Had to deliver some spots cut in Premiere Pro. The delivery required 29.97, but the spots were cut at 23.98 matching the source. So… here’s the best way to do this.
Step 1 – Export ProRes 422HQ versions from Premiere
Step 2 – Import the masters into Final Cut Pro X
Step 3 – Do the rate conversion In FCP X, because it works as well, and often better than a Terranex
So that’s it, 3 easy steps to getting a high quality rate converted master from Premiere
In recent twitter post. Ievgenii Larin wrote:
“If you want to grasp the Magnetic Timeline, open Premiere, put a stereo audio clip into a sequence and try to change stereo to dual mono.”
So I did. 🙂
The new Essential Graphics Panel in Premiere is a welcome addition, and is being compared to FCP X’s Motion Templates.
While I’m sure that – like FCP X – 3’rd parties will make some cool stuff, let’s take a quick look at the stock titles in Premiere vs the stock templates in FCP X.
Again, this is only the standard titles included in each app from the factory.
As this is a topic that seems to cause some confusion, I thought I’d write a little post about it. It confuses me sometimes too, so this post is also for me… to refer to when my brain freezes up. I’ve included the obligatory video below. It’s too long for a Gif-Tip™, but I’ve tried to be uncharacteristically concise. 🙂
So… there are 3 main ways to mute or disable audio in FCP X, all of which have different results. If you know what’s what, it’ll make your life easier, particularly when exporting movies, audio, or fcpxml to send to translation apps such as X2Pro. Here they is:
-Turning off the Role in the Timeline Index mutes it for playback, but it will still play if and when you export the Project with a comp mix. You can of course exclude Roles if you export a multitrack Quicktime (for stems, mix minus etc). **Update… as with the Inspector, disabled Roles will not appear in fcpxml exports.
-Disabling (Muting) an audio clip or component (multichannel track) in the Timeline (V key) will do what you’d expect, you won’t hear it, and it won’t play in an export. However, it will be shown as enabled in an fcpxml export, and will appear, muted, in anything that uses that xml for translation.
-Disabling a clip or component in the Inspector makes it inaudible during Playback and export, it will not be shown in the timeline, and the fcpxml will indicate that it is disabled and it shouldn’t be included in any translations. **There is a preference in X2Pro (and other translation apps) that lets you choose to exclude or include disabled items the AAF.
With multichannel clips, the only way to not have all the components appear in an AAF, is to disable individual components in the Inspector. If you only want CH-1 & 3, you need to uncheck all the others.
** In X2Pro’s preferences, you can choose whether you want disabled clips/components to excluded, or included but muted. Make sure you set it for what you want!
For an exciting moving pictorial version of this post, see below. Hope it helps!
For some time now, aficionados of Premiere Pro have touted its ability to do “Pancake” editing. Huh? Well, in Premiere, you can stack (get it? stack… like pancakes) multiple timelines to quickly access string outs or sequences of selects etc., and add them to a cut. This is also often cited – by FCP X critics – as something you can’t do in FCP X.
Now, this is a really nice feature… in Premiere. But, it’s a technique that is completely unnecessary in FCP X. Why? Because in X you have access to everything, always. Have a look at the video below for an explanation. It’s not too long and rambling… honest!
Another “criticism” of FCP X, and alleged benefit of Premiere, is that it allows you to use a sequence as a source, and FCP X does not. Again, this is false. In X, you just do it differently… using compound clips.
In Premiere, making a sequence into a Nested Clip to use as a source is possible, but it’s really not a great way to do it. The main reason is that you can’t easily reveal the multiple clips inside the Nest once you’ve cut it into a sequence.
You also can use a sequence as a source, but the track targeting madness involved in doing that, with anything but the simplest sequence, is… maddening. So you use “Pancakes” as a workaround.
In X, using a Compound Clip made from a source project is a great way to use an existing cut as a source, as getting back to the clips in the Compound Clip is simple. The video below illustrates this, but the difference can be summed up in these “instructions”:
Ensure the nest toggle is off (upper left corner of timeline window), mark in and out on your nested clip, put the playhead at the top of the clip (in point) then match frame back to the nested sequence, then overwrite with the appropriate patching and voila your nested clip will be replaced with the contents of your original sequence.
