Which Editing Program Should I Use??

[Ileia]

Yeah, totally didn't know about the "T" thing. Learn something new every day. This is what happens when you're self-taught......on Magix Music Maker.

I was just using the copypasta button and pulling the clip edges down to the scenes I needed. Seems complicated when explained...but it's been normal for me for 7 years....and the few times I used Premiere that's the exact same way I did it.

[Pwolf]

Well, I guess I just don't see why anyone would want to make a cut without knowing where they are cutting. If the scrub bar is already at the position you want to cut, why not just tap a key on your keyboard and be done with it; in Premiere you need to re-position your cursor at the position you already know you want to cut at, then make your cut. IDK, it just seems redundant to me. And when Magix defaults back to it's original state where you can move the clip, that makes so much more sense to me since that's what 90% of editing consists of: make my cut, then move my clip. With Premiere if I have to make my cut, switch back to the selection tool, then move my clip, and probably reselect the razor tool, it just seems like doing 1-2 unnecessary steps every single time I make a cut.

You assuming there's only one way to edit a video or cut down a clip or a scene. There are times I'll throw down a scene or a large section of a source and just cut off parts of it I don't need without really looking. Then I'll go back and change the in and out points. Sometimes it's better to just cut out rough edits and come back to them. It's all based on your work flow. Redundant or not, switching between two tools doesn't take any significant time at all. I can make a series of timed cuts just as fast as you could. You make it sounds like switching between them takes ages. If my fingers are sitting on the "C" and "V" keys constantly, I don't need to stop what i'm doing, i can switch tools on the fly as my cursor moves into position to make a cut or move a clip. It's way more efficient then you give it credit. And as I tried to explain before, it's not about the steps it takes to do something. Premiere gives you more options with the tools it gives you so there's a lot more you can do. your "T" key only does one thing. My "C" and "V" keys do a lot more.

I'm completely in-line with everything you said about flexibility, and that's one good reason why I might want to try Premiere again. But I do think the flexibility overshadows ease-of-use. For instance, Magix also has Rubber-Bands/keyframes in addition to fade handles; I don't see why Premiere couldn't also have fade handles. It's like Premiere is flexible in terms of what it is capable of, but not flexible in terms of efficiency. IMO, the most commonly used tasks should be reduced down to the least amount of effort since you are using them so often. And I don't see that with Premiere. So it kills me whenever I see an editor use Premiere just to make a simple cut and fade AMV, especially when they fail at it knowing things would be so much easier using another program.

I still don't think you get it. We are talking about nano seconds here. The speed it takes you to make a cut in Magix will be just as fast as it takes me in premiere. While you're moving your mouse to select the clip you want to cut, I've already made my cut and switch over to the selection tool to the move the clip. By the time you press the "T" key and move your clip, we'll be at the same exact point in time. You are completely blowing the amount of time it takes to switch tools way out of proportion. Not to mention, Magix and Premiere are programs developed for two completely different markets. What is considered a common task for a $60 home video editor is not a common task for a $800 production quality product. Premiere was not made to make home movies so it shouldn't behave like one. We also don't want it to behave like one. I don't want pre-applied key frames on my clips so I can quickly make a fade if I wanted to. What if I don't want them there or I have to add more and make changes. It's in the way. It would be less efficient in that case because I have to spend time changing them or deleting them.

That said, I believe people should start on programs like Magix due to their simplicity. Ease of use and Efficiency on the other hand is a completely moot point that depends on the person using the software, not the software itself. At worst, you could argue that Premiere's learning curve is a lot steeper so achieving efficiency and ease of use out of it will take more time to attain as you use it.

[Phantasmagoriat]

Well, alright, I can see the advantages of the way Premiere does cuts/fades, but I would never make a cut without knowing exactly where I am cutting (seems so illogical to me); and rarely would I need to fine-adjust a fade. So even if the extra steps provide added functionality, it is functionality I would never use, and I'm guessing most people would not need that functionality either-- obviously I can't speak for everybody because we all have our own editing preferences, but that being said, for something like a fade, there's still no reason why Premiere couldn't have both keyframe-opacity and fade-handles; or a simpler default hotkey for cutting than ctrl+shift+k or (c + v). As such it [feels] like "it'll take you... 10 steps to do the simplest tasks, while in Magix/Vegas it will probably just take 1 step." Sorry if I exaggerated too much when I said that earlier, but in a sense that's what it felt like when I wrote it... and I can't be the only one that has had this experience with Premiere.

Ease of use and Efficiency on the other hand is a completely moot point that depends on the person using the software, not the software itself

IDK about that. People like doing things the easiest most efficient way possible. Sure you can make things more complex if it adds extra functionality, but I think there comes a point when complexity can be reduced down to simpler tasks... and based on everything I mentioned earlier... I just think Premiere could do a better job at simplifying it's tasks.

