Opinions on Premiere Pro? at DVinfo.net

Corey Sturmer · September 13th, 2003, 01:22 PM

Premiere Pro - It's out...Does anyone have it/use it? How does it feel? Worth buying? Better than 6.5? Better than FCP? 1-10 scale of flexibility? Fast? Efficient? How's the real-time? Color correction, good? Bad?

Jan Roovers · September 13th, 2003, 03:31 PM

I am experimenting with it. It is quite different.
I don't know if I like it more. The real-time thing is done with a lower resolution, but is good for preview. Sound is conformed to a Adobe standard. I don't know why.

The A and B editing has disapeared. Transformations are edited in a dedicated window where the keys are very visible and can be handled.
I have to get known with all the new things and setups.

Old projects will be transformed and so far my plugins worked also under PRO.

The streaming for Quicktime, Realmedia and winMedia is not optimal to my opinion. For instance 16:9 is put in a 4:3 frame with black borders up and down. For winMedia the encoder of Microsoft is better and more flexibel..

The MPEG encoder is superb.
A DVD will be burned seamless. But without menu options. Chapters can be made. So maybe I will succeed in connecting to the chapters and can create somehow a menu in Photoshop. The online manual does not say it.

The colorcorrection needs experience and is not automated but done on the base of reference points like in photoshop. That needs experimenting and experience.

The timeline zooming facilty is very handy!

I mis the bandings for transparancy and sound.

Those are first impressions.

I have to get accustomed to the new approach before I can judge well. I have the idea that when I am accustomed that I will be able to work faster and easyer.

Let you hear more when I have more experimented.

Corey Sturmer · September 14th, 2003, 11:33 AM

Sounds very cool. I like it when I hear a company has made a program very different. Whether for better or worse, at least they are putting forth the effort to improve it. Makes me look optimistic! Anyone else?

Jan Roovers · September 14th, 2003, 05:35 PM

I agree with that!

Alex Taylor · September 14th, 2003, 05:54 PM

Thanks for the comments, Jan! If anybody else has used PP, let's hear your thoughts too!

Yow Siang · September 15th, 2003, 12:44 AM

Was trying out the mpeg1 encoding on premier pro and was rather disappointed, I still prefer vegas encoding.. lots of difference...

Yow Siang · September 15th, 2003, 12:49 AM

I tried importing a 1 hour avi file to permiere pro but all i get was only a 3 mins clip. any idea why?the video was captured through another software.

Andrei Petrik · September 19th, 2003, 12:23 AM

Not too impressed with premiere pro.

When i first launched it... it looked cool. but i liked the way they had it back in 6.5

Can't install explode 4.0
Capture device resets everytime
No video preview, unless i push record and then stop.

I recommend to stick with 6.5

BJ Thomas · September 19th, 2003, 10:40 AM

I have Premiere Pro and since I been editing in it for past 3 weeks, I dread touching premiere 6.5. THe only problem with Premiere Pro for me currently is the storyboard/bin capability it has a bug in it. I used Vegas video but I didn't like the interface. Premiere Pro is a good software and will be a great software once all the bugs are fixed.

David Mintzer · September 20th, 2003, 10:26 PM

I just downloaded the upgrade and let me warn you---if you were running 6.5 successfully on an under powered machine, dont expect the same with Pro--On my 1ghz Dell 6.5 ran well--Pro runs like a constipated snail--I'm not blaming Adobe--I guess I need to purchase a faster compute

Corey Sturmer · September 21st, 2003, 01:39 PM

Well I just upped the juice my computer, 2.4 ghz pentium 4, gig of RAM, 245 gigs of space, with tons of cooling mods, that should suffice, no?

Andres Lucero · September 23rd, 2003, 12:12 PM

I actually had the reverse effect... I couldn't run 6.0 very well, but Pro works perfectly. (P4 1.6Ghz, 512MB RAM, 120GB external HD)

Andrew Falzon · September 27th, 2003, 02:43 PM

I disclaim this posting with the fact that I have only been exposed to NLE for a year. However, I routinely upgrade and repair computers, so maybe that compensates?