Select the clip and press SHIFT-CMD-G.
A couple days ago, Apple posted a job opening for an Assistant Editor to work in the Beats marketing dept. The skill set required included Premiere, Avid, ProTools, and Resolve. No mention of FCP X or Logic.
Now, as this is for a position at Beats (Apple owned but a separate division) it’s likely they have an existing workflow using these apps, and for all we know they use PC’s too. Not the most PR aware thing in the world for Apple to do, but… whatever. Hell, I seriously doubt iCloud runs on Apple hardware, and it’s likely many Apple commercials are not cut using Apple software. Like Beats, the agencies they hire use whatever they use. But unlike Beats, they’re not owned by Apple, so their jobs aren’t posted on the corporate job board.
However, someone – who apparently isn’t a fan of FCP X – picked up on this, and then posted an article on The Verge with the clickbait title “Even Apple doesn’t want to use Final Cut Pro X”. It worked, the article is now linked to or referenced by everyone who ever had a problem with FCP X. It’s on anti-X websites/pages, it’s on pro-X websites and pages. And once again, the morons are out in force gleefully braying:
They’re just making sure they get a real editor not a wedding editor. Haha
Hahaaaa, if this wasn’t proof enough!
The best part about this advert is how all the FCPX fanboys are losing their shit saying it doesn’t matter. Yet every time FCPX is used for a TV show/feature “FCPX is amazing”.
OK, first off, the “wedding editor” insult really needs to be retired. I’ve seen wedding videos that make some feature films I’ve seen look like crap. Second, the fact that Beats is hiring an editor in Culver City doesn’t in any way reflect on what software “Apple” does or doesn’t want to use.
It seems to me that the majority of the vehement FCP X hate comes from former, or current, FCP “Classic” users who have some sort of weird psychological abandonment issues with Apple. I’m not talking about people who just don’t like X, or for whom X isn’t a good workflow fit, there are perfectly valid not to use any NLE. No, I’m talking about people who either tried X once 4 years ago, or who have never used it, and revel in every bit of opinion they can find to use as confirmation bias.
I know things like this are meaningless, and I suppose by even writing this post, I’m feeding the fire. But I work in a world where people have a real hard time accepting FCP X. Not for any serious technical reasons, but because they keep hearing crap like this and giving it credence. And for the record, I do think Apple needs to figure out a better PR approach for their pro apps.
But, just in case you were wondering… the people who take pleasure in spouting this nonsense, including whoever wrote this Verge “article”, have no idea what the fuck they are talking about.
It’s been pointed out that you do need to set your Roles properly in FCP X to enable this process. Takes about 10 seconds when you import files, (Role-O-Matic helps with more complicated situations) so I guess that’s 1 more step…
And… it’s been further pointed out that setting Roles is the equivalent of patching tracks, so it isn’t an extra step. This would be true… if you only needed to patch tracks once. This (obviously) isn’t the case. No matter how you slice it, it’s demonstrably easier to export splits from FCP X.
There’s a recent article by Scott Simmons at Pro Video Coalition that asks Are You… Defined By Your NLE? It’s quite good, check it out. In it he brings up the age old practice of NLE bashing, and uses examples from an FCP X-centric Facebook group where some people, who don’t use Premiere, love to denigrate it. I know there are plenty of examples of Adobe/Avid evangelists bashing FCP X, but I’d like to talk a bit about the FCP X evangelists.
Now, it’s probably obvious I’m a big fan of FCP X and it’s always my first choice, but it’s not the only NLE I use. One week I’ll be mostly in X, another in Premiere. Sometimes I still cut in 7, and I stay on top of Media Composer and Resolve. Hit Film and Lighworks are somewhere on my system as well. Not sure where, but I have ’em! Often I’ll be cutting different things at the same time in both X and Premiere. I prefer X, and I’d be lying if I said I was above a little NLE smack-talk myself. But, as I actually use the NLE’s I talk about, I try to be fair. I like to think I mostly succeed.
DOCK FIGHT!
