-
Which networks use Premiere Pro?
-
Tim:
Well put. Looking back always reveals current advantages. As for the complainer/complaint ratio, left out was the ratio of silent, content users vs. complainers.
Keep Smiling
-
True Tim, as you infer, the Avid workflow isn’t the only one out there but it does dominate in Europe and a very large part of the film and broadcast markets. It also isn’t the most intuative, PP may have the edge there.
However, if Adobe want to be serious with their aim of targeting professional editors, they need to produce an application that follows the most normal workflow. Handling of audio is just one example. NO professional NLE should ever base its timeline on stereo audio. Stereo isn’t nor has ever been an input format. That alone is one of the biggest bug bears and is reason for many in our industry to look elsewhere. Getting this one simple thing right would have boosted PPs chances in the market place. If Adobe genuinely listened, they would never have gone down this path in the first place.
-
Good insights. Thanks. I’m still waiting for somebody with the numbers: how big a part of Adobe’s revenue comes from PP? How many copies of PP vs. FCP have been sold recently? Rather than just lambast the “marketers,” I’d like to get a bit of their perspective.
As far as competition from FCP is concerned, I suspect that Adobe looks at the number of PCs vs. Macs, and the strange antipathy of many people to anything Mac, and says to itself: “Sure — let FCP take all the Mac business, and maybe even persuade a few PC owners to buy Macs. We’ll do just fine… dominating the PC market.”
— Bob C
-
[R. Hewitt] “However, if Adobe want to be serious with their aim of targeting professional editors, they need to produce an application that follows the most normal workflow. Handling of audio is just one example. NO professional NLE should ever base its timeline on stereo audio. Stereo isn’t nor has ever been an input format. That alone is one of the biggest bug bears and is reason for many in our industry to look elsewhere. Getting this one simple thing right would have boosted PPs chances in the market place. If Adobe genuinely listened, they would never have gone down this path in the first place.”
You have my agreement on this issue…now that it’s taken care of, we’ll see if it is an issue that is a “tipping point” for some users.
On the other hand, my colleague with his Avid finds himself in fits whenever I switch my timeline to audio sample increments and nudge an audio clip 700 samples instead of a whole frame in PPro, to seamlessly loop a music bed or flawlessly sync an ADR in small segments…
Each issue weights a bit differently for each situation.
I find that PPro makes the grade over Avid in a boutique where the same person is doing graphics/compositing and editing and tends to lack the edit-intensive features for facilities where all those roles are separate and each professional is immersed in their particular role all day every day…and looking at the layout of the program, I can understand this…
TimK,
Kolb Productions,
Creative Cow Host,
Author/Trainer
http://www.focalpress.com
http://www.classondemand.net -
[Bob Cole] “I’m still waiting for somebody with the numbers: how big a part of Adobe’s revenue comes from PP? How many copies of PP vs. FCP have been sold recently? Rather than just lambast the “marketers,” I’d like to get a bit of their perspective.”
I suspect that none of the manufacturer’s you mention are interested in us knowing those numbers so I doubt we’ll ever hear that information in any sort of unfiltered manner…
TimK,
Kolb Productions,
Creative Cow Host,
Author/Trainer
http://www.focalpress.com
http://www.classondemand.net -
[R. Hewitt] “If Adobe genuinely listened, they would never have gone down this path in the first place.”
I think this is the most dead on statement in the thread. For whatever reasons, the original design specs for PPro were lacking some very fundamental things that are necessary for the broadcast market AND for overall useability.
It’s been suggested that the marketing department is to blame, as they typically have the final say as to design choices. Whether true or not someone from Adobe should be listening and learning from these threads. PPro is too close to being competitive to confine its user base to boutique shops and prosumers.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
You make some very valid points there Tim.
The integration features are an absolute boon for those houses that use all the Adobe applications. In a broadcast environment the norm over here is to have editors editing and graphics staff doing the stills and animations. However, there are big changes afoot in the world of news. Reporters now edit the majority of their own stories (on Avids, BBC moving to FCP) and the days of standalone editors are nearly over. Drama’s and large productions are another story but it is very rare for an editor to do anything other than edit. For them the integration is of no relevance but compatability is. Again the Media Management issue crops up again. What they need is an application that works the way they do. Sadly Premier Pro doesn’t but Avid does and that’s where the majority of NLE editing experience exists. Had Adobe got there sooner the outlook could have looked very different.
I agree with the boutique view but from experience that is very rare in the broadcast world. It is however more common in the ‘Professional’ world. …oh no, we’re back to the definition of Professional again!
-
As far as competition from FCP is concerned, I suspect that Adobe looks at the number of PCs vs. Macs, and the strange antipathy of many people to anything Mac, and says to itself: “Sure — let FCP take all the Mac business, and maybe even persuade a few PC owners to buy Macs. We’ll do just fine… dominating the PC market.”
Definitely NOT! Adobe are fully aware of the impact of moving Macs to an intel platform.
-
[R. Hewitt] “Definitely NOT! Adobe are fully aware of the impact of moving Macs to an intel platform.”
Are you basing that on your own common sense, or on conversations with/quotations from Adobe?
I thought I’d heard that Apple was planning to make sure their software wouldn’t run on anything but an Intel-Mac. (Wonder how long that will last.) I guess you’re saying that the Intel-Mac will have no problem running Windows XP?
I also wonder whether Adobe saw the Intel-Mac writing on the wall; perhaps PP and Encore, as relatively new Adobe programs, were developed for Intel only, with the idea that there wouldn’t be a need to develop them for the Mac’s PowerPC processor.
-
It would be a mistake to imagine that current broadcast workflows (British or otherwise) are in some ways inviolable, or that there won’t be massive changes ahead.
In the UK, broadcasters could be seen as feather-bedded near-monopolies and have perhaps been slow to adapt to technological advances.
As FCP eats into the BBC culture over the next few years, expect much broader programme-making culture-change: maybe a gradual catch-up with editing models which see fast, fluent tools moving closer to the hands of the programme makers, and away from the technical guardian / button-pusher / online finisher role.
Independent film-making has shown how there are many more approaches than the traditional “offline / online” model, which itself harks back to analogue systems needing engineers to edit (finish really), when offlining was sometimes no more than a VHS cassette and a notepad. Oh the joy when “paper edits” became 2-machine offlines, and then even 2-machine offlines on Avids … but it was 15 years ago.
With luck, we might all have great new tools to make better programmes with … whether from Adobe, Apple, Avid, Autodesk or whoever ….
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up