Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pixel_pimp

Adobe Please Listen to Stu

Recommended Posts

Good points in this long winded article but the only thing i cant get passed is premiere. I am an AE addict as much as the rest. but Premiere? Maybe im just an apple snob cause i love FCP but I started editing on an AVID and followed the FCP product from the beginning as it progressed into what it is capable of now. Once i made the switch it was a no brainer. AVID is old and antiquated, updating is expensive and not many updates have been made recently, Maybe that is a because of their financial situation.(not so good) Did they even show up to NAB? i dont think they did. I just cant imagine using Premiere when i use an app. as solid as FCP. And with the addiction of AutoDuck you can move you edit into AE as a layered project with your adjustments translated into AE.(opacity, speed, transitions, etc.)

 

AutoDesk's products which are heavily hardware driven by a linux system are hard to compare to desktop apps but a good article none the less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good points in this long winded article but the only thing i cant get passed is premiere. I am an AE addict as much as the rest. but Premiere? Maybe im just an apple snob cause i love FCP but I started editing on an AVID and followed the FCP product from the beginning as it progressed into what it is capable of now. Once i made the switch it was a no brainer. AVID is old and antiquated, updating is expensive and not many updates have been made recently, Maybe that is a because of their financial situation.(not so good) Did they even show up to NAB? i dont think they did. I just cant imagine using Premiere when i use an app. as solid as FCP. And with the addiction of AutoDuck you can move you edit into AE as a layered project with your adjustments translated into AE.(opacity, speed, transitions, etc.)

 

AutoDesk's products which are heavily hardware driven by a linux system are hard to compare to desktop apps but a good article none the less.

 

I used to be one of the biggest Premiere haters out there. But, I got it with the Production Premium bundle. Being that I rarely edit anyway, I gave premiere a try. Actually, it's pretty decent. It's got a couple quirks that you'd expect from a full re-write of the software. However, it's stable and it works exactly the way you'd expect. As Stu points out, the AE integration has a way to go.

 

Can you site specific things about Premiere that you don't like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess i cant speak on the latest version but before they revamped the app it was pretty much a consumer product. Now that all the new improvements have been made and it now runs with a BlackMagic I/O board or card i guess it somewhat more professional but im still not sold. I really like how FCP has integrated workflows for RED & Panasonic's P2. I have been working more with the tapeless formats and really love how FCP handles them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who know I'm a huge Avid DS fan know this is coming:

 

I've been nagging any Apple rep for years to integrate Shake into FCP. So you could turn any FCP clip into a container and inside that container is a full Shake node tree. It may happen one day, but so far it's not looking like it.

 

So that's why I bought a DS a few years ago. If Apple or Adobe could do anything close to that then they are in business. And DS v10 just came out this week and it's awesome. I don't know about Media Composer , but the DS part of Avid is alive and well. They also cut the price in half on a DS system (to like 60k now). Even if Apple stuck Shake inside of FCP, it still wouldn't touch the DS (methinks), but it would probably be a lot of the functionality for only couple grand or less.

 

And I can tell you that having that much power in one system doesn't HAVE to be bloated. Use the DS and you'd think it was a small little app based on it's speed and agility. Then when I launch FCP to cut together some simple reels, it seems sluggish and bloated in comparison even though it does a tiny fraction of what a DS will do.

 

So I agree with Stu a thousand percent, but it seemed like the obvious thing to do for years that nobody but Softimage (actual creators of the DS) has bothered to do right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems like that would make for really bloated app w/o the dedicated hardware.

 

At this point the hardware question is mostly irrelevant. Adobe has all the base technologies to make this run pretty decent on any combo of standard hardware, they just need to finally put it to use in the way everyone expects. My concern is far more about the bloat and usefulness factor on the software side of things. For the life of it, I really don't need the hundredth VFX-oriented Nuke/Fusion/Shake clone, I need AE for what it is - a motiongraphics-cheaptitles-DVDmenus-expressions-patternsandbackgroundmaker bitch of an app. No matter how solidly founded Stu's arguments and authority is, I doubt it's the end-all-be-all of things of things for Adobe. If that were to be their sole strategy, they might gain some markets, but loose others in turn. There's simply too many ways you could twist an turn this. And let's be honest - requests for integrating Flash and AE are just as valid as are any requests aimed at resolving long-standing issues like lame vector import, memory hungry rendering, limited file format capabilities and whatnot.

