Does Adobe Premiere Pro need any other software?

[jeanpave]

Hi.

I just bought a new PC, and I'd like to install Adobe Premiere Pro.
I still have the installation disc. I thought I'd give it a new try because I remember it wasn't working too well on my old computer. (Well, it would install and run, but whenever I tried to get it to output into any other format except AVI it gave me an error message, and even that AVI it would output would be unusable because of its huge file size.)

So, this time, I'd like to ask other APP users if I should install anything prior to installing Adobe Premiere Pro?...
Codecs, QuickTime to permit MOV output, file compressors, and so on - I have no idea if APP needs such add-ons/plug-ins to work properly.
(I remember it was a very picky, ineffective program when I installed it on the old PC. But maybe I didn't do it properly.)

Thanks in advance.

[budwzr]

I tried APP once too, and it was the biggest bloatware on the planet, very unstable, and a resource hogg. Has it improved?

It seemed to me like that all the code from 10 years ago is still in there, and they keep trying to just scab on new features and it's like a house of cards to keep it from crashing.

[jeanpave]

I don't think it has improved. At least, not the version I have.

Otherwise, I would have probably gotten at least one reply saying: "What are you talking about? APP is great."

You're definitely right, though, about the bloatware part.

[filmboss80]

Premiere Pro bloatware? I suppose you think the same of Photoshop and Microsoft Office. To each his own. The ultimate question is: what are you trying to use it for?

APP is typically found in a lot of non-theatrical/non-broadcast production houses, and may be a higher-end tool than what you need. Premiere Elements may be more your speed.

[budwzr]

It's not the number of features, it's the code. It's not optimized seems like. Now that you mention it, yeah, those other programs are bloated too, but I think Adobe is the king of bloat.

Nothing to do with the "speed" of the user, or if a user needs something less "higher end". I always chuckle when diehards of anything try to defend with a put down, because it means I hit a nerve.

[poisondeathray]

Yes you need quicktime if you want qt enabled export options (same as any other editor)

PP is very bloated, but CS5 is much improved if you have a cuda enabled card. Editing multiple HD streams with effects in realtime like butter - that typically kills other editing software. It's much faster for editing and export compared to other software

[budwzr]

That's good, I like Adobe as a company. I had an issue with them once and they treated me with the ultimate respect and quick resolution.

Yes you need quicktime if you want qt enabled export options (same as any other editor)

PP is very bloated, but CS5 is much improved if you have a cuda enabled card. Editing multiple HD streams with effects in realtime like butter - that typically kills other editing software. It's much faster for editing and export compared to other software

[poisondeathray]

That's good, I like Adobe as a company. I had an issue with them once and they treated me with the ultimate respect and quick resolution.

Quick resolution ? LOL, myself (and many others) reported a serious bug which took over a year to fix (actually it's still not fixed in CS4, only in CS5)

Like everything, there are pros/cons

But PP CS5 is really improved - I'm very impressed. The Mercury Playback Engine is the most impressive feature about the CS5 release IMO

Many professional studios are dumping traditional workstations based on FCP or Avid MC for it. BBC recently replaced 2000 workstations with PP CS5 as their primary editing software. I think it's finally matured enough to be taken seriously

[budwzr]

Yes, I know many small town broadcast stations use it for inserting local events into their "News".

Personally, I don't consider FCP as a serious editing option. I've been hooked on VegasPro for a long time, and for me it works well because I like to "roll my own" content style.

I like to keep my artistic inspiration flowing from within, and not be bombarded by presets and canned stuff. In fact, I try my hardest to do something different just to keep from getting pigeon-holed mentally.

Some of these editing packages can really get you in a rut by making your brain lazy.

[poisondeathray]

Personally, I don't consider FCP as a serious editing option.

It's actually THE industry standard (along with Avid MC). Many big budget studios (including Hollywood) use Avid MC, and FCP, and to a much smaller extent PP.

FCP workflow is quite slow; everything needs to be ingested and transcoded to prores. There was a shootout with FCP vs. PP CS5 where pro editors were given several editing tasks. PP CS5 was finished exporting most of the tasks while FCP was still ingesting footage without a single edit yet LOL . I think this is one big reason why studios seem to be moving to PP CS5 (time=$), that and the cost of equivalently spec PC is lower than the same hardware spec'd MAC

I've been hooked on VegasPro for a long time, and for me it works well because I like to "roll my own" content style.

I use Vegas for some projects, I like the interface and it's really easy to edit. I find it's a bit unstable on larger projects, and a bit slow (doesn't decode HD footage very well) . Vegas 10 is actually quite a bit faster for editing than 9, when doing HD h.264 streams. They must have made some decoder optimizations

I like to keep my artistic inspiration flowing from within, and not be bombarded by presets and canned stuff. In fact, I try my hardest to do something different just to keep from getting pigeon-holed mentally.

Some of these editing packages can really get you in a rut by making your brain lazy.

IMO it doesn't matter what editor you use. A crossfade will look the same no matter what program . Technically any NLE should be able to do basic editing tasks

The differences are in speed, stability, workflow, and integration with other applications. Integration is another positive for Adobe - PP really works well with photoshop, after effects

I've used them all, and they ALL have bugs and quircks, or where another external program would be better for a certain task

[budwzr]

The only comment I have is that FCP made it to the top because of Macs. Macs are prevalent in the arts community because artistic types gravitate to Macs because it's a simpler environment.

Also, FCP is the only option for Mac users.

Given this skew from the start, it's not likely the best product can rise to the top. Try it!

