Articles, Blog

5 THINGS: on The Truth About Video Editing Software in Hollywood (ep 213) Avid, Premiere, FCP + more

On this episode of 5 THINGS, I’ll tackle
the uber common question of “What video editing software should I learn?” by sharing the truth
about video editing software here in Hollywood. Who uses what? Why do they use it? And for how long? Buckle up! Hello and welcome to another episode of 5
things – a web series dedicated to answering the 5 burning tech questions you have about
technologies and workflows in the media creation space. Plus, tech stuff I dig, and how it’s used. I’m your host Michael Kammes. NLE – Non linear editing – has been around
for over 40 years, but it didn’t become common place in Hollywood – that is, being
used for feature film and broadcast television – until the early 90’s. And that’s where we’ll start. But before I start, I do need to set a disclaimer. I also work for Key Code Media, who sells
many of the tech solutions that I talk about on 5 THINGS. And wouldn’t ya know it, we sell a heck
of a lot of Avid and things that play with Avid…including Adobe, and Apple, for that
matter. I don’t want any of you think I’m a paid
shill, so I got clearance from this guy: Michael, we have known each other many years,
but this is the first time you’ve come to me for counsel or for help. I can’t remember the last time you invited
me to your house for a cup of coffee, even though I’ve employed you for 9 years. You may do this episode without any pressure
from me. Now kiss the ring. A large part of understanding one’s popularity is to examine WHY it’s popular. And that requires sharing the most brief of
history lessons. OK, do you remember a time before Internet
connected cell phones? Now, try and remember how our daily lives
changed when most everyone had one of these devices. It was a definite shift in how we consumed
media. Now, imagine that, only with the CREATION
side of media. This was Hollywood in the early 90’s. Digital video cameras were still very new,
and limited to standard definition. There were many companies toying with building
digital editing software, but none really took hold. That is, until Avid Media Composer came along
in the early 90’s. By building a digital editing platform, based
on the terminology and methodology the experienced film editors knew, Avid was able to make the
industry adoption of their technology much easier. Thus, we already have 2 reasons Media Composer
was popular: it appealed to the sensibilities of the user base, and it was one of the few
solutions out there. Avid also built around their ecosystem, including
not only their own shared storage, but having the top audio editing system in the industry;
Pro Tools, by then Digidesign, giving users a complete solution tech partner to work with. We call this the “one throat to choke”
paradigm. By the time other NLE’s were in a useable
state for film and TV projects, Avid had a massive head start. This meant a decent sized user base in the
Hollywood market, facility infrastructures (and thus lots of money already invested in
hardware and software) that were built around Media Composer, in addition to workflows that
incorporated both legacy film based material, tape acquisition, and newer digital formats. Avid also had project sharing by the early
00’s, something that only recently are other NLE’s getting right. For all of these reasons, Avid had the Hollywood
market cornered. And all of this played in to one of the greatest
untold truths about Hollywood technology. Hollywood is predominantly risk adverse. If something worked last season, why change
it for this season? Changing it messes with budgets and timelines
and generally upsets the natives. “How would you feel about making the change? We fear change!” And that’s why today, Avid is still used
on a vast majority of all feature films and broadcast television here in Hollywood. Existing customer investment in infrastructure,
experienced talent pool – both available and already on staff, documented workflows
with other departments, a complete ecosystem, and a risk adverse industry. If you plan on getting a job tomorrow out
in Hollywierd, working in broadcast television or feature film, Media Composer needs to be
your strongest software tool. Initially, I was going to share why Final
Cut Pro Classic was popular, but then I realized that it now holds little relevance, as the
software has been End of Life’d for 6 years now. Let that sink in. In the past 6 years, we’ve had: two presidential elections,
three Transformers Movies, eleven iPhone Models,
…and we could have gone to Mars and back three times Now there are, of course, some Final Cut Pro
Classic holdouts, but why don’t we cut through a little bit of Apple History, and look at
Final Cut Pro X. Final Cut Pro X got out of gates miserably. Its predecessor, Final Cut Pro, had gained
prominence in the industry, and many broadcast TV facilities in Hollywood had switched over
to or, had been started as a direct result of the low cost of entry for the software. That being said, although common, Classic
was still in the minority in Hollywood compared to Media Composer when Final Cut Pro X was
launched. Estimates vary, but to say 15-20% of TV post
was cut on Classic would not be a stretch. X lacked many features of Classic, and many
of its features went against the editing methodology that most professional film and TV editors
were accustomed to. It also meant many of the workflows, hardware,
and technology that made them efficient were now in question. Apple’s launch of Final Cut Pro X also meant
Final Cut Pro Classic was killed, and that caused many facilities to instantly see their
investment in infrastructure have a finite shelf life. Facilities now had 2 choices: throw caution