However, I must say that Prem Pro has me unimpressed. I am running the program on a 2GHz laptop and it barely moves.

Having worked a little with AVID, a little with Pinnacle and a lot with Prem 6.0 & 6.5, it seems that Adobe WinXP-ified the user interface.

There is definitely more manual control of features. I would say it's the equivalent of upgrading from a cheap automatic photo camera, to a full manual SLR.

However, as I mentioned, the software doesn't move. It really seems that Adobe was trying to take its software to the next level in terms of making it a professional editor. Many of the upgraded features were already available in Avid Xpress.

My guess is that the software code is too "bulky" for all but the fastest machines. It may try to take on AVID/ Pinnacle/ in terms of features, but can't take on AVID or Pinnacle in terms of efficieny of resource usage.

BOTTOM LINE: Keep that copy of 6.5 handy!

Steve Withers · September 27th, 2003, 09:37 PM

Premiere Pro runs just fine on my outdated dual 1.6 athlon machine with a gig of ram. I've been impressed with it so far (the main point being that it hasn't crashed yet, as Premiere 6.5 crashed often on my machine).

However, I can't seem to get a decent looking render out of it, at all, without saving as an uncompressed avi. Anyone care to share their export settings?

Yang Wen · September 28th, 2003, 08:57 AM

WHa you talking about?? PPro runs like crap on an underpowered machine like your 1.6 athlon. I had an athlon XP 2100+(1.7GHZ) and the realtime features of PPro looked like crap in draft mode. I've since then upgraded to a 3.2GHZ P4 and now much more functional.

September 13th, 2003, 01:22 PM	#1
Corey Sturmer Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Durham, NC Posts: 144	Opinions on Premiere Pro? Premiere Pro - It's out...Does anyone have it/use it? How does it feel? Worth buying? Better than 6.5? Better than FCP? 1-10 scale of flexibility? Fast? Efficient? How's the real-time? Color correction, good? Bad? __________________ Corey Sturmer Producer - Woffester Productions

September 13th, 2003, 03:31 PM	#2
Jan Roovers Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Amsterdam NL -Turnhout BE Posts: 158	I am experimenting with it. It is quite different. I don't know if I like it more. The real-time thing is done with a lower resolution, but is good for preview. Sound is conformed to a Adobe standard. I don't know why. The A and B editing has disapeared. Transformations are edited in a dedicated window where the keys are very visible and can be handled. I have to get known with all the new things and setups. Old projects will be transformed and so far my plugins worked also under PRO. The streaming for Quicktime, Realmedia and winMedia is not optimal to my opinion. For instance 16:9 is put in a 4:3 frame with black borders up and down. For winMedia the encoder of Microsoft is better and more flexibel.. The MPEG encoder is superb. A DVD will be burned seamless. But without menu options. Chapters can be made. So maybe I will succeed in connecting to the chapters and can create somehow a menu in Photoshop. The online manual does not say it. The colorcorrection needs experience and is not automated but done on the base of reference points like in photoshop. That needs experimenting and experience. The timeline zooming facilty is very handy! I mis the bandings for transparancy and sound. Those are first impressions. I have to get accustomed to the new approach before I can judge well. I have the idea that when I am accustomed that I will be able to work faster and easyer. Let you hear more when I have more experimented. __________________ ___________ Jan Roovers www.jtv.be

September 14th, 2003, 11:33 AM	#3
Corey Sturmer Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Durham, NC Posts: 144	Sounds very cool. I like it when I hear a company has made a program very different. Whether for better or worse, at least they are putting forth the effort to improve it. Makes me look optimistic! Anyone else? __________________ Corey Sturmer Producer - Woffester Productions

September 14th, 2003, 05:35 PM	#4
Jan Roovers Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Amsterdam NL -Turnhout BE Posts: 158	I agree with that! __________________ ___________ Jan Roovers www.jtv.be

September 14th, 2003, 05:54 PM	#5
Alex Taylor Major Player Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 390	Thanks for the comments, Jan! If anybody else has used PP, let's hear your thoughts too! __________________ alextaylor.org

September 15th, 2003, 12:44 AM	#6
Yow Siang Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 153	MPEG 1 encoding not as satisfactory Was trying out the mpeg1 encoding on premier pro and was rather disappointed, I still prefer vegas encoding.. lots of difference...

