MP 7,1 When you start a project using Adobe, do you have to finish it using Adobe, and is same true when using FCP X ?

[bxs]

Subject: When you start a project using Adobe, do you have to finish it using Adobe, and is same true when using FCP X ?

Let me say up front, I'm not a film editor and do not in any way have the skills for using the Adobe and FCP X software.

However, I'm the IT person for my son's film editing business, and make all the decisions for purchasing new hardware. I know the potential benefits that certain hardware can bring to the table.

My son's business is entrenched with using the Apple Macs and the Apple eco system, and the compatible software offered for the macOS platform.

I've watched my son doing his film editing work and see that there are times he has to stop, sit back, and wait for things to complete.

I've asked him to identify to me what aspects in the editing workflow cause having to wait for ‘things’ to complete. By this I mean you have to ‘sit back’ and CANNOT do anything while the software runs to perform a task you’ve started. I also know while he's working there are certain things that have to be done (in background possibly) as a result of him changing some setting or applying some affect(s), and which can cause him to wait for them to catch up before he can proceed working.

He's told me - Rendering effects (such as color) so they can be viewed and making proxies are two big ones. Though you can set Media Encoder to make proxies in the background, but this tends to slow things down a lot.

I also know the Adobe and FCP X software are competing applications. Each one has its specific/superior benefits from what I know. With this in mind I've asked my son is it possible to employ both of these applications on a film editing project; are they compatible such that one with a better performance at doing something can be switch in (mid stream) for use, and then abandoned after its done its work, to continue on with the original/starting application ?

My conversation with my son goes along like this....

"I think it’s in your interest to do this, especially if you have ‘idle’ time on your hands. I’m not advocating you switch from Adobe to FCP X. I just want you to be fully aware of the benefits that each one offers you. For example, I wonder if when part way through an editing project you can switch over to using one or the other without having to redo things ? Are they compatible in this respect or not ? That is, can you switch from one to the other without having to rework things such as file formats that the other doesn’t or can’t make sense of, meaning you have to translate file formats when switching between Adobe and FCP X ?"

His response was...

"There are some ways to translate projects but it’s not perfect"
"I can look into it"
"I don’t think it’s difficult"

So I ask the skillful film editors on this forum, can the Adobe suite of applications and FCP X join forces to bring their superior specific benefits to improve the speed of completing an editing project vs. using one or the other exclusively for the whole project ? Has anyone tried this approach ?

Thanks...

 

[goMac]

I don't do editing daily or anything, but I don't think you can freely move between them. Generally you pick one and stick with it unless you want to suffer a lot mid project by trying to migrate everything by hand.

They use different editing architectures/plugins/effects etc. Even though they're both used for editing they're not at all the same under the hood.

You could render in one app and then export the render into another, but you typically don't work with already mastered footage in a timeline. It's probably a lot more trouble than it's worth.

Anyway, it sounds like your son knows what he's doing already!

 

[bsbeamer]

Look into "XtoCC" for starters, but it's limited since they both use different flavors of XML. FCPX's version is not industry standard in any fashion and does not use any open standards for their EDL/XML. Roundtrip through Resolve can help, but it's not a quick and easy process for a lot of work. There are people who specialize in this within larger post facilities. It's NEVER going to work between the two seamlessly without hiccups.

 

[avkills]

I think everyone here who actually does this for work would say pick a platform and stick with it. FCP X works completely differently than Premiere; and is only available on the Mac platform. Premiere and the Creative Cloud suite can run on Windows or Mac OS.

One way it could work would be export a EDL from one and try to import into another; still would probably have issues though.

Things learned either by reading or the hard way:

1. Never do updates to any software during a project
2. Never update the OS during a project
3. Save often and keep backups.

I switched over to Premiere when FCP X was announced; since Premiere works more or less the way I want to work; however I may give FCP X another try here soon. I can say with 100% certainty that FCP X is better optimized for the OS than Premiere.

 

[bxs]

Subject: When you start a project using Adobe, do you have to finish it using Adobe, and is same true when using FCP X ?

Let me say up front, I'm not a film editor and do not in any way have the skills for using the Adobe and FCP X software.

However, I'm the IT person for my son's film editing business, and make all the decisions for purchasing new hardware. I know the potential benefits that certain hardware can bring to the table.

My son's business is entrenched with using the Apple Macs and the Apple eco system, and the compatible software offered for the macOS platform.

I've watched my son doing his film editing work and see that there are times he has to stop, sit back, and wait for things to complete.

I've asked him to identify to me what aspects in the editing workflow cause having to wait for ‘things’ to complete. By this I mean you have to ‘sit back’ and CANNOT do anything while the software runs to perform a task you’ve started. I also know while he's working there are certain things that have to be done (in background possibly) as a result of him changing some setting or applying some affect(s), and which can cause him to wait for them to catch up before he can proceed working.