 

Mylenium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. For the life of it, I really don't need the hundredth VFX-oriented Nuke/Fusion/Shake clone, I need AE for what it is - a motiongraphics-cheaptitles-DVDmenus-expressions-patternsandbackgroundmaker bitch of an app.

Mylenium

 

you just call after effects a bitch? j/k

 

stu is right on as per usual

in a post house with clients used to DS and flame, after effects is really not very client session friendly, which is too bad b/c a lot of times when doing some tweaks 'live' you can explain the rationale or compromise why a choice was made and have the client buy-in or not, versus the isolation (still mostly very nice) of sending client review quicktimes

 

for jobs where the clients passion exceeds my own, it is nice to have them come in, and let them own more of that process, AE just requires more chit chat while doing the intermediate steps into fcp

 

i also feel a way better handle on timing i/o decisions when playing back from an NLE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to Chris's point, I routinely turn down edit+mograph gigs where the client wants to finish a project using a combination of FCP & AE, Media Composer & AE, [insert standalone editor here] & AE... because I know I can do the same job in better quality in half the time on an Avid DS. The frustration of lost time just isn't worth the hassle.

 

Combining the two software apps as one entity wouldn't do it for me. They'd have to do a complete rebuild from the ground up. It's the WYSIWYG factor, the lightning fast renders, being able to immediately bounce between or combine editing & compositing as a single workflow, and most importantly being able to scrub thru complex composites with *immediate* feedback that separate the Avid DS from anything else out there. And to boot, you don't have to work in destructive editing mode like in any Autoscreet product. Avid DS is always truly non-linear.

 

I've spent many years on all of these platforms and I'm a proponent of using the best tool for each particular job... but if you are looking for a product that combines editing and motion graphics, it has already existed for 10 years and is used in major post production houses around the world.

 

Thanks for reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you site specific things about Premiere that you don't like?

 

I find premiere very similar to FCP, but some things that Premiere can't do that FCP can:

 

1. You can't have mixed format projects or sequences. Once you create a project it's locked in that format. No changing field order, frame rates, making sequences that have different settings etc. In FCP you can change any project or sequence setting at any time.

2. Can't have more than one project open at once. This is a huge time saver in FCP.

3. The L/R audio is combined into a single audio track. This makes it annoying for e.g. one channel has background ambient and one might have the interview. To mix them you have to use the breakout to mono files command.

And all though this is probably hardware related, I find Premiere to crash a little too much, while still on the same machine AE is solid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find premiere very similar to FCP, but some things that Premiere can't do that FCP can:

 

1. You can't have mixed format projects or sequences. Once you create a project it's locked in that format. No changing field order, frame rates, making sequences that have different settings etc. In FCP you can change any project or sequence setting at any time.

2. Can't have more than one project open at once. This is a huge time saver in FCP.

3. The L/R audio is combined into a single audio track. This makes it annoying for e.g. one channel has background ambient and one might have the interview. To mix them you have to use the breakout to mono files command.

And all though this is probably hardware related, I find Premiere to crash a little too much, while still on the same machine AE is solid.

 

Not that I care that much (NLEs are commodities nowadays) but:

 

In CS4, the first point is not true anymore: you can have sequences with mixed settings and all that.

For the third point, I believe you can have it either way. I am not completely sure.

 

Personally, I think the advantages to each are:

 

FCP:

1. A production quality, visually (but not mathematically) lossless codec is included. In PPro you would have to go with a third party.

2. Better scopes.

3. Better software RT performance (not that I care that much for compositing in an NLE).

4. Better handling of very large projects.

5. (Perhaps the most important) A better branding perception, as if 90 per cent of FCP users were high-end post houses instead of event videographers, churches, in-house corporate video departments, etc. You simply can't make any money with a $1200 product if it was any other way.

 

Premiere Pro:

1. Better color correction tools (the CC effects have curves, tonal range definition, etc).

2. 32 bpc RGB processing rather than "High Precission YUV", whatever that means.

