Spare yourself the misery of 2.0. IT’S A MESS!

[Carlitos]

Mine is working fine.

[Paul King]

As I read this I was hoping to find examples of what you are talking about.

Alas it was just a rant (not saying you dont have a point, just that you didn’t show it to us, you just told us you had one).

Norman, what do you mean?

paul

[Dave Friend]

I’m not having headaches or frustrations. I’m not seeing the results of sloven engineering. I don’t feel like a beta tester and I know first-hand what that can feel like. I don’t blame Adobe because after-market (a.k.a. third-party) solution providers can’t get their ducks in a row. I have not found any inability to perform the intended purpose. Last, but not least, I have found nothing of value in your missive.

If you’ve got a concrete problem then please, by all means, post it here. On the other hand, if you just want to rant go somewhere else.

Dave

[Mark Palmos]

Having been a tester for PP, I can only say I am impressed by the engineers and how they actually DO listen and continue to make substantial changes.

I’m not sure what your rant is about, but I would definitely not call the team slovenly, or the product a waste of time, in fact I only wish I had used v2.0 in my last project because my workplace use Discreet Edit 6.5 and I would have done this project much faster on PP.

I like it a whole lot and am working to get my boss to shift over from Edit to PP, with or without Axio.

Mark Palmos, UK.

ps
please dont ask me any questions about the beta cycle. I could tell you but then my russian wife would have to kill you.

[Billyj]

Ok, make this test :
create a 4000×4000 still with photoshop. Import it on the timeline of ppro 2.0 for a duration of 5 s. Apply a fade and a zoom to the still (scale < 50 %). Then try to render it. It will probably take more than 1 mn for only 5 s, depending on the computer ! When you discover this problem at the end of a 3 mn edit with only stills, it looks a little bit like a mess.

[Jeff Bellune]

Back atcha, billyj:

Test this – change your display quality to Draft. RT playback will be smooth and you won’t have to render. If you need to see a portion of your creation at full resolution, then set it to render and go get a cup of coffee.

If that is unacceptable to you, then do your moves in AE. If you have the Production Studio, you can even use Dynamic Link to add the AE comp to your PPro sequence so you don’t have to render out of AE.

PPro 2.0 is much more stable with long-form projects than PPro 1.5. If slower rendering is the price to pay for added stability, I’ll make that trade-off any day of the week.

Hardly a mess.

-Jeff

[Carlitos]

I work with heavy graphics, many layers, etc on a daily basis.

I’m more a compositor than an editor.

I find the renderings and Real time performance in 2.0 much better than in 1.5.1. with the same machine.

The RT performance in 1.5 wasn’t as good as in 2.0 by far. At least is my perception.

And the interaction between Premiere and Photoshop in a lot better in 2.0.

My biggest complaint is some issues with 1.5.1 (and older) projects.

[Lloyd Coleman]

I work with stills in Premiere a lot. I learned long ago that resizing the stills to an appropriate size does many things that are helpful.
1. It really controls the flicker problem of sharp edges on the photos when you zoom or pan on them.
2. It make the overall project size much smaller
3. It makes the program much more responsive
4. It reduced render time considerably
5. In PPro 1.5 it would allow me to put many more still in a project before I got the famous green or black screen

Standard video is only 720×480. If you size your stills to around 1,000 to 1,200 across you usually have room to zoom or pan and still not burden the system. There may be cases where you want to zoom an extreme amount and you can size that particular still for that case.

I tried your example with a 1000×1000 picture and a 4000×4000 picture. I noticed that the larger picture was less than 3MB and the larger picture was over 37MB. On my machine the 1000 pixel picture rendered in 4 seconds and the 4000 pixel picture took about 5 minutes. That is an increase of 75 times for the larger picture! Naturally someone would be frustrated with that kind of performance. Although Premiere can handle a picture this size, I don’t think most people need stills that are over 46 times the size of standard DV and therefore Premiere was not designed to handle this task. To me its like buying a pickup truck and then complaining that acceleration, braking and performance is poor when it is loaded to the top with bricks.

[Carlitos]

I work with stills in Premiere a lot. I learned long ago that resizing the stills to an appropriate size does many things that are helpful.

.- I’d add that almost ANY non super-mega-high-end video app ( INFERNO, DS and the likes) has a hard time with huge stills and heavy graphics.

[Norman Frizzle]

Paul, you make a valid point. My ‘rant’ was originally intended as part of an earlier thread by others noting the extreme time it takes for MPG compression, with or without large still images.

More seriously, I encounter system crashs, not just a dump out of PP but my whole system crashing. (And yes, I have had my system checked for integrity.)

I was initially very impressed with the Production Suite integration, until I found that at times my Edit Original is whited out, not just in PP but in (as I recall) AE and PHOTOSHOP as well. I thought maybe I needed to have my timeline highlighted or something, but no matter what I do, there are occasions when I cannot access this feature.

I still get the dreaded ‘failed to return a video frame’, a catch-all malaise that has never been adequately addressed in PP. And if anyone has ever followed the maze of troubleshooting for this issue that Adobe provides (in an area of its site not very helpfully signposted), they will know how frustrating it is to come out the other end no further ahead.

I have a Canopus Storm 2. PP 1.5 supported it, but it never worked well. Now I understand that Canopus is not even attempting to seek certification for 2.0. Members of Adobe’s promotional tour confided in me that as long as Canopus is effectively a rival with its own Edius editing software, Adobe is not inclined to be terribly cooperative.

Whether or not this is true, what is a red flag for me is that PP 2.0 was released with ONE certified hardware system from ASA, for which Adobe itself designed the drivers. The implications of this are disturbing for me. Adobe’s attitude seems to be that if you are lucky enough to have a system in common with the one that it was tested around, you’re in clover. Otherwise, you need to cross your fingers and pray.

You may very well have in store for you what I went through with 1.5, namely, acheiving about 1/3 what my productivity level would have been if I hadn’t spent the other 2/3s of the time uploading new patches, or spending hours on the phone to Adobe techs seeking work-arounds, or waiting out grotesquely S-L-O-W renders that ENDED on the last second with the ‘failed to return a video frame’ message.

And Dave, when I speak of ‘third party’, I’m referring to Dolby and Media Encoder, in particular the latter. Adobe includes it as a feature, yet when it poses problems interfacing with PP, Adobe disowns it and fobs me off on its maker for service. But it is, after all, how Adobe intracts with these products that is at issue here.

I have innumerable other difficulties in getting my work in and out of PP.

Incidentally, I’d be interested to know just how many beta testers were using Canopus Storm 2, which is generally conceded to be a stable and respected system.

I have to wonder if I am being penalized for chosing a system that happens to produce editing software rivaling Adobe’s own.