blown away by Adobe Premiere CS5.5

[Michael Totten]

I'm a little giddy.
I've been running FCPS 7 for awhile now and am looking elsewhere now that FCPX has been announced :rolleyes5:
I downloaded CS5.5 a couple days ago and am really impressed.
I'm not even running a graphics card that Adobe suggests (I've currently got an ATI 5870) so obviously the Mercury Playback Engine isn't even in play ... and
I'm shocked at just how fast it is. 64bit software alone is a quantum leap.

I've got multiple layers of H.264 files playing smoothly (which normally chokes or requires render in FCP). I've added Saphire effects on top of that and the still play.
Seems to be playing well with my Red Rocket (real time playback and scrubbing through R3D footage with no problem).
I can't wait to get a Nnvidia Quadra 4000 to see how it all runs together.

good on you Adobe ! You guys should drop the price of your software for about 90 days.. it'd be like throwing gas on a fire.

Hey, how's the monitoring via Kona or Blackmagic ability coming along ? That's a big one for me... but I'm essentially sold.

 

[Andy White]

On the PC Prem/After etc has Blackmagic support for video I/O - I'd presumed it was the same on the Mac? I can't see BM dragging their heels on Mac monitoring & I/O in light of the current situation... the new Thunderbolt I/O looks very nice.

Funny story is I was planning to move to Mac and FCP from PC, mainly so I could get back some control surfaces for audio mixing & colour (ie the Euphonix surfaces)... now, with the advent of 'X' the Unkown (LOL) I'm hanging fire to see what happens... hopefully we'll get control surfaces in Prem soon (on both PC & Mac). Weird how stuff can sometimes 180 in this industry

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I'm using a Blackmagic Decklink 3D+ with Premiere CS5.5 on a Mac Pro.

It works really well, and I get reliable display performance - just as you'd expect.

My complaint is that the way it works is not like FCP.

With FCP you can set it to display just about anything via the i/o card. With FCP, I could be in a sequence and change my external video from the BMD card to a DV device over firewire with a few clicks from any timeline in any codec.

Premiere is pretty stupid in that it requires you to use a "Blackmagic" or "AJA" sequence preset in order to get display out of the i/o board.

This is inane.

In any case, once you conform yourself to that stupid interface requirement, everything works fine.

Performance is good. To be fair ... I am using uncompressed 1080p with Premiere Pro so far. I've only toyed with a single layer of h.264 ... so I haven't stressed performance much at all from a codec standpoint.

I'm also on a ATI video card, so I don't expect much.

Oh, and the XML in and out is excellent. I'm moving projects back and forth between PP CS5.5, FCP 6 and Color 1 without any issues whatsoever so far.

So ... a note to Adobe: Make interface and control of I/O devices independent from timeline settings PLEASE. (Have another look at how FCP 6/7 do this.)

 

[Kwan Khan]

Welcome to the CS family (lol)

 

[shashbugu]

Yep Welcome to the CS5.5 family, where things are getting better on a daily basis

 

[Rob Castiglione]

Yes. I agree. It is an excellent program. I was shocked too - so wedded to FCP that I could not look beyond it.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Well, thank you for the welcome!

Here's the thing, I'm doubtful I'll stay with Premiere Pro.

I started NLE with Premiere 5 ... and I just never liked it. I stuck with it through Premiere 6. I moved over to FCP in the version 4 days. One huge reason then was reliability.

Premiere Pro CS5.5 is worlds different ... but I still don't like it. That is NOT a technical judgement - its a personal preference. To be clear I know for a fact that Premiere Pro CS 5.5 is technically better than FCP 6 & 7 in almost every way.

Its a user interface and experience issue. The way Adobe thinks an NLE should work is annoying. There are all sorts of little issues I have like the external monitoring one I mentioned above. Details that make using the system less pleasant than it could be for me.

That's why I stuck with FCP 6 for all this time. It works very well for me. The only things I wanted from FCP 7 was ProRes 4444 and ProRes LT, but I never got around to buying it.

