FCP 7 vs. Adobe Premiere CS5
 

hey all,

the production group im working with now has been using adobe premiere cs3. as a result of numerous issues and problems with premiere and PCs - they've decided to switch to MACs. However the debate within the group seems to be FCP vs Premiere as the next editing program.

any suggestions? thoughts? i know its personal opinion in the end, but what are some fundamental differences with FCP and the new CS5 Premiere? the group also in the past has relied on photoshop, inllustrator, and after effects. would that play a role in selecting FCP vs CS5?

thanks in advance!

FCP's ability to load Photoshop and Illustrator (and other Adobe) files is pretty pale in comparison to Premiere Pro.

CS5 is actually pretty stable. Even in CS3 and CS4, those who ran with the larger systems weren't as frustrated as those whose systems were less capable.

If Premiere is doing everything that you need it to do, there is a definite advantage to sticking with a program that your group is already familiar with. You also use all the other programs in the suite, so Premier is basically free.

One of the reasons that I chose FC over Premiere is that I have a good friend that's a pro editor in Nashville. FC gave me the ability to send projects to him for packaging for broadcast etc. So if you do everything in house, that would cut out that aspect.

PP CS3 was buggy and not as stable as FCP 6 was. However with CS4 came significant stability bug fixes and a few minor advances in workflow options over FCP. Now with CS5 (and I'm on the CS5 beta team so I've been working with it since before it's release) PP has made significant jumps over FCP in many key areas from workflow, drag-n-drop codec options and real-time rendering using the newer Nvidia cards (Mercury engine) that blows away anything FCP is currently capable of in any hardware configuration.

The other thing to consider - as pointed out in countless and growing number of threads - is that Apple, more directly Steve Jobs - has quite a bit of reverse-direction momentum going. Apple is fighting everybody from Adobe to Sony to it's third-party developers and has numerous lawsuits filed and pending, more than any time in Apple history. Not to mention that their hardware offerings continue to reduce functionality in favor of "beauty" (see the latest MBP "updates" as proof of that) all the while raising prices - for no good reason.

In short, both you and your client would be well served in taking a much harder and unbiased look at both PP and current PC hardware offerings. You get more for your money and aren't being shackled into NOT getting all the things Apple refuses to play nice with, everything from Flash, to Blu-Ray and now even video card development. It's just become insanity to ad-nauseam in Mac-land these days.

Robert

At some point perhaps sooner than I'd like, I'm going to have to replace my 3 1/2 year old MBP. Not knowing the Adobe programs very well means a learning curve I'd rather do on my timetable. Ideally the next iteration of FCS will have been released by the time I need new hardware so at least we'll all know what the future of Apple Pro Apps really is. So my questions are:

1. What's your take on the CS5 Mac version. Is it as capable as that for PC. My understanding is that was not the case at least up until CS3???
2. Is it a crazy idea to consider putting CS5 PC version on a Mac/bootcamp setup so at least if I do jump to PC I have the right software. Sure sounds crazy...

I'm ready to stay the course with FCS3 for now, but if the MBP dies too soon then I have a big decision to make.

Thanks

i personally think CS5 looks awesome currently working on a mac and FCP and thinking hard why would i want to purchase a new mac pro when for under $1500 i can build my self a powerhouse PC i am so sick of over blown prices by Apple i just need performance not even Sony's Pro range of cameras are over priced

My change is coming very soon if apple dont release something soon. Even Edius runs in realtime better then FCP

I had to redo this post; I was really going on a rant, so let me simplify the reply:

PP CS5 is literally 2.5 generations *ahead* of FCP in every aspect that matters, from workflow to rendering engine capabilities. Not to mention Adobe Media Encoder can make a final broadcast-quality encode 3-4x times faster than Compressor - and at higher quality settings to boot with better end results.

Personally if you or anyone else is at a point where it's time to replace old or failing hardware then you'd better take a very hard look at a Win-7 based system, either tower or laptop. There is absolutely no compelling reason to drop hard-earned cash on Apple premium pricing when both capabilities in hardware and software are being removed, shackled and or ignored.

I began on Premiere 6 and didn't find the transition to FCP hard so i guess the transitio0n back wont be a problem.

