Adobe Premiere Pro 7.0 Released - Decisions, Decisions!

Bill Ravens · July 8th, 2003, 03:55 PM

well, anyone want to argue synthetic Mobil1 vs. organic Pennzoil?

Craig Jones · July 8th, 2003, 04:01 PM

Pennzoil leaves this gross crud coating all your engine parts. Vegas doesn't do that. Bad analogy.

K. Forman · July 8th, 2003, 04:02 PM

I don't use either... It's Castrol all the way!

Glen Elliott · July 8th, 2003, 05:27 PM

Craig,
1. The prices you quoted were from the Acedemic Version only.

2. Like I said before Vegas has something similar to a virtual clip, in that it can Duplicate tracks. You'd have to explain how, exactly you use virtual clips for me to formulate a work-around. The only difference is if you change the original track you made the "virtual clip" or duplicate clip (as in Vegas) the copied, or new, track doesn't change. Why you would want it to update I'm not sure- thus you need to provide a scenario.

3. Garbage mattes. To my knowlege Vegas can do this also, as it's way more advanced in the compositing department. How you ask? I can find out- like I said, I'm still trying to learn the program myself.

4. Who said I wasn't going to download the trial of Premiere Pro. I'm not close minded. The product I dislike and make statements about is one that I own personally and have over 2 years of experience on.

Craig you gotta look more into Vegas, it apparently has more options than you think....you didn't know about duplicating tracks did you? Or the fact it has advanced compositing. Not all these things are easily seen if you just have scratched the surface.

Throught this coorespondence I've been quite humble always making a point to say "I'm not sure" or "I think" just to make sure I don't speak out of ignorance. If you go back and re-read my original statement that set you off you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm not standing with my feet set in stone- I specificaly said "I could be wrong" regarding Premiere having features that Vegas lacks. And thus so far all the examples (all two of them) have work-arounds and/or different ways of going about it. If "virtal clips" is exactly what you need and no variance is acceptable then maybe Vegas DOES lack features you "need". However as an editor myself I find features like compositing, keying, 5.1 surround mixing, AC-3 encoding, and 24p/HD support more compelling than a "virtual clip". (btw, seriously... please dont forget to explain how/why you need them...that way I can better gauge if Vegas has something that'll replicate it's effectiveness)

*Oh, and.....Mobil 1 all the way!*

Craig Jones · July 8th, 2003, 06:01 PM

Well then I guess Premiere is much cheaper. The point is that Premiere is not more expensive than VV4. How about $282?

Vegas has nothing similar to virtual clips. My most common use of virtual clips involves combining footage then applying filters to the combination. I've also used it to generate complicated garbage mattes and to do simultaneous transitions. Vegas has a superior solution to the third application by allowing each track to have transitions. PPro duplicates that ability.

My understanding is that VV4 does not offer garbage mattes but I have not verified it. I learned this on the SOFO Vegas forum where it was accepted as fact. I doubt SOFO employees would let that go if it were not true.

If you go to the SOFO Vegas forum, you'll find that the users there are actively trying to find a substitute for virtual clips using a frame server. I personally would not bother with that level of complexity and hope, instead, that SOFO adds tabbed timelines.

Elmar Tewes · July 8th, 2003, 06:35 PM

the price question isn't really a question...
why buy the Premiere Pro software for 800 bucks when you could buy the software bundled together with a hardware editing card in a month for 500 and then sell the card alone again and your old version of premiere alone too. you pay 50, 100 or 200 $ for it. i always do that. the software alone is too expesive wait for a bundle and then buy it. i did that with a bundled editing card and AP 6.5 and not even paid a cent for a new 6.5 version (i had AP 6) i... got 20 bucks more later than i had before and the newest premiere version, thats the way to go

Glen Elliott · July 8th, 2003, 07:52 PM

Vegas doesn't have garbage mattes just like it doesn't have virtual clips. I do think it has features that do stuff thats similar- for example...say you want to blur out someones face as they move across the screen- simple work when using a garbage matte, right. Well in Vegas you can duplicate the clip blur the top layer, add a mask (cookie cutter) over top of it, and key frame it to the motion of the person walking- isn't that the same as a garbage matte?