September 15th, 2003, 12:49 AM	#7
Yow Siang Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 153	1hour avi file becpmes only 3 min I tried importing a 1 hour avi file to permiere pro but all i get was only a 3 mins clip. any idea why?the video was captured through another software.

September 19th, 2003, 12:23 AM	#8
Andrei Petrik Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Toronto Posts: 45	Not too impressed with premiere pro. When i first launched it... it looked cool. but i liked the way they had it back in 6.5 Can't install explode 4.0 Capture device resets everytime No video preview, unless i push record and then stop. I recommend to stick with 6.5

September 19th, 2003, 10:40 AM	#9
BJ Thomas Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 39	I have Premiere Pro and since I been editing in it for past 3 weeks, I dread touching premiere 6.5. THe only problem with Premiere Pro for me currently is the storyboard/bin capability it has a bug in it. I used Vegas video but I didn't like the interface. Premiere Pro is a good software and will be a great software once all the bugs are fixed.

September 20th, 2003, 10:26 PM	#10
David Mintzer Rextilleon Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Pleasantville, NY Posts: 520	I just downloaded the upgrade and let me warn you---if you were running 6.5 successfully on an under powered machine, dont expect the same with Pro--On my 1ghz Dell 6.5 ran well--Pro runs like a constipated snail--I'm not blaming Adobe--I guess I need to purchase a faster compute

September 21st, 2003, 01:39 PM	#11
Corey Sturmer Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Durham, NC Posts: 144	Well I just upped the juice my computer, 2.4 ghz pentium 4, gig of RAM, 245 gigs of space, with tons of cooling mods, that should suffice, no? __________________ Corey Sturmer Producer - Woffester Productions

September 23rd, 2003, 12:12 PM	#12
Andres Lucero Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 75	I actually had the reverse effect... I couldn't run 6.0 very well, but Pro works perfectly. (P4 1.6Ghz, 512MB RAM, 120GB external HD) __________________ "Oy... Aim it downhill."

September 27th, 2003, 02:43 PM	#13
Andrew Falzon New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Queens, NYC, NY Posts: 13	Not Impressed I disclaim this posting with the fact that I have only been exposed to NLE for a year. However, I routinely upgrade and repair computers, so maybe that compensates? However, I must say that Prem Pro has me unimpressed. I am running the program on a 2GHz laptop and it barely moves. Having worked a little with AVID, a little with Pinnacle and a lot with Prem 6.0 & 6.5, it seems that Adobe WinXP-ified the user interface. There is definitely more manual control of features. I would say it's the equivalent of upgrading from a cheap automatic photo camera, to a full manual SLR. However, as I mentioned, the software doesn't move. It really seems that Adobe was trying to take its software to the next level in terms of making it a professional editor. Many of the upgraded features were already available in Avid Xpress. My guess is that the software code is too "bulky" for all but the fastest machines. It may try to take on AVID/ Pinnacle/ in terms of features, but can't take on AVID or Pinnacle in terms of efficieny of resource usage. BOTTOM LINE: Keep that copy of 6.5 handy!

September 27th, 2003, 09:37 PM	#14
Steve Withers Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: New Haven, CT, USA Posts: 59	Premiere Pro runs just fine on my outdated dual 1.6 athlon machine with a gig of ram. I've been impressed with it so far (the main point being that it hasn't crashed yet, as Premiere 6.5 crashed often on my machine). However, I can't seem to get a decent looking render out of it, at all, without saving as an uncompressed avi. Anyone care to share their export settings?

September 28th, 2003, 08:57 AM	#15
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	WHa you talking about?? PPro runs like crap on an underpowered machine like your 1.6 athlon. I had an athlon XP 2100+(1.7GHZ) and the realtime features of PPro looked like crap in draft mode. I've since then upgraded to a 3.2GHZ P4 and now much more functional.