The only problem i had with premiere was if i didn't have the correct hardware you would have problems. Is this still the issue.

Apple had and probably still has the upper hand with stability.

Not at all, and I seriously doubt FCP is any more stable than and current NLE available; there are obviously thousands of posts from users with tons of stability-related issues on the FCP platform.

Stability, whether it's PC or Mac based, has always been about the foundation the NLE lives on. If it's installed on a system with a wacky directory or one that's constantly pounded by all the temp and cache files generated by web use then you can expect that at some point things will go wonky. Proper system and software maintenance coupled with common-sense separation from business and web-use has always been the hallmark of a stable edit box. In fact at most post houses worldwide and regardless of the platform the system the NLE lives on simply does not have access to the 'net at all. The scenario of the edit station being vulnerable to web-based crap has always been the domain of single-user home or small-business based systems, not serious edit houses.

If you want a stable system PC or Mac then put your big dollar equipment into the system that houses your NLE, get some cheapie low-end system - a $300 laptop even - and use that for all your web stuff.

The only hardware-specific issue with PP currently is the Mercury engine requires a high-end Nvidia card to get all the acceleration benefits. Outside of that and CS5 will happily do it's job on any recent Intel-based Mac or PC made in the past 2 years.

But I want to reiterate a point I made in other thread recently: The consideration for someone who is currently Mac-based to jump ship into PP and even consider the PC environment should only be made by those who are forced into making a major hardware purchase, either because their system is too old or is or has failed.

The reason I say this is because while PP CS5 is a major leap forward from FCP7 the cost and time involved in making a system-wide change like that isn't worthwhile just for the sake of making the changeover. FCP does it's job very well and there's no reason to dump it just on the principle of actually being able to do more work or have a faster workflow (both of which PP offers vs. FCP7). However if you're at an impasse with your current setup and are forced into purchasing replacement hardware then it's absolutely the time to make these overall considerations.

As things stand right this moment, with no hint of FCP8 on the horizon, no clear idea of what it will look like and and all the things Apple has stated they will *not* do (BR, Flash and special video-card development already available for others) if I were in the situation stated above I'd make a Win-7 PP edit box my system of choice (with Avid co-loaded for film-based work) and I'd keep my MBP for all my web-based work and downloading all the updates for my PC too.

Why would I not just use a Mac and BootCamp? A) Steve Jobs has now chosen to dictate to companies like Nvidia what he will and won't support in processor paths which means some of the best video cards for editors won't be Mac-compatible (again) - if he gets his way, B) Jobs/Apple has already forced their hand with BR and Flash, C) I'm sick and tired of having a "high-end" laptop that doesn't have an EC34 slot and only a single FW port - and a damned glossy screen to boot!!! (my older MBP was replaced by Apple at no-charge because of the Nvidia recall issue - but they wouldn't give me a non-glare screen. Nice).

And to the Apple fan-boys who would say, "who cares about BR or Flash anyway...". OK fine. I couldn't care less who likes or uses things like BR or not. However, it's one thing to simply not want or use it, it's a totally different thing to not even be allowed the option! I mean c'mon, enough is enough already.

When a company purposely removes capabilities from your toolkit then it's time to get a different set of tools.

Robert,

Actually, one of the key reasons I bought a Mac Pro was options! Yeah, you actually heard me just say
that. I was figuring, if I bought a Mac Pro, I could run FCP on it, and if the next version of FCP was a 'dud' then I could run Adobe CS 5 on it, or even use it under bootcamp to run Vegas or another NLE. I've been told that a Mac Pro is a screaming windows 7 box as well. Now I have the latest Final Cut Studio AND
CS 5 installed on my Mac Pro. But I don't think their 'pro' hardware is the problem. Sure, you pay a little
more for a Mac Pro than a comparable PC (although if you buy from the Apple refurb store like I did, it's
not as much more as some might think.) The problem seems to be with everything BUT their pro hardware.
They only seem to have one model of Macbook Pro that should even be CALLED a Macbook Pro in my opinion, and that is the 17 inch version. Their Mac Pros are fine machines though. And the other issue, is the software side of things. It 'appears' to many that they are 'abandoning' their pro users on FCP.
Personally, I'm not ready to give up on them yet. I can afford a bit of a wait as my market has absolutely
NO use for Blu Ray yet, and in fact I can't even GIVE AWAY Blu Ray production and editing. I still
believe that the next version of FCP......the one optimized for Snow Leopard from the ground up.....
will be a doozy.
However, if I am wrong, and if the next version of FCP is NOT a big upgrade.......THEN you may
see something that I would have never in my lifetime predicted......me switching from FCP to
Adobe CS.....