into the wind, and gamble on brand new software which lacked the things they knew, or, move
to another platform, which could be expensive in terms of hardware, software, and tech infrastructure,
as well as re-training the talent they had on staff. This, uhhh, was slightly upsetting for the
industry. “ARRRGGGGHHHHHH!” …and thus the awesome power that Final Cut
Pro X had (and still has) was eclipsed by the product launch. This stalled the adoption considerably. By 2017, the price point for powerful, standalone
NLE systems – both hardware and software – were around the same price; give or take. This was not the case 10-15 years prior, when
Media Composer was tens of thousands of dollars more expensive – and one of the main reasons
users flocked to Final Cut Pro Classic in the first place. Now, cost is not as much of an issue. It’s only been recently that Hollywood has
dipped its toe in the Final Cut Pro X water. Only a few feature films, including Focus
and Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, have been cut on it. In stark contrast to Avid, Apple seems to
enjoy adoption success into markets outside of Hollywood. And from a purely financial perspective, this
makes sense. There are many more editors and hobbyists
outside the Hollywood market than professional editors in it. Thus, Final Cut Pro X, in Hollywood broadcast
television and feature film projects is in the extreme minority, with little upwards
momentum in the industry. Adobe Premiere has been around almost as long
as Avid Media Composer, but it wasn’t until a rewrite around 2003, that Adobe renamed
it “Premiere Pro”, and Adobe simultaneously expanded their reach from the consumer market
to a more professional one. And when I say “professional”, I mean
professional markets outside of Hollywood. It wasn’t until the next decade that Premiere
Pro finally made inroads into the Hollywood market. And what was that event? It’s what I call the “Final Cut Pro Fog”. Apple killed Final Cut Pro Classic. [gunshot] …and it left those facilities and users
entrenched in it lost and wondering what to do and where to go. Do they go back to Avid? Or, do they look at what is the most similar
to Final Cut Pro Classic, in terms of editing paradigm, hardware requirements, and talent
pool? Enter Premiere Pro. Adobe pushed hard during the early days of
Final Cut Pro X to grab the user base that felt abandoned by Apple. But it wasn’t all smoke and mirrors. Adobe added more and more features to the
product to further convey to the market that they were innovating. It also helped that After Effects and Photoshop
were already a staple in the Post community, and thus most facilities already owned – or
should I say rented – Premiere Pro software. The rental model Adobe adopted also gave Adobe
a way to push updates more often, without waiting for quarter’s end or tradeshows
like NAB. This kept Adobe relevant and industry news
worthy. Lastly, Premiere Pro could run on the same
systems that ran Final Cut Pro Classic, or even Media Composer. Which brings us up to present day, where Adobe
continues to add features like Team Projects and shared projects to make collaboration
seamless for those who have worked in Avid environments. Despite all of this momentum and development
on the part of Adobe, adoption for feature film and broadcast television has been slow. Only a few TV shows – mostly cable- and
a handful of feature films have been cut on Premiere Pro. Premiere has still has not reached a Hollywood
adoption rate of Final Cut Pro Classic, so we’re looking at somewhere around 10% – but
the gap is closing. By stark contrast, alternative professional
markets, and a massive chunk of indie films have moved to Premiere Pro. Premiere, while not nearly as relevant in
feature film and broadcast television as Media Composer, is the 2nd most utilized NLE in
Hollywood, and you’d be wise to learn it as it becomes more widely adopted. There are many other alternatives that can
edit a piece of video just fine. I’ll address them here briefly, but to expect
to get a job by concentrating on these is pretty foolish. First is Lightworks, which has been around
as long as Avid. In that time it’s cut several huge films,
including “Pulp Fiction”, “Moulin Rouge”, “28 Days Layer”, “The Kings Speech”
and the recent “Wolf of Wall Street”. It’s got a free version and a paid version. While fantastic for the price point, it’s
still not making many new waves in the Hollywood market, and I’m not aware of any current
broadcast TV shows utilizing it. Edius, which had a decent footprint in the
broadcast and TV news industry, has drastically lost marketshare over the past decade or so,
mainly due to a lackluster marketing, and the proliferation of other tools – like
Avid Media Composer – that are geared specifically towards that sector of the industry. As you can guess, it has virtually zero presence
in Hollywood. Other apps, which are more consumer in nature,
include Video Studio and Pinnacle Studio, and Hitfilm Express. Both are great for your kids t-ball game,
but won’t get you a job in Hollywood. Sony recently sold their consumer based Vegas
software, so now the trajectory of the software is in flux, in addition to not being used
for much in the professional Hollywood realm. The one unique tool that I get asked often
about is DaVinci Resolve, now owned by Blackmagic. Resolve has made massive strides in the TV
and film industry thanks to a tremendously powerful and very inexpensive grading tool. The price point of free or $1000, now down
to $300, is downright astonishing. Plus, unlike other professional NLE companies,
there is not a “rental” fee. Recently, Blackmagic incorporated traditional
creative editorial tools into Resolve, as well as a powerful audio engine via the acquisition
