Is Premiere really THAT bad?

[Chris Barcellos]

According to Joshua, if car manufacturers come out with a car that runs on water, they should be responsible for retrofitting all vehicles without charge. Unless the original program that you bought advertized that it did what you now want it to do, why do they owe an obligation to upgrade it for you.

[Kevin Janisch]

I was in the same boat as Ash 4 weeks ago, although with a different problem "Premiere Pro failed to return the video frame" errors with PrPro 1.51 after 4-5 hour rendering time. I tried every imaginable fix offered by Adobe and Microsoft, I even reinstalled XP with SP1a, not SP2. 4 days later and I was nowhere with deadlines quickly creeping. I downloaded PrPro 2, and on the 1st shot, perfect. I am all about principle and that I shouldn't have to pay more money for something that should already work, but I believe I read a post in the Adobe forum where somebody had the same problem with the same dilemma and somebody replied "At some point you have to ask yourself what is your time worth". I purchased PrPro 2.0 that same night and haven't looked back. 4 crucial days were already down the drain which was worth well over the $199, so I believe I did the right thing. I met my deadline and am now wrapping up another project as I type.

The interface alone is worth it in my opinion. Now, be aware though, After Effects 6.5 will NOT import PrPro 2.0 projects, they got me there as well, but hey AE 7 Pro is awefully nice and once again is worth the $199 for the interface alone (workflow is much more efficient), and it is so much more responsive than 6.5 ever was.

Kevin

[David Jimerson]

Originally Posted by Joshua Provost

That is only a good enough response if the upgrade is free. Otherwise, Adobe should fix this bug as a patch to the existing release. If you think upgrading is good enough, then Adobe has you exactly where they want you.

Well (and I have no idea if they did or not), if they advertised PP 1.5 as fully supporting both advanced and standard pulldown, I'd agree with you, if the results are as bad as you're saying. Did they?

Adobe doesn't have me anywhere; I'm a Vegas guy (and I don't understand why Ash won't just use IT if he has it instead of all these headache workarounds, but that's neither here nor there), but I've used PP 2.0 extensively over the past month or two.

[Joshua Provost]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

According to Joshua, if car manufacturers come out with a car that runs on water, they should be responsible for retrofitting all vehicles without charge. Unless the original program that you bought advertized that it did what you now want it to do, why do they owe an obligation to upgrade it for you.

Chris, please. PP1.5 is advertised to support 24p, including detecting and removing pulldown, which it is not doing accurately in this case.

I'm not looking for a free upgrade. I'm saying there should be a fix or patch, which, as mentioned, is not (and likely will not be) forthcoming, despite the problem being around since the program was released. Adobe doesn't do this as well as other vendors (this from an Adobe die-hard).

[David Jimerson]

Originally Posted by Joshua Provost

Chris, please. PP1.5 is advertised to support 24p, including detecting and removing pulldown, which it is not doing accurately in this case.

But . . . standard pulldown?

FCP doesn't remove standard pulldown, either, and Apple doesn't claim it does. Did Adobe?

[Ash Greyson]

FCP 5 will handle anything you throw at it... As far as Premiere 1.5 I didnt want it to do ANYTHING special... not even 24P! I just wanted to capture and edit in 29.97 but it improperly detected my footage as 24P causing lots of issues or re-rendering of native files. THIS IS A BUG! Like I said, Windows Movie Maker can handle 2:3 pulldown file natively!




ash =o)

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by David Jimerson

I know there's a difference between the pulldown cadences, Greg; I said so. I only said that recording in 2:3 pulldown does not keep the footage from being "true 24p." I know FCP has all sorts of pains in the butt when dealing with 2:3 pulldown (for editing in 24p), but not every NLE does.

But what you say about the difference in removing pulldown isn't quite accurate. To remove 2:3:3:2 pulldown, you're still combining fields, it's only that the field order is such that it's much more efficient. Fields 1 and 2 become frame A. Fields 3 and 4 become frame B. Fields 7 and 8 become frame C. Fields 9 and 10 become frame D. Fields 5 and 6 create a mismatched fame in between frames B and C, and it can simply be dropped. Efficient.

Removing 2:3 pulldown isn't actually that different -- fields 1 and 2 become frame A; fields 3 and 4 become frame B; Fields 9 and 10 become frame D. Fields 5-8 are an inefficient jumble of frames B and C, no question, but an NLE which knows what it's doing -- like Vegas or PP 2.0 -- can reconstruct frame C with almost no quality loss (see the frame I posted above).

Advanced pulldown also takes advantage of frame-based compression, but rest assured, it's split into fields in the 60i stream every bit as much as standard pulldown is; it's simply better for reconstructing the original frames.

So yeah, if you're going to edit in 24p, use 2:3:3:2 pulldown, and I'd never recommend otherwise. But this thread wasn't about that, and I wasn't addressing it. I was addressing the myth that somehow 2:3 pulldown keeps footage from being "true 24p." It does not.

Greg, if you want to see how Vegas handles 24p capture/timelines, check out the tutorial at the link in my sig.

