Real difference between Final Cut Express, FCE HD, Final Cut Pro, iMovie

I have used iMovie HD 6.0.3 to make a very nice 10 part documentary. Now I need something stronger - capable of producing more than 45 minutes of audio/video, with commentary and music, incorporating photos and transitions that I choose. I understand that iMovie 08 is more automated than 06 so I don't want that. What is the next best step up for my needs? I plan on buying a new processor for this work - one that runs at top speed.

Both FCE and FCP will do what you want ... obviously.
Both will allow you to do keyframing, have a wide choice of transitions (pretty much the same for both) can do basic audio mixing; both will allow you the same number of video and audio tracks.
FCE is a DV/HDV program only. If you are exporting to DVD you can use iDVD or toast and if your programs are not particularly long, say in the 90 min range you will get very nice results
FCP is a studio; comes bundled with some very powerful apps including DVD Studio Pro and Compressor which gives you far more control over your DVD creation.
FCP is also more suited to "broadcast" concerns with tools like Color and its ability to handle a wider variety of video imputs that FCE; FCE is DV/HDV only
FCP also has more tools like batch capturing and media manager that may make working with large projects with lots of footage easier
For the last four years I have used FCE to produce long form live envent videos and shorter corporate promotional pieces to DVD and it has done that work nicely.
FCP allows a wider range of export options but you can also acquire that with FCE by purchasing Quicktime Pro (it comes with FCP)
FCP is far more expensive. Yes, you get more apps with it but FCE comes with versions of two of them, Livetype and Soundtrack
Bear in mind that both these systems are VERY different from iMovie and there will be a learning cure. It requires some patience and the ability to put iMovie's workflow out of your head.
Switching just before any kind of deadline would not be a good idea

Similar Messages

Any real difference between a 1.83 and 2.0 MacBook Pro?

Hi all,
I have recently bought a MacBook Pro 1.83 GHz model. It was on sale at my local computer store and I thought it was a good find, as it was brand new and was selling for £1099, a £300 saving on the 2.0 GHz model. Before I start using it, I just wanted to know if anyone knew if there was a real performance difference between the two and should I have paid the extra £300 to get the 2.0 GHz machine?
I only ask this, as I know that over time Apple sometimes tweak the machine to improve it and (after talking with someone at Apple), I've been told that there have been 5 or 6 changes to the inner workings (or revisions as they called them), and I wondered if this changed the performance or if it was just minor improvements regarding heat and noise and so on.
To finish, does anyone have any speculation as if this is a good time to buy a MacBook Pro with the introduction of the Core 2 Duo chips in the new iMacs?
Many thanks.
MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.7) 1.83GHz Core Duo / 512MB / 80GB

So what you are saying is that the 170 MHZ difference between the 1.83 and the 2.0 is noticeable, but the 160 MHZ difference between the 2.0 and the 2.16 is not?
I thought we were passed the marketing gimmicks and the clock speed race, but I guess not.
Clock speed doesn't tell you anything about the performance of a CPU. Intel almost ran themselves into the ground by trying to pump up their clock speeds and feeding that tripe to the masses. AMD focused on a solid architecture that created a robust chip. As a result AMD took the lead in performance and stability.
Intel's greatest achievement to date has been the PIII Coppermine. So good was this architecture that they have gone back to it. The Centrinos are based off the Coppermines as are the dual cores.
The point of the story is that clock speed means nothing. Save your cash and put it to better use by getting a 7200 rpm drive or more RAM.

Any software differences between new airport express and extreme?

I was wondering if there are any features or configuration differences between the two, such as configuring VPN passthrough.
The only difference I can see is using the USB for hard drive use.
Also, do you think the performance will be similar. I know the time capsule actually rated slower than the extreme even though they use similar hardware.

You can find all the differences between the AirPort Express and Extreme in this website > http://www.apple.com/compare-wifi-models/

The difference between Final Cut Pro and Final Cut Studio 2

I'm looking at buying FCP. Can I buy Final Cut Studio 2 to get FCP or is that only a Upgrade and where would i buy it. How do I go about buying FCP and how much is it

Final Cut Pro v6 is only available as a component within Final Cut Studio 2.
What it is, what is included and how to purchase it is spelled out here:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MA886Z/A?mco=MTIxODk3Mw
x