of Fairlight. The latest version also has the ability for
shared projects, considered by many to be the killer feature for professional film and
TV post production. However, as of now, the editorial side is
so new, that many folks are holding their breath to see what happens elsewhere…and
will the superior grading of Resolve be enough to force editorial’s hand to switch over…or,
will Resolve remain a grading tool, and only be used for editorial on smaller independent
projects. When you start with nothing, it’s easy to
make great strides, so it will be interesting to see how Blackmagic can innovate once the
Resolve editorial features reach parity with the industry leaders. Ahh yes, the question I get asked the most. First, Let’s look at Avid. A company in flux, who has had financial reporting
problems, has a stock price a tenth of what it was back in 2005, and has had significant
layoffs. As for Media Composer, Avid needs to walk
the line between overhauls and refreshes without alienating their current user base, who is
traditionally less accepting of change, given that their livelihood depends on it. This stalls newer, younger users who can’t
identify with the user interface or operation. Yes, they dominate the film and TV space in
Hollywood, but is that niche of the industry as a whole enough to sustain the company? Even if Avid as a company went away, it would
make zero sense for the new owner to kill Media Composer, and with how risk adverse
Hollywood is, there would be Media Composer systems running for many years to come. If your goal is to get a job in Hollywood
in the next few years, there is zero reason to not get your Avid chops in order. As for Apple, they seem to be content for
Final Cut Pro X to be used everywhere else but Hollywood. Ease of access via the App store, a relatively
low price point, and some really bad ass editing tools for the novice editor makes it a great
tool in your editing toolkit. Do I see it ascending to the level that Final
Cut Pro Classic had in Hollywood? No. The industry landscape is different from the
early 00’s – the cost of entry across the board has become commodity priced. It wouldn’t hurt to learn it, but it won’t
get you much work in feature film or broadcast television. Aside from bragging rights, I don’t think
Apple minds this – there is much more money to be had outside of Hollywood than in it…and
they’re already making money by selling most of Hollywood overpriced computers, anyway. Adobe Premiere Pro, however, seems to be trending
upward as an editorial tool more than anyone else in the industry. Updates are fast and furious, it runs on Mac
or PC, and follows the common and comfortable editing paradigms the industry was founded
on. Its entire suite of tools also adds added
functionality that you just don’t find with other editorial solutions, and it’s already
installed on most machines due to their complete suite of tools. Now, in the process of writing this episode,
I took the opportunity to consult some fine colleagues in the industry to ensure I was
on the right path. As Avid, Adobe, and Apple either don’t release
exact sales numbers, or don’t filter out by geography or industry, I’ve had to get
a little creative. Quick FYI for this next part to make sense:
A vast majority of broadcast TV and feature film production facilities in Hollywood get
their editing gear from one of two places: Resellers, who can sell all of the gear, integrate
it, and make it all work together, or, rental facilities who own the equipment, but rent
it out to productions and support it. I contacted several other resellers in the
Hollywood area, as well as several rental facilities, and asked them to give me some
insight as to what THEY were seeing. No surprise, across the board, Media Composer
was the dominant player in broadcast television and feature film, by a wide margin, encompassing
80-90% of the market. However, once you move out of this niche market,
Adobe became much more common, with Final Cut Pro X bringing up the rear. Also, out of the aforementioned Final Cut
Pro Classic Fog, Adobe seems to have won the switcher award, as more folks in Hollywood
moved from Final Cut Pro Classic to Adobe Premiere Pro, rather than to Media Composer
or Final Cut Pro X. This is this probably the most important thing
I came across: is that a vast majority of facilities who have Media Composer are not
adding new seats. They plug along with what they have, and only
buying updates when it’s absolutely necessary…and often they’ll sit on older versions because
upgrading doesn’t give them enough new tools to warrant the change. Now, these same facilities, while not buying
many new seats of Media Composer, are adding seats of Creative Cloud at a rate must faster
than that of Avid. Lastly, and I can’t stress this enough. Hollywood is NOT the only place to work, and
broadcast television or feature films are not the “end all, be all” of creative
visual storytelling. Hone your storytelling skills using whatever
you can get your hands on – and I mean everything – and then find what sector of the industry
satisfies you creatively. And then focus your technical chops on the
tools found in that area. But be open to learning more tools, because
the days of basing your editing career on one software solution are long gone. The video editing realm is only widening,
and learning more is the only way to remain employable. I’m sure you have some input on at least
some of these 5 THINGS. Let me know in the comments section. Also, please subscribe and share this tech
goodness with the rest of your techie friends. Check out more episode of 5 THINGS and all
of the other great learning content at Until the next episode: learn more, do more
– thanks for watching.


