Pat Mcgowan
Forum Replies Created
-
You can use native .mxf files from Sony or Panny if you have a Matrox AXIO system.
-
This has got to be one of the most counter-intuitive things about Premiere Pro. As a long time audio post guy, I scratch my head every time I need to handle audio in Premiere (or FCP for that matter). These guys should go take a look at the very first non-linear machines, which were audio-post devices. All the operational protocols were sorted out way back in the 80s for goodness sake. Why a new (and not particularly bright or effective) paradigm for sound had to be implemented in PPro is confounding to say the least.
-
An therein lies the problem. Any changes to the PPRO edit throw a major wrench into the works once the AE work has begun. We ran into this on one of our recent projects and it is tough!
Telling clients “we’re locked” simply doesn’t work anymore, they insist on tinkering until delivery. Even more now than ever.
I don’t know what the answer is other than to “merge” PPRO and AE.
Another was would be to have a truly dynamic application link that can offer some way of dynamically updating the respective workspaces. Sounds hard to do.
-
The fact that there is no dynamic update ability across the 2 apps makes this workflow useful only for final, signed off PPro edits. We ran into this on a recent project where we were on delivery and the client requested a change in the PPro edit. Painted into a corner we were.
-
This problem is real and it seems, is a biggie.
-
This 30,000 assets number is not representative of a typical workflow, we all know that. I actually didn’t make that claim, that was someone else.
Slowdowns and memory management issues related to database issues rear their ugly heads on projects much less onerous than 30,000 assets.
It doesn’t excuse the deficiency in the software.
-
I’m not arguing with anyone, merely demanding promised performance from a vendor.
There’s really nothing to argue about. Many professional users that bought into PPRO based on public promotional statements and are extremely frustrated with glaring problems and what seems to be a non-responsive vendor in terms of patches, bug fixes and communications with the customers.
Professional users were led to believe that this software could handle the requirements of a busy, working production studio with multiple projects of varying sizes (some huge), multiple users (staff and freelance) and multiple clients (who bring things like EDLs in for conforming and don’t appreciate unstable systems and have a habit of taking business to the competition after frustrating sessions).
If you guys want to accept less than excellent software from a vendor that’s your business.
-
What an inciteful and helpful (or should I say Harmful) retort.
We, like many other “PRO” users, took a major risk going with the Adobe PPRO “solution” on AXIO hardware after the EOL fiasco of Discreet Edit (a product that did not have any issues with large numbers of media assets).
Yep, we could have joined the throngs and migrated to FCP but we didn’t. Does Adobe care enough to do what it takes to retain customers like me and lots of other “PRO” users I know that share similar, and valid, concerns about the product? I guess we’ll see, won’t we? Or is is simply a case of Caveat Emptor?
I feed my family with these tools. Therefore, I expect a “PRO” product promoted to me as “PRO” to handle “PRO” working situations for real paying clients who, for your information, don’t give a hoot about the limitations of the software. They just take their next job to a competitor.
-
No disrepect intended here but the moniker “PRO” implies that the software will be able to handle “PRO” project types, like docs that often involve thousands of media assets.
If not, perhaps it should be renamed without the “PRO” moniker.
-
If you do work for free make sure you send the client an invoice showing your full rates and discount. This way they may have some idea of the value they received.