CS5 – already frustrated – REALLY Adobe?!?!

[Jiri Fiala]

No, they are not. Only DV, DVCPro and some mobile devices presets in trial.

[Peter Corbett]

I switched to FCP from CS4 last year, but FCP ain’t no racehorse. One of the biggest failings of Final Cut is the Titler. It is like something that was around in early non-linear systems ten years ago. Hopeless. The Inscriber-based titler in Premiere kills FCP for speed and power.

I use Final Cut as my primary editor every day bit but I’ve never met a NLE user group of editors as defensive as Mac/Final Cut users. There is much to like about Final Cut, but it’s almost a crime to criticise anything about FCP… I think Apple is really falling away from the rest of the pack.

Peter Corbett
Powerhouse Productions
http://www.php.com.au

[Bob Dix]

I like your comments !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Freelance Imaging & Video
AUSTRALIA

[Andy Prada]

I’ve worked on both FCP and Premiere for many years now. I currently have my own iCore 950 W764bit Premiere setup using BCC6, Graffiti etc (Uncompressed and HDV)and work out-house for clients using their own FCPs – (DV,HDV,HD etc)

In my experience all Premiere versions are buggy and unstable compared to equivalent FCPs. But that’s to be expected when the OS and the Edit software are not written by the same people. Apple clearly have an advantage here.

CS4 average crashes or freezes or go slows per day = 7
FCP = 1 (at most)

If I had to be brutally honest, if it were not for AE and Photoshop, I suspect Adobe would be dead in the water as far as Premiere is concerned. It really is a flawed diamond of a programme that lacks functionality in some key areas. It’s only by carefully locking editors in to a creative suite that they have kept ahead of the game. Adobe tread a very edgy tightrope here because they know that logically AE and Premiere should coalesce eventually. But that isn’t good for revenue streams is it?

As for Creative Suite – it’s great as a concept but it’s hugely complex in terms of resources that it ties up – hence CS4 became all but unusable in a 32 bit environment and not much better in optimised 64 bit. CS5 should solve this (plus a healthy investment in GFX card hardware.) I say SHOULD.

FC Studio is a good attempt at emulating CS but Motion is no AE and they have no Photoshop equivalent which is pretty amazing considering how much Editing and Gfx merge these days. Apple really should get out more. DVD Studio is ok and allows for some high level scripting but I much prefer Encore. Livetype was fantastic (I say WAS because the latest FCS doesn’t include it any more) Soundtracks software is also good and has a better interface than Audition.

Where am I going with this you ask? Where indeed! I guess it comes down to hope and prayer. I actually think Premiere is a better editor’s tool than FCP and prefer it. I just hope that CS5 will sort the stability issues that have plagued CS4.

Meanwhile I think you are doing the sensible thing by becoming proficient with both and keeping your options open. At the least it sends a message to software providers that they haven’t got roll over and die customers for life.

best

andy

[Eric Monroe]

Tom: I kindly hope that you are not directing “childish rants” at me for posting this.

My initial reason (yes, through frustration, I admit) was to let people know, who might not have seen the small disclaimer, not to waste their time downloading the trial if they were going to be expecting to give CS5 a run with the ever popular and much hated AVCHD format. That was truly all.

I too have used PPRO since CS2 and I make my full-time living doing long form, multicam (4 to be exact) production work. The release of CS5 for me personally has been a much awaited thing. I have been a diehard adobe guy since getting into this field. However, my bubble was burst when i found through d’ling the trial that i could in fact not use the very features that adobe has bragged/advertised SOOOO much about.

My main frustration comes from the fact that adobe premiere elements has access to the mpeg codecs in its trial…..so this whole adobe would have to pay lic. fees comes as a bit of a confusing thing. Elements, has a watermark over exported videos in the trial…but gives you the ability to at least TRIAL the software. So why then would they not allow us to place clips on the timeline, and just render the media encoder useless so that in the trial exporting would not be allowed…..at least then we could see if our machines could benefit from the new software.

I feel that everyone here has made points that hold value, and to everyone, i appreciate ALL of your input on my topic. If frustrations, or differing points of view are “childish rants” then why do we have forums? Maybe Adobe should read these forums, and posts to get a feel for the temperature of the situations going on with REAL users.

Eric A. I thnak you for giving us your insight, and sharing your experiences. EVERYONE here has the right to their opinion, even if some disagree. That is what makes this forum great.

I was not trying to start people arguing, i only wanted to voice my frustration, and see if others could shed light to the situation. See if others shared in or disagreed with my take on things. I appreciate each one of your inputs, and want to be “cool” with all of you.

cheers,

Eric M.

[Peter Corbett]

[andy prada] “Meanwhile I think you are doing the sensible thing by becoming proficient with both and keeping your options open. At the least it sends a message to software providers that they haven’t got roll over and die customers for life.”

