FORUMS: list search recent posts

Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Aindreas Gallagher
Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 12:19:44 am

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3421180/editingasweunderstandit.jpg

Doesn't it look a little like the ticket? I half like it?

chrome razor sharp reduced ala AE, interesting tabs, understood methodology, tasty toolbar etc.
But i still don't know why they don't have a codec. How did they get beaten out by go-pro? Am I stupid in thinking that Adobe are insane not to have the functional industry delivery equivalent to DNX or ProRes? given that if they had, they might actually be about to eat the entire midday sandwich, afternoon tea and dinner of 21C media/production editing sector alive?

Myself I feel I know AE like the back of my hand - I liked layers in 4.0. And more than a mask per layer in 3.1.
to be honest: I feel like I know Adobe a lot better than this Cupertino.
if it runs right, I'm fine with Premiere Pro 6 as the 64 bit FCP.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 1:42:33 am

Bring on some Speedgrade!


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 2:05:44 am

too right. I genuinely do like the look of this.

you'd nearly think the determining factors were functionality with regard to the market.

but that would be insane.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 3:39:04 am

Dynamic Link is very cool.

But would you go Windows?


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 3:49:11 am

[Aindreas Gallagher]But i still don't know why they don't have a codec. How did they get beaten out by go-pro? Am I stupid in thinking that Adobe are insane not to have the functional industry delivery equivalent to DNX or ProRes?

Do we really need another codec in the mix of DNX/ProRes/Cineform, especially considering that Premiere will work with all of them? If you need an intermediate codec at this very moment in Premiere, you can install DNX and Premiere will use it, whether you're on Win or OSX platforms.


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 4:19:21 am

Right, isn't the idea to work in whatever native codec you shot, and then output according to deliverable: uncompressed, h.264 etc etc?

Doug D


Return to posts index


Dennis Radeke
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 12:55:37 pm

[Douglas K. Dempsey] "Right, isn't the idea to work in whatever native codec you shot, and then output according to deliverable: uncompressed, h.264 etc etc?"

Exactly. The cases where you want a DI codec are where the needs of the job vs. the performance of the codec dictate a DI workflow. For example, if you have an editor that loves to scrub around the media quickly and you're using DSLR footage (H.264), and your system isn't super beefy, then a DI workflow would be viable. Another example is where you need a proxy workflow because the editor is traveling to another location and you want to compact the project and then relink to the online media at a later date.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 6:21:50 pm

Dennis - how does the latest version of PPro 5.5 or 6 get along with Cineform? The feature I cut in PPro was years ago using the Cineform Prospect add-on for Premiere. It was an okay workflow at best. Would love to cut my next feature using the highest quality Cineform transcodes but Vegas Pro now having all kinds of problems with Cineform. Yes I would use Premiere if it works well with Cineform...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 6:28:43 pm

Hey Lance,

I honestly don't know. I haven't played much with Cineform since it got picked up by GoPro.

Sorry - Dennis


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 9:06:37 am

Correct me because I may well be totally wrong here, but while premiere might be able to read and playback the media with DNX and prores installed and living elsewhere on the system, premiere cannot output any of these formats correct? Isn't a client likely to be taken aback being given uncompressed as the clean master for a fifteen minute corporate thing? Isn't that just a gigantic unplayable brick?

Doesn't there need to be a play nicely, high quality, proper colour space sort of thing output media container? Like a premiere 4444?


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 2:47:08 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Correct me because I may well be totally wrong here, but while premiere might be able to read and playback the media with DNX and prores installed and living elsewhere on the system, premiere cannot output any of these formats correct? Isn't a client likely to be taken aback being given uncompressed as the clean master for a fifteen minute corporate thing? Isn't that just a gigantic unplayable brick? "

If you have DNxHD installed on your system, Premiere Pro can export Quicktime-wrapped DNxHD.

Personally, I'm using Cineform for my intermediates and mastering, as DNxHD only works with standard HD frame sizes, and a lot of my work for custom displays requires arbitrary rasters. This would probably not be the problem for most folks here that it is for me.

That said, count my voices among those asking Adobe to provide a mastering codec instead of relying on third parties.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

dermot shane
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 20, 2012 at 1:46:03 pm

DNxHD only works with standard HD frame sizes, and a lot of my work for custom displays requires arbitrary rasters

Walter... i use DNx wrapped Qt's at all sorts of raster sizes, no probs when using an Avid DS, so it may be the implementation in PP that's the issue? The codec does not care what you feed it when used in DS.

d


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 22, 2012 at 1:52:30 am

[dermot shane] "Walter... i use DNx wrapped Qt's at all sorts of raster sizes, no probs when using an Avid DS, so it may be the implementation in PP that's the issue? The codec does not care what you feed it when used in DS."