FYI, you DON'T need a high-end nvidia card to work with CS5's hardware acceleration. All you need is an nvidia card with 896MB ram or more and add the card's name into a text file. Check out the threads in the Adobe forum.

The speed of CS5 with hardware acceleration is absolutely amazing. I tested CS4 vs CS5 with 3 avchd layers and the same 8 effects on each layer. Exported a 2min clip, CS4 took 46 mins and CS5 took just under 9 mins. (using an i7 PC w/12GB ram & GTX 275)

Another reason for CS5 is Dynamic Link between Premiere, After Effects & Encore. To get similar a function of DL with After Effects & FCP requires a $500 program (Automatic Duck). If you only use DL a little now with CS3, you will use it far more with CS5 due to great speed improvements (thanks to Premiere & AE CS5 being 64bit native). Furthermore, you can have a guy working in AE with Photoshop or Illustrator files and have another guy altering those files on another computer, and all it takes to update in AE is a simple right-click (assuming the files stay in the same folder).

And for those considering a pre-built PC, check out the HP Z800. I ordered one with dual 6 core Xeons, Quadro FX 3800 and 24GB ram for $5500. (The ram I ordered from newegg - $1000) By just requesting a quote from HP, they knocked 25% off of the web price (web original=$6000, quote=$4500).

Also, the Z800 gives you MORE PCI Express connections vs the Mac Pro. I actually considered a Mac Pro (to run Smoke) but they cannot come close to fitting all my cards and give me room for expansion (FX 3800, PCIe to Expresscard for SxS cards, Areca 1680ix, Kona, ASUS USB 3.0)

Lots of different needs to consider when changing Platforms, let alone NLEs. When you combine the two decisions, it can be overwhelming when faced with options.

And options are really what people want, in the end.. No one likes to be shut out of having options. Options to run programs, options to upgrade, options to switch.

I happen to cut on Avid. I've worked with FCP and Vegas in my work at a television station, but honestly my NLE of choice is Avid. I learned NLE on Premiere, way back when (I forget which version) but I'm not really competent in it any more. I bring this up because for years I heard "Avid is TOO PICKY" with it's hardware requirements. (A sentiment I've just heard expressed in this thread regarding Premier)

C'mon guys, how much more 'picky' can a company be, then requiring you to buy A SPECIFIC BRAND OF COMPUTER? Final Cut only runs on Apple. Period. Sounds kind of 'picky' to me. I like FCP okay, it has some nifty features - the biggest one was it's price compared to others 'back in the day' - but that's gone now.

Avid and Premiere both run on Macs and PC. Don't know about Premiere, but AVID ships with a copy FOR BOTH PLATFORMS. So when you buy it, if you have a Mac and change to PC, you're good to go. Or the other way round for that matter.

Ultimately the choice will come down to money. TIME is money as well. Will it take MORE TIME to learn a 'new' NLE? What is your time worth? Will you have other 'upgrades' to other software packaged if you make a platform switch?

As other's have pointed out stability is really a matter of dedicating your editing system to EDITING. Try and keep the games and web surfing off the money making machine. If that's possible.

Good luck on making up a decision tree based on your needs. They're all good, they all have strengths and weaknesses - for my part, I like to keep my options open.

Gabe, Steve and Richard,

You all bring up valid and well thought-out points and coupled with my own commentary probably represents the most well-rounded "think about it" approach to the current situation for Mac editors.

Too bad just a section of a thread can't be made a "temporary sticky"; I think this information will be invaluable now and for the next 4 months while things continue to develop - or regress - in the Apple camp while current and potential Mac users suss out the situation with what to do or not to do with Apple products.

And more to Richards point, I couldn't agree more. Avid is more often than not completely discounted by FCP and PP users who assume the cost is too high (however recent educational pricing for students makes it a steal). However when you realize what it would take to make FCP or even PP perform to the level of Avid the costs differential becomes nullified.

