No point in sharing this with us, Jon. We're just fellow users -- most of whom are pretty happy with the program.
If you 've got an issue, why don't you contact Adobe instead?
Welcome to the forum.
If you wish to troubleshoot issues, this ARTICLE will be very useful to start.
If, OTOH, you only wish to make your dissatisfaction known, I would suggest the No Response Needed sub-forum.
Also, if you have acquired PrE within 30-days, Adobe will refund your money, if not satisfied.
Doesn't look like he wants help, Bill. I think he just came here to flip us off.
You should have gone to Premiere Pro first , for me it is very stable and easier to use than Premiere Elements( although we have used it since 2007) with no problems with HDV/mpeg-2 and exporting to tape or Blu-ray disc, but, basically all work is done in Premiere Pro . If it is new you should get phone support for the product, make sure of course that your computer meets the Adobe System requirements. Even old versions are quite fast with a i7 64 bit Quad Core and plenty or RAM etc.Our work is primarily High Definition though.
And , all the best of British luck as they say
I'm going to steal this subject from Jon, but perhaps in a little more laid back style...
I'm evaluating Elements 9 at the moment, to figure out if it suits me and a upcoming project (music video). I've used Premiere Pro before (prior to the CS era), so that's where my preferences are at the moment.
Besides that the "Premiere for dummies"-like interface doesn't appeal to me, there are a few more or less serious issues that will have an impact on my decision to buy this product or not.
The first issue that struck me was the difficulties in editing H.264 encoded mov files. I pretty soon realized that it wasn't going to work, so I ended up converting my clips to uncompressed avi's, which made it work reasonably smooth. The file size was a different matter though, but I guess I don't really have a choice there. I've learned that the H.264 encoding isn't suitable for real time editing, so I won't blame Premiere Elements for that.
A more irritating issue is that the timeline editing features behave very strange in my oppinion. For instance, if I split a clip in half, and delete the first half, I expect the second half to stay in place. But instead, it moves to the left, to fil up the space where the first half previously was. This seems very unlogical to me.
A similar thing appears when triming the left end of a clip. If I drag it a little bit to the right, I expect it to just stay there, but no. Instead, the clip moves to left to fil out the empty area, obviously screwing up the sync (which of course is crusual when making a music video).
Am I doing things wrong to get this behaviour, or is this how it's supposed to work? Do I have a wrong approach to this?
I realized that there are other ways to achieve what I want, and that is to roughly split a clip in pieces, toggle the "Enable" feature on variuos pieces and tweek the in- and out points by doubleclicking. Or I could mess around with the opacity key frames. But, in a music video with lots of short clips and cuts, this will turn out to be extremly time consuming and ineffective.
Another even more serious issue apperas when I unlink the audio and video in a specific clip, and then tries to delete the audio track. When doing this, all the clips in timeline moves around and everything just screws up really badly. Occasionally, this can be solved by moving the unlinked audio track to a new track and then delete. But to me the whole thing seems very unstable.
And, generally, the program hangs for a few seconds a little now and then, especially when browsing through the "Organize" and "Edit" tabs etc. I wouldn't say it runs smoothly on my computer, despite the fact that I meet the system requirements by far.
Is any of the above issues related to the trial version some how?
Like you I found H.264 unfriendly, and like you converted it to uncompressed avi to work in would you believe Premiere Pro 1.5.1 which Exported to Tape stunning HDV/mpeg-2 1440 x 1080i PAL equal to broadcast quality in Australia as it is anamorphically expanded to 1920 x 1080 for display on a Sony HD Monitor.
Unlike you I have found the interface easier to use than Premiere Elements, and editing has been a breeze for the last 6 years.
We went from a Pentium 4 3.4GHz 800fsb hyper-threaded computer to a i7 64 bit Quad Core Server and a Nvidia Quad FX3800 video card which has significantly improved the performance of the Premiere Elements 4 especially Export to Blu-Ray and of course Pro Tape for Archiving. From Premiere Pro., the output is very good indeed. I will go to CS5 shortly.
