This content has been marked as final. Show 20 replies
>What was Adobe thinking?
Just a guess here, but it seems to fit the evidence.
Adobe was thinking that only amateurs would be using a hard drive camera, so they built support for it into their amateur editor. Since pros don't use those cameras, no need to devote valuable resources to adding support to their professional editor.
So what good (and inexpensive) camera does ADOBE want us to use with CS3? I teach at a very small community college and wanted to upgrade the video editing class and was suckered into CS3. We had been using Elements 2.0. We have 8 SONY HDD cameras for the kids to use in this class.
What gets me is that they have the software already developed in Elements, why take it out of CS3; it would have made it a more useful program for more people? This is one of the few programs I've encountered where the "Pro" version can not do something that the "Lite Edition" can do.
Any mini DV tape based camera.
> What gets me is that they have the software already developed in Elements, why take it out of CS3
It was never put INTO PPRO! Bruce the fact remains that
did not do your homework and investigate matters further. Simple fact. Jim is right, people do not seem to understand that these new consumer HDD cameras are just that "consumer" and Premiere Elements is the consumer tool. Adobe Premiere Pro does not support it for Jim's reason.
You should have found out what supports what and what camera shoots to what format first before buying things. I'm sorry but Adobe's policy makes sense here. Those HDD cameras use a highly compressed format so editing is better suited to Elements in any case.
To be fair...
At the top/mid end there is a move away from tape. We're seeing it with a bunch of different formats, some more suited to editing than others. It's basically a means of using file transfer to speed up productivity and improve workflow in a professional/broadcast environment.
At the lower end we're also seeing this move away from tape to a hard disk. Unfortunately, these lower end cameras are created with both a particular consumer and a particular budget in mind. The codecs used, while great for simple shoot-and-burn filmmaking, just don't stack up in the editing stakes for anything of a commercial nature. Please take careful note of that last bit.
It's easy to get caught in the "tapeless-is-the-future-so-it-must-be-better" marketing gimmick we've seen over the last few years. I've had any number of broadcast professionals unaware of these issues when buying personal video cameras. It's just that in this case, as several people have noted, there is a tool for working with the files these cameras create and it isn't Adobe Premiere Pro. Premiere Pro has also been created with a particular consumer in mind, and they tend to be people with a little more of a financial investment, for whom the quality of the final product determines whether or not bills will or will not be paid this month.
Now that I've got that out of the way, I will say this. I would LOVE to see Premiere Pro able to import and handle these MPEG4, MJPEG, MPEG2, VOB and all the other weird formats and crazy resolutions that we spend so much time on these boards waving away. As someone who works in an industry that is dealing more and more with user submitted content I'd love to have a tool that can cope with them on their own terms without me having to turn to VirtualDub every time. I understand that many wish some of Premiere Pro's other unique foibles were addressed before the development team spent time working with this, however I'd like to see it get towards the top of the to-do list some time in the future.
Point taken, but still if I get another (divx, mpeg, vob...)format I usually convert it to AVI using Sorenson first.
Or now I can use Cineform...
I personally feel their will always be something better to do for Premiere Pro than adding support for consumer delivery codecs, especially when such support already exists in another application.
KingLeonard - Thank you for your kind, civil suggestions. I have found an easy way to convert the file to something that PRO will accept.
Howard - I did contacted Adobe and asked about cameras and I was told, "We can not comment on third party ware." Boy that was helpful.
Personally, I would like Premiere to be able to ingest any format you can throw at it, edit it natively in real time, and export to any other format you want. Very much like ProCoder's mantra - "Any format in; Any format out".
I would also like to see the global Project settings available on a per-sequence basis, with the ability to change settings on-the-fly. Woe to the wizard-driven consumer, but what a boon to professionals in all phases of the industry.
PS - Yes, Virginia, I have filed appropriate feature requests.
PPS - "edit it natively" means without 3rd-party assistance. Intermediate lossless codecs are OK.
I still think there will always be better things Adobe can do for Premiere Pro than essentially folding in their consumer product.
But Jim, my point is that in my line of work there is an increasing need to be able to treat all video sources on a level playing field. When speed is of the essence, as it is in online news, having to do multiple transcodes just to get it to a format that can be edited is time consuming; time that you just don't have to spare.
Then again, it's probably also fair to say that this area is not Premiere's forte, and if there's one thing we've learned using this program over the years it's that users are best served sticking to Premiere's forte.
Jeff speaks the truth. I'm a little shocked that everyone here just jumped on Bruce at first. He is teaching a class. So many people are not taking PPro seriously in news or production. Some people laugh at me when I mention PPro. Bruce is teaching PPro and making inroads with students.
At the government house I work for, the senior Cameraman wants Firestore. He wants to do away with tape. Personally I want anything that will work.
As far as making a distinction of what pros want and classifying any user as an amateur as opposed to a consumer and pushing aside a feature as a waste of valuable resources, I'd like to point out that in the hands of an artist any camera can produce outstanding results in some way or another. Try to catch Inland Empire.
To dismiss anything that can be utilized as a visual tool is narrow minded.
I'm getting the impression from the dedicated professionals with whom I occasionally come in contact, that today's high-end media market is all about "NOW!"
Speed is of the essence in broadcast, and long-form docos are under increasingly tight deadlines.
So from one perspective, Jim is correct. There are several UI and workflow improvements that can and should be made to Premiere Pro that not only make sense, but will enhance an editor's productivity (i.e., make it fast).
Wider format and codec support is, IMHO, necessary, but it should only be done if the UI gets streamlined and only if the added support is native and fast.
I think by the time those first batch of improvements are actually made, though, several more new ones still more important than adding consumer codec support will have arisen. (Full native support for AVC-Intra comes to mind.)
I'm not sure we'll ever run out of better things to add first.
The problem is Jim, your concept of "better" is purely subjective. What's of no use to you, or at least of annoying interest, is of great use to others.
I guess the percentage of Premiere users you count as "others" will be the determining factor here.
>people do not seem to understand that these new consumer HDD cameras
>are just that "consumer" and Premiere Elements is the consumer tool.
>Adobe Premiere Pro does not support it for Jim's reason.
>I'm sorry but Adobe's policy makes sense here.
I don't think so. Even pros shoot homevideos while off duty and will probably want to edit in their favorite editing software.
Personally I'm considering buying a HDD consumer camera to act a b-roll-camera on assignments - it is smaller and can fit in places, I can't go with my larger camera.
Adobe's policy will encourage me to find alternative editing software.
I think that's the point. You get Elements for consumer video formats.
(For the record, even my "home videos" are shot on MiniDV. The cameras can get every bit as small as a hard drive camera, and will still take better video.)
> Adobe's policy will encourage me to find alternative editing software.
Or a better camera...