Personally if any editor had a copy of Production Premium CS5 and Avid concurrently they'd never need or want anything else, period. That's a do-all, be-all combination.

Avid's strength seems to remain that it's designed for fast cutting...good asset management...keyboard-intense operation for more speed than using a mouse.

Avid's main limitation for many of us who work with tons of graphics, is that the last time I looked at it, it didn't have the graphics file flexibility of FCP, which really isn't even in striking distance (in that function) of Adobe...

Also, I'd say the workflow when you're working with videos for screen delivery with non-video frame sizes, it seems that Adobe handles mixing assets like Camtasia files, video files, and various types of graphics on a timeline that is 1024x768 very easily.

With any of these applications, it's a matter of getting an interface that makes sense to you and functionality that makes sense to you...and get to work.

For the poster that asked about Edius and Real_Time.... Edius fries everything else I've ever seen for RT-period. It's PC only and has some unique bits of interface...but I have yet to see anything that can mix as many formats on one timeline and just play it out on a given machine configuration.

In my opinion, FCP, Avid and Premiere Pro aren't even in the same category as Edius if it's speed of playout response with a dog's breakfast of assets on one timeline we're talking about.

Back in the P2HD tour of '07 that I did for Panasonic the rep for Edius was at several of the tour locations showing off what was then the latest and greatest, right after NAB '07. It blew away anything on the market back then and in fact I'd put that now older version up against anything from Apple, Adobe or Avid and it would most likely outperform them all.

In fact, the Edius rep demoed the NLE on an HP laptop with guess what... a second internal HDD that came standard with the machine. And costing far far less than Apple's 17" incher even back then.

Grass Valley just hasn't done a very good job of marketing the product which is why it's so often not on anyone's radar - it even escapes mine from time to time. But poor marketing doesn't mean it's not a top-notch NLE, it totally is.

This is a perfect example of why Apple is perceived to be a superior product, because they outspend just about everyone else in making their marketing efforts huge and uber-glossy. Trouble is, it's just marketing, not truth.

Eduis has a slightly different approach to the UI than the others but once you get your head around it's interface it's a screamer. You also won't find as many plug-ins or filter packs available for it as it's competitors but in the right hands that wouldn't be much of a limitation.

And then there's this...

AppleInsider | Apple scaling Final Cut Studio apps to fit prosumers

Charles,

That is 'news' from a rumor site, written by an author who does not have a great track record of predicting
Apple's next move......in other words, Area 51 material......which is why there is a thread dedicated to that very issue in 'Area 51'.

There's a lot of myth, misinformation and downright lies about Avid, PP CS5 and Edius's true capabilities and costs. I've got reviews of all coming soon, Avid won't be until sometime next month. After the reviews are up those wanting/needing/considering options against FCP will have a lot more info to use for an educated choice.

A hint: Avid's new version 5 will blow away those old stereotypical notions of both cost (it's not as pricey as people always expect it to be) and ease of use.

I for one am looking forward to seeing your review. I used Avid a long time ago and bought Vegas for home use because of cost-vs-effectiveness issues. Now I have an Intel Mac with Final Cut Studio on the Mac side, and Sony Vegas Pro on the Windows side. I find that FCP does what they say it will do... but, boy is it klunky compared to Vegas, Avid and Edius. I can't speak for PP, but I know folks who have it and FCP and they say FCP pretty much gathers rust. In any case, it would be really nice to see Avid back in the game.

I'll be very interested in that review as well, Avid is the one system I've never been able to try. I agree with Charles about FCP feeling clunky compared to the other NLE's. I use Vegas, PP and FCP all quiet a bit and FCP really does feel outdated compared to the other two. It cant seem to compete with the speed of editing and comparability with files that Vegas and PP offer.

For anyone deciding between FCP and Adobe/Avid, you must realize that the Apple/FCP route ties you down to whatever Steve Jobs 'lets' you have in the future. It doesn't matter how great Media Composer and Premiere become because Jobs knows that FCP users are stuck; so, he can remove important features (expresscard) and slow down software (compressor).