[Pwolf]

Well, alright, I can see the advantages of the way Premiere does cuts/fades, but I would never make a cut without knowing exactly where I am cutting (seems so illogical to me); and rarely would I need to fine-adjust a fade.

And thats my point. Some people do need the ability to cut where ever they want and fine tune their fades (thats also not the only reason for the opacity keyframes either).

So even if the extra steps provide added functionality, it is functionality I would never use, and I'm guessing most people would not need that functionality either

You aren't most people, you don't know what other people want or need. I can assume all I want but I know better than to give out false information about a product I don't know. As I proved before, it isn't that much less efficient to make the same cut in premiere that you would in Magix or Vegas. If it took seconds longer to make a timed cut in premiere, i would totally agree with you but it doesn't, not even close. The idea of something being SO INEFFICIENT YOU SHOULDN'T USE IT is just beyond words.

there's still no reason why Premiere couldn't have both keyframe-opacity and fade-handles; or a simpler default hotkey for cutting than ctrl+shift+k or (c + v).

Yes there is. Because we don't want extra stuff on our UI that we don't need. Most productions don't use a simple linear fade. Premiere also, being flexible as it is, allows you change your hot keys, so I could change that "ctrl+shift+k" to "t" and it'll be just like magix. We also don't want our whole keyboard to be a hot-key for something when we can bundle multiple actions inside a single tool.

IDK about that. People like doing things the easiest most efficient way possible. Sure you can make things more complex if it adds extra functionality, but I think there comes a point when complexity can be reduced down to simpler tasks... and based on everything I mentioned earlier... I just think Premiere could do a better job at simplifying it's tasks.

People like doing things the easiest and most efficient way possible, i'll give you that... but thats assuming they know how. We've already figured out that you don't know how to use premiere in the easiest, most efficient way possible. You can't expect everyone to know everything about a program. When I used Magix, I didn't know about the "T" key. I know Ileia doesn't use the "T" key method. I'm sure a lot of people don't do it that way. So while it's safe to assume people like to do things quicker and more efficient, people also like to do things that make sense to them. And what makes sense to them will be easier and more efficient for them.

You're also not looking at the larger picture either, as I tried to explain earlier. Premiere's tools allow you to a lot more than just one type of action and allow you to do more than just cut on the play head. That's the flexibility I was talking about. It's not a bad thing, it lets you do more with your program when you need to do more. It's more efficient when you need it to be. Magix can't do even do some of the things premiere is capable of. According to your logic, that makes Magics completely pointless. To me it's incredibly inefficient not being able to import AVS scripts directly into premiere. Having to encode every source to lossless takes so much time. But you don't see me telling people to not use Magix because of that.

And that's what annoys me about this discussion. It doesn't matter what I try to say to make you understand that your idea of what's "efficient" is only what's efficient for you based on what you know. Because you don't know how to use a program doesn't make it slower or worse or what ever you want to call it.

[Phantasmagoriat]

You make it sound like I know nothing of the program so therefore I cannot say anything about it.

Do I have to master every aspect of the program before I can make a review of it? No. But...
Should I try to be less biased when making a review? Yes, I admit I shouldn't have done that and I'm sorry if I've made Premiere sound like a bad program to use. However, it helps justify my decision to stop using the program. The thing is... I just wanted to make a quick review of the major programs I think people might want to check out. I didn't want to get ultra-politically-correct and wordy to make all programs sound equally valuable in their own unique way. No no, I just wanted to get straight to my overall impression of the programs based on my experiences with them. Information of this kind is not easy to come by-- what are the chances someone has mastered all of the programs I reviewed? Almost zero. And I consider myself to be fairly well-versed with all of them (contrary to what it looks like, almost all the tips you mentioned about using Premiere I knew about previously... and for my basic cutting/fading needs, I still think Premiere usage is redundant, regardless of the flexibility it provides [and yes... my needs are not the needs of everyone... and all that jazz...]).

Actually, this whole discussion is very catch 22--> How can you disagree with me, when you haven't mastered Magix/Vegas? It's the same argument. Maybe for all the time you spent mastering Premiere, you could have done things much easier in another program regardless of whether it limits your other needs. (and again it comes back to whatever flexibility needs you need in your program )

Anyways, this discussion is starting to get really long winded, and I don't want to be stepping on anyone's toes here... but in my defense, I *did* declare my opinion was very biased upfront. (even used italics)
If it helps, maybe a mod can bold my disclaimer in red or something...

[Pwolf]

Actually, this whole discussion is very catch 22--> How can you disagree with me, when you haven't mastered Magix/Vegas? It's the same argument.