  1. James Page Author

    For anyone who's wondering, a new seat of EDIUS costs $449. Be interested to know if anyone out there is still using it as a primary tool.

  2. Isaiah Headen Author

    Avid's edge in Hollywood makes sense, but I still think FCPX is the future as long as Apple doesn't kill it. It basically abandons the old way of editing and creates a new way that is faster and easier once you get past the learning curve.

  3. Bryan Hefner Author

    Thanks for the video, Michael! I'm a student in Los Angeles in my senior year of university looking to get a job as soon as I get out of school. I've got a great handle on Premiere and DaVinci but it seems like getting a job in the short term is really going to rely on Avid skills, so I'm going to develop those.

  4. Scott Markowitz Author

    Totally agree with your assessment of the industry. It's not just Hollywood, however. The big creative industries in the US market are all averse to risk/change. Post houses, advertising agencies, television networks, service bureaus… You name it.

    Though I see AVID houses staying pat, and that Premiere Pro is gaining seats in the professional ranks, I strongly believe that to be a huge tactical error. Facilities reinvesting in Premiere or AVID are missing the point.

    They're avoiding conflict and stress in the short term by utilizing familiar tools, but they're giving up speed, agility, and a straight-up better way to do the same work with FCPX and its growing ecosystem.

    By the 10,000 hour rule, I'm an expert in AVID many times over, and an expert in Premiere Pro, so I'm not hating on AVID or Premiere… OK. Yes, I think I will.

    Though my career spans 20 years working on motion pictures, agency spots, and episodic TV. There's not one job I've EVER done that wouldn't have been done faster, better, and with more FUN, than what I currently do with FCPX and supporting apps. Period.

    p.s. I love your diplomacy. Your thoughts and feelings are well veiled behind those pursed lips Keep up the awesome work! 😉

  5. Dominic Natoli Author

    With Premiere Pro gaining new seats like you were saying, I think it's only a matter of time as long as Adobe is "hauling ass" in their innovation department for them to take over the Hollywood industry. I know that editors that are in Hollywood didn't start there, and that's still true today. If the vast majority of editors outside of Hollywood use Premiere Pro, Avid can only delay the inevitable. A complete collapse of the company. There have been many times in history that a monopoly gets too comfortable than out of the blue get shaken up real bad by a competitor. That is what I feel what's going on here.

