Is it just a matter of opinion?

[Dave Baker]

One word that seems too often used is "pro". When looking at ads for, of reviews of NLEs, often found is something like "Professional grade video editing" or in the case of reviews, in the cons list "Not professional grade".

I ask your opinion as to what makes an NLE "Professional" grade.

I am not asking for recommendations as to what I should use, simply to try to answer a question that has been bugging me for a long time. Just for fun!

[Andrew Smith]

Good question. For a start it would have the ability to read/write the codecs that are used on professional camera gear.

Andrew

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Dave Baker

I ask your opinion as to what makes an NLE "Professional" grade.

Is it something that professionals who make their living doing video production actually choose to use? Granted, there always be a few fringe outliers who will use almost anything if the price is cheap enough, but are there a lot of professionals who actually use it to make a living? That is the litmus test.

[Dave Baker]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Is it something that professionals who make their living doing video production actually choose to use?

Absolutely. But I want to figure out what reason professionals use what they use or, perhaps more importantly, what are the must haves that would prevent a pro from using a particular software, which would help explain why some are claimed to be professional and some classed as not.

[Paul R Johnson]

I suppose the test is that there is a way to do anything you need to do. For me, and the way I work, it's the ability to use nested video sequences - so you can edit sections, then bring those sections into another sequence. Sync is very important to me, and often there will be multiple audio clips that need to be synched, and then stay in sync. Importing and exporting clips from a range of sources in a range of formats is important too - but for me (a premiere us. er) is the ease of being able to edit a still in photoshop from the timeline, and then bringing it back in, modified. The same applies to audio. I am a Cubase user, but I'll edit audio in the timeline in audition very happily. In truth, there are loads of others worthy of creating paying projects. I suppose we should look at how the audio software differentiates between users. Steinberg (and others) have multiple versions of the main software at different prices with different features. The simplest version has less plug-ins, fewer menus and lower 'cleverness' but is patently the same basic product. Cubase pro contains features I use all the time that are not in the cut down versions, but this stepped software doesn't seem so common in video editors.

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Dave Baker

Absolutely. But I want to figure out what reason professionals use what they use or, perhaps more importantly, what are the must haves that would prevent a pro from using a particular software, which would help explain why some are claimed to be professional and some classed as not.

I think it comes down to performance, speed, and efficiency. Time is money.
Let's say that two different software programs allow you to export the exact same finished product. But one of them lets the user finish in half as much time, or do a few things that would be very difficult to replicate with a consumerish program. That extra speed and efficiency can make all the difference in the world to a busy professional. Not just on one project, but project after project. Hundreds of hours each year. But to a hobbyist, time saved may mean next to nothing, and the allure of not having to master a sophisticated application may be more important to them.

What motivation is there for a professional to use consumerish software? None, really. Programs like Premiere and and FCP cost nothing in the big scheme of things. And Resolve is free. So why would a professional bother using anything less?