Regarding Virtual clips....I'm still a bit fuzzy on what you mean by combine clips. I understand how you can make a virtual clip out of two clips transitioning together and then transition that to yet another clip. But how would using the track duplication limit that in Vegas? *not rhetorical, I'm actually asking a question*
If that didn't work, last ditch effort would be to export your transitioned track as a DV avi and import it into the project. That way you could add new transitions on top of footage where transitions were already rendered. The only limitation is the ability to change the original clip and have it update the virtual clip, which I still don't see the usefullness of that. *how do you, personally use that feature of Virtual clips?*
I actually did something similar to that in a recent wedding video I finished. I'd do a 3 minute vignette, export it as DV avi, import it and place it on the timeline- that way I don't have to worry about re-rendering if I nudge the clip on the timeline. It's then when I'd add all the visual effects (color correction, soft focus, etc). I probably could have achieved something similar by turning the edited vignette into a virtual clip and then applying video filters to the virtual clip, skipping having to output the AVI as a middle step...though, like I said virtual clips act up on my system.
In Vegas you can finish your edit then apply project-wide adjustments (filters, speed, super-sampling, motion blur, etc) by use of video bus tracks. Again just another way to achieve the same effect.

Adrian Douglas · July 8th, 2003, 08:25 PM

OK, my little bit.

I've used both, Premiere and VV, Pennzoil and Mobil1. As far as NLEs go, or any software app for that matter, it's rather narrowminded to limit yourself to one app, there are things one app does better than the other and in editing flexability is the name of the game as far as I'm concerned. If I can't do something in Prem then I fire up VV. The same goes with Illistrator, I sometimes find that some things are easier in Macromedias Freehand. Everyone has loyalities but to limit yourself to one app is just limiting your creativity. As for getting pissed at someone because they use something different to you, grow up!

I found that mineral based oils, Pennzoil and Penrite, are great for large capacity V8s and 6s, and synthetic Mobil1 was good for turbo'd engines. Why, the Mobil1 handled the heat produced by the turbo better than the mineral oils and left the oil paths as clean as a whistle, the mineral oil broke down under the heat and left gummy residue in the oil paths.

Bill Ravens · July 8th, 2003, 08:54 PM

oh wise one...three humble bows in your direction.

Scott Silverman · July 8th, 2003, 08:56 PM

Does anyone here use Avid Xpress DV? I am starting to think that naybe I really should upgrade to Premiere Pro simply because no one seems to use Avid! Please, if you use Avid, could you tell me how you like it or what you think its strengths/weaknesses are? Thanks.

Craig Jones · July 8th, 2003, 09:01 PM

What I do frequently is combine two clips, group them as a virtual clip, then apply color correction, motion, transitions, etc to the virtual clip. I do this because the two clips are directly related (in fact, one is derived from the other) and need to become one again. I don't want to have to duplicate and maintain the adjustments and I want the transitions to work right. In Vegas I could copy the clips but that would accomplish nothing. The primary thing I'm trying to avoid is filter settings in two places that must be identical.

Yes, the substitute for virtual clips is to create a composition on another timeline and render it to a file. The disadvantages are that you have the additional render step and the additional storage plus the lack of instant results if you have to edit it later. If you need to several small things in sequence then it gets more cumbersome. Still, its better than using a frame server like others have suggested.

Virtual clips exist because you may want to do this type of thing and you don't want to have to use multiple projects to get it. The tabbed timeline will make this process much more intuitive.

I've used garbage mattes for extracting moving mattes. Sure you could replace the garbage matte with with a static mask and you could even use a tool to generate the mask, but I don't think that's easier. I could use that technique in Premiere, too. If it's so good why have garbage mattes?