  6. Christopher Johnson Author

    Michael Kammes, James Page, and anyone else interested, I've discovered there is a "block" option on a user's YouTube profile page, under the flag icon on the right. One doesn't have to listen to abusive posters. Cheers.

  7. Eduardo Serrano Author

    I think there’s one point missing from this analisys. Avid has grown out of the server based world, with all the robustness it entails, it provides a much needed base for colaboration. That’s a key on the markets it dominates. FCP came out of the file based world, the world that seemed like the future before the internet. True that even FCPX recognized that and changed for a server model as well, and premiere is still trying some hybrid solutions. FCP7 was king on the indie industry because it didn’t need so much colaboration, at least, not instant one. There’s nothing like editing hundreds of hours of footage in Avid, you can copy to another machine and not worry about the link/relink dance others need, it will automatically work. I grew up on FCP (classic), learned and use Avid now, but tried PP on my last feature but I gave up waiting literally 20 mins for project to load. Publishing (team projects) an updated project is not the same as bin-locking-sharing. PP might be the future, but i do have only budget for a single subscription. Avid makes me money without headaches, PP seems to be the future, or it might always be the future.

  8. Matthias Cieslik Author

    I tried to change to resolve…but in the edit roam it feels… like editing while drunk or fluid …to slippery…that is the best I can describe it. even 14

  9. Lux Pro Author

    Great breakdown! I was one of the many that got burned by Apple on killing FCP7. As an associate editor for a documentary production house (and the only editor on staff at the time) I transitioned our entire workflow to Premiere between projects only to have an editor come on 80% through shooting a new project and insist on Avid. Had to change the entire workflow again and we were set back two months starting over in Avid. The long-form stability, collaboration tools and script sync were ultimately worth it, but it was certainly a pain getting there (and relearning how to edit with MC).

  10. Kalle Stromgren Author

    I would like to know more of your thoughts on Sony Vegas since it is very popular in the youtube space. Have you ever talked about it before?

  11. Sapiens Strength Author

    Great article and video discussion. Im currently in a college Digital video course and the software we use there is Avid media composer. As someone whose background is a music producer hobbyist, I was well aware of Pro Tools in the professional market, but due to cost and owning a Mac for many years now, I became acquainted with Logic. And as such iMovie and Final cut for limited times I needed to put together video. Now that Im venturing more into video with goPros, DSLRs and Drones Ive been researching professional video software.

    My biggest issue at school in our video class is Im constantly referring to how Id do task in final cut. Certain things like cut in/ cut out on different windows instead of one timeline, separate windows for almost all task, and bins and storage location confuse me, and I often ask for help from our professor and other students… Again similar to Pro Tools and Logic. Im aware one (pro tools and Media composer) are the industry standard , but I prefer the more modern and streamlined (to me) workflow of Logic/ Final Cut. Plus the seamless integration of computer and software all under Apple. Ive used other products from Steinberg and Sony as well over years, but I still come back to the Apple options.

  12. John Heiser Author

    A good summary of everything since the first 12 years of my career. What a ride it's been.

    One note: it's "risk averse," not "adverse."

  13. Bill Nessworthy Author

    We've moved from FCP7 and Premiere as a team to Avid. Unfortunately Avid is so fussy, pedantic and archaic. The tools in Premiere are miles ahead in terms of UI and functionality.

  14. MagicAnvil Author

    Da Vinci Resolve is the way to go … especially with the release of 15. Also knowing Blender for things that no software can do, is handy. Great Video. Keep them coming. Cheers mate.

  15. Photos By Sheron Author

    This was very informative, thank you. i have them all except for final cut, and wanted to know which one to focus on.

  16. Bruce Kennedy Author

    Great video. Clear explanation and reasoning. Personally I wish more editors were open to FCPX just because they are missing out on such an enjoyable experience, but as you say, Apple isn’t particularly bothered with the Hollywood sector, as it’s happy providing software to a giant army of social media editors.

  17. Ellis Perez Author

    I did a Hollywood internship in high school coming off of FCP classic and was amazed to find that every professional editor was using avid media composer. I still use fcp today but great info in this video thumbs up.

