“Why I like Premiere Pro” – looking for serious discussion

[Andrew Kimery]

My incomplete, non-exclusive list (by that I mean sometimes might be in other NLEs but they are still a reason I like working with PPro).

1. I really like the built in sync via waveform and how multicam is setup (PPro and X basically work the same in this capacity AFAIK). So much easier than doing it by hand in Avid or FCP Legend. Being able to tweak things after the multciam is made is awesome as well.

2. I dig customizable UI’s. X probably has the most optimized layout if you are working on a single, normal sized display, but I’m rarely just using one standard monitor (usually two monitors plus a broadcast and/or client monitor). I like being to able to bring up the windows/tools I want and put them where I want.

2a. ‘Pancake’ editing. Stacking two timelines so I can easily drag/drop between them. I’ll usually put various Broll timelines on top w/my program timeline on the bottom.

3. How the extensions work. I like how 3rd parties can build functionality directly into PPro. For example, the custom MAM that MLB’s in house video team built, Pond5 integration and MediaSilo integration.

4. PPro will take just about any codec you throw at it. With FCP Legend and Avid I always need to know what codec and see if I have the right plugin installed so I can import it etc.,. With PPro I just import via the Media Browser and go. Sure there is a performance penalty for editing AVCHD as opposed to ProRes or DNxHD, but for the projects I’ve cut in PPro so far it’s been a non-issue.

5. Adequate (at least for me) performance on older hardware such as my 2009 MP and my 2011 MBP. Sure I have annoying hiccups now and again but for a 6yr old machine I can’t really complain.

[James Patterson]

Another shout out for the customisable UI, it might not be a sexy feature as such but it makes things so much easier to have a workspace of all the main things that I use 90% of the time laid out exactly as I want them.

Best

[Chris Wright]

dynamic link works fairly good, finally, after like 10 years, lol, but woa to the user who has a wide gamut monitor or uses DNG for compositing. why?

1. dynamic link 2015 connects and force auto simulates into rec709, so wide gamut monitor users will need a LUT to correct this.

2. DNG imports don’t import sequences correctly. and AE’s import of them not only crops them differently than Premiere(think pan and scan) but…

3. the colors are different due to two engine types. Sooo, you either have to render out all DNG’s from AE or render out all DNG’s from premiere, plus the crops will never match up.

4. So…you need to buy matchlight to create a LUT that matches the two DNG import engines, and still the crops are uncorrectable.

5. where’s my 32bit codec export support?

[Jeff Markgraf]

Thanks, guys. Interesting responses.

It seems there are a couple of major themes for PPro fans: AE integration, color correction tools, audio bussing and UI flexibility. Of this group, only the audio stuff is particularly relevant or interesting to me.

I definitely agree that track-based functions would be a huge addition to X. While compound-clipping the audio is a workaround of sorts, it leaves much to be desired. I think if the compound clip could be opened in place (ala Resolve), this method would be more useful. But, still, the oft-requested roles-based mixer would be a great thing. Let’s hope…

As far as the other points…well, as I said, not important to me.

It’s not that I don’t do compositing in X. Quite the contrary, I do it all the time, especially for “rough cuts” for the execs that aren’t really rough cuts at all. I find compositing in X to be a joy compared to any other NLE I’ve used. Anything more complex could certainly be handled by Motion, or by getting a finished file from an AE artist. As an “I don’t do AE” editor, I wouldn’t presume to start tinkering too much with an AE composition in my timeline, so the PPro-AE link doesn’t do much for me. But I can certainly see the appeal for the editor/mograph combo.

Same with color correction. Between the native color board & filters and some rather reasonably priced plugins, I can do most of the correction I need. Anything fancier would go to a professional colorist who would use the tool of his/her choice. And since Resolve is free, I can send to it pretty easily if I want to dabble with a real CC tool.

As far as UI, meh. I just don’t have a problem with the one screen layout. In the past, I’ve customized my Avid layout to make it easier for me. This primarily entails consolidating my most needed windows & tools onto one screen. Since embracing X, I’ve actually started working with Avid on one screen, as long as the monitor is at least 24″ (preferably 27″). This is largely because I prefer to edit with the picture monitor directly above the edit screen, with the edit screen at table level (not raised on a bridge as so many seem to do). Less constant head turning. Everything in one basic sightline. Perhaps because I come from a linear online editing background, this layout is comfortable and sensible to me. It may be why I have zero problem with the idea of one UI video window that switched between “source” and “record” as needed. That’s how it worked in every edit bay I ever worked in until Avid came around. Interestingly, PPro out of the box is more friendly to my setup than Avid will ever be.

Totally get where you guys are coming from, though.