3. After Effects and Photoshop integration (FCP supports the Photoshop 5.5 file format: FCS users accept having to rasterize anything fancy as if it was a fact of life). Also, Premiere has always been able to use continuously rasterized Illustrator files.

4. A much better keyframing model (essentially AE's - in FCP you can't even make a keyframe go through another to reverse the order, let alone control accurately position speed, etc)

5. No need to re-wrap ingested files to proprietary containers.

 

Most other things are so similar, that from a wider perspective it's hard to tell the difference.

It's mostly about personal preference, and perhaps even more, perception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very sorry -but with and without help from really talented people it is not possible to run premiere on OSX without dramatic crashes,freezes and graphic anomalies.

I hoped to have this "Bridge" between EDL capture and AE but this seems to be a dream in theory.

 

running 10.5.5 on macpro cs4 16gb ram, production premium -all updates installed.

Edited by Rook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am very sorry -but with and without help from really talented people it is not possible to run premiere on OSX without dramatic crashes,freezes and graphic anomalies.

I hoped to have this "Bridge" between EDL capture and AE but this seems to be a dream in theory.

 

running 10.5.5 on macpro cs4 16gb ram, production premium -all updates installed.

 

It's been working here for two years now with no such issues. I'm completely Mac-based. I don't have a Mac Pro or 16 GB of RAM, though.

I guess that, with enough bad luck, you can find such horror stories about any piece of software.

I wouldn't present Premiere Pro as a better tool overall than FCP for all kinds of users. I find it much better for AE-centric (and PS-centric) users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than a couple early things I edited in (ack) AE, all of my training has been edited in Premiere. Although I've had frustrations with the Media Encoder (added white frames at the end), Premiere itself has been very solid on my Dual Quad Mac Pro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Other than a couple early things I edited in (ack) AE, all of my training has been edited in Premiere. Although I've had frustrations with the Media Encoder (added white frames at the end), Premiere itself has been very solid on my Dual Quad Mac Pro.

 

The Media Encoder is now a stand-alone application that can encode AE comps or PPro sequences while the apps are running.

Hopefully it fixes the white frames issue you experienced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you just call after effects a bitch? j/k

 

That I do. It's an old slacker that does whatever you throw at it for the money, it just more than often does some scratching and biting before you get to the good parts. :-P

 

stu is right on as per usual

 

Perhaps, perhaps not. All his views (and others' as well) are based on the "structured facility" approach, which only covers a certain amount of companies and people. It has zero relevance to me and my work and how it's done at our little shwag shop and that wouldn't change much if we had the proposed "integrated" app. As a result I'd have a bloated monster of which I only use the 50% that once before were AE. And Stu's view in so far is also limited as it does not take care of making proper suggestions for integrating other Adobe tools and technologies beyond Premiere and After Effects. You know, having a nicely strung together clips is one thing, but what comes after that? Do I again run endless exports just to get this stuff on DVD/BD? Would it not make sense to integrate Encore functionality then, but at the cost of making the app even more bloated? Again: It's very much a matter of POV and as they say "your mileage may vary", but it's pretty clear to me that even someone as authorative as Stu cannot provide all the answers. This is much more complex and complicated than it looks at first sight.

 

Mylenium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those bigger shops are going belly-up anyway ;)

 

Leaving one-man-shows trying to shoehorn HD-res projects into Adobe run kit.

 

Oh failing economy, is there no industry you can't destroy? /Stewart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those bigger shops are going belly-up anyway ;)

 

Leaving one-man-shows trying to shoehorn HD-res projects into Adobe run kit.

 

That's not really the point, is it? But if you accomodated all those biggies, which in number of licenses may only present 10% of Adobe's business in the video applications (okay, okay, AE is certainly bigger, but Premiere has some strong competitors), you inherently set the fuse on the other 90% paying customers and one day the "oh no, it's not for me anymore" bomb goes off. As I said: One more endless dance ensues - Stu wants to integrate Premiere and AE, PS users want to integrate Illu for vector work, Flash user want to integrate AE for its effects and animation, Encore users want to integrate AE for interactive menu design and everyone wants Adobe to suck in Maxon for C4D. So where do you start and where do you end? Lots of beautifully crafted articles, forum threads and official feature requests about it, but for the most part probably wasted effort...