Thanks for the response, Dermot.

How do you deliver custom-raster DNxHD? I just rendered some 3240x1080 media out of AE and PrP in QT-wrapped DNxHD. It reimports beautifully in the Adobe apps at the correct size and AR, but if I open it in QuickTime Player (and presumably other QuickTime-based apps), it opens at 1920x1080. Telestream Episode thought the file was 1920x1080, and MediaInfo Mac reports VC-3 at 1920x1080.

Off-topic aside: I'm a DS-L lurker, and Sylvain got me very curious to see what NAB brings.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 2:53:18 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Correct me because I may well be totally wrong here, but while premiere might be able to read and playback the media with DNX and prores installed and living elsewhere on the system, premiere cannot output any of these formats correct? Isn't a client likely to be taken aback being given uncompressed as the clean master for a fifteen minute corporate thing? Isn't that just a gigantic unplayable brick? "

Adobe is extremely codec agnostic (save the Avid DNxHD MXF container). Adobe Media Encoder is completely awesome. It can output almost any file format, including AVC-I MXFs, or any QT codec you want. So, it's up to you, and you aren't locked to just QT, but you can use QT if you want.

Premiere works differently than FCP in that there's no "smart rendering".

At the end of your project, you can export your timeline to the format of your choice using AME (Media Encoder). It does not work like FCP works, though, in that every frame has to be recompressed upon export. You have the option to use what is called the "Preview files" in the export, but those will just get recompressed as well (so a compression of a compression). For maximum qualilty, Adobe recommends not using the preview files, although with a robust codec like ProRes, you probably own't notice the generation loss. From what I can understand, "Smart Rendering" is a QT specific thing (think reference files) and PPro doesn't tap in to that functionality as there's no such thing a reference file when you deliver an XDcam/P2/whatever compliant file.

You can set your "preview" files (or what is known as timeline render files in FCP) to whatever you want. By default, Premiere uses a 4:2:2 MPEG2 format, but that is adjustable. In my testing, I change it to ProRes.

Premiere does work differently and does not work exactly like FCP, but that's OK.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 3:37:44 pm

thanks Jeremy - that was a very informative answer, I take it as a piece with your other thinking on offlines and project mobility.

If this works out its great though -I guess we're all going to have to learn Avid anyway - (I'm better than I was), but if PPro can step in for a lot of FCP suites, that would suit me to the ground. I spend half my life going back and forth between FCP and AE as it is. My FCP timeline invariable ends up with stacked iteration AE renders on top. Premiere mopping up the non-core LA Avid editing market would be just the ticket.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 4:05:43 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "thanks Jeremy - that was a very informative answer, I take it as a piece with your other thinking on offlines and project mobility."

Thanks, and as always, sorry for the over conversational and borderline illegible language and typos. Sometimes I type too fast and post.


[Aindreas Gallagher] "I spend half my life going back and forth between FCP and AE as it is. "

I do a lot of work in AE, too. I am not a motion graphic designer, but I do most of my text and what I would call "repair" work in AE (covering up logos, painting, tracking, a touch of roto) to keep things legal for broadcast. The link between PPro and AE I find to be really really great. It is one of the most useful features for me. We also work with a lot of AE motion graphic designers and do our fair share of green screen/keying. Using PPro to tee up a highly organized project/timeline to a motion graphics designer is great. I always get many thanks when I hand over a project+media to designers I lay it out (very basically) so the designer can get to work right away, and Premiere allows the fast editing capability I need to send over to AE and create a project there.

I use Automatic Duck to do this from FCP to AE, but the return was always more "painful" and not as efficient. The way dynamic link works, the AE project is like any other clip or piece of media in your timeline, and you simply step in to AE to make adjustments. It's pretty sweet, I must say.

I just hope Nvidia/CUDA support on OSX comes along. I hear the Quadro 4000 makes a huge difference, but I can't quite switch to CUDA yet as I am still using Color extensively (which likes ATI).

If Speedgrade proves to be something, I would hop on a CUDA card.

And of course, better capture card performance. Time will tell!

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 12:52:43 pm

[Gary Huff] "Do we really need another codec in the mix of DNX/ProRes/Cineform, especially considering that Premiere will work with all of them? If you need an intermediate codec at this very moment in Premiere, you can install DNX and Premiere will use it, whether you're on Win or OSX platforms."