I agree with everything yuo said Andy. Now that I have a Mac Pro and have resonable experience with FCP, I plan to have both CS5 and FCP on the same OSX system. (I have noticed though that you have to reboot after using CS4 before attempting to use FCP again – I suspect this is the shared AJA drivers)

I get quite a few crashes per day with FCP, but again I suspect this is somthing to do the AJA plugin.

I beta-tested versions of Premiere until CS4 then gave it away because it was just so unstable. But I returned to the end of the CS5 beta-cycle and I have to say I have never heard such a rave about a CS release from beta-testers as I have with CS5. My Windows experience bears this out, and here’s hoping for the Mac release.

Peter Corbett
Powerhouse Productions
http://www.php.com.au

[Eric Monroe]

Hey Andy,

I just played with Motion for the first time yesterday, and I don’t really do alot with AE in the first place. What would you say Motion lacks when compared to AE?

Also, what would you say is the reason that basically all the big name people use FCP or Avid, and not PPro stations for their workflows?

Just wanted to hear your take….and anyone else who wants to comment.

[Eric Monroe]

[Peter Corbett] “. I think Apple is really falling away from the rest of the pack. “

In what ways? I am interested because i am spending quite a bit of time right now learning this software.

[Peter Corbett]

[eric monroe] “[Peter Corbett] “. I think Apple is really falling away from the rest of the pack. ”

In what ways? I am interested because i am spending quite a bit of time right now learning this software.”

I’m not saying it’s a bad program. I’ve edited over fifty commercials this year on it. But I would like:

1. A better in-built titler. FCP users say use the Boris plugin. Its not the same. Anyone who has tried it and PPro Titler knows what I mean.
2. Better intergation with image software like PPro and Photoshop has.
3. Hardware-assisted rendering like Mercury.
4. Better manipulation of the GUI. You can’t even adjust the brightness of the display.
5. Better integration with Windows ceated AVI files. And MP4’s.

These are just some things that come to mind. I’m not bagging FCP – I do like many parts of it. But as someone once said, “if you are standing still, you are going backwards.”

Peter Corbett
Powerhouse Productions
http://www.php.com.au

[Andy Prada]

[What would you say Motion lacks when compared to AE?]

Keying quality, speed of response on complex layered projects, filter set, ability to work well on most PCs (Motion is very resource intensive.) One thing motion does have which AE lacks is plenty of quick to use presets.

The reason big name people use Avid and FCP (I also use Avid Adrenaline myself although not so much now) is compatibility and stability. I’ll take the second issue first.

In a commercial facilities environment (as opposed to home studio) the need to have kit working solidly from minute 1 until the end of a session, often accompanied by clients, is the paramount requirement. Today’s deadlines simply do not allow for more than an occasional freeze or crash. Unstable software kills confidence and hence revenue.

Premiere can do creatively all that Avid and FCP can do – and more in some cases. That’s the reason why I went this route for my home office in UK. Firstly it was much less expensive, secondly (and this was important for me) it gave me more time at home with my daughter instead of heaving to commute 3 hours day to London and miss her growing up.

The downside was less stability and more time-shifting of my work patterns into the evening to accommodate freezes and long render times (not a problem when you work 3 seconds from home).

The first issue I raised was compatibility. It’s hugely important from a commercial imperative to adopt a system that everyone can use off-the-street or be trained on and has a solid body of existing customers.

In the old days Avid had the lions share of the broadcast and professional market. But it was quite expensive for an individual to buy because you had to have the hardware that went with it. (Why do I see parallels with the need for Cuda technology and CS5?) Creators tended to hire their edit suites on a daily basis rather than buy them so Avid built their reputation on rock-solid performance and stability.

Speed Razor (fantastic but functionally immature) and Premiere (a bit amateurish) were the home alternatives and were perfectly good for low end work. Later came FCP and then FC Studio.

Back to reality and todays’ market. My evaluation of Premiere is that it works perfectly well at the DV end with a couple of video streams and a few audio and video effects. It really struggles when the bar is lifted to HD and every aspect of the timeline has a green line due to hi end audio and video filters. This is not meant to be a criticism because the ask is pretty high.

But if you want to play with the big boys you have to have big boy’s boots and CS5 will need to have boots and then some if it wants to crack the real PRO market.

I leave this post with one example: – the inability of Premiere to digitise over time code breaks or discontinuous timecode.

All PRO environments use timecode and it often gets broken on tape when cameras are powered up and down. In Avid I can set it to digitise over breaks. It will simply pick up and continue. Premiere can’t do this. So a tape that may also be shot ToD (Time of day) is also going to have problems because Premiere can’t cope.

The end result is me having to go through the footage and log it all first to avoid the problem. THAT is far from PRO and another example of a revenue killer!

I reiterate my case – get proficient on as many NL systems as you can so you can work for anyone. Buy the system that will suit you needs both professionally or personally. But be aware that you get what you pay for.

best

andy