 

Mylenium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not really the point, is it? But if you accomodated all those biggies, which in number of licenses may only present 10% of Adobe's business in the video applications (okay, okay, AE is certainly bigger, but Premiere has some strong competitors), you inherently set the fuse on the other 90% paying customers and one day the "oh no, it's not for me anymore" bomb goes off. As I said: One more endless dance ensues - Stu wants to integrate Premiere and AE, PS users want to integrate Illu for vector work, Flash user want to integrate AE for its effects and animation, Encore users want to integrate AE for interactive menu design and everyone wants Adobe to suck in Maxon for C4D. So where do you start and where do you end? Lots of beautifully crafted articles, forum threads and official feature requests about it, but for the most part probably wasted effort...

 

Mylenium

 

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to want an edit and composite system as one. But that's pretty clear line. DVD burning is something done as an after thought not as a constant interaction through the whole process. Look at NLE's now. They attempt to have composting functions but they're crap. Or look at compositors now, their basic edit functions are crap. So it's perfectly reasonable to want a rounded out environment.

 

However I think AE is the wrong program to merge with an NLE. Because it's strengths are a motion graphics system, not true compositing. I know Stu is a crazy fan of AE for compositing, but personally I hate layer based systems for VFX type stuff.

 

But lets just pretend AE and Premeire were going to be fused. I think it could easily be done right. Remember when they were just adding 3D to AE? I remember people freaking out it would destroy AE's clean workflow. And Adobe maged to make 3D damn near seamless. Just click a 3D button.

 

It could be like the DS (yes I'll mention it again). Where one function key shows you edit mode (premier mode if you will), then another function key shows you compositing mode (AE mode). The difference is all the media is still there. Changes in one mode reflect in the other like the DS. Nothing feels bloated. Just feels like 2 powerful systems are running except they all live as one with no conversions. And when you go to archive it lives as one archive and not multiple projects and many intermediate quicktimes.

 

And what high end post houses are going under? In our small world around these parts, all the high end folks are doing fine (albeit with budgets that are a bit more challenging).

Edited by C.Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it's unreasonable to want an edit and composite system as one.

 

You won't get an argument about that from me - on a idealistic, generalised level. Still, it doesn't mean I would want full edit tools in my favorite compositing/ motion graphics package. I think the matter at the core (that has not been mentioned or even lost in the whole discussion) is everyones dissatisfaction with media and asset management in Adobe's video-centric programs. You know, the logic breakdown and infinitely growing media caches, no background rendering and transcoding and a few other things. Only a moron would refuse to acknowledge that these partially severe issues do exist. However, and that's my point, in my view they are not best solved by forcibly merging two apps that do not necessarily have common ground in how they work under the hood. A good example is Stu's request for freely selectable CoDecs and resolutions for conformed media - not realyl doable at this point in Premiere, as all its routines are based on standardized presets with highly optimized routines and are limited to specific formats, mostly those handled by MediaCore. so basically just for that, Adobe would have to cook up a highly optimized, resolution independent, memory-friendly intermediate CoDec that on top of it behaves "neutral" (color profiles, compression) across multiple apps or the modules of the über-app. And whether these really need to be mode-driven is another matter. Switching between different interfaces just to get access to some functions might become tedious. If at all, this should come with a fully customizable interface such as you can oif course do in your beloved DS, XSI, Maya or modo to get rid of thess UI state-driven things...

 

Mylenium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You won't get an argument about that from me - on a idealistic, generalised level. Still, it doesn't mean I would want full edit tools in my favorite compositing/ motion graphics package. I think the matter at the core (that has not been mentioned or even lost in the whole discussion) is everyones dissatisfaction with media and asset management in Adobe's video-centric programs. You know, the logic breakdown and infinitely growing media caches, no background rendering and transcoding and a few other things. Only a moron would refuse to acknowledge that these partially severe issues do exist. However, and that's my point, in my view they are not best solved by forcibly merging two apps that do not necessarily have common ground in how they work under the hood. A good example is Stu's request for freely selectable CoDecs and resolutions for conformed media - not realyl doable at this point in Premiere, as all its routines are based on standardized presets with highly optimized routines and are limited to specific formats, mostly those handled by MediaCore. so basically just for that, Adobe would have to cook up a highly optimized, resolution independent, memory-friendly intermediate CoDec that on top of it behaves "neutral" (color profiles, compression) across multiple apps or the modules of the über-app. And whether these really need to be mode-driven is another matter. Switching between different interfaces just to get access to some functions might become tedious. If at all, this should come with a fully customizable interface such as you can oif course do in your beloved DS, XSI, Maya or modo to get rid of thess UI state-driven things...