I actually like FCP X ... I just think its crippled in a few key ways, and less than optimal in a few other ways. Today its useless because of a lack of XML import/export and external monitoring. Even once we get past that though, there are issues with how it wants to organize its file system and other details like window/workspace configuration. I expect those will get better.

Even if it remains just as useless as it is today (which I doubt) I can still get ProRes 4444 and ProRes LT by buying it. For that matter though, I think the updated ProRes codecs come with Motion and Compressor as well, but I'm as happy paying $299 to update my codecs today as I was a month ago. Of course, I could also buy Cineform NeoHD ... but that just proves that a good codec is worth money, and I may get both!

I'll be working in Premiere Pro until FCP X grows up, or until I move my editorial to some other system - the Black Magic guys were selling me on Resolve 8 as an NLE and full finishing tool, so I'll try to use it that way at least once. I was really thinking of possibly investing in Smoke though.

The real reason I bought the Adobe Production Premium package is Photoshop and Illustrator. I hadn't updated them since the original CS without a number. I actually use Photoshop a lot both for video/film and for my stills work.

After effects is a secondary consideration. It's a cool tool, but I still like node based compositors better - I still use Shake, and I'll probably buy into Nuke at some point. Ultimately, After Effects feels like Motion got a bunch of pro features, but lost a lot of usability in the trade. (I know AE came before Motion ... but I was never a big user, and I've been Final Cut Studio centered for so long, that's how I feel.) Still, after all this time the technology in After Effects is much better than that in Shake.

Adobe shouldn't care. I'll be buying Photoshop and Illustrator again, probably a bit more often, but still every few years.

Premiere Pro seems like its going to be a great bit of glue in my workflow for a good while though. I'm glad to work with, and hopefully contribute to a good tool.

One thing Adobe could do if they want to keep me as a user is provide support for the Euphonix panels. If that appears in FCP X and not in Premiere Pro it would be a good reason to switch back!

I mentioned the external monitoring workflow - huge annoyance.

Synthetic Aperture Color Finesse seems intensely annoying to use, but it also seems to give good results. Color is a much better application. Since Color is apparently "dead" creating a much better interface for color correction using Premiere & AE's already existing technology would be very smart. I don't need a better tracker than AE has ... or a better keyer. I can even achieve all the color results I want in AE ... but the interface is terrible for coloring more than a shot at a time, and performance is not stellar. I don't need better technology ... I need a better way to use that technology.

 

[Todd Kopriva]

For those of you coming from an FCP background, you should find these resources helpful as you learn Premiere Pro.

If something doesn't work as you want it to, you can submit a bug report or feature request here.

 

[jake blackstone]

Well, thank you for the welcome!

Here's the thing, I'm doubtful I'll stay with Premiere Pro.

I started NLE with Premiere 5 ... and I just never liked it. I stuck with it through Premiere 6. I moved over to FCP in the version 4 days. One huge reason then was reliability.

Premiere Pro CS5.5 is worlds different ... but I still don't like it. That is NOT a technical judgement - its a personal preference. To be clear I know for a fact that Premiere Pro CS 5.5 is technically better than FCP 6 & 7 in almost every way.

Its a user interface and experience issue. The way Adobe thinks an NLE should work is annoying. There are all sorts of little issues I have like the external monitoring one I mentioned above. Details that make using the system less pleasant than it could be for me.

That's why I stuck with FCP 6 for all this time. It works very well for me. The only things I wanted from FCP 7 was ProRes 4444 and ProRes LT, but I never got around to buying it.

I actually like FCP X ... I just think its crippled in a few key ways, and less than optimal in a few other ways. Today its useless because of a lack of XML import/export and external monitoring. Even once we get past that though, there are issues with how it wants to organize its file system and other details like window/workspace configuration. I expect those will get better.

Even if it remains just as useless as it is today (which I doubt) I can still get ProRes 4444 and ProRes LT by buying it. For that matter though, I think the updated ProRes codecs come with Motion and Compressor as well, but I'm as happy paying $299 to update my codecs today as I was a month ago. Of course, I could also buy Cineform NeoHD ... but that just proves that a good codec is worth money, and I may get both!

I'll be working in Premiere Pro until FCP X grows up, or until I move my editorial to some other system - the Black Magic guys were selling me on Resolve 8 as an NLE and full finishing tool, so I'll try to use it that way at least once. I was really thinking of possibly investing in Smoke though.

The real reason I bought the Adobe Production Premium package is Photoshop and Illustrator. I hadn't updated them since the original CS without a number. I actually use Photoshop a lot both for video/film and for my stills work.

After effects is a secondary consideration. It's a cool tool, but I still like node based compositors better - I still use Shake, and I'll probably buy into Nuke at some point. Ultimately, After Effects feels like Motion got a bunch of pro features, but lost a lot of usability in the trade. (I know AE came before Motion ... but I was never a big user, and I've been Final Cut Studio centered for so long, that's how I feel.) Still, after all this time the technology in After Effects is much better than that in Shake.

Adobe shouldn't care. I'll be buying Photoshop and Illustrator again, probably a bit more often, but still every few years.

Premiere Pro seems like its going to be a great bit of glue in my workflow for a good while though. I'm glad to work with, and hopefully contribute to a good tool.

One thing Adobe could do if they want to keep me as a user is provide support for the Euphonix panels. If that appears in FCP X and not in Premiere Pro it would be a good reason to switch back!

I mentioned the external monitoring workflow - huge annoyance.

Synthetic Aperture Color Finesse seems intensely annoying to use, but it also seems to give good results. Color is a much better application. Since Color is apparently "dead" creating a much better interface for color correction using Premiere & AE's already existing technology would be very smart. I don't need a better tracker than AE has ... or a better keyer. I can even achieve all the color results I want in AE ... but the interface is terrible for coloring more than a shot at a time, and performance is not stellar. I don't need better technology ... I need a better way to use that technology.

You just described Smoke. It's got everything anyone would ever need to finish in one app. The more I use it, the more I'm amazed at the power and flexibility of this box. Simply amazing! Can't wait for Grade inside Smoke. Please don't confuse Grade with existing CC and CW. I'm talking Lustre inside of Smoke. Once that happens, I'll be in heaven. And hopefully at some point Smoke will be able to write Prores.
But whoever told you to use Resolve as editing and finishing device is insane. Just one question. How do you plan to export the sound with picture out of Resolve?

 

[Paul Nordin]

I can't believe that anyone at Black Magic would have been recommending Resolve as a finishing tool. Even if they have that on the radar, they know its not there now.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

You just described Smoke. It's got everything anyone would ever need to finish in one app. The more I use it, the more I'm amazed at the power and flexibility of this box. Simply amazing! Can't wait for Grade inside Smoke. Please don't confuse Grade with existing CC and CW. I'm talking Lustre inside of Smoke. Once that happens, I'll be in heaven. And hopefully at some point Smoke will be able to write Prores.
But whoever told you to use Resolve as editing and finishing device is insane. Just one question. How do you plan to export the sound with picture out of Resolve?

Thanks for chiming in Jake, always good to hear your thoughts.

When I talk about what I want to do a LOT of people mention Smoke to me. I really want to try it ... but the price keeps me away. I came to the conclusion recently that if I decide Smoke is the right tool for me, that I won't have a budget for it in my studio until summer 2012 at the earliest .... not unless I strike gold or something. To do that I'd have to sacrifice a few other things that are important to me. Remember I'm not just a post guy, but a production guy as well ... so some Red Epic X's (and possibly an M) are in my future, plus lenses and ... well its a long list.

As to finishing with Resolve ... frankly I'd never heard anyone suggest it, like I said a Black Magic support guy told me it could be done.

I'm not a credulous sort by nature, but I have to admit that the BMD guy may know something we don't, and the only way I'll learn for sure is by trying it.

To be honest I think the fellow didn't know what he was talking about. I'll take some old project, probably something very short, and try and "finish" it in Resolve 8. I'm sure I'll learn something.

I once had a computer science professor that said he never felt he really knew a language until he tried to write a compiler in that language. He said it didn't matter if he succeeded, that even the failures were interesting. That mode of thought has influenced me.

 

[shashbugu]

Well, thank you for the welcome!

Here's the thing, I'm doubtful I'll stay with Premiere Pro.

I started NLE with Premiere 5 ... and I just never liked it. I stuck with it through Premiere 6. I moved over to FCP in the version 4 days. One huge reason then was reliability.

Premiere Pro CS5.5 is worlds different ... but I still don't like it. That is NOT a technical judgement - its a personal preference. To be clear I know for a fact that Premiere Pro CS 5.5 is technically better than FCP 6 & 7 in almost every way.

Its a user interface and experience issue. The way Adobe thinks an NLE should work is annoying. There are all sorts of little issues I have like the external monitoring one I mentioned above. Details that make using the system less pleasant than it could be for me.

That's why I stuck with FCP 6 for all this time. It works very well for me. The only things I wanted from FCP 7 was ProRes 4444 and ProRes LT, but I never got around to buying it.

I actually like FCP X ... I just think its crippled in a few key ways, and less than optimal in a few other ways. Today its useless because of a lack of XML import/export and external monitoring. Even once we get past that though, there are issues with how it wants to organize its file system and other details like window/workspace configuration. I expect those will get better.

Even if it remains just as useless as it is today (which I doubt) I can still get ProRes 4444 and ProRes LT by buying it. For that matter though, I think the updated ProRes codecs come with Motion and Compressor as well, but I'm as happy paying $299 to update my codecs today as I was a month ago. Of course, I could also buy Cineform NeoHD ... but that just proves that a good codec is worth money, and I may get both!

I'll be working in Premiere Pro until FCP X grows up, or until I move my editorial to some other system - the Black Magic guys were selling me on Resolve 8 as an NLE and full finishing tool, so I'll try to use it that way at least once. I was really thinking of possibly investing in Smoke though.

The real reason I bought the Adobe Production Premium package is Photoshop and Illustrator. I hadn't updated them since the original CS without a number. I actually use Photoshop a lot both for video/film and for my stills work.

After effects is a secondary consideration. It's a cool tool, but I still like node based compositors better - I still use Shake, and I'll probably buy into Nuke at some point. Ultimately, After Effects feels like Motion got a bunch of pro features, but lost a lot of usability in the trade. (I know AE came before Motion ... but I was never a big user, and I've been Final Cut Studio centered for so long, that's how I feel.) Still, after all this time the technology in After Effects is much better than that in Shake.

Adobe shouldn't care. I'll be buying Photoshop and Illustrator again, probably a bit more often, but still every few years.

Premiere Pro seems like its going to be a great bit of glue in my workflow for a good while though. I'm glad to work with, and hopefully contribute to a good tool.

One thing Adobe could do if they want to keep me as a user is provide support for the Euphonix panels. If that appears in FCP X and not in Premiere Pro it would be a good reason to switch back!

I mentioned the external monitoring workflow - huge annoyance.

Synthetic Aperture Color Finesse seems intensely annoying to use, but it also seems to give good results. Color is a much better application. Since Color is apparently "dead" creating a much better interface for color correction using Premiere & AE's already existing technology would be very smart. I don't need a better tracker than AE has ... or a better keyer. I can even achieve all the color results I want in AE ... but the interface is terrible for coloring more than a shot at a time, and performance is not stellar. I don't need better technology ... I need a better way to use that technology.

I wish you would clearly pinpoint exactly what it is you don't like about the user experience in Premiere Pro CS5.
Everybody knows I'm a diehard Adobe fanboy, but if you read my posts in the Adobe workflow section you will notice that I am also their biggest critic. That said, I can only count about 10 features in FCPX that will be "COOL" in Premiere Pro.
Now I say cool, because as a professional I don't believe in cool features as opposed to full creative control of a feature. For example, Warp stabilizer, although sexily demoed as a 1 click stabilization solution, has deep feature set for creative control.
From your above post it seems you don't understand Adobe's Creative Suite Philosophy. Its very similar to Red's philosophy, that's why they get along so well.
Its not only about doing routine tasks, thats what Apple is about. Its about complete precise creative control. Apple is about automating routine tasks and leaving you creatively handicapped. Adobe goes beyond just automation, to continuously research new tools and methods to ease up the process from script to Screen. I love Adobe for that. Adobe is not really competing against other companies, they are in a class of their own. They will continuously acquire companies with products that fit in this Philosophy. I personally can't wait for Adobe to acquire Editshare bringing shared storage and enterprise sized collaborative workflows to creatives, (an area Avid, Quantel and Autodesk currently dominate). Adobe already does this with its web database solutions. I asked Adobe for dedicated tools for audio and Color because I know the advancement in their technology capabilities. They have now brought us the solid offering in Audition for Audio (except they forgot that you can't mix audio with a mouse. Control surface support has been promised).

AE is nothing like Motion, not even close. Try compositing a whole feature in Motion.
We want adobe to create a dedicated color grading suite, that is not to say the CS production premium suite does not have the tools.
As a matter of fact Adobe has more color grading tools than any company out there.
If AE had full realtime playback we would not be having this conversation.
The keyers are great


If you don't like the interface and workflow of Premiere pro, then you better stay away from Smoke, its interface is Irix based, old but very professional and precise

 

[jake blackstone]

Thanks for chiming in Jake, always good to hear your thoughts.

When I talk about what I want to do a LOT of people mention Smoke to me. I really want to try it ... but the price keeps me away. I came to the conclusion recently that if I decide Smoke is the right tool for me, that I won't have a budget for it in my studio until summer 2012 at the earliest .... not unless I strike gold or something. To do that I'd have to sacrifice a few other things that are important to me. Remember I'm not just a post guy, but a production guy as well ... so some Red Epic X's (and possibly an M) are in my future, plus lenses and ... well its a long list.

As to finishing with Resolve ... frankly I'd never heard anyone suggest it, like I said a Black Magic support guy told me it could be done.

I'm not a credulous sort by nature, but I have to admit that the BMD guy may know something we don't, and the only way I'll learn for sure is by trying it.

To be honest I think the fellow didn't know what he was talking about. I'll take some old project, probably something very short, and try and "finish" it in Resolve 8. I'm sure I'll learn something.

I once had a computer science professor that said he never felt he really knew a language until he tried to write a compiler in that language. He said it didn't matter if he succeeded, that even the failures were interesting. That mode of thought has influenced me.

I'd just download the 30 days demo and check it out for yourself. It comes with great project files and video lessons about how to use Smoke. You'll be able to learn how to edit, grade, key, composite in 3D, relight, add titles and graphics in no time. Even I was able to follow those lessons I was able to finish those lessons in a couple of days.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I wish you would clearly pinpoint exactly what it is you don't like about the user experience in Premiere Pro CS5.
Everybody knows I'm a diehard Adobe fanboy,

and you're sort of coming off like one now.

So ... I'm just gonna skate by the part where you make that Adobe Marketing and PR team proud.

AE is nothing like Motion, not even close. Try compositing a whole feature in Motion.

Yeah ... they are way more alike than you seem to think.

They are both crappy "timeline" compositors.

After effects has way more options and control than Motion, and its much harder to use.

Both are pitiful when you look at them as compositing tools to be used on feature projects.

That's why so many post houses used Shake for a long time after Apple EOL'd it, and why they did not shift to AE, but rather to NUKE, Flame and Fusion.

We want adobe to create a dedicated color grading suite, that is not to say the CS production premium suite does not have the tools.
As a matter of fact Adobe has more color grading tools than all any company out there.

Really? Adobe has better grading tools than Blackmagic Designs/DaVinci? Better than Baselight? Better than Autodesk Lustre?

I think you are way way way off base.

I've spent very little time with Synthetic Aperture's Color Finesse, and frankly its awful to use. If Adobe wants to hire me to detail exactly why its awful I can ... but that would inevitably require spending more time with their grading tools which I won't do for free.

The color correction tools in Premiere and AE are a joke from a workflow perspective. I'd rather grade every feature for the rest of my life in FCP 6 with an 8 bit codec than have to grade a single feature in Premiere Pro or AE.

OK ... that may be pushing it ... but I'd definitely prefer grading in FCP 6,7 and yes X to the mess that is in the Adobe Creative Suite. That is not a compliment.

I just thank all that is good in the world that I can export my Premiere Pro timelines to grade in Color and very soon Resolve 8.

If AE had full realtime playback even autodesk we would not be having this conversation.

You know ... I didn't ask for full realtime playback. Since you bring it up ... I did say that AE's performance is not stellar.

I would like for AE CS5.5 to outperform Motion 3 on the same hardware. (Remember the current version of Motion is 5 ... so we are talking 2 versions back)

I'd love it if AE CS5.5 could outperform Shake 4.1 on the same hardware.

What am I talking about. How about the first thing you do with a file when you import it before you get to work ... you know play it back.

You may be aware that AE has this neat little display of fps. Shake has a nice report in its console. Motion has a nice display over its viewer you can turn on in preferences. This is where I got my numbers.

I did a very simple test - playback of a video file. All clips were 1080/24p 10 bit 422. I used the same exact file, from the same media for playback. (A soft RAID-0 using two drives in my Mac Pro.) My machine is a 2010 8 core Mac Pro.

Uncompressed file: Shake 4.1 and Motion 3 play back at 24fps. After Effects CS5.5 plays it back at 10.309 fps.

DNxHD: Shake and Motion play back at 24fps. After Effects plays back at 8.309fps

ProResHQ: Shake and Motion 24fps. After Effects 8.107fps

Just for giggles I fired up my G5. I can't play back uncompressed video there because of disk bandwidth. Shake played the DNxHD and ProRes clips back at 19fps. Motion 3 played them back at 15fps.

AE 5.5 is at all its default settings after install, except I've turned on the BlackMagic output.

Motion has all its quality settings turned up to max. Motion blur, frame blending, the works - everything is on because that's how I use it. It also has the Blackmagic video out on.

Shake is set for FLOAT precision. It doesn't play with the Black Magic output. (AJA Kona is what you should buy for Shake ... or Nuke for that matter.)

Is it so hard to ask for playback? I'm not asking for real time rendering of a complex composite - just playback of a video file opened in an empty composite in real time.

The keyers are great

That is expected.

Of course so are the keyers in Motion 3 (I haven't keyed anything in Motion 5 ... because I didn't buy it yet!)

Then again, it may serve you to remember that the technology in Motion 3&4 is pretty much on par with Shake 4.1

Shake was good enough for Lord of the Rings, Matrix, Harry Potter, The Dark Knight, Cloverfield and hundreds of others. I used Shake on Star Trek, and it seemed to work. I also used Motion on Star Trek ... that worked too.

If you don't like the interface and workflow of Premiere pro, then you better stay away from Smoke, its interface is Irix based, old but very professional and precise

I don't think you understand: I like Shake. Its actually literally IRIX based.

I like Color which wears its UNIX heritage proudly ... Color doesn't conform to many if any OS X UI guidelines.

Smoke having an "IRIXy" UI is probably a good thing in my view. People took designing for the task at hand more seriously back then.

When I talk about user interfaces for the tools I use, I mean their ability to help me to do a job quickly, smoothly and effectively. I'd like them to keep me focused on the task at hand, and not to force me to play games to see what I need.