While this is technically true, Adobe Premiere Pro cannot read Avid's OPa MXF file natively. We can read the quicktime wrapped DNX but then that suffers performance because QT is 32-bit whereas Premiere Pro is 64. It's still viable but not optimal.

Dennis - Adobe


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 1:39:54 pm

[Dennis Radeke] " Adobe Premiere Pro cannot read Avid's OPa MXF file natively. We can read the quicktime wrapped DNX but then that suffers performance because QT is 32-bit whereas Premiere Pro is 64. It's still viable but not optimal."

Hi Dennis, do you think this is something adobe consider a strategic issue to be addressed?


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index


Dennis Radeke
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 2:23:34 pm

I can't comment other than to say it's definitely a licensing issue between Avid and Adobe.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 2:29:48 pm

just one more: do you think adobe consider the lack of a high quality playback and delivery codec in PPro an issue?


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 2:54:22 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "just one more: do you think adobe consider the lack of a high quality playback and delivery codec in PPro an issue?"

Let me twist your thinking on this a little, Aindreas.

Obviously I don't speak for Adobe, but from my experience with Adobe over the last couple years, if enough of Adobe's customers consider something to be an issue, Adobe considers it to be an issue.

Now that doesn't mean we always get everything we want, and the things we do get don't always come as fast as we might like -- but Adobe does carefully consider user requests, and they really care about how their products fit in with their users' work.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Bernhard Grininger
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 2:29:03 pm

Hello Dennis,

there is one more important thing to consider.
External field recorders are very popular today.
And since Apple starts to dominate the market with ProRes
in conjunction with all the recorders it is simply true:
the availability of field recorders determines the choice of NLE;
at least for all those who want a bit of more quality than
the camera manufacturers would allow to us.


We also stuck at FCP here and are still interested in the development of FXP-X,
only because of ProRes and our KiPros...


So if Premiere would get a high-end intermediate codec,
Adobe would also need to take care that there are
enough field recorders to support it immediately;
e.g. by giving away free licenses of the codec to the HW-manifacturors
(if technically possible to implement as firmware update)


Best regards,
Bernhard


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 2:54:06 pm

[Bernhard Grininger] "the availability of field recorders determines the choice of NLE;"

True to a point. Remember, Premiere Pro can play Pro-Res no problem and can encode it at a cost of $50 for compressor from the Apple App store.

Avid DNxHD is a different story, but you can use AME as a batch, background transcoding solution to convert media to something that PRemiere Pro can use. yes, I know that's not optimal at all, but it is at least one possible answer.

With many cameras having an HDMI output, you can capture via a hardware i/o, uncompressed or any other manner of codec that the io card supports.

All that said, the most important thing I can convey is that Adobe does recognize that while Native editing is best in most situations, a DI codec is important and we are looking into solutions and opportunities for the future.

Much more I'd like to say, but will leave off this missive here.

Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 3:09:19 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "we are looking into solutions and opportunities for the future.

Much more I'd like to say, but will leave off this missive here.
"



Is that a road map?


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 4:33:37 pm

But Dennis it doesn't play ProRes very well. My 2006 MacPro and FCP 7 will playback more realtime layers of ProRes than my iMac 2011 running CS5. In fact, I'm lucky if it doesn't drop frames playing ProRes. Whereas FCP 7 on either machine can play 5 or six layers of PNP ProRes. I've tried with both BlackMagic and Matrox cards/drivers.


Return to posts index

Bernhard Grininger
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 17, 2012 at 8:57:51 am

Thank You for the clarification, Dennis.


There is still an alternative to ProRes, DNxHD and Cineform:
No, not GV HQX, but BBC's Dirac Pro:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/dirac/diracpro.shtml

It is an Open Source (!) codec developed by the BBC
(doesn't Adobe cooperate with the BBC according to Adobe's marketing on CS5?),
it's based on Wavelet like Cineform, and does 10bit 4:2:2.
As I have seen, HW-coding / decoding chips are available.
The only thing that is missing is 12bit 4:4:4 ...

This could be an viable option.

Best regards,
Bernhard


Return to posts index

Bernhard Grininger
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 17, 2012 at 1:23:56 pm

Correction of my former post:

DIRAC actually does support 4:4:4 and currently up to 16bit,
and resolutions up to 8K (theoretical no restrictions at all):
http://diracvideo.org/

BTW: the enduser-version of DIRAC is called "Schroedinger"

Coding HW is very affordable:
http://www.numediatechnology.com/
Would be rediculous if no one could build a field recorder around it ...