 

Mylenium

 

First of all if I haven't mentioned it yet. It's good to have you back , Mylenium :)

 

Media management is one main reason why I think Avid is better for higher end workflow. The FCP/Premeire way of doing things trying to be all codecs for all people is a huge pain in the ass I think. I remember before using Avids that I thought it was lame Avid had one codec it used and everything upon import had to be converted to that codec. Now, I wouldn't want it any other way. When the system forces one standard, it can then have full control of that standard. The media management, purging, reconforming, etc are so seamless and controllable in an Avid workflow (again, I've never used media composer just from a DS perspective) and that's what makes all the difference. It's not the basic editing functionality. Who really cares about that part? They are all fairly similar now anyways in that regard. So yes, I agree that it would all need a huge overhaul. But like the other dude in this thread who uses DS said, it would need to be rethought from the ground up. And yes, it certainly goes without saying you would need custom interfaces. My DS layouts look nothing like what it came with. I made my graphics mode look like Photoshop, I made my composite mode look like Shake, my Color Correction mode look and act like a DaVinci, and made a new Audio mode that is laid out like Pro Tools, and (would irony be the best word?), made my edit layout look more like FCP. So it feels like I'm using all the apps I used to use (FCP, Shake, Pro Tools, PS) but all running as one and working on the same data.

 

But I agree that MOST users of AE are going to be motion graphics people, so I would think you wouldn't need to add a full NLE. Just some very basic editing functions. I would think it would be more prudent to cram an EOL'd compositor (like...oh maybe Shake) into an NLE that only has it's editing toolset going for it (FCP) but who's built in effects are Fisher Price quality.

 

But didn't Conduit for FCP kind of solve that issue anyways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I agree that MOST users of AE are going to be motion graphics people, so I would think you wouldn't need to add a full NLE.

 

 

Thant's right!... I think if you are working on a big motion graphics piece with lots of precomps.....I would love to see how everything is coming together without the need of an NLE....wouldn't it be easy for ram preview to go automatically to disk (like Stu said) on the codec of your choice then this is automatically connected to a simple single track NLE mode.... that's what I would love!...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute true.

I think that the most important upgrade for AE (since x.y.z position that now is integrated -is it?) would be to have proxys of other projects in your project.

They would develop and update as other users are working on them.

Ahhhh -sweet Dream ;)

Not even Flame or Inferno has this option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DVD burning is something done as an after thought not as a constant interaction through the whole process.

 

This shows exactly what Mylenium tried to say.

Wow, Chris.

You just reduced a powerful venue for motion graphics and interactivity to the mechanical act of burning a DVD.

I have a business based 70 per cent on doing this (the fact that most DVD graphics are incredibly depressing is another subject).

Just to show that what's important for some is irrelevant for others.

 

 

However I think AE is the wrong program to merge with an NLE. Because it's strengths are a motion graphics system, not true compositing. I know Stu is a crazy fan of AE for compositing, but personally I hate layer based systems for VFX type stuff.

 

This is is a "bit" true. And as such, somewhat of a cliche.

I have the privilege of being in contact with very, very high-end VFX people that use AE every day. I can't tell how much I learn from them. They're perhaps almost as knowledgeable but not as visible as Stu (who also happens to be a brilliant polemicist).

True, they don't use AE *only*. That's the important word.

Node-based compositing programs shine when processing order is king.

AE shines when a powerful timeline and animation is paramount.

Not to mention (and this my personal belief, not representing anybody else) that the most interesting stuff mixes the VFX and mograph boundaries in a way that make AE feel very well-balanced (ie, AE is much better at keying than Nuke or Shake will ever be at animating text).

 

I really like the idea of putting Premiere Pro editing capabilities inside of AE.

It's not my most urgent need. There are four or five things that I want more than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...