Imran Zaidi · July 8th, 2003, 09:42 PM

I just recently got a Mini Cooper, and Mini changes your oil for you for 3 years/36k miles. And they use...... Castrol Synthetic. Seems to work great on my Mini, without a single dropped frame and great color correction.

Um... back to DV.

Craig Jones · July 8th, 2003, 09:49 PM

Motor oil is much more fun. My BMW uses Castrol Synthetic 10W-60 and it drinks it. No need to change it. It'll be gone shortly!

Mark Moore · July 8th, 2003, 10:13 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Scott Silverman : Does anyone here use Avid Xpress DV? I am starting to think that naybe I really should upgrade to Premiere Pro simply because no one seems to use Avid! Please, if you use Avid, could you tell me how you like it or what you think its strengths/weaknesses are? Thanks. -->>>

I too would like to know that info. I currently have Premiere 6.0 and I'm happy with it, but have an opportunity to upgrade. There has been a lot of 'discussion' between Premiere and Vegas, but I'm beginning to believe no one uses AVID either!

Maybe we should intimate that AVID stinks and that my Pinnacle 7.0 is much more versatile before someone will answer! After all, Pinnacle has SmartSound and two (count'em) audio tracks.

Oh, and I buy my motor oil at the dollar store. Only the best for my '96 Isuzu. :)

Michael Chen · July 9th, 2003, 04:50 AM

I have avid.
I think most users here are not using avid, not because it stinks, but rather, its expensive.

The thing I like about avid is real time previewing. But of course, Vegas has that too.

But the real stuff is its color correction. But then again, Adobe is coming up with similar color correction tool.

July 8th, 2003, 08:25 PM	#38
Adrian Douglas Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Chigasaki, Japan. Posts: 1,660	OK, my little bit. I've used both, Premiere and VV, Pennzoil and Mobil1. As far as NLEs go, or any software app for that matter, it's rather narrowminded to limit yourself to one app, there are things one app does better than the other and in editing flexability is the name of the game as far as I'm concerned. If I can't do something in Prem then I fire up VV. The same goes with Illistrator, I sometimes find that some things are easier in Macromedias Freehand. Everyone has loyalities but to limit yourself to one app is just limiting your creativity. As for getting pissed at someone because they use something different to you, grow up! I found that mineral based oils, Pennzoil and Penrite, are great for large capacity V8s and 6s, and synthetic Mobil1 was good for turbo'd engines. Why, the Mobil1 handled the heat produced by the turbo better than the mineral oils and left the oil paths as clean as a whistle, the mineral oil broke down under the heat and left gummy residue in the oil paths. __________________ Adrian DVInfo.net Search for quick answers Where to buy? From the best in the business...DVInfo.net sponsors

July 8th, 2003, 08:56 PM	#40
Scott Silverman Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Cupertino, California, USA Posts: 301	Does anyone here use Avid Xpress DV? I am starting to think that naybe I really should upgrade to Premiere Pro simply because no one seems to use Avid! Please, if you use Avid, could you tell me how you like it or what you think its strengths/weaknesses are? Thanks. __________________ Scott Silverman Shining Star Digital Video Productions Bay Area, CA

July 8th, 2003, 10:13 PM	#44
Mark Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 301	<<<-- Originally posted by Scott Silverman : Does anyone here use Avid Xpress DV? I am starting to think that naybe I really should upgrade to Premiere Pro simply because no one seems to use Avid! Please, if you use Avid, could you tell me how you like it or what you think its strengths/weaknesses are? Thanks. -->>> I too would like to know that info. I currently have Premiere 6.0 and I'm happy with it, but have an opportunity to upgrade. There has been a lot of 'discussion' between Premiere and Vegas, but I'm beginning to believe no one uses AVID either! Maybe we should intimate that AVID stinks and that my Pinnacle 7.0 is much more versatile before someone will answer! After all, Pinnacle has SmartSound and two (count'em) audio tracks. Oh, and I buy my motor oil at the dollar store. Only the best for my '96 Isuzu. :) __________________ Mark Moore Sugar Free Productions

July 8th, 2003, 03:55 PM	#31
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	well, anyone want to argue synthetic Mobil1 vs. organic Pennzoil?

