had a chance bad experience with the software and now I just have a bad taste in my mouth. I'm sure I'll give it another shot some day (on better equipment, no less) since it is a sort of industry standard these days.

...Vegas is still a bit of a mystery, and it has several things I actively dislike. (But it's fine, I'm sure, once you learn it properly.)

Heh, I'm curious what you actively dislike, but that's not for this thread.

As for LiveType, a lot of people claim that is one of the best things about the Final Cut Suite. It takes a bit of getting used to, but let's just say it's a far cry better than using Photoshop for making titles!

Actually, I was making lower thirds to put on some interviews, and you can really make much nicer looking lower thirds in Photoshop. (Obviously, I wouldn't be making a credit roll or some other sort of motion title in Photoshop, lol.)





And I think I mentioned at the beginning of my last post that FCE would likely be perfectly fine if the TC had no intention of ever progressing beyond a hobbyist.

[mahler]

Yea, I looked into it; the university has 3.5. Not sure how much changed between the two versions.

There's apparently a bit of difference between 3.5 and 4, but since I jumped from 3 to 4, I can't speak too specifically on that.

FCE's interface is actually quite similar to Premiere's.

The first version of Premiere Elements was different enough for me that it was confusing. Finally I adjusted. Now I'm on version 4, and it's much easier.

Don't misunderstand me here, I'm not trying to bash Final Cut or anything. It's probably just one of those instances where I had a chance bad experience with the software and now I just have a bad taste in my mouth. I'm sure I'll give it another shot some day (on better equipment, no less) since it is a sort of industry standard these days.

Fair enough.

In any case, I still think it comes down to what you're used to, and what you're looking for. Many people are very happy with Final Cut, and with Vegas. They both are great products.

Actually, I was making lower thirds to put on some interviews, and you can really make much nicer looking lower thirds in Photoshop. (Obviously, I wouldn't be making a credit roll or some other sort of motion title in Photoshop, lol.)

Yes, I see what you mean. LiveType has some advanced features that are praised by many. I'm still learning about all that it can do. Apparently it can be quite powerful.

And I think I mentioned at the beginning of my last post that FCE would likely be perfectly fine if the TC had no intention of ever progressing beyond a hobbyist.

Fair enough. I think that applies to a lot of us, but I wouldn't know percentages.

[LivingFlame]

Oh, and the FCE titler can bite me. I just started making titles in Photoshop instead.

As for LiveType, a lot of people claim that is one of the best things about the Final Cut Suite. It takes a bit of getting used to, but let's just say it's a far cry better than using Photoshop for making titles!

Actually, I was making lower thirds to put on some interviews, and you can really make much nicer looking lower thirds in Photoshop. (Obviously, I wouldn't be making a credit roll or some other sort of motion title in Photoshop, lol.)

Yes, I see what you mean. LiveType has some advanced features that are praised by many. I'm still learning about all that it can do. Apparently it can be quite powerful.

I just feel like I should point out that I got a bit confused in this portion of the conversation. That's my fault. I assumed your first comment on LiveType was directed at me for saying that "the FCE titler can bite me." Upon thinking about it, I realized that LiveType and the built-in FCE titler that I was using in 3.5 are two very different things. The built-in titler was rather limiting which is why I moved over to Photoshop to make my lower thirds. LiveType, on the other hand, is a whole different beast. I've never used it, but you are right - it's a very powerful tool.

I still stand by my original comment, however. The built-in titler (if they haven't changed it to automatically use LiveType) is quite limiting if you want to do something fancy.

But I think I'm trailing off here . . . sorry about that TC. FCE is likely enough for what you're after. It sure beats out iMovie in a large way. At any rate, if you are a student, try to get a student discount on whatever you do buy. Apple does offer those. It's only $20 on FCE, I believe, but it's still something. (Unless you find it cheaper somewhere else, of course. I'm just the kind of person that tends to buy from the people making the software.)

And this has been a rousing conversation. I have enjoyed it. Hope I never came off mean at any point. If I did, them I'm sorry. =\

[NightMistress85]

Wow. Thanks so much for all the information everyone! I definitely want something that won't take me all day to render. I tested out FCP and noticed that's what it does for my video formats. For the record, I will be purchasing whatever products I decide to buy and discovered that I could get a student discount on FCS, saving me hundreds, but it wouldn't be upgradeable and if I'm spending all of that money, that's what I would want. I may go the route of Adobe Premiere. Also, it's hard to convert my videos to DV while maintaining the same quality. I could handle a 6gb file for one ep for instance, but not one that looks slightly grainy.

[mahler]

I'm not sure what you're talking about "all day to render." Final Cut Pro will accept a number of codecs, including uncompressed types, which would not require rendering (unless you add heavy filters). I also hear that ProRes 422 is a very good codec, and you'd get that with Final Cut Studio.

If you use Adobe Premiere, won't you have to render as well? And what codec would Premiere use that Final Cut can't? Unless you're planning on using the Windows version of Premiere or something . . .

Nothing against Adobe Premiere, though. I hear it's very good. But I'm confused about all this rendering talk. I believe all of us (on Windows and Mac) have to convert our footage to some other format before editing.

[LivingFlame]

Also, it's hard to convert my videos to DV while maintaining the same quality. I could handle a 6gb file for one ep for instance, but not one that looks slightly grainy.

DV is a lossy codec, so you'll have quality loss no matter the program (though it's always pretty slight, as DV is light for lossy compression). The only lossless codec that I personally know of for Mac is Sheer.

[NightMistress85]

I'm not sure what you're talking about "all day to render." Final Cut Pro will accept a number of codecs, including uncompressed types, which would not require rendering (unless you add heavy filters). I also hear that ProRes 422 is a very good codec, and you'd get that with Final Cut Studio.

If you use Adobe Premiere, won't you have to render as well? And what codec would Premiere use that Final Cut can't? Unless you're planning on using the Windows version of Premiere or something . . .

Nothing against Adobe Premiere, though. I hear it's very good. But I'm confused about all this rendering talk. I believe all of us (on Windows and Mac) have to convert our footage to some other format before editing.

For FCP I imported the file types fine without needing conversion, but if I make any change to the video or the effects, it makes me have to render it every time. Just didn't feel very productive for me. And they say dv was the best quality to convert it to to cut down on that. Also, whenever I exported the file, it loss a little quality every time in every format I tried. I tried out Adobe's trial version and it allows me to add a clip to the time sequence without having to render to see it. With Adobe, I did have to convert my file in order to be added into program (converted to mov, but may be able to try others); However when I did, it imported no problem, lost no quality, and plays fine when I put the clip on the timeline without the "unrendered" message due to any little change I make. Looks like FCP and Adobe have the same codecs, but for some reason exporting with Adobe doesn't give me issue in terms of quality loss.

Also, I'm getting an excellent deal on the software and won't be solely constricted to DV format like with FCE. Its price is closer to FCE than it is to FCP. It'll be cheaper than the Academic FCP and it'll be upgradeable.

DV is a lossy codec, so you'll have quality loss no matter the program (though it's always pretty slight, as DV is light for lossy compression). The only lossless codec that I personally know of for Mac is Sheer.

My loss was pretty noticeable though no matter what I used so it got a little frustrating. Thanks for this info though! Definitely explains a lot.

I'm obviously pretty new to all of this, but definitely up for learning you've all been a big help.

[Kionon]

The only lossless codec that I personally know of for Mac is Sheer.

Huffyuv has a port for mac. That's what I use.