Avid never left the game but because Apple's uber-glossy marketing engine had everyone snowballed for years that FCP was the "be-all-end-all" of NLE's it left the newbies and misinformed to believe that Avid and other options were either inferior or too costly. Both obviously far from being truth, but Apple is king when it comes to creating over-hyped perception of it's products. (Can you imagine what would happen to American auto-makers if Apple ran their marketing? Ha!)

What's interesting is that the *only* reason I got involved with FCP at all is because years ago I was supposed to work collaboratively with another editor who was already Mac based on a "big" project I was funding and producing. So rather than worry about PC to Mac conversions I invested heavily in the Mac camp, taught myself and later became a self-made expert on everything FCP/Apple related. If I didn't have to contend with this supposed collaboration (which by a nasty twist never occurred due to lack of cooperation on the other end) I would have gone with Avid straight-away, no questions asked. That it was then...

I'm excited to finally shed light on the shadows of myth surrounding all the competitive NLE's; the only one I'm not reviewing is Sony Vegas but I'm sure later this year I will.

It's time for Mac editors to un-shackle themselves from the schizophrenic "Daddy knows best - until I change my mind again" nonsense of Steve Jobs and his reverse-direction momentum. I'm going to help that process any way I can.

may I say, back to the original question - PP CS5 now EXPORTS FCP XML ! so you can swap XML files with FCP edits pretty easily.

as for avid's MC5, short answer, they are finally catching up to everyone else with drag and drop TL operations. they are really copying what every other NLE can do... finally after 15 years!

having used keyboard editing and mouse editing, get a tablet ! much more controlled then a mouse. I find most pure keystroke driven editing modes to be slower then mouse + a few select keystrokes.

you guys are also forgetting about smoke which is now $15K on a mac. once you graduate beyond basic editing, smoke is pretty kick a$$ in what it can do. its a full 3D compositing environment, grading setup, decent audio mixing... but it does have a quirky interface and workflow.

"It's time for Mac editors to un-shackle themselves from the schizophrenic "Daddy knows best - until I change my mind again" nonsense of Steve Jobs and his reverse-direction momentum. I'm going to help that process any way I can."

Any timeline on when we can expect your reviews? Sorry...I'm kind of impatient:)

Actually, I'm seriously considering the purchase of CS5 Master Collection. My wife has been a photographer for 15 years, and is a Photoshop expert. We've had PS since CS2...but I've always used FCP for my video business.

Since CS5 dropped, and they added 64bit support for Mac across the spectrum, I've given the trial a run on our MacPro. Absolutely phenomenal! And I'm as green on PP as possible. (However, I've used FCP for almost 7 years now). I'm also very excited about learning After Effects.

I'm happy that I can run Windows on our Mac Pro...as this essentiallly gives me two machines in one, and I still rely on the old tried and true "Audition" from Adobe on Windows. However, moving forward in this economy, I'm not so sure my next workstation will be another $6k Mac Pro. Hence, the reason to start learning PP, and possibly AVID> Which brings me to my next question. I suppose I could search a bit...but is AVID still proprietary system dependent?

I switched to Mac 8 years ago...and absolutely LOVE OSX! However, I made the switch after a couple years battling XP Pro. I'm very impressed with Win7, and again...the reason for the intrigue of learning a different, and Cross-Platform NLE.

While I'm not anti-"Jobs"....I am a bit concerned about the future of Mac's professional environment. Just considering the success of the iPad (2 million in 60 days???)...iPhone, iPod, and the intrigue to the general public of the iMacs and MacBooks. That is obviously where they are making their money. Is it enough for the "Bean-Counters" to sway the future of the company? After all, the did change their name to just Apple!

Again, I'm a HUGE fan of OSX....and I don't want to switch if I don't have to. However, I don't have to with Adobe's software which is cool. One thing at a time:)

Definitely, and anxiously awaiting your reviews:)

Thanks

J

It would also be nice to just have to upgrade one suite (since I upgrade PS on a regular basis). I am a little miffed that the upgrade is the same form PS-ext or PS though.

Have never had ANY problems with PS, how's Adobes pro support for their other aps?

I'm good for now, but if the next FCS is a long time coming, or is nothing special, then I'll probably switch.