  18. Small clips Author

    Every interview I saw (or remember) of a director of either Hollywood or Bollywood movie said that they used avid (its pretty much a industry standard)

  19. mihai cosmin popa Author

    Hi everyone, I usualy don’t post on videos but this one got my attention. First of all I’m an assistant editor and editor for some occasions. My work only includes feature film. As for my experience I used mostly Avid MC. I was asked to do some little work on Premiere. When I jumped from Avid to Premiere I encountered some problems that a lot of people are pointing out as better or the same features as Avid MC. Syncing the footage with sound is way more time consuming in Premiere. For instance, one day of shooting with 2 hours of footage can take few seconds to sync in Avid, Premiere Pro few hours – is made clip by clip. Sharing project or collaborative is not the same in Premiere as in Avid and is limited of certain numbers of assets – actually you can not make changes in the same project. Big projects tend to work very slow on powerful machines in Premier – bigger the project slower will go. Working with RAW files is a hassle in Premier – this is a big miss understanding, you can open the files but you need to make / transcode to proxy files in order to edit properly. I think that Premiere is a very powerful tool if you want to finish very fast a small project inside one software – from ingest / link to grading / delivery. For movies Avid is the tool you should go after. All the best.

  20. wolverineiscool Author

    all I know is that I love adobe premier pro…its just so user friendly to me…but i understand that there is still a ton of stuff i need to learn about softwares like da vinci and avid…which should I learn next…avid or da vinci

  21. Martin Moore Author

    I 100% FCPX. I've used Avid and Pr Pro and both are clunky, slow and in-efficient. I can cut a documentary or commercial in half the time on FCPX. There is so much you can do in FCPX you would otherwise need Ae or another graphic suite that really makes cutting in FCPX a better experience. That coupled with real-time 4k rendering and exports that takes just minutes, no subscription service, it's just a no brainer for me.

  22. Jacob Payag Author

    DaVinci Resolve is now gaining traction especially with independent films because of its very low price and very powerful grading platform. Personally, I think Resolve lacks too many creative editing features.

  23. Thierry Dubuc Author

    I started editing in highschool with adobe premiere elements. Then i made the switch to powerdirector. Then i went to college and learned final cut pro. For the past three years, I've worked mainly on Adobe Premiere Pro, occasionaly on final cut pro 7, been working with avid since last summer and Davinci's been close regularly, so as an assistant aditor, here's my take on it.

    Avid, in my opinion, is slowly dying. While yes, it dominates feature films and is overall very capable (especially when it comes to big projects), there is only one major factor that keeps it alive: the editors. You see, the biggest movies are usually edited by the best editors, the best editors being the veterans, the ones who have been at it the longest. These editors have been around about as long as Avid, if not more. Avid was designed to look like if your were cutting on film, to make the transition to digital interface easier. As a result, by today's standards, the interface is not intuitive at all. You can learn it, sure, but if you come from more regular software like premiere pro or final cut, you'll be shocked by the differences and most of them will make no sense to you. And that is why I don't think Avid will live on forever; it stays the same for the veteran editors and the "don't fix it if it's not broken", but the new generation is turned off by the confusing and sometimes flat out impractical interface.

    The truth is, every software has come a long way and while Avid, like the rest, had its pros and cons, it just seems unlikely that once the old editors leave, that the new will just continue on the same platform. So for now, Avid dominates feature films and hollywood and whatnot, but i suspect not for long. Pro Tools does seem very popular, but seeing this is more of audio mixing software, it's not as relevant.

    FCPX did start rough, but nowadays it's been refined. It doesn't have Premiere Pro's ecosystem of apps, but as a software, it's probably the most powerful, since it's very optimized for apple. I saw austin evans play raw 4K footage on FCPX on a mac mini and it was playable. I also saw performance comparisons between one of the latest macbook pro and Dell XPS, with premiere running better on Dell than the Mac, but FCPX on Mac absolutely tearing the previous benchmark to pieces. So considering most editing is done on mac to begin with, FCPX is tempting, if only they had more features. From what I've seen, it's more appealing to young youtubers on tech channels and whatnot.

