7 Replies Latest reply on Jul 17, 2012 5:44 PM by CAOLSEN

    Sad, but I have went back to CS5.5

    CAOLSEN Level 1

      I love the CS6 Interface and the new features...but CS6 has wasted so much time, it just doesn’t work well at all. And you need to learn a multitude of ‘workarounds’ just to do what was easy in CS5.5.

      Media Encoder went from being the best encoder to the worst. I have a 3 hour project, and it doesn't matter if I encode to Mpeg2, or AVCHD, the software fails to use my CPU properly, and what would normally take 3-4 hours to encode, now takes 70-80 hours!

      The exact same project done in CS5.5 takes 3.5 hours to encode.  I have tested this on two different Win7 computers, one with an Nvidia Quattro card, and one without. No difference, CS5.5 Media Encoder works perfectly, CS6 Media Encoder doesn’t.

      Has anyone else noticed when you zoom in on the PP timeline or scrub quickly that the Audio waveforms disappears and takes a while to return?  (Another huge time waster, waiting on the waveforms to reappear)

      Most of my XDCam and HDV files don’t have Audio in CS6 Encore, they do in CS5.

      Oh yes, you’ll need to name your CS6 Encore chapter markers before you encode to h.264.  If you don’t, they won’t be there!  But only with h.264…weird.

      I’m really disappointed in CS6 to say the least. 

        • 1. Re: Sad, but I have went back to CS5.5
          Jim_Simon Level 8

          In my tests,  CS6 actually encoded faster than 5.0.  You may want to troubleshoot that.


          I do not have the waveform redraw issues.


          I personally use outside encoders for my DVDs and Blu-rays as they produce better quality than the MainConcept encoder used by AME, so having to create chapter markers manually is the norm for me anyway.

          • 2. Re: Sad, but I have went back to CS5.5
            CAOLSEN Level 1

            Jim, what 'outside' encoders can you recomned for me?

            • 3. Re: Sad, but I have went back to CS5.5
              Shadreck Rukweza Level 2

              CS6 is a huge disappointment in terms of perfomance! If it wasn't for multicamera angles I would be switching nack to CS5. I have got a problem with waveforms and title templates. Adobe ships this software as a production bundle, so why should Jim use outside encoders hence he always see no issues on his system?

              • 4. Re: Sad, but I have went back to CS5.5
                John T Smith Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                Not Jim, but a couple of saved links


                CCE Basic for coding http://www.cinemacraft.com/en/

                or Grass Valley Procoder http://www.grassvalley.com/products/procoder_3

                • 5. Re: Sad, but I have went back to CS5.5
                  Jeff Bellune Level 5

                  why should Jim use outside encoders hence he always see no issues on his system?

                  There have always been pay-for-play encoders (Sorenson Squeeze, Cinemacraft, ProCoder) that produced better quality than Adobe's licensed and included MainConcept encoder.  There are also free, open-source encoders (x264, HC Encoder. AviSynth, VirtualDub, dv2film, hd2sd, etc.) that produce better quality results than Adobe's licensed and included MainConcept encoder.


                  Those pay and free encoders, however, can't match the tight integration between Pr, AE and En with regard to things like live Dynamic Link updating (to include En chapter markers).  So editors have a choice: sacrifice a little quality by choosing an all-Adobe workflow while taking advantage of the exceptional across-suite integration, or seek the very best output quality and sacrifice the convenience of having a unified set of tools readily available, or the economic advantage of not having to buy additional tools.


                  Smart editors, like Jim, do whatever it takes to make their clients happy.  Emphasis on "whatever it takes".



                  • 6. Re: Sad, but I have went back to CS5.5
                    CAOLSEN Level 1

                    I am trying this one  now, it is a plug-in.



                    • 7. Re: Sad, but I have went back to CS5.5
                      CAOLSEN Level 1

                      The plug-in, x264pro works very well in CS5.5!   It does not not work very well in CS6.


                      Using my desktop, same XDCam footage, CS5.5 Media Encoder using x264pro plug-in, makes quick work of the h.264 encode.  My eight CPU cores maxout and the encode is done in no time at all!


                      Using the same desktop, same XDCam footage, CS6 Media Encoder using x264pro plu-in, takes forever, in fact I ended up canceling it as the time remaining kept growing.  My eight core CPU just created spikes, and usully ran at about 12%. TERRIBLE!


                      I also ran the same footage through a laptop, using CS6.  The laptop does not have a Nvida Quattro 3800 graphics card like the desktop. 

                      CS6 Media Encoder using the x264pro plug-in did run better / faster than the desktop.

                      But out of the eight CPU cores that the laptop has, the CS6 Media Encoder encoding ran them at 40-50%.

                      Again, in CS5, my CPU's ran close to 100% and the encoding was done very fast.


                      I personaly feel that CS6 Media Encoder has serious issues.  And they are worse on my machine with the Nvida card.


                      I don't know exactly what the problem is, maybe it's the XDCAM 422 footage.


                      Botton-line, the x264pro plug-in is awesome in my opinion, but only with CS5.5. 


                      CS6 (Media Encoder especially) causes much time to be wasted, and huge amounts of frustrations.


                      Just FYI


                      (I am an Adobe fan, 100%, it's all I use and preach...just very dispointed in CS6)