The real difference between iPad Mini & iPad Mini Retina

I was window-shopping on the Apple-direct store's "refurbished & clearance" web site, and noticed that iPad Mini and iPad Mini with Retina Display are now available for resale there.
If I want to use an iPad Mini for certain functions, such as:
1: checking e-mail and address books while on-the-road
2: using an AppleTV and adaptors to wirelessly give presentations via Airplay to business meetings via HDTVs and projector-screen rigs
3: giving one-on-one image presentations for business/personal discussions using the tablet directly
4: consulting maps, weather forcasts and various light web-browsing
5: dappling in art tablet apps, note-writing, and math (calculator apps)
6: using the iPad as an entertainment device (playing music, watching movies/TV)
... then what is the real difference, functionally, between the iPad Mini and the iPad Mini with Retina Display?

iPad mini with Retina Display vs. iPad mini
http://www.gizmag.com/ipad-mini-vs-ipad-mini-2/29541/
First iPad Mini vs. Retina: No contest
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57613975-37/first-ipad-mini-vs-retina-no-conte st/
 Cheers, Tom

Performance difference between java.beans.Expression and Java Reflection

What is the Performance difference between using java.beans.Expression class and Java Reflection classes like Class,Method ??

negligible

REAL differences between STCMS and JMQ that can cause trouble?

hi *,
i wanted to start a collection of differences between STCMS and JMQ. before i was working with JMQ i had a very naive point of view and thought we would migrate to JMQ without having any difficulties besides administration process changes....
so far the bigest differences for me that i found until now are:
1) JMS properties are not allowed to start numerical like 1_firstJmsProp now they must be named like _1firstJmsProp
2) setting null values as property causes exceptions (i think it was JMSMessageFormatException or something like this..)
any other points you have found out till now?
regards chris

Hi Chris,
what I also found out and not really forces me to use JMQ in production is, that in eManager the Queues of the Sun_JMQ - message server can not really be addressed! I have a test-project running that pulls regularly data into that queue running on the Sun_JMQ, but when I go to the Sun_JMQ - entry in eManager, I only see the queue, but the eManager says it is an empty queue - no "Min Sequence Number", "Max Sequence Number", ... not even the "Last Published Date/Time" is set. So, in production you would not be able to see how many data was already processed and when the last message was sent!
I assume this is related to the way data is gathered from the JMS-server and maybe Sun uses the SeeBeyond implementation here?!
Funny is, that when you stop the receiver of the Sun_JMQ - queue, you at least see how many data are waiting in the queue to be processed and you can also take a look at the messages waiting!
Edit: What I just saw is, that when you look at the "Logging"-tab of the Sun_JMQ-server in eManager you see the log-entries of the stcms-server in there (so from the other JMS-server)?!?!
Just my 2 cents...
Bernhard
Edited by: nocomm on Jul 31, 2008 10:55 PM

Performance Difference Between Dual 2.7 and Quad, and Logic Pro

I used to have a G5 DP 2.7 before it went bad and Apple offered me a Quad in exchange. I'd like to understand some details of the specs between these two computers and how they might translate with respect to running Logic Pro (which I'll get to in a minute)...
Listed below are the specs which I believe illustrate the significant differences between these two machines (this info is based on info gleaned from Macworld, since the specific specs of the DP 2.7 no longer appear on Apple's website):
Dual 2.7
(2x) 2.7 GHz, cache = 512K per processor, frontside bus speed = 1.35 GHz per processor
Quad
(4x) 2.5 GHz, cache = 2MB on-chip L2 per chip, frontside bus speed = 1.25 GHz per processor
So here's the link with Logic: it's become apparent of late that Logic Pro is not able to fully utilize the processing power of all 4 cores in the Quad. Reports are that performance tops out at 50% per processor, resulting in approx. 200% possible processing usage from the 4 cores in the Quad.
However, such a limitation in processor usage wasn't present in the DP 2.7.
So based on the information I've learned so far, it seems that the Quad and the DP 2.7 are almost equivalent in terms of processing power when running Logic Pro. Now, this is what I'm surmising, but, is this actually the case? At the end of the day, I'd like to know if the Quad indeed a more powerful computer than the DP 2.7 when running Logic Pro, or, did my exchange of DP 2.7 for the Quad constitute a "downgrade" of any proportion?