    Premiere Pro seems to me like the best all around. While it does get slower as the project gets bigger, its interface is remarkably intuitive and flexible, making it easy to learn. The ecosystem with creative cloud, photoshop and aftereffect makes it so easy to go from one part of the workflow to the next. The only real weakness for me, it's that it gets slower, and server management is a mess. Avid's bins are magnificent, making it so easy to open a project from several computers at once, or sending files from one project to another. Premiere's answer is the dynamic link, which in theory is pretty good, but on a server, it can get ridiculously slow.

    Davinci Resolve is definitely a threat to the others. It got color grading right, the editing interface still feels like a work in progress though. My main criticism comes from the lack of flexibility, or customization if you prefer.

    To conclude, all softwares are capable of the same, it's just a matter of preference.


    Premiere: Intuitive, flexible
    FCPX: Apple optimized, very good performance on lower end machines
    Avid: Amazing file management, good at handling heavy loads
    Davinci: Best color grading engine/interface


    Premiere: Can get very slowish with bigger loads, low performance on servers compared to avid
    FCPX: Apple exclusive (not on windows), not very flexible, lacks some features
    Avid: Worst. Interface. Ever.
    Davinci: Editing interface a little clumsy, not quite refined, and not very flexible.

  24. Scott Anderson Author

    Ok let me tell those of you who want to work on Feature Films and TV in post. Learn AVID, simple as that, Premiere is a niche product at best in "this industry". It doesn't work well in shared/group projects and has general issues when entering the ecosystem that involves sound, DI etc. If you want to tell yourself you're smarter than the people who will employ/pay you go ahead and ignore this advice. I've been working in post and while yes things do change they change slowly for the most part, like everything, the main thing is not to get hung up on the platform but to figure out what is being used and how to use that bit of kit best. In case you're wondering I've been working in feature post for over 20 years.

  25. roy Yung Author

    As an emmy winning editor for over 50yrs, yes i go way back to physical splicing of quad tape, (before time code) then Ampex Editec, then CMX (in many flavors) Avid came close to what we knew and therefore adopted. Avid has gotten too high and mighty and way out if control for cost, this forces to look for alternatives. It was Adobe as the first choice. However i think they shot themselves in the foot with this whole subsription based thing. I think DaVinci will be Adobes competitor. Adobe needs to rethink thier strategy or lose the market.
    I have worked with the PRO-1 bundle and never had to "render" anything. All effects were done in real time using the PRO-1 processing board. They need to create ine for high-def work as I despise this whole rendering thing.

  26. Brian Kingsbury Author

    Good video. I'm surprised DaVinci Resolve was just a 30 second footnote. I'm just getting started on video editing (purely as a hobby) and after many hours of internet searches, Resolve seemed to be the most recommended. I used Premiere Pro briefly but the subscription model is just too expensive as a hobbyist and DaVinci was free! Often times with free software you get some dumbed down piece of junk, but it's actually pretty amazing. I'm probably going to buy the $300 paid version to unlock the very few features that it comes with, but I could easily get by with just the free version if I felt like it. It's worth noting that I saw another video recently that compared rendering times of DaVinci vs Premiere and DaVinci was roughly 3-4x faster than Premiere was due to better hardware encoding support. I'm sure this will balance out over time but still, it's a huge difference!

  27. Roderick Willis Author

    I've only just started to self teach video editing and after a long look at what was available I've settled on two, Vegas Pro (surprisingly powerful and very affordable with Magix's frequent sales) in the hope Magix will properly invest in it, if they do I think it'll be a big player in the market, and Davinci Resolve, this company has struck me as one that's in for the long game, they're pretty much bossing colour grading and are desperate to bring the other aspects of editing up to that standard, my spidey senses tell me they'll do it as well

  28. MrVikas07 Author

    Thank you… I am switching to Davinci resolve.. premiere pro subscription was too costly for me… Sply when i am just starting editing work. Its wonderful that they charge hollywood production house and a poor guy sitting in remote corner with low bandwidth internet the SAME Price… Huh.