All the best to you in Sweden.
Hope Premiere Elements 9 works for you, if it is the trial version I doubt if the High Definition modes work, it does not in CS5 trial Version ? Not a good look.
That clip movement does not sound right to me and has not happened here even with the jazz clips we threw together for a promo., the clips are supposed to automatically lock , have you altered something ? Check the icons to the left of the timeline, and very good luck. Even this does not happen with h.264 mov files from a Canon 5D mark II in Premiere Elements 4, but, we work with only a small number of clips at a time, then render, and save immediately.
Message was edited by: Bob Dix
None of your problems are a limitation of the trial version.
By default deletions in PRE ripple to join up the gaps. To remove without the join up you [Shift]+[Delete], or you can right-click and select Clear. When you move clips around and they 'jump' to join another clip it is because, by default, Snap is on. Toggle snap with the [S] key and you can move items at the individual frame level.
Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your children
Thanks for the tips! Although I do recall setting the snap option to off. On the other hand, I was quite tired last night when going at it, so I might have missed it. I will definitely give it a shot tonight.
Another question came up though. When I was done with the rough cutting, I wanted to apply an effect on the entire track. But since I had done quite a lot of cutting here and there, I found no other solution than applying the same effect, with the same settings, on every little piece of clip on that track. This also seems very ineffective and there must be another solution. I tried to group the pieces, hoping that it would be possible to apply an effect to that group, but didn't work. Is it meant to work like that? Did I do wrong?
You could Automate to Sequence with Transitions, might be worth a go with Effects, but, I prefer do do them individually, it would be easier on the processor ?
Greater control, improved quality ? Rembrandt was not in a hurry ?
I'll look into the automate concept. Thanks.
Although I would disagree on applying the effects individually. Let's say we a 3-4 minute song (in this case) and one of the takes is the singer in full figure which I would like to cut to about 10-15 times during those minutes. I will then have 10-15 small chunks on which I must apply effects to (let's say contrast) individually. If I later want to tweek the setting for the contrast, I'll have to change the setting to each and every one of those 10-15 chunks. That's not sane. Or am I missunderstanding you?
As said, there have to be a solution to this.
Of course, I could put that particular track at the bottom, without doing any cuts in it. But that will only solve it for that take/scene. The above tracks will face the same problem, since I problably will end up with a few different stories that I would like cut in and out of.
I also use PrPro mostly, and have to put my "PrE hat on," when I switch programs.
Actually, what you are describing, with the gap closing, is just the opposite of PrPro. In PrPro, you get the gap, unless you use the Ctrl modifier key. In PrE, you use the Ctrl modifier key to get just the opposite of PrPro. You can also Rt-click and choose whether you get the Ripple, or not.
The editing of H.264 material (including the AVCHD variant) is very, very highly dependent on one's CPU power. This is true in both programs. Now, PrPro CS5 does help things along a bit, with MPE (Mercury Playback Engine), but that is made better with an approved nVidia video card, and Hardware MPE, though the power of the CPU is still very important. What is the speed of your CPU?
For the application of an Effect to an entire Track, one would use Nesting in PrPro, and just Nest their Sequences into a new one. Neither Nesting, nor Sequences, are available in PrE. I suppose that one should expect to get something for the additional US$ 400 price differential.
I am also not a fan of the "streamlined" GUI in PrE, but once I found out where things were located, and what naming conventions might have changed, it is simple to use. However, with that simplicity, there is a loss in power and control. For many, that is actually a payoff, as they can perform the common tasks with one button, rather than the 4 +/- in PrPro.
Same for authoring to DVD in PrE - simple, and easy, but highly limited vs Encore. In the latter, one does EVERYTHING by hand, while PrE automates much of the authoring process, but with limitations.
You are correct that they are two different programs, and are definitely designed for different types of users - they aim at a different target audience. I feel that Adobe has done a good job in their targeting, and by offering two different programs, provide a user with choices. For general editing of "home movies," PrE simplifies most tasks, and offers Presets for common operations. For professional control, there is PrPro, though most PrE users will feel daunted, overwhelmed and also hesitant to spend the price differential. I am fortunate to have both programs available to me, along with the full Master Collection. For the average user, that expens would never be acceptable, and that additional power and control would fall away, due to the extra work required. Different programs for slightly different tasks, at different price-points and for different users.
Today, I will drop my MB S-550 AMG off at the dealership. I will pick up a little MB C-class sedan as a loaner. Both are nice cars, but I would never try to compare the C-class to my S-class, especially with the full AMG package and almost every option that MB offers in the US - two totally different cars, for different patrons, and at vastly different price-points, not at all unlike PrE and PrPro.
Good luck, and if you are using PrE, please ask for tips here. It can do a lot, though not always as would be done in PrPro. When I first picked up PrE, after having PrPro for years, I spent the first two weeks here, asking "where is _____?" or "How do I do _____ in PrE?" With PrE 7, and avove, things changed even more between the two programs.
I agree , it is insane, I have the time to do it. i get it right in the end .And then lie down. Premiere Pro is way to go. Good luck , Bill Hunt knows a thing or two,or three
I hear you, Bill. And I couldn't agree with you more.
For the record I'm doing the work on a AMD Athlon 64 X2 DualCore, 2.21 GHz, 3 GB RAM. Not high-end, but enough. Still on Win XP though (shame on me).
Anyway, I messed around with the [ctrl] and [shift] modifiers last night and that made all the difference. Now I can do the cutting without crying, but why on earth did they do it backwards in PrE, compared to PrPro? Perhaps one could change the default behaviour, but I forgot to look into that.
My issue with ineffective applying of the effects is still alive though. But I think I'll start a new thread discussing the work flow around that.
The big question is still wether or not PrE is the right tool for me, since I'm not yet convinced. I actually opened up my old PrPro v 7.0, which reminded me why I dislike the PrE interface so much. But there are two reasons for not using my installed PrPro. First of all, I get an error message saying something like "Sorry, I'm closing down now..." when importing my H.264 encoded files, so that's a big deal breaker. And second, I don't know how I got hold of the program in the first place. What I do know is that I didn't pay for it (shoot me, kill me or do whatever feels necessary, but I was a student back then). I want to do it right this time.
Buying PrPro CS5 wouldn't ruin me, but I also wouldn't get the money back (so to speak) since I don't work professionally with this (not counting this particular gig). It wouldn't run on my XP installation either, so it's out of the question for the time being.
Buying PrE is easy, but then I could end up feeling limited in my work (and of course, yelling and screaming about the interface). The best solution I guess would be to buy a second hand copy of an older, yet decent version of PrPro, for a reasonable price. But I don't know if that's legal either...
Bill of course is right, but, I use the stupid PE to convert the the H.264 mov filres to Microsoft avi , uncompressed>Render>Export to Movie. Open the avi file in Premiere Pro (the old program ) and edit , we do it all the time, it works . That is Premiere Elements 4 to Premiere Pro 1.5.1. It did work on a Pentium 4 3.2GHZ with hyper-threading slowly provided you did about 5 clips at a time and then Export as a Movie in Sequences, , it handles 4GB roughly at a time., but, once we got it into Premiere Pro 1.5.1 it was a breeze. That is HDV/mpeg-2 1440 x 1080i.High definition
We now use a i7 64 bit designed for CS5 and it makes the old software sing untill we upgrade in June.There is no doubt CS5 premiere Pro is the way of the future especially with DSLR Canon 5D Mark II H.264 mov clips or similar.
All i can say is good luck.
Note: No final production Re recent" International Australian Jazz Band" Promo, just finished is ever completed using Premiere Elements only Premiere Pro . If you want the tortuous way out , the above is it , Bill nor Nealeh may never approve and the Studios around here use Edius Software.
Message was edited by: Bob Dix
And second, I don't know how I got hold of the program in the first place. What I do know is that I didn't pay for it (shoot me, kill me or do whatever feels necessary, but I was a student back then).
One likely scenario is that you got Pr/PrPro 7.0/PrPro 1.0 as OEM software. That particular version (actually 3 versions, though there could have been subtle differences) was released 3 ways. Adobe was producing Pr (not yet PrPro) 6.5, and then released Pr 7.0. At almost the same time, they changed the name to PrPro 7.0 for a short time, and then changed the name to PrPro 1.0, and thus the general naming convention began. To confuse things a bit more, with PrPro 2.0, Adobe introduced the CS2 Production Studio, which contained PS CS2, EncoreDVD 2.0, AfterEffects CS2 (also called AE 7), AI CS2, On-Location CS2 and Bridge CS2. Though even some Adobe employees, who worked on Premiere at that transitional time did not recall any product being named PrPro 7.0, I have seen the boxes. Most editions were either Pr 7.0, or PrPro 1.0. Many copies of Pr 7.0 (and maybe PrPro 7.0?) were bundled with some computers, and some video cameras. It seems that practice was discontinued, when Pr 7.0 was renamed PrPro 1.0, but when doing research on earlier versions of PrPro, I found old ads for the OEM Pr 7.0's. I do not recall the exact bundled products, but seem to recall that one was a graphics capture card - maybe a Matrox, or from Black Magic. For all practical purposes, Pr 7.0, PrPro 7.0 and PrPro 1.0 are the same program, though there could well have been some subtle differences.
As to why Adobe chose to take the editing commands for PrPro and PrE in different directions, I feel that the development team decided that the different user-bases would want to do things differently by default. With PrE, they assumed that the users would want the Ripple editing, where in PrPro, the users would want the Ripple OFF, unless they needed it ON. At least the developers added the ability to do it either way, in both programs. When one is designing NLE software, they would first base it on some other model. In the case of PrPro, AVID was used as one of those models, as it was probably the preeminent NLE program of the day, before FCP made big inroads. If I recall my old AVID, the Ripple edit was NOT the default operation. When Adobe began work on PrE, they tried to look into a "crystal ball" to determine what the target users would want. The decision was made that they would be more likely to use Ripple editing more often, so that change was made. There are some similar choices elsewhere, where the perceived target audience was thought to be different, with different styles and needs. Much of this decision making is seen with omissions, like the lack of the Trim Monitor (similar to working in the Source Monitor, but with some big differences). PrPro still has that Trim Monitor, though few, that I know, use it, where PrE never got it. IMHO, PrE users are not missing anything there.
It's like some automobile options. The development teams must make decisions, based on what they believe the target audience is. I have options and standard features on my MB S-550 AMG, that are not available on the MB C-class, at any trim level. Like when I go from PrPro to PrE, I spent much of yesterday, searching all over the C-class loaner, which is pretty "tricked out," for certain controls. "Where's the _____?" "Oh, this car does not have that!" Luckily, I do not have to drive it for more than a day, while the dealership has my car. That's about how I feel when switching Adobe NLE programs, "where's the ______?" "Oh yeah, gotta' hit Ctrl for that... "
Buying PrE is easy, but then I could end up feeling limited in my work (and of course, yelling and screaming about the interface).
For most users, PrE is just fine, and works very well. There are not THAT many limitations, until one gets to the authoring phase of production. Now, you, I and a few others, who have worked with PrPro, do miss how some things are done, miss the ultimate power and do have to hunt around a bit. If one learns on PrE, and then move to PrPro, there is that same learning curve. What one knows provides comfort (that's why I have always kept at least one older copy of PS on my computer, though I have upgraded to the new version. If a client calls with the "gotta' make this change, and the courier is on their way over to pick it up... " I want my "old friend," so that I do not have to hunt around a new interface.) The PrE users come to the PrPro Forum, complaining that they don't have all the animation Presets, and scream that "PrE had those!" They bemoan having to do nearly everything by hand, and often in several steps, where their PrE just took care of things behind the interface. This sword cuts both ways. If I had been comfortable with PrE, and then moved to PrPro, I might well have felt that same way. In my case, like yours, I added PrE, after years with PrPro, and am still learning PrE - and probably always will, since PrPro is my main NLE.