I'm not into whiz bang ... but I'm also not into interfaces as cluttered as AE. Wherever I point there are nineteen other valid click targets inside the width of my pointer. OK ... I exaggerate but its a uselessly dense interface.

Compare that to Shake 4 ... the Shake interface seems almost spartan. Have a look at Nuke. Its interface is also Spartan ... but it quickly lets you get into incredibly more complex operations than AE can let you dream of.

Heck even Motion. Motion started off very limited by its UI ... but the model of inspectors for various aspects, and now parameter rigs (an idea ripped off from 3D modeling) have revealed a great deal of power in the Motion product. Motion remains less capable than AE, but Motion is also MUCH easier to use than AE.

Its very important to NOT become fanboyish about our tools. Otherwise we become blind to their weaknesses, and oddly to their strengths.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I'd just download the 30 days demo and check it out for yourself. It comes with great project files and video lessons about how to use Smoke. You'll be able to learn how to edit, grade, key, composite in 3D, relight, add titles and graphics in no time. Even I was able to follow those lessons I was able to finish those lessons in a couple of days.

I'm tempted ... but right now I can't realistically afford it. IIRC its $14000

So, I'm avoiding the Smoke trial until its at least possible I could buy it. I'd hate to fall in total love and have to sit around fuming about not having a tool.

Now, if you think Autodesk will sell me a Smoke license for under $2000 I'll download it tomorrow!

Now, I have to go back to earning money to buy my Epic with.

 

[shashbugu]

and you're sort of coming off like one now.

So ... I'm just gonna skate by the part where you make that Adobe Marketing and PR team proud.



Yeah ... they are way more alike than you seem to think.

They are both crappy "timeline" compositors.

After effects has way more options and control than Motion, and its much harder to use.

Both are pitiful when you look at them as compositing tools to be used on feature projects.

That's why so many post houses used Shake for a long time after Apple EOL'd it, and why they did not shift to AE, but rather to NUKE, Flame and Fusion.



Really? Adobe has better grading tools than Blackmagic Designs/DaVinci? Better than Baselight? Better than Autodesk Lustre?

I think you are way way way off base.

I've spent very little time with Synthetic Aperture's Color Finesse, and frankly its awful to use. If Adobe wants to hire me to detail exactly why its awful I can ... but that would inevitably require spending more time with their grading tools which I won't do for free.

The color correction tools in Premiere and AE are a joke from a workflow perspective. I'd rather grade every feature for the rest of my life in FCP 6 with an 8 bit codec than have to grade a single feature in Premiere Pro or AE.

OK ... that may be pushing it ... but I'd definitely prefer grading in FCP 6,7 and yes X to the mess that is in the Adobe Creative Suite. That is not a compliment.

I just thank all that is good in the world that I can export my Premiere Pro timelines to grade in Color and very soon Resolve 8.



You know ... I didn't ask for full realtime playback. Since you bring it up ... I did say that AE's performance is not stellar.

I would like for AE CS5.5 to outperform Motion 3 on the same hardware. (Remember the current version of Motion is 5 ... so we are talking 2 versions back)

I'd love it if AE CS5.5 could outperform Shake 4.1 on the same hardware.

What am I talking about. How about the first thing you do with a file when you import it before you get to work ... you know play it back.

You may be aware that AE has this neat little display of fps. Shake has a nice report in its console. Motion has a nice display over its viewer you can turn on in preferences. This is where I got my numbers.

I did a very simple test - playback of a video file. All clips were 1080/24p 10 bit 422. I used the same exact file, from the same media for playback. (A soft RAID-0 using two drives in my Mac Pro.) My machine is a 2010 8 core Mac Pro.

Uncompressed file: Shake 4.1 and Motion 3 play back at 24fps. After Effects CS5.5 plays it back at 10.309 fps.

DNxHD: Shake and Motion play back at 24fps. After Effects plays back at 8.309fps

ProResHQ: Shake and Motion 24fps. After Effects 8.107fps

Just for giggles I fired up my G5. I can't play back uncompressed video there because of disk bandwidth. Shake played the DNxHD and ProRes clips back at 19fps. Motion 3 played them back at 15fps.