No it isn't. I'm not making wild exaggerations about a program I haven't mastered, and I never would. I'm also not arguing that it's easier or more efficient to use Premiere or Magix. I'm arguing that the idea of using efficiency and how easy a program is to use is outright ridiculous when the person who's reviewing it doesn't know how to use the programs he's reviewing. Which is completely based on all the information you're given out on what you actually know about the program. If you had known how to use the program like you said you did, you wouldn't say it takes 10 steps longer to complete a simple task. And when writing a review, bias or not, it shouldn't even be mentioned since it's completely based on how well someone knows how to use the program. A review should be based on the programs features and abilities.

You are answering a legitimate question by giving out false information. If you really want to help, either give out accurate information (even if it is bias), or don't do it at all.

I'm also arguing against your idea about what is considered "efficient". Hypothetically, if it takes Magix 2 seconds to register a cut after you press "T", in terms of efficiency, Premiere would be better even though it takes an extra step (assuming there is no lag when Premiere makes a cut). So therefore, basing efficiency on how many steps it takes to complete a task is pointless and inaccurate unless you actually sit there and time it out correctly. I'm also arguing at the same time that because these programs don't take two seconds to register a cut, the amount of time it takes to complete the same task is exactly the same or insignificant enough to make a huge difference over the life of the project. So as far as efficiency is concerned (when it comes to these simple tasks), it really doesn't matter. On top of that you don't even talk about more advanced tasks or even importing or exporting. You are taking something you didn't like about premiere (because you didn't know better) and saying it's bad because of that one reason when in reality, premiere offers a lot more

So... no, it isn't the same argument and it has nothing to with whither or not I've mastered any other program than premiere. It's about not making ridiculous and exaggerated reasons why someone shouldn't use a program and then continuing to argue about it after someone has debunked you.

[Phantasmagoriat]

You are answering a legitimate question by giving out false information. If you really want to help, either give out accurate information (even if it is bias), or don't do it at all.

Well, that was never my intention, sorry. I mostly just wanted to share my opinion. I can at least do that can't I?
Now, I realize I was being pretty misleading about what was fact and what was just my opinion, so I have edited my post to hopefully be more accurate (or at least less misleading).
Let me know if you have any concerns.

[Pwolf]

You are answering a legitimate question by giving out false information. If you really want to help, either give out accurate information (even if it is bias), or don't do it at all.

Well, that was never my intention, sorry. I mostly just wanted to share my opinion. I can at least do that can't I?
Now, I realize I was being pretty misleading about what was fact and what was just my opinion, so I have edited my post to hopefully be more accurate (or at least less misleading).
Let me know if you have any concerns.

There's nothing wrong with stating your opinion, by all means go for it. I'm an advocate of people standing up and stating what they believe. That said, don't throw out bad information when you're trying to help. If you don't like the software, just state that you don't like it and that your experience with it wasn't ideal, don't start spouting false facts. I'm also not quite sure what you changed because you're still saying the same false information... And as i mentioned before, I don't really have a problem with what you had said in your review. I have a problem with how you are trying to justify it after someone had provided a counter argument that specifies exactly how many steps it takes (not even close to 10) and also that using "efficiency" to measure which is better is pointless.

[Phantasmagoriat]

[oh, crap, I guess I didn't hit the submit button for my edit...]
give me a minute Edit made.

As for efficiency/steps:
The 10 steps I mentioned was just an exaggeration, and wasn't meant to be taken literally... so I have changed that.

But here is the way I see it if you break down the physical actions required to 1.cut a clip 2.position the clip 3.fade the clip

In Magix/Vegas:
1.Scrub to the frame you want to make a cut
2.Hit T to make cut
3.Drag clip into position
4.Drag corner of clip to make fade


In Premiere:
1.Scrub to the frame you want to make a cut
2.Hit C to Switch to Razor tool
3.fine-position cursor to where you want to cut
(this can also reduce frame-accuracy)
4.Click to make cut
5.Hit V to Switch to Selection tool
6.Drag clip into position
7.Click curve to make keyframe 1
(you also have to ensure you don't drag opacity down by accident)
8.Click curve to make keyframe 2 for fade out


Which might not be so bad if you are used to it (and it does add the ability to make blind cuts), but clearly, this takes extra physical steps.
So even if the extra steps take nano-seconds, I'm probably going to feel more tired after working with Premiere for a while.
[at least that's what I experienced using this method]


Now, if you set hotkeys, it would still be a minimum of one extra step, with a couple extra one-time steps:
(which I don't think should be required in the first place... it seems so obvious to me that the most common
task in editing shouldn't use the hotkey ctrl+shift+k)

1.Scrub to the frame you want to make a cut
2.Hit T (or whatever hotkey you set) to make cut
3.Drag clip into position
4.Click curve to make keyframe 1
(you also have to ensure you don't drag opacity down by accident)
5.Click curve to make keyframe 2 for fade out
+6.Plus extra...
+7.steps to...
+8.change hotkeys... etc

I know it's not that that bad, but for me it just puts off my whole experience with the program.
It just seems like I spend more time trying to get Premiere to work the way I want it to work; when I could
achieve the same thing in another program without the hassle.