I suppose I could search a bit...but is AVID still proprietary system dependent?

Can you clarify this question? Do you mean it will only run on a proprietary OS, like Final Cut Pro? Avid will run on PC or MAC, always has AND IT SHIPS with copies of BOTH VERSIONS. Buy it, you can always change platforms.. So I'm not sure if that qualifies for proprietary in your book.

Will it run on 'anything'? No. It's a very sophisticated system, and AVID sets out specs for running the various versions - you can check them on their websites. They will offer assistance in trouble shooting if you have followed their specs, if not, they can only shrug and say "Can't help you'. The AVID forum is full of people who have built their own 'non certified' systems, and are happily running AVID, and will offer advice.

AVID was never 'out of the game' - if you're talking about feature films and television. Still the industry leader and standard bearer - but certainly lost market share to small indy shops and boutique ad agencies.

I run both FCP and CS5. I wasn't a fan of Premiere CS4 as it dropped frames and stopped for me way too much but the new Mercury engine is the real deal. I'm pushing a project though it right now with RED footage in realtime without the need for an online/offline and FCP's uber-slow injest. It has been great. I will say though that at the end I'll be kicking out an XML to conform on FCP so I can do sound in Soundtrack Pro which I prefer over what Adobe offers and CC in Color.

i have a fully built computer, with fast hard drives, and i have windows 7 on one partition, and mac snow leopard 10.6.2 on the other...

i currently have CS4&CS5 suite, and final cut pro 7...

i have tried every single workflow i can between cs5 & fcp 7 and here is what i come up with...


Using premiere cs5:

- my 7d footage must be either DNxHD, or Cineform avi.....DNxHD is not that easy to edit with premiere as premiere is NOT native to any form of quicktime...

- cineform neoscene avi files are industry standard files, but have a big color shift in the whites...

- real time is pretty nice with .avi files from cineform

- compressed exported files from media encoder (especially h.264) lose too much noticable quality for my taste

Using FCP 7 w/compressor

- rendering sometimes can be a pain, everytime you add a audio or video file you have to render (rather quick tho on my built pc)

- prores 422 (hq) retains FAR LESS color shift than any codec with premiere pro cs4/cs5

- fcp is easier to navigate around with

- compressor is slower than media encoder but produces very VERY GREAT results with highly compressed formats of h.264



all in all i have compared the same footage, i had a sample from my 7d, converted to cineform avi, and sent out to h.264 with media encoder, and then converted the raw footage to proress 422 hq, and then used compressor to make a h.264 video...ALL settings were identical, the video stood up much better in the prores 422 hq codec...

all in all i LOVE final cut pro/soundtrack pro/compressor

but each to their own

The new version of Avid isn't shipping until tomorrow so I'm going to do the reviews en-masse so I can competently compare them all against FCP rather than do them one-at-a-time. It's more efficient for me that way; expect the reviews to come later this month, no exact date yet as I'm also waiting on other hardware to arrive for the DSLR workflows section.

In the meantime, try the CS5 demo. I have and I recommended it to several clients who already use the Adobe graphic suites. My opinion, Premier CS5 is a very powerful program that can work for the person who can leverage it's strengths over it's weaknesses. First of all, it's ability to play files with several levels of filters without rendering is great. Shows you what your computer can really do with 64bit processing and some good hardware savvy programming. The ability to play different codecs without conversion in a single timeline is great although the program put up an error box initially about some JVC HDV m2t files I brought in but it played them regardless. Adobe needs to come up with some sort of equivalent to ProRes in the setup of the projects, not an actually codec but some simple defaults that are codec independent.

The biggest problem I have with it (and the same complaint came from my clients) was the Premier GUI. It's very dense compared to FCP without any real benefit to a user with basic editing needs. I found it to be more dense than AE which itself can be tough with complex projects. None of the clients are really concerned with 64bit as they are not doing anything that computers haven't been able to do in HD easily for a few years now. Also Adobe needs to hire a technically proficient proofreader for the Premier web pages, the last I looked, several HD codecs were listed in the standard definition codec column.

"The biggest problem I have with it (and the same complaint came from my clients) was the Premier GUI. It's very dense compared to FCP without any real benefit to a user with basic editing needs. I found it to be more dense than AE which itself can be tough with complex projects."