My issue with ineffective applying of the effects is still alive though. But I think I'll start a new thread discussing the work flow around that.
Not sure if I have seen this post, but will go back to the forum and check for it. Not sure I'll have anything worthwhile to add to it, but just do not recall it now.
Good luck, and give PrE a chance. With a bit of work, and some patience, one can tailor things to provide a bit more comfort. For instance, though you cannot create the Timeline order of PrPro in PrE, you CAN turn off Audio Tracks in the display, or turn off Video. Here again, Adobe devleopers assumed that most PrE users would have muxed source files, so decided to group Audio 1 & Video 1, etc., rather than separate Audio from Video. They also assumed that most PrE users would have only one monitor, while most PrPro users would have dual monitors. Not sure how true that is, but it was a decision that was made.
Bill, your knowledge seems almost unreal and unlimited. Thanks for all your help!
The post on the work flow issue is yet to be created, that's why you haven't seen it...
No wonder I could not find it!!!
When you do post it, please include all the info that you can provide. As is often the case, users might need to work though your workflow, to duplicate the problem. The more info, the easier it will be for them to either see the problem, or duplicate it.
I can't seem to let this go quite yet. I complained earlier about how small maneuvers inside PrE makes the computer hang for a short while. I monitored the CPU usage since I was curiuos. It showed that when I for instance opened up the "Keyboard customization" dialog and moved it around the screen, my CPU went crazy, resulting in a movement that was far from smooth. Long delays and traces of the dialog showing up all over the screen, as if I was working on a 133 MHz Pentium from the late 90's.
This can't be right. I mean, I can work on high resolution photos in PS and move things around with ease and the CPU nearly sleeps, but when performing a simple task like opening up a dialog in PrE, the CPU goes crazy.
Although, when editing, things work fine. This makes it even more confusing. Is there something in the window/dialog handling that is poorly programmed in PrE?
I am an Experienced Adobe Photoshop user from since it came on the market, as we have been in the wedding business for the last 25 years and video. This holds no challenge for a competent computer. But, video has come along way from VHS, S-VHS, Digital 8, HI-8, Standard digital, 4x3 then Widescreen 16:9 and now High Definition what ever version.
Let's face it Premiere Elements, which ever version, it is still 32 bit and cannot handle large numbers of clips etc in H.264 form mainly from a Canon 5D mark II or AVCHD, where we expected too much of it , with the exception of the Adobe Media Encoder which easily converts the h.264 mov. files from our Canon's CF Discs in small sequences to HDVavi /mpeg-2 for use in our older Premiere Pro and it is very easily edited there. ( for what it is worth Sony Vegas 9 never had the problems of Premiere Elements)
Since it's birth at least PP1.5.1 the HDV avi/mpeg-2 upgrade has never let us down , regardless of the nearly incompetent Adobe support in the Oceania region. I will not buy Premiere Elements 9 as it is only 32 bit with a ( Windows limit of roughly 4 Gb which is not powerfull enough to do serious work) and from all reports it is no better than PE 4. I have never seen one explanation from an Adobe Technician to this or any other problem. Too many users are having Memory issues etc as per Adobe Forums and Creative Cow Forums .It is no way near as good as the CS5 64 bit .Adobe Photoshop and Premiere Pro are very good products, pity about the Adobe Phone and on line Technical Support in Australia.
Bob Dix Photographer wrote:
For clarification, that 4GB is a memory limit, not a clip limit. I regularly work with DV-AVI's of 40GB+ (that's forty) with no problems whatsoever.
Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your children
Folks, this thread has frayed. We're 22 posts in and the original poster has never even responded to it.
I'm going to close this thread. Please feel free to start a new topic if you'd like to continue this discussion. Thanks.