July 8th, 2003, 04:01 PM	#32
Craig Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 105	Pennzoil leaves this gross crud coating all your engine parts. Vegas doesn't do that. Bad analogy.

July 8th, 2003, 04:02 PM	#33
K. Forman Capt. Quirk Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia Posts: 3,596	I don't use either... It's Castrol all the way!

July 8th, 2003, 05:27 PM	#34
Glen Elliott Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 2,898	Craig, 1. The prices you quoted were from the Acedemic Version only. 2. Like I said before Vegas has something similar to a virtual clip, in that it can Duplicate tracks. You'd have to explain how, exactly you use virtual clips for me to formulate a work-around. The only difference is if you change the original track you made the "virtual clip" or duplicate clip (as in Vegas) the copied, or new, track doesn't change. Why you would want it to update I'm not sure- thus you need to provide a scenario. 3. Garbage mattes. To my knowlege Vegas can do this also, as it's way more advanced in the compositing department. How you ask? I can find out- like I said, I'm still trying to learn the program myself. 4. Who said I wasn't going to download the trial of Premiere Pro. I'm not close minded. The product I dislike and make statements about is one that I own personally and have over 2 years of experience on. Craig you gotta look more into Vegas, it apparently has more options than you think....you didn't know about duplicating tracks did you? Or the fact it has advanced compositing. Not all these things are easily seen if you just have scratched the surface. Throught this coorespondence I've been quite humble always making a point to say "I'm not sure" or "I think" just to make sure I don't speak out of ignorance. If you go back and re-read my original statement that set you off you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm not standing with my feet set in stone- I specificaly said "I could be wrong" regarding Premiere having features that Vegas lacks. And thus so far all the examples (all two of them) have work-arounds and/or different ways of going about it. If "virtal clips" is exactly what you need and no variance is acceptable then maybe Vegas DOES lack features you "need". However as an editor myself I find features like compositing, keying, 5.1 surround mixing, AC-3 encoding, and 24p/HD support more compelling than a "virtual clip". (btw, seriously... please dont forget to explain how/why you need them...that way I can better gauge if Vegas has something that'll replicate it's effectiveness) Oh, and.....Mobil 1 all the way!

July 8th, 2003, 06:01 PM	#35
Craig Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 105	Well then I guess Premiere is much cheaper. The point is that Premiere is not more expensive than VV4. How about $282? Vegas has nothing similar to virtual clips. My most common use of virtual clips involves combining footage then applying filters to the combination. I've also used it to generate complicated garbage mattes and to do simultaneous transitions. Vegas has a superior solution to the third application by allowing each track to have transitions. PPro duplicates that ability. My understanding is that VV4 does not offer garbage mattes but I have not verified it. I learned this on the SOFO Vegas forum where it was accepted as fact. I doubt SOFO employees would let that go if it were not true. If you go to the SOFO Vegas forum, you'll find that the users there are actively trying to find a substitute for virtual clips using a frame server. I personally would not bother with that level of complexity and hope, instead, that SOFO adds tabbed timelines.

