DigitalFurball

Joined on Feb 23, 2010

Comments

Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4
On article Head to Head: Apple Final Cut Pro vs Adobe Premiere Pro (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

Francis Sawyer: "For example, the difference between H.264 'Faster Encode' and H.264 'Higher Quality' isn't explained anywhere in Apple's documentation"

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." FCP is no more pro than the MacBook Pro's embarrassing emoji bar.

It sucks that FCP is popular with schools, because kids are learning brain-dead, incorrect terms and workflow for no benefit. I really wanted to like the "new" FCP because the old one's UI sucked hideously. But nope.

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.

That’s right, it’s so obviously not pro, that one of the most fashionable post houses in the UK cut huge commercials with it. See work here: http://www.trimediting.com/ I’m sure the stymied frame accurate editing isn’t a requirement of commercial delivery for massive clients …. “Incorrect workflow” how in the word did you come to that conclusion? If anything PP’s tape based UI and workflow is what should not be being taught in schools.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2021 at 12:59 UTC
In reply to:

Juppeck: For me, as a native windows user, the planned path to the x64 Mac OSX platform, with the switch from Apple to an ARM platform, is now completely out of the question. Apple's switch from PowerPC to Intel x64 and now to ARM leaves users in the rain. It's not about the extra performance of the ARM - which actually doesn't exist, but about the greater profit that Apple now wants to reap in-house instead of having to pay third parties for graphics cards and processors. The cost share of a Mac just for these two components is considerable.
But one thing is clear - Apple has everything in its own hands again and can determine what, where and how in a device can be done. Even if an i9 already provides enormous computing power - unfortunately it is still at its roots and this costs performance and flexibility.

"It's not about the extra performance of the ARM - which actually doesn't exist,"
Sorry, but you seem to be living on some other planet. The 13inch macbook pro is significantly faster then the MacPro with twin D700s I have at work. do some research before spouting nonsense.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2020 at 11:28 UTC
In reply to:

tvstaff: This all seems so barbaric. All this should be automated to the point you shoot the color checker; plug your camera into your PC or MAC and it's done. This all reminds me of the old days of tube radios. Same with lens and camera MA. Technology is such that color accuracy and focus should be automated.

I'd say it was more archaic than barbaric

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2019 at 16:36 UTC

Welcome to the world of the cinematographer in digital. This is why LUTs are used and people shoot in LOG. And understanding how the dynamic range changes above and below middle gray. The only true way to know whats going on in your workflow is to test. Jpg (and ISO) like LUTS give a rough guide which works just fine for probably 95% of shooting. Any deeper understanding really requires testing on your specific camera for the type of shoot you are doing. And to be honest, working out where your time is better spent - either testing the life out of a camera, or simply getting out there and shooting loads with a system which gets you pretty close most of the time - is up to you.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2018 at 13:47 UTC as 125th comment
Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4