The only logical answer to Why Intels do and PPC don't is:
Apple want everybody to transition to their Intel boxes. The only way to do this is offer better performance in software tweaks for one system over the another, which begs the question what else will Apple do to software for PPC owners?
Having bought a Mac Pro, primerily for testing out certain software apz under Rosetta, I did a real time test between my 8GB RAM G5 Quad and my stock Mac Pro upgraded to 2GB RAM, batch processing 204 Canon 1DsMKII RAW files into 16-Bitt TIFFs. I put a thread on the Mac Pro forum here:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=627916&tstart=15
I so wanted my Quad to squash the Intel invaded Mac, but results speak for themselves. The Mac Pro flattened the G5 Quad by over 23 minutes (it worked out as 1.7 times faster than the G5Quad).
If that's how it performs with 2GB RAM it's gonna really fly when I max it out. So, for musicians, I would imagine with the Quad core support for Intel Macs in Logic 7.2.2 makes a fairly straight forward decision. . .buy a Mac Pro and sell your PowerMac. More time composing less time waiting for renders (never used music software so if it doesn't render your composition place whatever it does do into the 'renders' slot )
P.S I hated, really hated having to say the Mac Pro toasted my G5 Quad, I so wanted the Intel to fall flat on it's aluminium as$, but it didn't. It's a quick machine. A very quick machine which toasted my Quad in real time tests using a universal Pro app from a 3rd Party (who would have no incentive to dumb down the PPC version as they sell their product to Windows, PPC OS X and Intel OS X)

Difference between MC250LL/A & MC560LL/A (Mid-2010 Mac Pro)

So I'm bouncing around between two Used Mac Pros that I plan on purchasing one of, but I have a question.
Both have the exact same specs (Mac Pro 5,1 Mid-2010; 2.8GHz Xeon Quad-Core, ATI Radeon, etc) But they have different "MC" designations.
First of all, what are these designations, and second of all, what is the difference between MC250LL/A & MC560LL/A? I can't find info about the difference anywhere.

Introduced     July 2010
Discontinued     June 2012
Model Identifier     MacPro5,1
Model Number     A1289
EMC     2314
Order Number     MC250LL/A, MC560LL/A (Quad-Core), MC561LL/A (8-Core)
Initial Price     $2,599 (2.8 GHz) $3,599 (two 2.4 GHz) $5,199 (two 2.66 GHz)
The 560 has 2 separate processors.

Noticeable difference between 2.6ghz and 2.7ghz Retina MacBook Pro?

I see its $250 extra to top-off the CPU for a 100mhz boost. Does anything else change like cache? I find the upgrade price unreasonable.

The 2.7 GHz processor includes 8 MB L3 cache compared to the 6 MB L3 cache on the 2.6 GHz processor. That certainly will help performance, so you may need to wait a while for the benchmarks that will compare both options. Barefeats does useful benchmarks but I don't know when they'll publish results of course. How you plan to use the laptop may determine if the faster processor and large L3 cache is important. If it will be doing heavy lifting such as video processing, Final Cut Pro X video renders or other high-end software, then you want as much power as you are comfortable buying.
This machine is not user-serviceable in any way, so you'll never have a second chance to upgrade any of the typical components. It's unusual in a laptop to design this way but it does allow for the thinnest Pro laptop on the planet. You really should consider AppleCare since any 'repair' will be very costly if done outside the warranty period.
Given you can't upgrade it later, I'd tend to max it out if you can afford it. As mentioned, the memory upgrade to 16 GB may be the best purchase upgrade you can do. The SSD upgrade to 768 GB may or may not be important depending upon how you will use the laptop. If it's your main computer but you have very large files such as video, you may eventually want an external drive using hard disks to store that kind of data. As long as you consider that, then you may be quite happy with only the 512 GB SSD option.
This machine will be so beautiful and quite an impressive performer. Good luck with your purchase.

Differences between Final Cut Pro & Express?

Been using FCP HD 4.5 for a while & needing to upgrade. Curious what the primary differences are between the new versions of Final Cut Studio and Final Cut express.

inte wrote:
Nice.
Is there a comparison chart. Have used iMovie & older versions of FCP, curious if there's a side-by-side comparison of the feature set between the two.
Print the two marketing pages and hold them next to each other?
There must at least one review someplace on the Web that compares the two apps but, seriously, we're FCP users here; only a few of us have ever used FCE. Maybe they'll drop by and answer the question for you over the next few days. Patience.
If you posted on the FCE forum I think you'd find most of the power users have never used FCP.
Senior Wonk Tom Wolsky lives in both worlds, teaches classes and writes books for each application. You could buy one of his books.
bogiesan

Differences between Final Cut Express HD 3.5 and Final Cut Studio 5.1

Hi, all,
Unfortunately, I didn't find a list of what the main differences are between those two products on the Apple website - only about the latest versions of the programs.
Since I consider buying a used version of Final Cut Studio 5.1, I would appreciate if someone could give me an idea of what the main features are that come along with FCP as compared to FCE.
I am shooting HD with Canon HV30, so I am primarily interested in the HD features. Thanks a lot!
Cheers,
M.