Best regards,
Bernhard


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 1:53:00 pm

[Gary Huff] "Do we really need another codec in the mix of DNX/ProRes/Cineform, especially considering that Premiere will work with all of them? If you need an intermediate codec at this very moment in Premiere, you can install DNX and Premiere will use it, whether you're on Win or OSX platforms."

While I agree the market is already fragmented, there area many reasons to have a solid codec.

Dennis touched on it a bit, already.

One is performance. A codec that is optimized for the CS suite, even though it's rather agnostic, would help.

First is if you have higher resolution material, like red or raw, 444 Alexa, or any other camera that could use a true offline workflow. We have a San that is both Ethernet and fibre based, it'd be nice to be able to create an offline edit, a seamless workflow, right in premiere, that would allow easier laptop/Ethernet editing without having to use the full resolution files.

Second is for portability, meaning taking the project on the road with slower drives, and also being able to send media plus an EDL/XML of the used media to a colorist or motion graphics artist, without having to give them all of the full res media.

Some formats work better than others. I have found in my testing with CS (yes, I've been exploring other options, not just FCPX) that i-frame MXF codecs work really well almost anywhere on any machine, even non CUDA machines.

AVCHD, long GOP, or h264 codecs are slower as they require a much more extensive decompress process.

Also, as Dennis mentioned, the QT API is old and slow. It would be nice to be able to get out of that to another CS sanctioned format that has better and more direct acess to the media.

I think licensing AVC-Intra would be a decent solution. It's 10bit, I-frame and currently has 50 and 100 mb variations, with supposedly more coming (AVC-Ultra).

Don't get me wrong, working natively can be really great, but in today's mixed format world (currently editing a piece that has 4 different camera formats) it'd be nice to be able to unify them all for performance and also to be able to send them to other applications for further processing. If these apps don't understand camera native file formats, or if I have to send a 10GB wad of media when I only used 2 seconds of the clip, it can present some logistical challenges.

That being said, there's a lot to really really like in the suite. After Effects with its powerful warp stabilize and roto tools (at least powerful in this video editors eyes, VFX master I am not) and the direct connection back to premiere is truly useful and pretty great.


I too, am looking forward to cs6 to see what's in store as I know Adobe does a good job of listening, and trying to make things better for us content creators.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 18, 2012 at 12:14:54 am

"I think licensing AVC-Intra would be a decent solution. It's 10bit, I-frame and currently has 50 and 100 mb variations, with supposedly more coming (AVC-Ultra)."

PPro already supports AVC-Intra, both import and export. So this should be feasible. You can do it now by bringing everything into Media Encoder and doing a batch encode, and Adobe's upcoming Prelude app will give you the option of encoding to another format on import.

The only downside, is it currently only supports HD video sizes.

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index

Bernhard Grininger
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 18, 2012 at 9:54:00 am

Hello,

the problem with AVC-Intra is the same as it was with DVCPro50:
They are superb codecs for (camera-)recording from uncompressed,
but are not robust enough for high-end post production.
(robust = significantly keeping quality at re-encoding)

They are perhaps the best native camera codecs for DNG, but nothing for DI.
That said, one of the most popular DI codecs before Apple released ProRes,
was DVCPro50 ...

But the more I think about the problem, the more I like DIRAC PRO aka Schroedinger ...
http://diracvideo.org/
It's open source!

Best regards,
Bernhard


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 18, 2012 at 12:45:21 pm

[Bernhard Grininger] "but are not robust enough for high-end post production.
(robust = significantly keeping quality at re-encoding)"


I hear that, but

Have you done tests? DV50 and avc-I are worlds apart.

Seems to be good enough for Avid in that they offer it as an alternative to DNxHD in nitris.

http://www.avid.com/US/products/media-composer/hardware-options


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 18, 2012 at 12:17:43 pm

[Greg Andonian] "PPro already supports AVC-Intra, both import and export. So this should be feasible. You can do it now by bringing everything into Media Encoder and doing a batch encode, and Adobe's upcoming Prelude app will give you the option of encoding to another format on import.

The only downside, is it currently only supports HD video sizes."


I know it supports it, but we are talking about having a DI codec for premiere.

You can't set your sequence to preview to it, for example.

You can't write to a qt wrapper, for another example, at least not without third party.

While yes, you can export an avc-I, p2 compliant MXF, I am talking about full proxy (DI) support of the codec as many NLEs support it now.

It would also allow writing of op1a MXF instead of p2s op-atom.