Go to Amazon and look for a known product that you are familiar with that's top-notch, and then sort by "most popular" or "Bestseller". Chances are it's not even on the list.

[budwzr]

Hahaha, I guess I have another comment. Sure, a crossfade is a crossfade, but what about a crossfade with a custom transition? Or the convolution kernel to trace and cartoon? Or the bezier masking?

These "raw" tools really open up the possibilities of creativity in any direction one cares to go, unfettered by the rulz.

[filmboss80]

Please don't embarrass yourself. The producers of NCIS: Los Angeles are using FCP, and more Avid cutters are migrating to it -- and apparently Premiere. Most of us who base our livelihoods on media production need to have a lot of tools in our belts. Some of us are more than video hobbyists.

[poisondeathray]

Hahaha, I guess I have another comment. Sure, a crossfade is a crossfade, but what about a crossfade with a custom transition? Or the convolution kernel to trace and cartoon? Or the bezier masking?

These "raw" tools really open up the possibilities of creativity in any direction one cares to go, unfettered by the rulz.

Yes, but I would argue that for the custom stuff there are better tools that enable you to do much more e.g. after effects

I believe in using the right tool for the task. Many things are done better outside of NLE's.

I agree they enable you to express your creativity, but all the editors do the same basic stuff (editing ) . The key differences between the various NLEs are in speed, stability, workflow, and integration with other applications.

There are other factors in choosing an NLE - For example, if you work with other people and hand off projects (maybe to a colorist), and they are all Mac based, FCP would probably be a better choice

[budwzr]

I'm not an "editor" in the sense of performing a part in a bigger production chain.

I originate all my own content from still to video, like what you might find on a Las Vegas sign, that sort of thing. I need raw tools, not templates or fixed workflow.

I only work in RGB, not film industry or DVD/BD or anything like that. Certainly if your editing job is conforming others work to standards, your needs are going to be different.

I wish I had a fancy handle like "FilmKing" or "HollywoodKid", so I can bully my opinion too.

[poisondeathray]

I originate all my own content from still to video, like what you might find on a Las Vegas sign, that sort of thing. I need raw tools, not templates or fixed workflow.

I only work in RGB, not film industry or DVD/BD or anything like that. Certainly if your editing job is conforming others work to standards, your needs are going to be different.

Hence the reason to have different tools available. More options are better than having none at all - this allows you to maximize your creativity

Most NLE's are very rigid and limited in what you can and cannot do - you are often "pigeonholed" into a fixed workflow - or break your back trying to do various workarounds. Having other tools accessible will allow you to be more flexible and get better results.

For example, if you recall from a previous thread discussion, vegas had a fixed bt.709 YV12=>RGB conversion which is easily bypassed by using other tools like avisynth

You mention working in RGB, but it's very unlikely that you use an RGB final format goal. NLE's are very limited in how colorspace conversions are done.

Color management, scaling, deinterlacing, denoising, image manipulation are tasks usually very poorly done by NLE's.

[budwzr]

By RGB I mean I final render to AVC 4:2:2.

[poisondeathray]

By RGB I mean I final render to AVC 4:2:2.

Not very many decoders (or encoders) support AVC 4:2:2 . What software are you using ?

There is still a colorspace conversion from RGB=>YUY2

Or did you mean 4:2:0 ?

[aedipuss]

By RGB I mean I final render to AVC 4:2:2.

why? nothing really supports high@422p or high@422ip.

[edit] sorry pdr beat me to the post button.

[budwzr]

It's an archive format.

[Adobe_Andrew]

I actually work with Adobe and was wondering if anyone had heard of CS Review? I'm looking to get some feedback on user experiences and would love your thoughts. You can read more about how CS Review integrates with Adobe Premiere on this blog post from Videoguys. It's a great way to save time with the creative review process.

[jeanpave]

Premiere Pro bloatware? I suppose you think the same of Photoshop and Microsoft Office. To each his own. The ultimate question is: what are you trying to use it for?

APP is typically found in a lot of non-theatrical/non-broadcast production houses, and may be a higher-end tool than what you need. Premiere Elements may be more your speed.

In reply to your first paragraph: No, I don't consider Microsoft Office bloatware. I can't take any kind of position with Photoshop, because I've almost never opened it. (I worked with Fireworks, though, and I don't think that's bloatware, either...)
But I do still think Premiere Pro is bloatware, for what the program does. (As I do Adobe Acrobat, as a matter of fact - on a different scale, naturally. A lot of Adobe stuff is bloatware.)

In reply to your second paragraph: Well, I've also tried Final Cut Pro, and AVID, and they behave much better than APP. But the problem for which I've created this thread is not to dump on APP because it's bloatware, but to ask why could I only render AVIs with it (- and huge AVIs, too, as long as I'm saying -) even though it's supposed to also output other formats. I get an error message if I try to output in any other formats. Where are the codecs and the compression utilities? Or was I doing it wrong? I was hoping someone would know.

[jeanpave]

Yes you need quicktime if you want qt enabled export options (same as any other editor)

PP is very bloated, but CS5 is much improved if you have a cuda enabled card. Editing multiple HD streams with effects in realtime like butter - that typically kills other editing software. It's much faster for editing and export compared to other software

The interesting thing is that I had QuickTime installed, too, but Premiere Pro still would give me an error if I was trying to output a MOV.

[jeanpave]

I've been hooked on VegasPro for a long time, and for me it works well because I like to "roll my own" content style.

I agree with you, dude!

Vegas is so intuitive and easy to use, in my opinion! It's a pleasure.