Filters in FCE process video on a field-by-field basis; in FCE, only Generators process video on a full-frame basis, i.e. in considering both fields of each frame. By contrast, FCP allows you to choose how Filters process video: field-by-field or full-frame. For interlaced playback (e.g., on an NTSC monitor), field-by-field processing may be best, but not necessarily; but for progressive scan playback (e.g., on a flat screen TV, as well as on a computer monitor), video that was shot in progressive mode needs to be processed on a full-frame basis in order to avoid getting artifacts -- at least when applying certain effects.
In short, depending on the mode in which the video was shot, depending on the playback mode, and depending on the effect that you are applying, you may need to control how the corresponding Filter processes video (field-by-field or full-frame), and you can do this only in FCP.
This is also true when applying certain effects that are not explicitly labeled as "Filters", e.g., zoom. For example, if you use FCE to zoom in, over time, on video, the second field of each frame will be zoomed in slightly more than the first (since in essence, FCE "assumes" that the footage was shot in interlaced mode and that therefore, the second field was captured later in time than the first). Consequently, during playback on a flat screen TV, where both fields are displayed simultaneously, the fields will be shifted left-right with respect to one another, which may be quite noticeable.

Is there a difference between final cut studio and final cut studio upgrade

i wish to buy final cut studio and was going to buy from the apple store but they recently stopped selling i have found on amazon two final cut studios one call final cut studio and the other called final cut studio upgrade the upgrade one is cheaper so this makes me think is this just like an expansion and do i need the original but both have the same pictures, descriptions and specs so are they the same thing just with different names or what? please help

Final Cut Studio is the full install...where the UPGRADE means that it requires you to have a previous version. It is cheaper because it only works if you have a previous version.

Difference between Final Cut Studio Software?

I recently purchased FC Studio through a university program at a discounted rate. Will there be a difference in the actual program or restrictions for use?

Mr. Gilmore is correct though I would point out the last statement is not always true. In the crossgrade madness from v5 to v5.1 (PowerPC to Universal Binary), Academic Versions were eligible for the upgrade and those users who took part ended up with commercial (aka upgradable) versions. This is not to say it will ever happen again, but, like pigs flying, who knows?*
ymmv.
x
'* Pigs may not soar when they fly, but, if launched with enough velocity, will stay airborne for significant distances.

Differences Between Final Keyframes of Tweens

Check this out... it's something I never really noticed
before. Or never paid it much attention anyway, and thought what I
was seeing was just buggy behavior (going back to at least Flash
5). Now I realize it's some sort of actual distinction between
keyframes at the end of a tween (maybe it is a bug).
Screenshot
See how the top one has a distinct keyframe with a vertical
line on the left, and the bottom one doesn't have the line? I can't
find anything on this online.
I also haven't been able to figure out how the difference
arises. It seems almost random and I've tried quite a few things,
but can't find a pattern. It will even happen when the keyframes
and tweens are created exactly the same way with exactly the same
objects.
It wouldn't bother me except there is one key behavior issue.
The blank keyframe after the upper one works as expected. However,
the blank keyframe after the bottom one isn't really blank. If I
put any object in there, it becomes the same object that is in the
keyframe before it.... and I can't even swap it, it's stuck as the
same object from the keyframe before it.
Anybody know what's going on here?

Hmmm - can you send me this exact FLA? This has always and
only been associated with the Sync
feature. Basically, Flash turns this on but only if you
create a motion tween by using the contect
menu (right click) selection. if you apply a motion tween via
the properties panel then Sync is NOT
on be default. This vertical line is a visual indicator that
Sync is not on (think of it as a wall
stopping the syncing of frames with nested frames in the
symbol being tweened).
Chris Georgenes
Adobe Community Expert
www.mudbubble.com
www.keyframer.com
www.howtocheatinflash.com
randykato wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Thanks for the reply - but that's not it. I've checked
the properties (for the
> beginning keyframe, ending keyframe, and tweened frames
in between) and they
> are all the same. Sync is checked for both tweens, and
all the tweens in
> question.
>
> There does seem to be some correlation though.... and
here's where it's
> getting even more complicated.... The issue I have with
a blank keyframe
> following the no-line end keyframe does go away if I
uncheck Sync for that
> tween. However, the vertical line line does not show up
to reflect the change.
> There are also lots of others that have the line even
though Sync is checked,
> and the line doesn't disappear if it's unchecked.
>
> I just noticed something else. All the no-line end
keyframes will show the
> vertical line when selected on the timeline if the frame
to the left is also
> selected (regardless of whether Sync is checked or not).
But, they won't show
> it when selected as a single frame (when selected it
turns all black, but you
> can see the extra 1px line there when you compare them)
or if the selection
> doesn't include the frame to the left.
>

Real difference between Final Cut Express, FCE HD, Final Cut Pro, iMovie

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for