  29. Alexander Author

    no talk about nuke..but nuke is #1 in hollywood right now..or you think all this movies with VFX for last 10 years are made in after effects or in avid media composer? :))))))))))))))))) 90% of work in nuke right now ..then in avid composer for timing and export , this fat clown have no idea about video edit

  30. Sean Collett Author

    Absolutely NEVER EVER buy AVID products. They have done nothing but shit on the institution I work for. As an example I had to pay three times for the same Pro Tools perpetual license on the same computer system. Three years before we got it up and running. A lot of work was missed by limiting out workflow to only one sound engineering station. Let them sink. Learn to physiologically edit for the audience rather than where the buttons are on an editing platform.

  31. Michael Stakelum Author

    I love Avid and Premiere both for different reasons but Avid has some unique attributes not discussed… 1. Dynamic trimming. 2. Also works on Mac and PC. 3. Color Correction tools are top notch. 4. Ability to open bins from decades ago. (great for TV) 5. More stable during exports. 6. This is just me but when I am in Avid I tend to think in terms of frames and when I am in Premiere I think in terms of seconds.

  32. Delanor Baychester Author

    That was excellent. I live in Atlanta now. I still want to be current. I still have my media composer but I can't see upgrading it because sometimes it does not work with the new technology . I love Avid products but when I was burnt with there Pro Tools hardware I started seeking elsewhere for hardware. I still use Avid Media composer and Pro Tools . I just won't buy any of Avids Hardware. Plus there $1,000b for tech support per year has turned me off.

  33. George Rady Author

    Reality Check, until 9/11/2001 “professional” (ie Major Corporations and Government) use “procedurally coding” IT systems using highly trained data processor oriented programmers… in addition to showing how easily programming and support could be moved to New Jersey (and then to India) the “object oriented” paradigm (similar to Apple’s re-vamping FCPX) left the “meat and potatoes” programming as a relic of large shops ie much lower price and far greater productivity turn six figure consulting jobs into $50 a hour maintenance… add AI and you have the commoditization of Once highly valued skills as pickup work for those who are able to hang on…

    If “films” can be done cheaper – saving the most $$$ for talent – they will be… not saying. Just Saying.

  34. george Pavloudis Author

    Josh Beal is a Hollywood editor who has worked on such shows as Counterpart, Bloodline, and House of Cards. As a TV editor, Josh thinks it is time for Hollywood to reconsider Final Cut Pro X as a viable editing platform. In this presentation ( ), Josh explains why Avid Media Composer is the King of the NLE in Hollywood and what needs to happen to convince current Media Composer editors to switch over to Final Cut Pro X.

  35. Christian Orpinell Author

    I've always wondered what was used by the majority of Hollywood and "top professionals".

    But with all things, every NLE is just a tool to help deliver end results. It's largely up to the editor or producer to craft excellent results with that they have.

    You get a subscriber from me! This is good information on what's going on (or has been) in the industry.

  36. Philip Wainman Author

    It's a shame Grass Valley don't do more to promote and advertise Edius. I switched to Edius Pro 9 last year and it's a really decent editor.

  37. AJ Booster Author

    I think the market for NLE’s is outside of Hollyweird.Avid I believe is in trouble.(still)Adobe with there subscription model is loosing market share .FCP is doing better and of course Apple owns the patents on Pro res.(Avid has there’s)Adobe has to pay both of them to utilized there Codecs.Last but not least,I think Davinci Resolve is a strong and upcoming contender to all of them.It has a a great all encompassing suite for a great price.(let’s not forget,they know the customer base in Hollywood)The good news for all the non Hollweird editors is that there are some great affordable NLE’s available.Also don’t forget mobile editing(LumaFusion)Not to shabby on the go.(will son interface with FCP.Thx for the great video!

  38. Jarrod Rodos Taylor Author

    Ive worked with Avid and Adobe products for years and will continue to as they have always been industry standard.

  39. teastman4004 Author

    This is clear, concise and the ultimate answer to the differences between NLE's. I love your knowledge of the history behind the implementation of these softwares and this video is probably some of the best career advice I've gotten as an intermediate level editor. Thank you for posting!!

  40. TheYogina Author

    Adobe PPro is over priced garbage. Way to buggy and full of issues. I have tolerated it for several years and now switching over to Davinci.

  41. Herlander Cruz Author

    I subscribed to your channel to watch your videos, you talk to much, you explain unimportant details, make your video boring, you should go to the point, jargons, overspeaking, verbosity…. You're boring
    You never heard about summarizing.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *