-
Where is editing going
-
[Dennis Radeke] “I would say that if you need a transcode workflow, that’s exactly one of the uses that Prelude is designed for. Imagine a whole program for “Log and Transfer” and throw on “keyword tagging” as well.
“If Premiere doesn’t need transcoded footage why the option in Prelude to do so please?
Or does it run that teency bit smoother with everything in Pro Res (for example)?
And just a reminder to anyone reading this (because these threads do become hard to follow). This sub thread was me asking the question of Dennis (taking an opportunity seeing as he was in the room so to speak) and not Dennis jumping in and pitching Adobe. (I’m sure everyone knows his manners are too good for that anyway)
Best
James
-
[James Ewart] “If Premiere doesn’t need transcoded footage why the option in Prelude to do so please?
Or does it run that teency bit smoother with everything in Pro Res (for example)?”Premiere Pro does indeed perform more fluidly with some codecs than others. Remember, it’s a cross-platform application, so ProRes might be better on a Mac, but AVC-Intra might be better for a Windows user. No matter how well an application can handle a range of diverse codecs, some simply don’t perform well, no matter what. That’s more of a limitation of the OS and underpinnings to handle video than anything to do with the application itself.
Also there’s the issue of how the file/folder structure of the source media is organized. With some files, like P2, you cannot break the folder structure if you want to be able to read the native/original files. Some editors prefer to impose their own organization, so Prelude lets you do that through transcoding.
Prelude enables 5 functions:
1 – back-up of source media from cards to your hard drive
2 – optional transcode (as part of or in addition to the back-up)
3 – secondary transcode (for example a simultaneous high-res and low-res transcode for 2 copies)
4 – logging
5 – simple assemblies that can be sent directly into Premiere ProThe fact that Premiere can handle native media doesn’t mean that it’s the best way to work. Prelude gives you an Adobe tool that’s designed for pre-edit and media prep, but it’s use is optional.
In the context of “where editing is going” the idea of pre-editing is actually being pushed by a number of companies. Notably Sony has designed its Catalyst product line for media prep and pre-editing. This seems to be to answer the desire to have some lightweight editing capability on set.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “This seems to be to answer the desire to have some lightweight editing capability on set.”
Thanks Oliver,
Two questions:
Not being able to transcode media within the PP application is not missing something? Wouldn’t you want that capability? Or is it just a workflow thing. Log and transcode with Prelude and then start editing with PP. But then extra bits and pieces come in and pickups and stuff and back to prelude for logging and transcoding? Sounds a hassle but perhaps it’ so seamless it isn’t?
FCPX kind of ticks the on set box as well don’t you think?
-
[James Ewart] “Not being able to transcode media within the PP application is not missing something? Wouldn’t you want that capability?”
Personally I prefer to transcode, but it isn’t essential. If you work in an environment where you want to go right away to cutting and don’t want to take the time to transcode, Premiere is a really good tool. But it really is more of a preference issue than anything else.
Remember that a lot of camera media used these days does not have valid timecode. Most individual editing apps handle this, but it’s a HUGE PITA when going between apps. That’s part of the transcoding/media prep stage that I think is equally important to a change in codec. Namely the addition/change of timecode and reel ID numbers.
Where transcoding tends to be an issue for me is with media like RED. Premiere Pro handles native editing with RED media quite well, but it doesn’t perform as well as with ProRes. So with RED, I’d want to transcode first and in that case, FCPX has an elegant way to handle it. However, even there, I prefer to transcode RED in Redcine-X Pro first and then cut with the transcoded media.
[James Ewart] “Sounds a hassle but perhaps it’ so seamless it isn’t?”
The metadata comes across to Premiere Pro. Essentially what Apple did as a combined function within FCPX, Adobe opted for two separate applications.
[James Ewart] “FCPX kind of ticks the on set box as well don’t you think?”
Sure, it could. I think that’s where Resolve’s editing tools are going to get the most workout on larger jobs with more complex media, like RED. It’s already what most DITs are using. Sony Catalyst Browse/Prepare/Edit is trying to move into that area because of its streamlined functions, but we’ll see.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
I ran across this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gVj7ygYNEo
A Premiere 4.2 demo from 1996. That’s the Ubilos version. Somehow this seems more like FCPX to me than FCP “classic” which came in between. There are actually some things in there that more “modern” NLEs still can’t do.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.comSome contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
After reading this thread, it occurs to me that expecting a radical new approach to editing software is unlikely. As computers came up, there was a period of experimentation and rapid change. Just like the way the jet engine revolutionized aircraft design in the late forties and through the 1950’s. However the Boeing 707 came out in 1957. Does it look that different to the newest passenger jets? Hot really. They have many refinements, but the concept is not much different.
So being a bit cranky, NLE, the revolution is over. I think Apple was reaching for a revolution with FCPX, but it didn’t happen. I went with FCPX and it works for me, but Adobe PP would have been another way.
I took Yogi’s advice, if you come to a fork in the road, take it.
-
James,
Pretty much what Oliver said along with my one word addition.
[Oliver Peters] “The fact that Premiere can handle native media doesn’t mean that it’s always the best way to work. Prelude gives you an Adobe tool that’s designed for pre-edit and media prep, but it’s use is optional.”
In other words, “right tool for the right job.”
Dennis
-
Really Claude? You’re comparing an airplane that takes decades to design and tens of thousands of hours of airworthiness testing and certification – and upon which hundred of lives typically depend – to NLE software?
That seams a bit of a stretch.
Even if you’re editing for a president or a pope – if your NLE crashes, it does NOT make the news.
Just sayin.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
Of course I am glad that planes don’t crash as often as NLE’s. But really how much faster is the 787 compared to am707? Let’s hope FCPX does turn out to be the Concorde.
-
[Bill Davis] “Really Claude? You’re comparing an airplane that takes decades to design and tens of thousands of hours of airworthiness testing and certification – and upon which hundred of lives typically depend – to NLE software?”
Too literal Bill. Claude is talking about product maturation, not the actual products themselves.
On a related note, CPU clock speeds increased 300% in the mid-90’s but only by 33% in the mid-2000’s (which is probably why we are seeing more leveraging of GPUs today). At some point in every field the wild and crazy advancement, experimentation and/or innovation slows as products mature. When NLEs first started making appearances in the 80’s everything was up for grabs and the genre (for lack of a better term) was wide open. But after 30yrs of development it makes sense that a lot of ideas have already been tried and what we are left with, generally speaking, is what works. Is there room for improvement? Of course, but when you get right down to it we still line up picture and sound end to end like film editors did 100yrs ago.
Honestly, I’m much more excited to see how people use the tech, and the end results they get, than the tech itself.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up