July 8th, 2003, 06:35 PM	#36
Elmar Tewes Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Frankfurt Germany Posts: 104	the price question isn't really a question... why buy the Premiere Pro software for 800 bucks when you could buy the software bundled together with a hardware editing card in a month for 500 and then sell the card alone again and your old version of premiere alone too. you pay 50, 100 or 200 $ for it. i always do that. the software alone is too expesive wait for a bundle and then buy it. i did that with a bundled editing card and AP 6.5 and not even paid a cent for a new 6.5 version (i had AP 6) i... got 20 bucks more later than i had before and the newest premiere version, thats the way to go

July 8th, 2003, 07:52 PM	#37
Glen Elliott Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 2,898	Vegas doesn't have garbage mattes just like it doesn't have virtual clips. I do think it has features that do stuff thats similar- for example...say you want to blur out someones face as they move across the screen- simple work when using a garbage matte, right. Well in Vegas you can duplicate the clip blur the top layer, add a mask (cookie cutter) over top of it, and key frame it to the motion of the person walking- isn't that the same as a garbage matte? Regarding Virtual clips....I'm still a bit fuzzy on what you mean by combine clips. I understand how you can make a virtual clip out of two clips transitioning together and then transition that to yet another clip. But how would using the track duplication limit that in Vegas? not rhetorical, I'm actually asking a question If that didn't work, last ditch effort would be to export your transitioned track as a DV avi and import it into the project. That way you could add new transitions on top of footage where transitions were already rendered. The only limitation is the ability to change the original clip and have it update the virtual clip, which I still don't see the usefullness of that. how do you, personally use that feature of Virtual clips? I actually did something similar to that in a recent wedding video I finished. I'd do a 3 minute vignette, export it as DV avi, import it and place it on the timeline- that way I don't have to worry about re-rendering if I nudge the clip on the timeline. It's then when I'd add all the visual effects (color correction, soft focus, etc). I probably could have achieved something similar by turning the edited vignette into a virtual clip and then applying video filters to the virtual clip, skipping having to output the AVI as a middle step...though, like I said virtual clips act up on my system. In Vegas you can finish your edit then apply project-wide adjustments (filters, speed, super-sampling, motion blur, etc) by use of video bus tracks. Again just another way to achieve the same effect.

July 8th, 2003, 08:54 PM	#39
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	oh wise one...three humble bows in your direction.

July 8th, 2003, 09:01 PM	#41
Craig Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 105	What I do frequently is combine two clips, group them as a virtual clip, then apply color correction, motion, transitions, etc to the virtual clip. I do this because the two clips are directly related (in fact, one is derived from the other) and need to become one again. I don't want to have to duplicate and maintain the adjustments and I want the transitions to work right. In Vegas I could copy the clips but that would accomplish nothing. The primary thing I'm trying to avoid is filter settings in two places that must be identical. Yes, the substitute for virtual clips is to create a composition on another timeline and render it to a file. The disadvantages are that you have the additional render step and the additional storage plus the lack of instant results if you have to edit it later. If you need to several small things in sequence then it gets more cumbersome. Still, its better than using a frame server like others have suggested. Virtual clips exist because you may want to do this type of thing and you don't want to have to use multiple projects to get it. The tabbed timeline will make this process much more intuitive. I've used garbage mattes for extracting moving mattes. Sure you could replace the garbage matte with with a static mask and you could even use a tool to generate the mask, but I don't think that's easier. I could use that technique in Premiere, too. If it's so good why have garbage mattes?

July 8th, 2003, 09:42 PM	#42
Imran Zaidi Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 1,315	I just recently got a Mini Cooper, and Mini changes your oil for you for 3 years/36k miles. And they use...... Castrol Synthetic. Seems to work great on my Mini, without a single dropped frame and great color correction. Um... back to DV.

July 8th, 2003, 09:49 PM	#43
Craig Jones Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 105	Motor oil is much more fun. My BMW uses Castrol Synthetic 10W-60 and it drinks it. No need to change it. It'll be gone shortly!

July 9th, 2003, 04:50 AM	#45
Michael Chen Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 163	I have avid. I think most users here are not using avid, not because it stinks, but rather, its expensive. The thing I like about avid is real time previewing. But of course, Vegas has that too. But the real stuff is its color correction. But then again, Adobe is coming up with similar color correction tool.