I personally have no problems getting FCP to do whatever pulldown I need it to do. It will remove 3:2 just fine. But 3:2 is not intended to be edited on a 24P timeline, whereas 24P at 2:3:3:2 is.

We are probably in agreement here for the most part and it may be just semantics or wording, but in a nutshell, you can never recover 24 complete progressive frames from a 3:2 cadence whereas you can recombine 60i from the tape to a complete and whole 24 frames using 2:3:3:2.

Although advanced pulldown was traditionally better for filmout, I like to use it for material going to DVD because a 24P file gives you more program room on the DVD. Let the player do the 24->60i instead of wasting DVD real estate by doing it yourself to the source material.

But hey, Ash has got his problem worked out now so we can all go back to our other issues of the day. ;-)

regards,

-gb-

[David Jimerson]

Maybe it's semantics, Greg, and yes, I agree about 24p DVDs, no question.

And I know Cinema Tools will remove 2:3 pulldown; I was just referring to FCP itself.

[Ash Greyson]

FCP 5 will remove any pulldown, even from Varicam footage... I just came off a 6 month project doing so... Audio in Vegas is much superior but FCP handles everything footage wise.



ash =o)

[David Jimerson]

I don't think so, Ash:

http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/FCP...st_Formats.pdf

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage..._nattress.html

Like I said, you can do it in Cinema Tools, and Cinema Tools comes free with FCP, but FCP doesn't do it itself.

[Steve House]

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

I finally figured out a workaround, VERY annoying but figured it out. You cannot have ANY clip start on the "C" frame or the entire duration of that clip will look like crap. You cannot output to dv tape or to DV.AVI in ANY mode unless every clip is re-rendered via an effect. I WAS able to output a 24p file with the Adobe Media Encoder and make a DVD with that file. It looks pretty good with progressive playback, very good actually but it is total junk if you do not have a 480p TV or prog scan DVD player. Oh well, lesson learned... back to FCP for me!

Sorry David but I just dont accept that upgrading is a fair solution. Adobe knows this is a major issue and instead of addressing it, you can BUY the solution to the problem for $200. SILLY!



ash =o)

Wait a minute Ash - is it reasonable to expect Adobe to retrofit a patch to a obsolete product that has already been superceded by a newer, more up-to-date release? Your rants against PP1.5 are kind of like being upset at Microsoft because they haven't issued a patch to DOS 3.2 to let it run Windows Media Player. Perhaps handling 24p *was* an issue with PP1.5 but so what? That was then, this is now. You're complaining they haven't fixed it, but they did. They call the fix Premiere Pro 2.0 and while they were at it they fixed a lot of other things too AND added functionality on top of it- WOW! It's a fact of computing life that you'll need to replace your software every 18-24 months with newer generations and staying up to date won't be free. Might as well get used to it.

[Ash Greyson]

Maybe you guys are missing the point, I DIDNT WANT TO EDIT IN 24P! I just wanted PP to work like EVERY OTHER EDITOR ON EARTH. It is indisputable fact, that PP 1.5 is the ONLY editor on the planet that cannot do 29.97 footage that has in-camera 3:2 pulldown in a 29.97 timeline. Instead of fixing the bug, which existed from day 1 apparently, they fixed it in a new version. Upgrades to software happen, I understand but this was an admitted BUG, not a missing feature. There is a difference...

David, you are incorrect and those links are old, Final Cut Pro while will remove the pulldown in 2:3:3:2 footage on capture if your settings are correct. You can also capture 2:3 footage and edit it natively in a 29.97 timeline. The only time you need Cinema tools is if you are removing pulldown from 2:3 footage or dropping in non-native footage that is at a different frame rate. I just came off a 24P project that mixed Varicam, HVX, and XL2 footage, all shot in 24P 2:3:3:2 and nothing had to be processed in Cinema Tools.



ash =o)



PS Adobe sent me a free 2.0 upgrade, and it has a better interface and seems to have addressed the 24P issue. Still not as robust as FCP5 as far as formats but easier to maneuver in.

[David Jimerson]

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

David, you are incorrect and those links are old, Final Cut Pro while will remove the pulldown in 2:3:3:2 footage on capture if your settings are correct. You can also capture 2:3 footage and edit it natively in a 29.97 timeline. The only time you need Cinema tools is if you are removing pulldown from 2:3 footage or dropping in non-native footage that is at a different frame rate.

Dude . . .

That’s exactly what I said. FCP removes advanced pulldown but you need Cinema Tools to remove standard pulldown.

Those links both refer to FCP 5.

I’m starting to think you just want to argue here. So, have fun with that.

[Graham Hickling]

> It is indisputable fact, that PP 1.5 is the ONLY editor on the planet that cannot do 29.97 footage that has in-camera 3:2 pulldown in a 29.97 timeline.

Bollocks!

[Chris Barcellos]

Neither does Premiere 6.5. In fact, I don't think it did HD or HDV. And Vegas 5, didn't either, did it ? And if I recall, Premiere Pro 1.0 didn't do HD, and HDV wasn't available until PPro 1.51. These software developers are pure devils....