Dennis Radeke
Forum Replies Created
-
[Shane Ross] “I’m sure Adobe Premiere can handle this.”
Indeed it does. Create a new sequence, click on the sequence settings tab and then change the editing mode to desktop, the aspect ratio, etc.
OR…
You can just import the clip into the project and drag it to the ‘new item’ button. It will automatically create a sequence based on the settings of your video.
In most cases, it plays just fine. Of course, mileage may vary.
Cheers,
Dennis -
[Chris Kenny] “I’m aware of the general principle, I’m just very skeptical about whether being able to use, say, 4 vs. 8 GB of RAM really makes much difference for multithreaded rendering of things like color correction filters, lower thirds, etc. — the nuts and bolts things that editors want to be faster.”
You’re right – so try it for free then… https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=premiere_pro
The above trial includes ALL codecs for 30 days so you can do a side by side comparison of Premiere Pro CS5.5 with FCP 7 and eventually FCP X. Build the same timelines on all and see which comes out on top. Then you can be informed.
[Chris Kenny] “but it’s misleading to sort of imply you get 2/3 of the Mercury Playback Engine without an NVIDIA GPU, when you don’t get anything close to 2/3 of the performance enhancement.”
Regardless of whether you think it’s misleading it is FACTUALLY TRUE and I can’t be any clearer than that. Like I said, give it a fair try and if nothing else, you’ll be more informed about your decision.
More importantly, I think you miss the main point – it’s about balancing your tasks between the CPU and GPU. If you dump everything to a GPU, you’ve just moved the problem. So, this is why we moved effects over to the GPU but left the bulk of decoding and playback to the CPU.
-
[Chris Kenny] “Err… that article is frankly a little questionable.”
I apologize because I made an assumption here. I am the author of that ‘screwy post’ and I work for Adobe. I incorrectly figured everyone already knew that…
[Chris Kenny] ” It breaks down the Mercury Playback Engine into three components — 64-bit memory addressing, 64-bit processing, and GPU acceleration, and then insists that you still get two of the three even without an NVIDIA GPU.”
Well, I hate to be dogmatic, but this is a fact – including the last part. If you have a problem with it, then well…there’s no point in continuing the discussion. 😉
[Chris Kenny] “The post seems to be kind of vaguely implying they need the extra RAM to enable multithreaded processing”
I didn’t mean to be vague. More RAM = better performance in most cases, whether directly or indirectly. In a 32-bit app world people were used to having 8 cores and 4gb of addressable memory (like FCP 7). With 64-bit applications and computing, you want to have plenty of memory so that your CPU’s can work at peak efficiency. Here’s a nice article from Adobe’s Todd Kopriva about starving your CPU’s in AE: https://blogs.adobe.com/toddkopriva/2009/12/performance-tip-dont-starve-yo.html
[Chris Kenny] “There might be some significant benefit here with a few filters, but I doubt the overall difference is very large. Think about it like this: do you really think throwing 8 GB of RAM at Premiere Pro makes it even twice as fast as it is with 4 GB?”
Twice as fast, no. Increase the overall edit experience, smoothness, ability to use your CPU’s at 100% usage 100% of the time, etc.? Yes. Actually, I recommend 16GB of RAM for many situations. Also, there have been tests by users (on the Windows side) that with some codecs there is a directly correlation to performance to memory. So in some cases, yes twice the memory means twice the performance…
I could go on but lets agree that you’re not going to buy in to what I’m saying. It’s obvious that you’ve not tried a native 64-bit editing application and until you do (FCP X), you won’t see the benefits.
You are pre-disposed to FCP and that’s okay. For others that may have questions about Apple/Adobe workflows, I am here to answer questions.
Dennis – Adobe guy
-
[Toni Martin Dobrzanski] “12.) Still question is maybe a bit too technical for this thread: I edit a lot of Canon 5D mkII H.264 clips and it’s not always that I have the time to spend a whole day converting all the footage to prores. So I edit sometimes the H.264 files directly. But when I export the timeline with the ‘current settings’ it gives lots of digital errors everywhere that I use effects (transitions/fades/etc). But if I export the timeline as ‘ProRes’ it renders perfectly. This is very annoying since it takes 20-30 times longer to export into prores instead of exporting in the format it’s already in… Any ideas why it doesn’t work?”
If you need to convert to ProRes and have Adobe Media Encoder, then use it to convert to ProRes in the background while you edit with either FCP or Premiere Pro.
In Premiere Pro create an export sequence that conforms to the ProRes (Mac only) setting you need. From there, in Adobe Media Encoder, create a watch folder that leverages that preset. Drop your media in the folder and voila, instant (not really – it does take some time) ProRes. BTW – in the Adobe Media Encoder preferences, make sure you check the auto-start box to make sure it will automatically start the encode process.
-
No, Adobe Premiere Pro works around Quicktime whenever possible, which is significant when you’re discussing overall performance. So for example, H.264 we don’t need Quicktime whereas FCP 7 does. With something like ProRes though where the codec doesn’t reside anywhere but within Quicktime, Premiere Pro must use it. However, I will note that several people (and my own findings) have said that Premiere Pro performance on ProRes is better than FCP 7. At worst, it is on par. Hope this helps.
-
[Ben Holmes] “I’d hope the FCP pricing could make AVID and ADOBE think again about their ridiculous pricing (which in Adobe’s case leads to massive piracy and DRM so restrictive it took me a week to get a working serial number on my CS3 upgrade) but again – won’t hold my breath….”
Well, you have to consider that for at least Adobe we have a different business model than Avid or Apple. In their case, they both sell hardware which in Apple’s case is a prerequisite to using their software.
With CS5.5 we introduced a subscription model which allows for a month-to-month usage at a lower price. For the video suite specifically, I’m also excited to mention that the 30-day trial now includes ALL of the codecs we license, so people can truly used it and evaluate.
-
Try this.
I’m curious if there are any other reasons or thoughts about why FCP X might be faster.
-
a blog article on teh Mercury Playback Engine for the Mac.
https://blogs.adobe.com/genesisproject/2011/03/premiere-pro-on-a-mac-%E2%80%93-what-is-the-truth.html#more-546 -
[Craig Seeman] “I think that given both Avid and Premiere will have disadvantages to FCPX on iMac”
Like what?
-
[Craig Seeman] “Not on an iMac.”
Craig, what is preventing Avid or anyone else from running on an iMac? If Avid supports Matrox now and a thunderbolt version comes out, I think it a pretty good expectation that Matrox and Avid will support it. And as others have pointed out, it’s the talent of the editor and the quality of the tools that count not just the price.
Sheesh, I’ve seen everything now. I’m an Adobe guy defending Avid on an Apple forum. Oh, the irony! 😉