R. Hewitt
Forum Replies Created
-
1. The price is too high leading to a general sense that Adobe is taking advantage of me.
It is high unless you’re a professional user who needs the capability Premier provides. There are many cheaper editing apps out there but you pay for what you get.
2. The upgrade path is non-existent. I feel like Adobe is trying to get people hooked on their other products so that they have too much invested to change. All companies do this, but it just seems wrong this time from Adobe.
Adobe encouraged people to buy the Video Collection. Now they’ve angered many who have no option to upgrade this collection with the same applications. I suspect this was for marketing reasons but it was a very bad move. For me the better integration does nothing to make up for the lack of improvement in the applications or to justify the expense of having to change to a different collection of applications. I already have Photoshop CS2 so why would I want to buy it again?
3. There seems to be nothing here that’s gonna stop people from switching to FCP (in fact the price and upgrade path I’m sure will make some people finally make the switch to FCP). I want more of a feeling that others out there are gonna be joining the Premiere party, but it seems like everyone is checking out. This is a gut feeling, but I bet some of you have it too.
If FCP was available now for the Intel/Win platform I’m sure there would be some willing to make the change. Often it’s people who have a gripe about applications that join in this form of thread but Premiere Pro 2.0 is a let down.
4. Too much concern on making the Adobe apps work together and not enough attention to making them work with the rest of the industry workflow standards.
For many this is a huge advantage and will save time but it does appear to have been done at the expense of adding the features that so many have asked for, features that would have brought it into line with standard professional procedures.
I truly like Adobe, but I think they’re getting too greedy.
I don’t like Adobe at all. They have a corporate attitude problem taht needs addressing if they want to truly embrace the video industry. I do however like many of the applications they produce. I just wish they would do to Premiere what they achieved so quickly with InDesign – a truly superb application.
-
Mmm, I guess you’re not aware of the massive changes that have taken place with both of the main British broadcasters over the past year.
-
Are you using a hardware accelerator such as the Matrox RTX10 or 100?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
I couldn’t agree more!
Adobe have both their own forums and the highly regarded Cow to get a feeling on what users really think. Instead they seem to ignore the comments and issues people raise, put up the barriers and do their own thing, no doubt based on the same flawed marketing types and their surveys.
There are a whole pile of professional editors out here that follow the time-honoured path of NLE willing to input advice to Adobe but they just don’t want to listen and provide next to no means of interacting with them. For that reason many have given up and moved to Avid. I’m sure there are also a large number waiting for FCP to be ported to the Intel platform. It is this group that Adobe need to start listening to if they’re genuine about the the professional market.
-
The firewire port will transfer at 25Mbs.
However, the SDI output operates at the full rate fully supporting SX and DigiBeta.
-
Yes he could well be.
In the days of tubed cameras, bright lights could damage the phosphors on the front of the tubes.
In earlier CCD chips, bright lights left vertical smearing. This has reduced largely to changes in technology and the way the CCD is accessed. However, intense bright light of the type created by a flash gun at close range into the lens is focused into a tight beam straight onto the CCD. It is entirely possible that this could damage the chip and with the cost of a DigiBeta camera, the cameraman is right to be concerned.
You will often see flash lights in news stories but very rarely will one be aimed straight down the lens.
The same of course applies to direct sunlight.
-
Don’t forget there are also broadcast professionals in this forum, me included! Trust us, we know what we’re talking about.
It’s very common for companies in this sector to have a marketing department that are totally incapable of understanding the consumer’s needs. Having a degree in marketing means absolutely nothing to professionals using the equipment.
Marketing hype is seen by many in the industry as a joke and reflects the marketing types total lack of knowledge. There are a great number of technical R&D staff that see their brilliant ideas ruined by the company’s marketing department.
In the professional markets the buyers aren’t fools.