Just an idea so as not to add another codec to the game. Avc-I is understood by most NLEs right now, today, and I secretly want MXF to be pushed out in a more robust and less proprietary manner. It's a good solution to a .mov-less world and was designed to hold media.

And yes, it's hd only, I think there's probably enough sd codecs at this point.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 8:16:37 am

I like the new transport controls, one less thing that makes it look like the old Premiere before it became "Pro"

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 10:29:03 am

I really like the new audio level meters. In previous versions they always seemed way too small to be really useful. These look like they were taken right out of Audition!

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index

Liam Hall
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 12:27:03 pm

It doesn't look as dated as 5.5, but I t wonder if it's as clunky...

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

andy lewis
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 12:39:16 pm

Come on Adobe!
I want a timeline as good as FCP7's and trimming as good as MC6.


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 12:57:11 pm

[andy lewis] "Come on Adobe!
I want a timeline as good as FCP7's and trimming as good as MC6."


We are working as hard as possible to make both a reality - time will tell if you are satisfied.

Best,
Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Liam Hall
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 1:03:08 pm

If nothing else, I do admire the customer focus

[Dennis Radeke] "We are working as hard as possible to make both a reality - time will tell if you are satisfied.

Best,
Dennis - Adobe guy
"


One thing no one can fault is Adobe attitude, particular when communicating with its customers.

I'm looking forward to CS6 more than any product this year.

Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 1:37:50 pm

[Liam Hall] "I'm looking forward to CS6 more than any product this year."

me too - if adobe land this, it solves a lot of the problems the end of FCP created outside the core Avid market.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Frank Gothmann
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 3:05:40 pm

Just to add my two cents: count me in on the desire to see an Adobe developed DI codec. I have also supplied my general "wish list" to Adobe in the past.
UI looks great, btw. Very pleased with the bits I have seen. Hope it works smooth with IO hardware and there is the ability to export audio stems.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 4:45:06 pm

Best thing I noticed was that the new interface has fewer buttons....finally. It looks a lot less cluttered. Their project preset window also needed a redesign, so hopefully it's less cluttered there too.

On another note, do you think Dennis, the Adobe Guy knows John Adobe himself?

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 8:58:12 pm

[Frank Gothmann] "Just to add my two cents: count me in on the desire to see an Adobe developed DI codec. I have also supplied my general "wish list" to Adobe in the past."

Me three.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 4:39:16 pm

I think I'd like to also see some real 3D in AE. Or an Adobe 3D app that works like AE or something. Perhaps just extrusions of texts and objects. So we don't have to patch together a bunch of flat layers to make a box. Or use 3rd party expensive plugins or the shatter workaround just to make 3D text that doesn't actually interact with the other layers. I've figured this was the next step for AE since about 2002 and AE 5. Not CS 5. AE 5. I'm old.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 6:10:07 pm

well, you know what they say - they say cinema 4D. unfortunately I spent a couple of years getting decent in max when I was still a pc bod.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Richard Cardonna
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 9:27:40 pm

Photoshop cs5.5 can do extrusions and i believe 3d text


Return to posts index

Richard Cardonna
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 9:28:57 pm

Sorry double post this darn smartphone


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 18, 2012 at 6:43:35 pm

Put my voice in this one Dennis. It's all about Avid's trim mode. It's the reason I keep running back to Avid every time your software laps it in most other facets. No matter how speedy, I want my powerful trim tools at the keyboard level and with per-track controls. Premiere's trim/roll tools have always been too mousey for 10-hour Monday to Friday level of work.


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 18, 2012 at 6:46:33 pm

We have long understood the need to improve our trim tools. Lets see what the new release brings. ;-)

Dennis - Adobe


Return to posts index

Dustin Parsons
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 16, 2012 at 8:39:25 pm

[andy lewis] I want a timeline as good as FCP7's and trimming as good as MC6.

I completely agree. I tried Premiere recently and while there is a lot of stuff to like one of my biggest complaints is how the Timeline works. I, like most editors I know, work by tossing all the footage from a shoot onto the Timeline and cutting it down instead of the traditional 3 point editing method – so for me, editing in the Timeline has to be like butter.

In PP5.5 I found myself having to toggle the track selectors on and off waaaay too often. Instead of using track selectors to determine which clips are affected by a certain action I'd much rather just select the clip[s] I'd like to affect for things like adding an edit, matching a frame, adding markers (which I can't seem to do in the timeline at all), or jumping from edit to edit. Although, I'm sure a lot of my issues are just from me expecting it to work like FCP7.

