Final Cut 10.0.3 vs Plural Eyes

Question

Level 1

9 points

Final Cut 10.0.3 vs Plural Eyes

Hi guys! In the 10.0.3 update of Final Cut Pro X, there's this new feature: Multicam editing with automatic sync and support for mixed formats, mixed frame rates, and up to 64 camera angles.

A few days ago the great Plural Eyes app was released for Final Cut Pro X: http://www.singularsoftware.com/pluraleyes.html

As far as I can see, the new Final Cut Pro X 10.0.3 does the same job as Plural Eyes, so is Plural Eyes useless or has still some important features that Final Cut Pro X 10.0.3 hasn't?

Thanks for the answer. Bye!

MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.7.2), 15-inch, Late 2008

Posted on Jan 31, 2012 6:47 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Tom Wolsky

Level 10

151,089 points

Jan 31, 2012 8:58 AM in response to Ciarals

PluralEyes does multicam editing?

FCP has always had automatic syncing. In the past PluralEyes has done this better.

Reply

Answer 2

Ciarals Author

Level 1

9 points

Jan 31, 2012 10:13 AM in response to Tom Wolsky

Hi and thanks for the answer... Of course I was talking about automatic syncing and not about multicam editing.

Do you think Plural Eyes is still better than Final Cut Pro X 10.0.3 for automatic syncing?

Reply

Answer 3

Nately

Level 2

154 points

Feb 1, 2012 1:42 PM in response to Ciarals

In 10.0.1 and 10.0.2 I had problems with FCPX syncing audio and video correctly. PluralEyes seemed to work better.

But in my limited testing of 10.0.3 (albeit with similar clips) the multi-cam syncing in FCPX has been nearly perfect. I wasn't terribly impressed with PluralEyes for FCPX as it seemed quite messy having to create new project timelines, etc.

Reply

Answer 4

Ciarals Author

Level 1

9 points

Feb 1, 2012 1:54 PM in response to Nately

I tested the multicam sync in FCPX 10.0.3 and I think PluralEyes is still better. My test was made with a concert project: 3 cameras and 1 clean audio track. I created a new project with clips in the wrong order and after 5 minutes Plural Eyes created the perfect project. FCPX didn't make it: after 1 hour of processing, some clips were not in the correct order, etc... Surely, they've done a great job, but PluralEyes is still the best for me.

Reply

Answer 5

J Roe

Level 1

8 points

Feb 3, 2012 12:49 PM in response to Ciarals

Thanks for the test Ciarals, but I am still in a bit of a dilemma. I will be doing a multi-cam shoot in March and need really good sync results between the two cameras (probably no separate audio track or recording, just the two on-camera mics). If I buy the new Plural Eyes for FCPX they want $149. If the new 10.0.3 upgrade had not just come out I would have definitely gone ahead with spending the money. But now will it really be worth 150 bucks? Based on your experience trying to just sync two cameras what would you do? Would love your opinion.

Reply

Answer 6

Ciarals Author

Level 1

9 points

Feb 6, 2012 12:07 AM in response to J Roe

I'll go with PluralEyes. The sync in FCPX is not that bad, but not as good as PluralEyes. I bought PluralEyes less than a week ago, so I could have a refund, but I won't do it. PluralEyes does one thing and does it perfectly.

I tested it with 6 video tracks and 1 audio track: PluralEyes synced them in less than 5 minutes perfectly, FCPX in more than 1 hour and whith some clips not synced. Is not bad, I mean, is "included" in the package, but PluralEyes is way better. If you want my opinion, go for it.

Reply