He's told me - Rendering effects (such as color) so they can be viewed and making proxies are two big ones. Though you can set Media Encoder to make proxies in the background, but this tends to slow things down a lot.

I also know the Adobe and FCP X software are competing applications. Each one has its specific/superior benefits from what I know. With this in mind I've asked my son is it possible to employ both of these applications on a film editing project; are they compatible such that one with a better performance at doing something can be switch in (mid stream) for use, and then abandoned after its done its work, to continue on with the original/starting application ?

My conversation with my son goes along like this....

"I think it’s in your interest to do this, especially if you have ‘idle’ time on your hands. I’m not advocating you switch from Adobe to FCP X. I just want you to be fully aware of the benefits that each one offers you. For example, I wonder if when part way through an editing project you can switch over to using one or the other without having to redo things ? Are they compatible in this respect or not ? That is, can you switch from one to the other without having to rework things such as file formats that the other doesn’t or can’t make sense of, meaning you have to translate file formats when switching between Adobe and FCP X ?"

His response was...

"There are some ways to translate projects but it’s not perfect"
"I can look into it"
"I don’t think it’s difficult"

So I ask the skillful film editors on this forum, can the Adobe suite of applications and FCP X join forces to bring their superior specific benefits to improve the speed of completing an editing project vs. using one or the other exclusively for the whole project ? Has anyone tried this approach ?

Thanks...

I have agreement with my son.... His main concern is that his group he works with some of the time are exclusive users of Adobe. However, when working solo there really is no reason to ignore the use of FCPX.

Hence... note to my son was...
"My strategy for you to explore using FCPX is simply for you to be able to benefit immediately from the hardware/software that comes with the new MP7,1. It seems a shame to me for you to have to wait for Adobe to ‘catch up’ and make use of the MP7,1 (if ever they do)."

 

[OkiRun]

I have agreement with my son.... His main concern is that his group he works with some of the time are exclusive users of Adobe. However, when working solo there really is no reason to ignore the use of FCPX.

Hence... note to my son was...
"My strategy for you to explore using FCPX is simply for you to be able to benefit immediately from the hardware/software that comes with the new MP7,1. It seems a shame to me for you to have to wait for Adobe to ‘catch up’ and make use of the MP7,1 (if ever they do)."

My company uses both PP on PCs and FCPX on Macs; multiple computers. bsbeamer is correct ~ he can use XtoCC but only the most basic of editing presets will transfer; he will lose most if not all effect he has applied... and it takes a lot of time. If he has multiple projects, there is no reason he cannot do one in PP and another in FCPX - even if using two different Macs. Possibly get him an iMac Pro for his FCPX projects and then stick with that all the way through...

 

[blackadde]

Is he already familiar with FCPX? Having to learn and maintain two totally different creative workflows is both mentally and economically taxing. There will be cognitive overhead involved in switching streams for projects depending on whether they're solo/collaborative.

There's a saying in high-end audio you hear sometimes: those concerned with equipment spend all their time listening to their hardware through the music. It may be worth exploring for his use case, but purchasing & workflow decisions need to be carefully considered to remain results-oriented.

Sometimes it really is better to throw excessive hardware at bad software if it means you can do what you need to do, and sometimes it's better to save that hardware money and spend the time to learn more efficient software. You'll have to talk to him to see where the bottlenecks and pain points are that prevent him from accomplishing his creative tasks.

 

[OkiRun]

Is he already familiar with FCPX? Having to learn and maintain two totally different creative workflows is both mentally and economically taxing. There will be cognitive overhead involved in switching streams for projects depending on whether they're solo/collaborative.

There's a saying in high-end audio you hear sometimes: those concerned with equipment spend all their time listening to their hardware through the music. It may be worth exploring for his use case, but purchasing & workflow decisions need to be carefully considered to remain results-oriented.

Sometimes it really is better to throw excessive hardware at bad software if it means you can do what you need to do, and sometimes it's better to save that hardware money and spend the time to learn more efficient software. You'll have to talk to him to see where the bottlenecks and pain points are that prevent him from accomplishing his creative tasks.

I hear ya!
In film editing, all my editors are proficient in PP, FCPX, and Avid. They can transition seamlessly between programs and computers. I can't afford an editor who is proficient in only one system. Our clients are too varied in their own systems. They often go between machines/projects when a render has put a computer in time out.
Yes ~ you are absolute correct! Before any time, money, effort is funneled into a solution, first diagnosis the problems effectively!

 

[bxs]

My company uses both PP on PCs and FCPX on Macs; multiple computers. bsbeamer is correct ~ he can use XtoCC but only the most basic of editing presets will transfer; he will lose most if not all effect he has applied... and it takes a lot of time. If he has multiple projects, there is no reason he cannot do one in PP and another in FCPX - even if using two different Macs. Possibly get him an iMac Pro for his FCPX projects and then stick with that all the way through...