I'm really looking forward to what CS6 has to offer.


Return to posts index

Tapio Haaja
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 17, 2012 at 12:33:00 pm

I really hope Adobe some day releases their own high quality cross platform DI codec. In the meantime I hope they've licensed Prores from Apple for CS6 so they can build native support for it and bypass old Quicktime. I think licensing for Mac Premiere shouldn't be an issue because Avid already introduced native Prores support in MC6 for Mac.

Another thing is I/O performance and stability. At the moment performance and stability with AJA, Blackmagic and Matrox is very poor.

Actually If Adobe introduces DI codec or native Prores support and I/O works as it should I'm ready to jump to Premiere.

Really waiting for CS6.

Best
Tapio Haaja

On-Air Promotion Producer
http://avseikkailuja.blogspot.com/


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 17, 2012 at 3:59:37 pm

[Tapio Haaja] "I really hope Adobe some day releases their own high quality cross platform DI codec. In the meantime I hope they've licensed Prores from Apple for CS6 so they can build native support for it and bypass old Quicktime. I think licensing for Mac Premiere shouldn't be an issue because Avid already introduced native Prores support in MC6 for Mac.

Another thing is I/O performance and stability. At the moment performance and stability with AJA, Blackmagic and Matrox is very poor."


Tapio, AFAIK Apple has licensed prores encoding only to acquisition hardware companies (cameras, recorders etc). Both Premiere and Avid can read & edit prores files (Win and Mac) but only Mac versions of both can encode if they have FCP or Motion installed on their system.

In my experience stability in PrPro with third party hardware is solid. Problems with stability and performance are usually system configuration issues. Some complain, for instance, that they can only play a single stream of prores HQ. Others with the same hardware get 3 or 4. Personally I tend to avoid all QT variants like the plague because they're 32bit and because Quicktime on Windows really is as painfully buggy as black flies in July.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

John Heagy
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 17, 2012 at 9:28:24 pm

[David Cherniack] "AFAIK Apple has licensed prores encoding only to acquisition hardware companies (cameras, recorders etc)."

Apple has licensed Windows ProRes encode to Telestream for Episode and Vantage and Building 4 Media. I think Elemental has ProRes decode for Linux.

John Heagy


Return to posts index

David Cherniack
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 17, 2012 at 11:33:33 pm

[John Heagy] "Apple has licensed Windows ProRes encode to Telestream for Episode and Vantage and Building 4 Media"

It would be interesting to know what Appple's response was when (if) Avid and Adobe came knocking for their Windows versions.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index

Hector berrebi
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 21, 2012 at 4:24:54 pm

i like premiere, its a nice addition to any good set of chosen tools.
but in my opinion its far from being a main cutter.

its hard for me to believe that any improvement Adobe brings to PP6 can really bring it to a sufficient level, I'd be glad to be proved otherwise.

timeline control, trim tools, advanced editing options and controls, unifying codec, markers, interface, clarity, media management, smart user settings, elegant bins, shared environments... i could go on

it would practically take a rewrite.

a good video app is not necessarily a good editing app
Avid is an amazing editing app and mediocre video tool
FCP7 was really close to be both... that's why everybody loved it so much.

premiere seems to overlook the core art and craft of cutting, and structuring story out of segments. instead focusing on a myriad of new features and flashy gizmos.
if you work long form narrative an use PP, you're either a bad editor, or very badly informed.

and yet, Premiere is so cool to showcase and make nifty videos about,
that so many people today actually see it as a valid replacement.

take a look at Lightworks... no big loud marketing department, but a decent cutter, and its free, and open source... and even historic :)

all that said,
i use PP5.5 constantly in my workflows, there are things that it does best. i love Adobe as a company.. and i look forward to the next CS and the improvements it will bring.

hector

Hector Berrebi
prePost Consulting


Return to posts index

Richard Cardonna
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 21, 2012 at 7:57:03 pm

Adobe is working on a program called prelude. don't know if it will be part of cs6 but it seems to be a preeditor to premier. aparently it includes new editing tools. maybe this is adobes way to address it's lack of standard cutting tools. who knows it might become a tab in some future cs whatever.


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 28, 2012 at 7:35:20 am

To remedy the lack of a proper post-workflow Adobe could go with sheer video.

http://www.bitjazz.com/en/products/sheervideo/

It's a solution I was hoping Apple would adopt but instead came ProRes (not bad but Sheer Video is lossless).

