Final Cut vs Ulead

moldytoaster · #1 (**permalink**) 03-12-2006, 12:50 AM

I was just wondering is there anything that can be done with Final Cut Pro, that cant be done with a mix of Ulead products? I have used both a lot, and I cant think of anything, that cant be done with ulead that can be done with Final Cut.

irishmark · #2 (**permalink**) 03-16-2006, 02:30 AM

There aint that much that ulead cant do however if you were to take to sequences and cut them using the same techniques and effects, rendered them out in both NLE's then displayed the uncompressed files on a good monitor you would see a big diffrence.

Mark W · #3 (**permalink**) 03-16-2006, 10:30 AM

Intersting. So pro editors generally produce better quality outout than value editors?

moldytoaster · #4 (**permalink**) 03-17-2006, 06:23 AM

Quote:

There aint that much that ulead cant do

Well list some things that final cut can that ulead can't.

Quote:

however if you were to take to sequences and cut them using the same techniques and effects, rendered them out in both NLE's then displayed the uncompressed files on a good monitor you would see a big diffrence.

Theoretically you wouldn't see any difference if they are digital.

There is a different layout wail editing, but besides a few filters, and transitions there is pretty much nothing that you can't do with ulead products.

I think its just a myth, that has developed because most of the "value editors" compress there files so much to save space, and final cut is set to output in standard resolution by default.

irishmark · #5 (**permalink**) 03-20-2006, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moldytoaster

Quote:

There aint that much that ulead cant do

Well list some things that final cut can that ulead can't.

Quote:

however if you were to take to sequences and cut them using the same techniques and effects, rendered them out in both NLE's then displayed the uncompressed files on a good monitor you would see a big diffrence.

Theoretically you wouldn't see any difference if they are digital.

There is a different layout wail editing, but besides a few filters, and transitions there is pretty much nothing that you can't do with ulead products.

I think its just a myth, that has developed because most of the "value editors" compress there files so much to save space, and final cut is set to output in standard resolution by default.

I cant give u any samples of the difference as I'm not hugley familiar with Ulead however every NLE has features that others dont so its a generalisation. I know this from my experience with using various diffrent appz and NLE's Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying Ulead is crap , far from it, from what I've seen it can be used to great effect.

YEs you are right in saying that "theoretically" there should be no diffrence in encoding but in practice it is a diffrent story. This i know from experienec, from seeing stuff on screen. I can't give you a technical breakdown as to why as I don't know the tech side in that much depth plus I dont need to know. It is as I say, from my experience and what I've seen on screen. It could be simply to do with the fact that Mac's do a better job at managing data processing packets in multimeda in which case Ulead on a mac should produce great results but AVID systems on PC also have a better final image than other NLE's.
Look at Premier for instance. available to both PC and MAC however there is a huge diffrenc in projects cut on Premier when held up against an FCP project. It's also similar to tape choice. Take for instance the movie 28 Days Later. Shot on DV and although it does look great through excesive treatment there are still parts that look terrible.

I'm very picky when it comes to my final image. I use Vegas as I have found it to produce better results than premier pro (plus i prefer the interface) However premier pro with hardware accelaration cards does a better job again. If cash flow was no issue though, I'd be out buying a Dual G5 with an AXO hardwasre card and FCP. (mind you a full on AVID system would be nice too - but that's rediculous cash and FCP does just as good a job)

Other professionals I work with agree that FCP produces the best results on final output for a cheap NLE. Alot of the POst Production house I've worked in ahve avid suites that sit idle because FCP has taken over and is cheaper to maintain.

canada_habs2004 · #6 (**permalink**) 03-20-2006, 02:59 AM

i have Ulead MediaStudio, and was able to aquire for around $150 becasue of an upgrade and some discount thing.

for the MediaStudio is, its by far the best deal out there for professional video editing.

If money is no object at all, sure FCP is going to do you somewhat better (though how much) in the end.

But if there is anything you could spend that 500-600$ that you save if you purchase Ulead, i would say thats more important (ie spend the money on a better camera) because the Ulead really doesn't give you very many limits, PERIOD, and certainly almost done that you'd have no problem with in more expensive NLE's

Mark W · #7 (**permalink**) 03-20-2006, 07:22 AM

Irish m - " Other professionals I work with agree that FCP produces the best results on final output for a cheap NLE. Alot of the POst Production house I've worked in ahve avid suites that sit idle because FCP has taken over and is cheaper to maintain"

Indeed, I blagged a look round the bbc news room here in bristol the other day. They had a full avid suite, all rack mounted boxes with flashy lights and a zillion monitors in custom furniture but it was startting to look dusty. The journo who showed me round said they hardly use it ! I oofered them a fiver to take it all away.

When the journos film stuff for the news they edit it themselve on thier desk top PCs most of the time. I forgot to ask what they use tho but they were PCs running xp for sure.