Why is Premiere CS5 left out when playing with the Big boys?
As a premiere user since 1.5, I can't seem to get a good reason why Premiere is ALWAYS left out of the conversation.
For example, if you listen to any tutorials, blogs, webinairs, etc.. you will always hear " Avid or Final Cut" when speaking of editorial systems dealing with Red, ARRI,etc.
I've used Media composer 5 a while back. I was expecting fireworks & lightbulbs to go off when I learned Avid. To my surprise, it seemed to be no difference in performance and I wasn't too crazy about waiting a 1/2 hr to load footage. If I used the AMA feature, the clips came in fast but playback wasn't as good as when you let Avid import the clips.
I wasn't crazy about the workflow, so I went back to Premiere.
So I ask you guys:
Why is premiere ...Sloppy 3rds?
Why Avid or Final cut for that matter?
Well, in my world, broadcast TV, tape capture (non-firewire) and output is still a BIG deal. Avid has that nailed down. FCP comes in second. Premiere Pro...not so much. It was pretty good when the PC version had Matrox RT, but lately...not so much. Not all that reliable. Avid is rock solid, FCP was a good 90-95%.
Media management? Avid is second to none. Large projects with many hours of footage...keeping track of that is a huge priority. FCP is OK with media mangement...but you need to be on your toes. Adobe Premiere...issues exist for managing lots of media (they are getting better). Don't give a second thought about how important managing assets is. Once you lose track of footage, and need to troubleshoot why...and chase down multiple issues...going back to a stable system is a no brainer.
Shared media multiple station workflows? Avid is TIGHT...and that is huge with reality TV, documentary series...even narrative TV where you have lots of media on a main server and you need multiple machines to access that media. Editor systems, assistant systems. Avid is rock solid...and FCP does a pretty decent job, as long as you really pay attention to what you are doing. Premiere? Well, I actually don't know. Haven't looked into doing it.
Feature films. Avid again wins hands down. 99% of all feature films are edited with Avid. It was designed around film. FCP...worked it's way into that market. Got a decent foothold too, until FCX came out. Avid has that sewn up tight.
3D production? Adobe and FCP work with the aid of the Dashwood plugin, or Cineform. Avid...all the tools are built in for full and complete 3D workflows.
Editor comfort. We use the tools we like. And since many of us were taught Avid and FCP in film school...the tradition carries forward. We use the tools we like, are comfortable with, and do what we need. switching can be painful.
Perception. Producers/post supers go with what works, and what has a record of working. They won't even consider another option unless the one they are using fails to do what they need. Then, and only then, will they look seriously at alternatives. If the alternative doesn't offer something over the current model, and is solid in every way the current model is...it won't be looked at. And producers will go with a system because of name recognition. Avid has a rep...they trust it. Won't risk projects and careers on alternatives.
Unless Adobe Premiere can prove itself as rock solid in many production and post arenas, it won't be wide spread. It took a LOT of effort to get FCP where it is. And all that work was shattered when FCX came out. Unless someone or multiple people use Premiere on a feature, or broadcast TV show...regularly...and show the advantages of it over the competition, and get someone to trust them...it won't go far.
Right now...I have given Premiere a shot. Thus far it is lacking in many key areas, mainly tape capture/output and general timeline workflow...so I won't be using it. WE'll see what CS 6 has to offer
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def
Thank you for that helpful INFO.
Since I work alone, and do very small projects. I haven't needed much demand in the software. I guess I was judging the softwares on common editorial tasks. Not looking at the bigger picture.
Thanks so much,
FCP...worked it's way into that market. Got a decent foothold too, until FCX came out. Avid has that sewn up tight.
So are you saying that FCX is Amazing...or Horrible?
According to Apple, Avid is declining rapidly in the market and FCP is increasing rapidly.
If I am going to switch my editorial system this year, I want it to be a system that is "in Demand" or "Rock solid" in the future market place.
Can you give your opinion on FCX a little more?
If you take a look at all the Final cut people who are trying to learn Avid, I think you will have an answer to your question about Final Cut X. It is leaning towards the consumer market, not to Pro market.
I guess we'll take a little detour from the topic. FCPX has taken an entirely different direction and isn't concerned about "legacy" equipment. They are looking forward and thinking editors and production houses will never need to access tape. They removed the ability (without 3rd parties) to capture tape. FCPX could be considered amazing and horrible at the same time. It just depends on where you are using it and your workflow.
Avid is rock solid and, depending on your market, in demand. If you are switching your editorial system, then you need to analyze your market, your clients. Some clients care about the tools used to get the final product - others don't care or even know the difference. If you can produce videos that your customers like and pay for, then the system you use is your choice. If you have customers who walk away because you are editing on _____ system, then you need to review your market base.
You mention: "According to Apple, Avid is declining rapidly in the market and FCP is increasing rapidly." That statement may have been true a year ago, I don't believe it now. Avid has reduced its price and made the product more open in terms of 3rd party hardware.
Anything worth doing at all, is worth doing well.
- Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield
I think I understand it better now.
[lou cann] "So are you saying that FCX is Amazing...or Horrible?"
IN broadcast TV? Horrible. Downright bad. FCX lost the ability to do many things I need to do, and COULD do, with FCP 7. Export OMF for audio, Export EDL for various reasons (VFX work, stock footage tracking, online in other systems), ability to view timeline and source monitor on external broadcast monitor for color correction, and for client monitoring, professional level color correction (the new FCX tool is a complete joke), the need for separate tracks for keeping audio separate, and EASY TO FIND (Roles is Apples answer to that...not sure if it does what I need though).
The need to capture tape directly into FCP, instead of relying on the third party IO card to make software for this. Because the offline/online workflow...the need to BATCH CAPTURE...is still a big part of my workflow. Apple seems to think that only firewire tape formats exist (much to their chagrin), and that if we want to capture other tape formats, they leave that up to the IO makers to allow. And that doesn't work at all.
Shared storage and multi-editor workstations. FCX doesn't allow that.
And besides all of that...they changed the entire editing workflow...how editing is done...and that just kills it. There is nothing wrong with how editing is done now, via tracks. They tried to fix something that wasn't broken. So now, with FCX, we need to learn a whole new tool with drastic new ways of doing things. Or...move to other NLEs that work just like we are used to and do what we need. The choice is easy.
[lou cann] "According to Apple, Avid is declining rapidly in the market and FCP is increasing rapidly."
That was before FCX came out. That's the funny thing...Avid WAS failing. FCP was taking over the market...getting ready to dominate and sink Avid. Then FCX came out, and Avid is set to gain back a LOT of marketshare. It might take a while as many of us still use FCP 7 and will for a couple more years as it does what we need. But when making the move to newer workflows, codecs and features that we need, we'll be looking at Avid and Adobe.
FCX is not intended for my market...the broadcast market. It is VERY clear in how the software was designed and by the features it has. It is meant for a larger, midrange and consumer market. Broadcast TV was 2% of FCPs market...so catering to our needs, in their minds, was silly.
[lou cann] "If I am going to switch my editorial system this year, I want it to be a system that is "in Demand" or "Rock solid" in the future market place."
What you choose is entirely up to you...what kind of projects are you doing? What NLE best allows you to do them? That's what you use. And if you want to get into editing where you are hired to use systems (freelancers...big thing in LA, NY)...best to use the tool that the market is using.
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def