The notion "mostly working native is best" is I think the opposite of higher end post workflows. On the editing side maybe native is good at times but as soon as you enter grading and finnishing you need a DI format. Working in H264, AVC-I or any other super destructive codec opens up a world of issues. Adobe needs something similar to ProRes and / or better.

Further more Adobe touts its Mercury Engine and it probably is awesome with the correct hardware. It's a bit sad to use PrPro however with a non-nvidia machine running ProRes footage. Even FCPX looks like a solid alternative here.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 28, 2012 at 12:41:35 pm

Sheer video would be awesome, but then you have yet another proprietary codec floating around out there.

Plus, that website hasn't been updated since last decade. ;)

It's not that ProRes doesn't work with Premiere, it does. The problem is QuickTime and the 32bit architecture.

Avid can rewrap ProRes to MXF and "avoid" QuickTime.

I agree with you about working native. It's great for certain jobs, but is not practical for all jobs.

I think Adobe should license an existing codec like DNxHD or ProRes. Probably not cheap, but it would keep things less fragmented than they already are, in my opinion.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 28, 2012 at 12:53:55 pm

One can put blame on QuickTime being 32-bit but the fact is ProRes works really bad in Premier Pro and the fact also remains, Premier Pro lacks a proper editing codec. Is Adobes solution to work uncompressed all the time? What wrapper is recommended then as QT's 32-bit architecture apparently is at fault when it comes to ProRes?

A common workflow is Editing (PrPro) > Effects (After Effects, Mocha, Photoshop, Nuke) > Grading (DaVinci) > finishing (PrPro). IMO Adobe has a golden opportunity of making PrPro the king of both small-form editing and finishing as they have a very competent FX-package in After Effects and PrPro seems capable of being a solid editor. A solid format for this is however required which they don't have.

How does Apple solve the QuickTime 32-bit problem in FCPX? Why does a 32-bit application like FCP7 handle ProRes so much better than PrPro and actually FCPX? Why does the viewer and canvas look so horribly poor in CS5.5? (don't give be the "should be viewed on reference monitor" cause that is true in some cases but that doesn't mean the on-screen view looks like garbage). Talking about reference monitors… Why does CS5.5 handle this so much worse than FCP7 on the same system?

It's sad Apple isn't more "into" the pro-video area anymore. They really can create wonderful solutions when they put their mind to it. I hope CS6 solves a lot of these issues but I won't hold my breath for too long. PrPro has had something like 10 years to catch up and given it has some awesome features in it, the above issues make it really hard to work with for a lot of people I think.


Return to posts index

Bernhard Grininger
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 28, 2012 at 1:11:50 pm

Hello,

FCP-X does not use Quicktime, it uses A/V Foundation, the new media framework.
(Not to mistake Quicktime the player app and container format with Quicktime, the framework.)

FCP7 was a Quicktime native app, as Media100 is by the way
(and is also fast; but since we can expect the EOL of Quicktime framework ... )

PP needs to use the Quicktime framework as a translator that decompresses the
images and passes them to the Mercury Engine.

Other formats are directly translated my the Mercury Engine.

Best regards,
Bernhard


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 28, 2012 at 1:28:08 pm

[Erik Lindahl] " Is Adobes solution to work uncompressed all the time? What wrapper is recommended then as QT's 32-bit architecture apparently is at fault when it comes to ProRes?"

Adobe's solution is to work with whatever you want.

With QuickTime, in this sense, we are talking about much more than a simple .mov wrapper. We are talking about the QuickTime API or engine that is used to read/encode/decode/write in qt aware applications like NLEs for the Mac.

All of that code and architecture is 32bit. PPro is 64bit. Do they have to hamstring a 32bit code into their 64bit architecture.

Fcp7 is optimized around ProRes, and it also 32bit. I don't find that ProRes looks like garbage in cs5.5.

How does FCPX get around it? They don't use QuickTime APIs either, but rather AVFoundation to handle media types. I don't think AVFoundation APIs are widely available or practical quite yet. So all of this is on Apple.

[Erik Lindahl] "Talking about reference monitors… Why does CS5.5 handle this so much worse than FCP7 on the same system?"

Different methods. FCP has its own monitoring architecture, as does Premiere. Monitoring in Premiere has been a long standing issue, and hopefully cs6 will address some of this.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 28, 2012 at 1:34:03 pm

Woops, sorry. Bernhard beat me to it.


Return to posts index

Erik Lindahl
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 28, 2012 at 1:45:05 pm

Adobe's solution is to work with whatever you want.

