Paul Del vecchio
Forum Replies Created
-
Depends on what you’ll be exporting for. Most likely, export using the same frame rate as the footage, Square Pixel, 1920x1080p, a bitrate of 4.5MB average and 5.5 should be sufficient but you can go a lot higher than that if you like. If your footage was originally progressive, go with progressive, and use the h.264 wrapper. That should give you good results. I export most of my 1080p24 footage that way.
Paul Del Vecchio – Director
https://www.triple-e-productions.net
https://www.pauldv.net -
What format and frame rate you shoot depends on what you want your specific project to look like. As far as sequence, I’d probably use the custom setting (“Desktop”) and just select the footage type you shot on.
It’s too bad you don’t have CS5 as it has a specific presets for DSLR footage and it’s optimized for working with native DSLR footage. CS4 is not. You might be better off using NeoScene from Cineform in order to convert the files to .avi or .mov files. That will probably give you better performance.
Paul Del Vecchio – Director
https://www.triple-e-productions.net
https://www.pauldv.net -
[Alex Udell] “CS6?
Paul are you from the future? 🙂
Alex”
I can see into the future. =)
Actually….
Paul Del Vecchio – Director
https://www.triple-e-productions.net
https://www.pauldv.net -
Switching between the two would be nice. Also, I guess you could also just add the broadcast filter on it to limit the range. They did add a whole bunch of new features to CS6 so maybe this might be one of them. It’s awesome that they’re listening though.
Paul Del Vecchio – Director
https://www.triple-e-productions.net
https://www.pauldv.net -
Premiere is really based specifically on all media so 0-255 gives you a good range. I’d rather see all that than only being able to see 16-235. I can still see 16-235 in a 0-255 range obviously, but I can’t see 0-16 and 235-255 when limited to a 16-235 scale. Media is being produced for a ton of different delivery formats and outlets so seeing the full scale I believe gives you an advantage. You can still see what you are delivering to TV while also being able to see the values for web, film, etc.
Paul Del Vecchio – Director
https://www.triple-e-productions.net
https://www.pauldv.net -
CS5 sure is up to snuff, except that I feel there are a lot of core features missing (but that depends on how you edit). Premiere is much more of a “mouse editing” editor when you compare it to Avid or even FCP. The trim mode isn’t all that great, although you can remap the keyboard to act more like Avid. You also can’t make QT reference files like Avid and FCP can.
Basic little features like that I feel should be added. Bin organization is a little iffy too, as you can’t color code clips, etc for better organization.
Hopefully they’ll add these features in Premiere CS6 as they did mention they are updating the interface drastically to help it seem more like FCP.
But in the end, for smaller projects, I like using Premiere. The performance (especially with hardware cards) is amazing. For larger projects I prefer Avid, then FCP.
It also seems FCP and Avid are more stable with larger projects.
Paul Del Vecchio – Director
https://www.triple-e-productions.net
https://www.pauldv.net -
Thanks! Any news/help would be greatly appreciated.
Paul Del Vecchio – Director
https://www.triple-e-productions.net
https://www.pauldv.net -
Premiere does not have the ability to render out quicktime reference movies, unfortunately. What did you want to use the QT Ref movie for? You may just be able to dynamically link your timeline like Vince said.
Paul Del Vecchio – Director
https://www.triple-e-productions.net
https://www.pauldv.net -
Or you may have to purchase Cineform NeoScene. That’s probably the closest you’ll get to something like ProRes (aside from Avid codecs).
Paul Del Vecchio – Director
https://www.triple-e-productions.net
https://www.pauldv.net -
Hi Milton,
Being an Avid and FCP editor, but someone who loves Premiere and would love to see it gain more ground, I’ll give you my opinion as to why I don’t go for Premiere.
Here goes:
I sure as hell would use Premiere over Avid and FCP for short projects like commercials, short videos, corporate, etc. because the Mercury Engine makes it that much quicker to get done without rendering fx, etc. AND it’s ability to go back and forth between After Effects with no problem.
I wouldn’t use it for film, not even short films. Here’s why…
1. For short films or any film work for that matter, Premiere’s bins don’t really have great organization options. I’m mainly talking about the ability to color clip icons to different user selectable colors. You can make all the same takes from a scene one color, and separate takes another color in Avid or even FCP (although FCP has a smaller selection of colors). Basically you can give all the same takes one color and different takes other colors.
Yeah this might sound small, but it makes organization easy, as it gives you a VISUAL mark of all the takes that are the same. You could essentially put them in separate bins, but then you’re digging through folders/bins and it slows you down.
2. The trimming capabilities of Avid destroy Premiere AND Final Cut. Using the keyboard to edit the way Avid has set it up is such a better way to fine tune edits and to make sure your timing as an editor is PERFECT (which it needs to be and any tool that makes it easier is going to win in my book).
2a. You can’t select an edge in Premiere, making it super MOUSE HEAVY. The ability to select an edge in FCP and Avid really help you fine tune an edit.
3. Long projects get screwy & slow down the interface. Premiere seems to crash or slow down and take forever to do something when your projects get large and the timeline gets long. That alone would make me never want to edit a feature in Premiere. Of course you can break it up between projects and/or timelines but that’s really not ideal.
4. Intermediate codec like DNxHD or ProRes – Not so much a big deal because you can use ProRes (if on a Mac w/ FCP installed) or better yet Cineform which will work on both PC and Mac.
5. Apparently, their interface is kind screwy for plugins. Colorista2 has major issues with not being as responsive as other platforms. Also, giving developers access to the Mercury Playback Engine to accelerate their plugins would be KILLER. Imagine all plugins working in practically real-time?
These are my issues with not using Premiere for long form or short films. You’ll notice that all of these (the most important ones anyway – #1-4) are CORE features, not extravagant “next level” features like the Mercury Playback Engine is. I believe Premiere’s weakness is in the CORE/FUNDAMENTAL stuff and not in the “state of the art” technology, because obviously they’re excelling in that area.
If they made the interface respond quicker (moving stuff around in the timeline doesn’t seem as smooth as Avid and FCP and why does the save bar take excessively long, especially as your projects get longer) and they implemented the changes I stated above, Premiere would be my go to editor hands down.
Who doesn’t want the high end, elegant trim tools of Avid with the amazing real-time performance of Mercury Playback Engine at the price point Adobe is offering from a company (Adobe) that CLEARLY wants to give users amazing tools and push the envelope when it comes to performance and technology? Not to mention the openness to 3rd parties like Blackmagic, AJA, and Matrox.
I think Adobe has the opportunity to really knock it out of the park and rid themselves of the “image” that has been created in the past about Premiere. Premiere could really kick major ass and make its inroads into Hollywood at a larger scale… and I for one would love to see that!
Paul Del Vecchio – Director
https://www.triple-e-productions.net
https://www.pauldv.net