Yes, I have suggested using our iMac Pro and the MP7,1 with different editing software such as Adobe and FCPX.

I also appreciate there could be difficulty mastering both Adobe and FCPX and being able to switch between them without some confusion or for some unwanted cross-pollination of the feature-set and/or toolkits unique to each, interfering with getting the real work done.

I wonder if an analogy might be for requesting a person to switch between macOS and Windows to get the same workflow done. Personally, I'm a macOS person and find using Windows is awkward, doing things with it being very different from macOS, its UI really offends me, my skill level with Windows is seriously lacking, and worst still is that it don't work like macOS . Could I be or make myself as proficient in Windows as I am in macOS ? For me to do this there has to be a VERY good reason for doing so.

Now it could be that a person proficient using Adobe simply hates the thought of having to use FCPX. They basically both can perform the editing tasks, but in different ways. My son told me that the big move people made from FCP to Adobe was because Apple changed/monkeyed with the FCP's interface. By this I assume he meant the User Interface (UI) and User Experience (UX) was changed dramatically making getting work done that was easy before becoming a nightmare after Apple made the changes; Possible as bad as when Apple changed their hardware from MP5,1 to MP6,1 and forcing people to a PC platform.

Of course the ultimate test is, can both, using Adobe exclusively and FCPX exclusively for a project, produce EQUAL and the desirable end results with the added restraint of doing so in a specific elapsed time? Editing is an 'art' and the artists' tool is paramount for achieving the desired outcome, right ? Playback glitches, audio out of sync, colors, transitions, 'the story being told', etc all have to be just right for the client.

I'm of an engineering background and I know that for a given engineering problem there are several applications that can perform the same analysis to solve the problem. Each application requires the user to be skilled in using all the application's features (twiddling the knobs so to speak) to solve the problem. Typically the end results 'have to be convincing' to the engineer such that it is known to match or at least closely matches the result of a physical test, such as when a structure will catastrophically fail under a specified load; e.g., a numerical computer simulation of when an aircraft's wing under some aerodynamic load will break away from the fuselage - known as the 'breaking point' should match the results of a physical test.

 

[OkiRun]

Yes, I have suggested using our iMac Pro and the MP7,1 with different editing software such as Adobe and FCPX.

I also appreciate there could be difficulty mastering both Adobe and FCPX and being able to switch between them without some confusion or for some unwanted cross-pollination of the feature-set and/or toolkits unique to each, interfering with getting the real work done.

I wonder if an analogy might be for requesting a person to switch between macOS and Windows to get the same workflow done. Personally, I'm a macOS person and find using Windows is awkward, doing things with it being very different from macOS, its UI really offends me, my skill level with Windows is seriously lacking, and worst still is that it don't work like macOS . Could I be or make myself as proficient in Windows as I am in macOS ? For me to do this there has to be a VERY good reason for doing so.

Now it could be that a person proficient using Adobe simply hates the thought of having to use FCPX. They basically both can perform the editing tasks, but in different ways. My son told me that the big move people made from FCP to Adobe was because Apple changed/monkeyed with the FCP's interface. By this I assume he meant the User Interface (UI) and User Experience (UX) was changed dramatically making getting work done that was easy before becoming a nightmare after Apple made the changes; Possible as bad as when Apple changed their hardware from MP5,1 to MP6,1 and forcing people to a PC platform.

Of course the ultimate test is, can both, using Adobe exclusively and FCPX exclusively for a project, produce EQUAL and the desirable end results with the added restraint of doing so in a specific elapsed time? Editing is an 'art' and the artists' tool is paramount for achieving the desired outcome, right ? Playback glitches, audio out of sync, colors, transitions, 'the story being told', etc all have to be just right for the client.

I'm of an engineering background and I know that for a given engineering problem there are several applications that can perform the same analysis to solve the problem. Each application requires the user to be skilled in using all the application's features (twiddling the knobs so to speak) to solve the problem. Typically the end results 'have to be convincing' to the engineer such that it is known to match or at least closely matches the result of a physical test, such as when a structure will catastrophically fail under a specified load; e.g., a numerical computer simulation of when an aircraft's wing under some aerodynamic load will break away from the fuselage - known as the 'breaking point' should match the results of a physical test.

The ONLY reason I have some PCs and PP/AE (Creative Cloud) and the crazy monthly bill is that some production houses we work with only use them. They want to make edits after we are done. At the moment and near future... I don't see that changing. Ergo... the reason I just forked out 13K for a JUNS PC and Monitor. If there is one thing I wish FCPX handled better is the audio editing/mixing. The UI really sucx according to all my editors. I've tried working with it too... and they are correct! FCPX has greatly improved color editing though, and that's a plus.