Well I'm not quite sure about that as an 8-core MacPro barely can playback ProRes in Premier Pro CS 5.5 not to mention extremely flacky video output support (yes, FCPX is even worse but I'm not in that sinking ship yet! :)). A G5 almost handles this better in FCP7…

Reading and rendering ProRes is fine in PrPro from my experience but the actual preview in the canvas looks like garbage. I'll try to post a screen later today.

But, with A/V foundation it's possible to overcome the limitations of the .mov container? How does DaVinci solve this issue at the moment as it's quite speedy at ready and writing for example ProRes? Is it stuck in 32-bit land still perhaps? Also, if .mov is a such a poor container format what should one use in a offline / online workflow in the CS-world when jumping between different applications?

In FCP-land, excluding X, it's very straight forward - QuickTime all the way and it works good.

EDIT: Thanks for all the replies but he way.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 28, 2012 at 2:31:04 pm

[Erik Lindahl] "But, with A/V foundation it's possible to overcome the limitations of the .mov container? How does DaVinci solve this issue at the moment as it's quite speedy at ready and writing for example ProRes? Is it stuck in 32-bit land still perhaps? Also, if .mov is a such a poor container format what should one use in a offline / online workflow in the CS-world when jumping between different applications?"

The ProRes problem has nothing to do with the QuickTime .MOV container itself. It's a larger issue. Here's my understanding of how this all works.

"QuickTime" is a word that somewhat confusingly refers to several things: the MOV container format, the player application, and the multimedia framework that other developers can use to build their apps.

Adobe uses their own internal multimedia framework called MediaCore to read QuickTime MOV files and decode them when possible. This can natively decode material with codecs like Animation, PNG, and Motion JPEG.

However, proprietary codecs like ProRes and DNxHD only have decoders available natively for the QuickTime framework. This means that any application wishing to read ProRes must use QuickTime libraries (as Adobe seems to) or license it from Apple (as Avid seems to, but only on the Mac platform).

If your application is 32-bit, there's no speed penalty for using the 32-bit QuickTime libraries (as with Resolve). However, a 64-bit app like Premiere Pro does incur a speed penalty, because it can't use the 32-bit QuickTime libraries directly. Instead, it uses local client/server communication with a 32-bit helper process. The 32-bit helper uses the QuickTime libraries to read and decode the file and pass the decompressed images back to MediaCore, and this communication is the bottleneck that is impacting performance.

The AV Foundation API is nowhere near as mature as the QuickTime API was, and it's not cross-platform, either. AV Foundation is new in Lion; FCPX running on Snow Leopard uses an internal, private version of the framework. It seems that Apple has implemented ProRes encode/decode on AV Foundation, so for now at least, they enjoy a benefit that no one else does.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Premiere Pro 6 to 5.5 frame grab comparison
on Mar 28, 2012 at 3:13:55 pm

[Erik Lindahl] "an 8-core MacPro barely can playback ProRes in Premier Pro CS 5.5 not to mention extremely flacky video output support "

My 8core can playback ProRes in CS5.5, but I have to turn the video out off. The video out is what is slowing it down due to how the capture card has to interact with PPro. Hopefully, Adobe is aware of this and perhaps CS6 will bring improvements. Who knows.

[Erik Lindahl] "Reading and rendering ProRes is fine in PrPro from my experience but the actual preview in the canvas looks like garbage. I'll try to post a screen later today."

I guess I just don't see the same thing.

[Erik Lindahl] "But, with A/V foundation it's possible to overcome the limitations of the .mov container?"

See Walter's post. It's not about the container per se (although that has something to do with it) its how the program has to decode the information. Right now in Adobe and other apps, it's limited to the now defunct Quicktime API. Avid gets around this by letting you work with the QT ProRes files via AMA, but then it also allows you to rewrap the ProRes to MXF and then works natively within Avid's own system. A great solution.

[Erik Lindahl] "Also, if .mov is a such a poor container format what should one use in a offline / online workflow in the CS-world when jumping between different applications?"

There's no question that Adobe is aware a good DI option is needed for Premiere. If you read back in to this thread, you will see that it has been mentioned that they are aware of it, but can't say anything more about it. So we have to wait a little longer to see what shakes out. See here: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/28524

I am a big fan of the MXF container, even though it has it's oddities. But, it is a universal container, designed to hold media, and I think that if the MXF format could be opened up in some way (which is odd as it's an open source project, but has been "proprietized" over and over). For example, in my testing PPro CS 5.5 works great with camera original MXF contained material, even without CUDA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MXF

Jeremy


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]