- May 2, 2011 at 11:10 am
In spite of admitting, and I quote: “There is a known bug in Premiere Pro CS5 that affects memory usage when importing Canon XF305 files.” and promises made about the canon XF being fully integrated in Adobe Premiere CS5 (in this .pdf file) Adobe won’t fix this problem for CS5 users. Instead they are forced to buy the half-version upgrade.
Full story HERE, read it and weep
So, IF you consider buying a canon XF series camera (and please do, they are great!) please be aware that it will NOT work with Premiere CS5!
- May 3, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Very interesting. Luckily I don’t use Adobe. I took some files I shot with my demo of the camera and they imported just fine into Vegas 10.c, which I use for most of my none collaborative work (when I work solo). It used the files with no problem.
Maybe Adobe will fix this in the next version. Given that they charge for upgrades of incremental versions, you would hope so!
So for now it doesn’t affect my decision (except the decision to leave FCP or Vegas for Adobe).
I’m more worried making sure that my new camera isn’t got parfocal problems, which apparently some of them do. (remember backfocus on the EX-1?). I’m driving to pick it up today to check on it before taking possession. One of the benefits of buying local.
- May 3, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Well, I am affected by this bug and the Adobe is handling this is very disturbing. I am seriously considering switching to Vegas. I have 9d and consider upgrading to 10. What I like a lot about Premiere is being able to render directly to a whole buch of useful formats. One of them being .flv…
- May 4, 2011 at 12:12 am
I’ve been really happy with Vegas 10.c on Windows 7 64 bit. Playback engine at this point doesn’t appear to be quite a smooth as the Mercury engine. That could be a factor for you. Trial it first.
I don’t see .flv output on Vegas, but it does have a large array, including XDCAM EX, MP2 and 4, .MOV, MXF, etc.
- May 4, 2011 at 5:37 am
Yep I know. And I do prefer the Vegas interface over the Premiere interface, but to my eye the Premiere output looks better than the Vegas output. Anyone else notice that too?
- May 4, 2011 at 2:14 pm
I don’t know why that is, but I’ve often thought that FCP (since I don’t use Adobe yet), also looks slightly “cleaner”. Perhaps that’s because of being forced to transcode, perhaps it’s just some kind of better internal support of Quicktime rendering, perhaps it’s the more modern graphics included in the base package that make it look that way,I just don’t know. I do know that it’s not been enough of a difference to make me change, at least for my quick and dirty work, since I save so much time and earn more money doing it on Vegas. Eliminating transcoding is worth while, in many cases. I use it when necessary, even on Vegas, by going to Neoscene.
Log in to reply.