No offense but I really don't understand this statement at all! The Premiere Pro GUI is the best out of any of NLE's that I use. I use the three major players and find Premiere to be the easiest to navigate and I can find anything I need in an instant. The first time I ever opened it...it just made sense.

I think one of the biggest issues I have is the whole transcode. I am shooting all AVCHD, and CS5
can edit it natively, even on my mac pro. Add a separate blu ray burner and toast, and you're
in the game. I love Apple hardware and OS, but at this point I wouldn't mind dumping FCP7
for CS5. Guess we'll have to wait and see what iFCP has to offer for codecs before making
a final decision.

Premiere's GUI / Interface can be greatly customized to suit just about any editing task. You can easily move windows around and save each interface setup, and the setups can be either recalled manually or saved as part of a project.

Obviously, your clients are not aware of the benefits from 64bit software, which is understandable. If you demonstrated FCP and Premiere CS5 next to one another, showing the entire workflow from ingest to output, I guarantee that your clients would be impressed by CS5 for several reasons - 1) FCP requires transcoding for most video so Premiere will save your clients time right from the start; 2) Premiere does not require rendering when using different frame rates, codecs, multiple layers and many effects - again saving your clients time; 3) add a curves effect and a vignette, and even CS4 struggles to playback realtime but CS5 has no problem; 4) take a clip into After Effects and Premiere does not require any rendering. Heck, you can even see it automatically update in Premiere. However, FCP requires you render from AE first; 5) Now render/encode the video. Premiere CS5 blows away anyone and everyone thanks to CUDA processing and being 64bit native.

If your clients knew how much time (time=$$$) they could save, I bet they would certainly care about 64bit and Premiere CS5.

HIGHLY inaccurate. Some of the long GOP MPEG formats, yes but "most" is woefully inaccurate.

AVCHD, XDCAM EX, DVCProHD, R3D - don't all of these require transcoding? What about HDV? The first 3 are some of the most widely used formats, which is why I used the word 'most'. Before someone goes all technical on me, XDCAM EX requires re-wrapping to MXF, but Premiere does not.

AVDHD : yes . pretty much true for any h264 format in FCP including EOS

HDV NO. edits Mpeg2 pretty well

XDcam, depends.

DVCpro HD NO. it was FCP that drove DVCproHD and DV50 to become so popular in the first place

R3D : yes

Steve, thanks for the info.

For DVCPro HD, FCP still requires using Log & Transfer to create MOV files which are then used for editing. Technically, its not transcoding - its re-wrapping.

To fix my prior statement about FCP needing to transcode most formats, I should have said that FCP requires re-wrapping or transcoding most formats.

Guess what? Many people don't import different frame rates, codecs, etc. They use a single camera and export to one format. No need for filters, multiple layers or complex effects. They don't use AE (I do but I'm working on complex projects). There are lots of people doing professional work that only requires a simple yet professional editing system. Now once I get a decent paying effects job that covers the cost of the CS5 edit suite, I'll get it for exactly the reasons you list here. In the meantime, AE CS4 / FCP7 works fine and quick on a MacPro. My experience covers professional broadcast work and institutional video work. The needs are different. Premier is now a powerhouse but it's not user friendly in certain ways that are important to professional users who are not video professionals. FCP is stil better in that regard. But we have to give credit to Adobe for recognizing that they have a hill to climb, which is why they are offering the free month of CS5. I am just reporting the feedback I've received from clients who are professionals but not high level video professionals.

This is just a circular argument that happens every time FCP or Premiere go up a version. I also get it from audio professionals when they argue the toss over Logic or Cubase. The truth is that it's your own personal opinions and beliefs that are the issue. I've always believed that you might be able to change opinions, but not beliefs - so why bother. If people really don't want to use Premiere, then why attempt to change their minds, if they want to use MACs, let them, if they want PCs - fine. There is no point whatsoever getting a client to agree to something they really don't want - they will never be happy, ever. We can detail every negative and positive point and use those to support our viewpoint. What we cannot do is prove these points have equal worth.

I'm a content Adobe use for good or worse. If my colleagues love FCP, I'm content with that.