There is a lot of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about FCP X being spread on the internets, generally by people who don’t use it. (see a pattern here?) I’ve said this before, if you actually use an NLE for real – meaning you cut and complete actual jobs in it – then I’ll listen to you. If you only use one NLE, and would like to put down another, I respectfully invite you to STFU. Which, finally, brings me to the point of this post…
There are a number of very vocal supporters of FCP X who fall into the latter category. People who love to pontificate on the superiority of FCP X without any real clue as to:
A-what they’re talking about, or
B-what other NLE’s are actually capable of.
I participate in a bunch of NLE related forums, some of which have a lot of anti-FCP X participants, and I’m happy to engage in spirited debates with these folks. My feeling is that informed discussion is way more likely to change minds than unchecked, and often misinformed, evangelism.
But more often than not, in the midst of a heated, yet (mostly) reasonable discussion, an FCP X evangelist will appear, post a paragraph or two of semi-insulting, generally misinformed bullshit, and completely ruin the discussion. If I was opening the door to someone accepting FCP X, the evangelism slams it shut.
These people do more harm than good to the adoption of FCP X by “professionals”. No NLE is perfect, and anyone who proclaims the one they prefer is perfect, is full of crap. There are many self-proclaimed Final Cut Pro “experts” on the web, but the folks you should listen to are those that have experience in multiple NLE’s. They can tell you the good, the bad, and the ugly, based on experience.
So, in closing, if you love a particular NLE, but have no experience with other NLE’s then please, try and keep the competition bashing and pontificating to a minimum. And if you are in that category of users, and FCP X is your love… Do all of us who are trying to help FCP X gain much deserved acceptance a favor. Shut up. All due respect of course.
So I’m working on some stuff this week, and needed to move a project into FCP 7. Ran the fcpxml through Xto7 and spent about 5-10 minutes deleting disabled audio channels, and importing the GFX I had done in X that can’t be done in 7. Then, for laughs, I imported the sequence into PrCC.
In X, I had done some title cards, a quad split in a compound clip with Motion Generator animating dividing lines, some basic color corrections and a few effects added to some shots. I had to export the cards and the quad split thing as comped movies because the title tools in other NLE’s suck, and neither 7 or Pr could easily do the line animation stuff. Certainly possible, but more of a PITA than in X.
However, that tech crap isn’t the point of this bit of babbling. The point is, that when I work on the exact same project in all 3 NLE’s, it’s really apparent how much easier it is to get things done in X. (I was gonna do it in MC too, but it’d take half the day to AMA relink the media…) Not to say that there aren’t some things I miss from 7 and Pr when I’m in X, or that X is perfect, but overall FCP X is a much more pleasant place for me to work.
Here’s a little comparison, the same spot in all 3. For the pics, just to be fair, I broke apart the comp containing the quad split in X. Nesting stuff is OK in Pr, but awful in 7. Working in Compound Clips and using Multichannel Secondary’s in FCP X is a huge timeline clutter/eye saver. I also just left the “text” clips that were adjustment layers in X. Could have redone ’em in Pr, but not in 7. Faster just to export as a comp from X.
But seriously, explain to me why anyone would actually prefer to stare at either of the top 2 screens all day. What a mess. 😉 For what it’s worth, I do stare at Pr and 7 all day quite often, so I’m qualified to whine about it. lol
EDIT: by request, The FCP X timeline with everything collapsed added above the 3 shot. Clean!
Another quickie. This is something that you may know, but for those that don’t it’s pretty handy. It is possible to jump into a Compound Clip that’s in a Project and have the Playhead position in the CC match that of the project. Very useful for adjusting timing of picture in a Compound Clip to music in a project, or music/sfx in a Compound Clip to Project picture. If you don’t have 2 minutes to watch the video, here’s the tip:
Don’t use the button on the clip to “step in” to the Compound. Just double click the top of the clip. Give it a try!
Unfortunately doesn’t work for MultiClips, so send feedback to Apple. Hope it’s useful. 🙂
... the world from 40,000' at 500 mph.
a blog by Oliver Peters
Just another WordPress.com site
Deep Thoughts about FCP X, and why you should be using it.