What I’d really like to see here is some discussion of specific editing features. Some examples:

– I find that using command-arrow for trimming a clip but option-arrow for moving a clip to be ridiculous. Why to the same keystrokes? Just like Avid, just like FCP Legacy and just like X. What’s the logic? Not to mention, no keyboard-direct means of slipping/sliding a clip (again, as with Avid, etc.) Why?

– Accessing the clip transform controls in the source window: why always having to turn down a disclosure triangle? Why not have the x-y-z transform parameters always in the open? It’s a little thing, but twirling those little triangles all day long really gets tiresome. What’s the logic here?

– Why is “make a new title from current” not the default title tool behavior? Under what circumstance would I ever want multiple instances of the same title in my timeline? I don’t get it.

See, it’s the little things like these that I find aggravating about PPro. So, to re-ask and focus the original question: what are the “little editing things” that make PPro a better tool for you?

[Jeff Markgraf]

Bumping to try to get some responses to the more focused question. Anyone?

[Andrew Kimery]

I’m not quite sure what you are looking for, Jeff. You asked what people liked, people responded, you wrote a lengthy reply about mostly why what people liked isn’t applicable to you. Is there a certain feature you are looking for? Are you hoping someone will convince you to like using PPro?

Going back to my initial response, I know you are ‘meh’ about the customizable GUI but for me the customizable GUI can directly impact how I edit. For example, being able to open multiple timelines and easily stack them (usually broll/interview timelines on top and my program timeline underneath) and copy/paste between them is a specific editing feature that I like. You can do it in FCP Legend as well, but it’s harder to setup because the GUI isn’t as flexible.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi Andrew.

I guess I’m looking for some of the day in, day out edit-specific things that make Premiere the preferred NLE for people. I get the feeling that I’m somehow missing something.

It’s not that I don’t appreciate what I think of as the “big” things that Premiere brings to the table. For example, being format agnostic is great, but not something I think much about cranking out promos all day. Whereas a feature such as Avid’s dynamic trimming (if you use it much) is huge in minute by minute, hour after hour editing. Or, for some people, being able to gang synch. Or being able to expand a compound clip in place to tweak the layers – something FCPX can’t do.

So, yes, stuff like your example of opening multiple timelines so as to cut and paste into a new timeline is what I’m looking for. Or like being able to adjust audio as the timeline continues – something Avid just can’t do. “Little things” that affect the edit process over and over, all day long.

Not sure I want to be convinced, so much as enlightened. If I’m saying “meh” while others are saying “wow,” then I really want to know what the fuss is all about.

[Andrew Kimery]

[Jeff Markgraf] “If I’m saying “meh” while others are saying “wow,” then I really want to know what the fuss is all about.”

Sometimes one person’s ‘meh’ is just another person’s ‘wow.’ 😉

I tend to do a lot of unscripted projects with high shooting ratios so things that let me keep the footage at my finger tips are more important to me than, say, more readily accessible X, Y, Z transform controls (though I do agree that they should be ‘on’ by default). For example, on a current project I have lots of footage of various events (the main subject giving speeches, appearing at rallies, etc.,.) and instead of having one selects sequence for each event I just put all the selects into one big sequence.

The sequence is about 11hrs long but it doesn’t lag at all (which I found pleasantly surprising). I used spanned markers to mark each event tip to tail and then normal markers to mark specific moments within each event (things are also color coded). I have a big Markers window open in my left hand monitor so I can quickly scroll to what I want in the Markers window and my playhead will jump to it in the timeline.

There are still some rough edges that I need to send Adobe a feature request about, but overall it’s working out surprisingly well.

I know it’s not a specific editing example (like loving trim mode or something) but it does help me edit faster since I can keep more footage ‘at the ready’.

[Bill Davis]

[Andrew Kimery] “For example, on a current project I have lots of footage of various events (the main subject giving speeches, appearing at rallies, etc.,.) and instead of having one selects sequence for each event I just put all the selects into one big sequence. “

OMG. If you ever bit the bullet, Andrew, and learned X properly your head would explode.

The idea of having to use sequence string-outs as a way to locate shots seems positively prehistoric to me now.

X’s database gives you all the visual reference of the old system – but with the ability to call groups, collections or specific shots into your visual field instantaneously – target your selected clip and bring it directly to your playhead or skimmer with a tap.

This is one of those tangible things that makes cutting in X so quick.

The old way is something I don’t miss even a tiny bit.

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.

[Oliver Peters]

[Bill Davis] “The idea of having to use sequence string-outs as a way to locate shots seems positively prehistoric to me now.”

LOL. There are certainly a lot of editors who would vehemently disagree. I’m not saying you are wrong, but it’s simply two different working styles.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com