Boy do I agree...circular argument. In fact, it's usually one I don't participate in at all unless an FCP user takes a shot at Premiere Pro typically...

As far as rewrapping...Steve, doesn't DVCProHD get rewrapped? That's the reason why I can't edit any DVCProHD QT media that FCP has handled on a PC without AJA software/hardware installed, or a software add-in...HDV fits this scenario as well AFAIK. With XDcamEX, the essence file way down inside the file structure is a QT wrapper, but if you do the deep dive and import it without log and transfer acting on the entire file structure, do you get the pertinent metadata?

Corey: I'm scratching my head at your post...did you even attempt to simply chose the DSLR native setting and just drop your 7D footage on the timeline and edit? I have a pretty modest Windows system in the CPU dept. by today's standards (I have a Q4800 display card, but this is decode we're talking about) and I can edit it just fine...in CS5 on a non-GPU accelerated 2 year old dual quad Mac, it works fine as well.

FCP works with ProRes of course, but interestingly enough, PPro on a PC can also handle ProRes pretty easily (I have a video on Adobe TV where I take 720p60 ProRes from an Adobe MAX event and edit and output in Encore, no sweat on Windows. In fact, I actually did most of that edit in CS4 on a dual core Windows laptop...and the inability to encode ProRes on Windows wasn't much of a restriction.

The 8 bit on Windows vs 10 bit on Mac thing was rumored to be some restriction in QT, but it's a matter of calling ProRes for a 10 bit decode, and while I'm reasonably certain that CS5 now calls the decode at 10 bit on Windows, I know that with my AJA LHi hardware/software, I'm decoding ProRes at 10 bit.

As far as the intuitiveness of the user interface of either of these programs...everyone's right. You make such judgments based on your own experiences. I've used FCP and I find it to be more similar to PPro than different, frankly. There's a few areas that I think there are advantages for one or the other, but most of those are a matter of preference.

The base titler in PPro is one of my favorite everyday utility features and the titler tool(s) in FCP leave me cold, but again, that's a personal preference thing. Everyone has Photoshop and titling can ultimately be done there for whatever NLE you have...

Density of interface...I guess I can see that as a perception of PPro. I've been using PPro for some time and I'm accustomed to it. I also run my UI across three monitors... :-) I use PPro on a laptop, but I know what I use and I have a strategy for the interface...it maybe TOO customizable for a new user. PPro was known to simply stop spacebar playback to auto-save, which was mind-bogglingly stupid...I need to crank up the auto-save increments to see if that issue is still in there...

As far as making enough money to pay for the Production Premium Suite... It costs less than AE alone did not so many years ago. I don't see how anyone can complain about the price of anything these days. I remember buying Media100 instead of Avid because I could buy two for $100K vs only one Avid, and the capabilities of either at the time would be laughable next to any solution you want to compare it to these days whether it's FCP, PPro, Vegas, Edius...and of course, modern day versions of Media100 and Avid as well. I think price is sort of an absurd argument these days when you can pay for any of these solutions in one job.

As far as real-time support is concerned, PPro has got that one vs FCP I think, regardless of a GPU being present or not. DSLR, AVCHD, XDcam in just about every variety including Canon's new format (except Convergent Design files for some inexplicable reason), DVCProHD P2 has been quite fast and easy for a couple versions now...without any rewrap/duplication of data of course... I was running un-processed RED RAW on a dual-core Windows laptop in CS4 (I needed to drop the play res down of course, but I had the RAW processing controls right there...no flattening or conversion necessary).

FCP runs pretty darn well when you are using it as it was designed, as any product does, including PPro. I think you need to examine any of these products, at least somewhat, within the context of their design philosophy. We've all got it so good now, that we have forgotten how many compromises we used to have to make (I'll take "what format/resolution/dpi restrictions existed for still graphic import into Media100 or Avid in the late 90's" for 200, Jack).

I've now run CS5 on enough different machines with GPU accelerated effects preview...without GPU...with AJA I/O...Windows...Mac. I think it's the real deal and Mercury works impressively, even without a GPU.

So...ultimately I think it's coming down to what interface works for you vs. what workflow you find yourself in, and where you're willing to compromise on one to serve the other if necessary...

...now I suppose we can all argue about what constitutes a "compromise."