AE 5.5 is at all its default settings after install, except I've turned on the BlackMagic output.

Motion has all its quality settings turned up to max. Motion blur, frame blending, the works - everything is on because that's how I use it. It also has the Blackmagic video out on.

Shake is set for FLOAT precision. It doesn't play with the Black Magic output. (AJA Kona is what you should buy for Shake ... or Nuke for that matter.)

Is it so hard to ask for playback? I'm not asking for real time rendering of a complex composite - just playback of a video file opened in an empty composite in real time.



That is expected.

Of course so are the keyers in Motion 3 (I haven't keyed anything in Motion 5 ... because I didn't buy it yet!)

Then again, it may serve you to remember that the technology in Motion 3&4 is pretty much on par with Shake 4.1

Shake was good enough for Lord of the Rings, Matrix, Harry Potter, The Dark Knight, Cloverfield and hundreds of others. I used Shake on Star Trek, and it seemed to work. I also used Motion on Star Trek ... that worked too.



I don't think you understand: I like Shake. Its actually literally IRIX based.

I like Color which wears its UNIX heritage proudly ... Color doesn't conform to many if any OS X UI guidelines.

Smoke having an "IRIXy" UI is probably a good thing in my view. People took designing for the task at hand more seriously back then.

When I talk about user interfaces for the tools I use, I mean their ability to help me to do a job quickly, smoothly and effectively. I'd like them to keep me focused on the task at hand, and not to force me to play games to see what I need.

I'm not into whiz bang ... but I'm also not into interfaces as cluttered as AE. Wherever I point there are nineteen other valid click targets inside the width of my pointer. OK ... I exaggerate but its a uselessly dense interface.

Compare that to Shake 4 ... the Shake interface seems almost spartan. Have a look at Nuke. Its interface is also Spartan ... but it quickly lets you get into incredibly more complex operations than AE can let you dream of.

Heck even Motion. Motion started off very limited by its UI ... but the model of inspectors for various aspects, and now parameter rigs (an idea ripped off from 3D modeling) have revealed a great deal of power in the Motion product. Motion remains less capable than AE, but Motion is also MUCH easier to use than AE.

Its very important to NOT become fanboyish about our tools. Otherwise we become blind to their weaknesses, and oddly to their strengths.

I'm not sure I follow you. I don't get how you can talk about Shake and Nuke in one sentence then talk about Motion and FCPX in the Next. Even though I am a fanboy, one thing I avoid ever doing, is talking about Movies or projects that used a particular application or camera. I don't ever make decisions based on a $150 million dollar movie that has more than 300 efx guys and different efx houses using a myriad of tools and technologies. its a matter of fact many big block buster movies use AE in some shots. That is highly irrelevant. When an Efx house is hired nobody asks what software they use, just if they can accomplish a shot as shown in the previz. It does not even matter whether you do it on your iphone or at ILM. There are more movies, music videos and tv commercials made around the world using AE than, shake, nuke, flame, fusion etc combined. Its the FCP of compositors. How many anythings are done with Motion?
Shake is dead. You can mention specific features you would like to see in AE (I'm sure Adobe hears that everyday from Mark Christiansen and Ron Brinkerman). Remember you can buy Shake based nodal plugins for AE if you so desire. You can even turn on the schematic viewer to see the nodal structure of your composition.
Nuke will never be AE. AE will never be Nuke.

But by all means everyone has their tastes and tool choices. freedom of choice. If you think FCPX and Motion 5, best serve your production needs by all means they will be the best tools for you....

 

[Steve Cee]

Well, thank you for the welcome!

"There are all sorts of little issues I have like the external monitoring one I mentioned above. Details that make using the system less pleasant than it could be for me."


You do know that you can get accurate color on a monitor full screen in Premiere without any third party card? Simply go to the program window and choose output. Then select playback options and choose any monitor you have hooked up to your video card. You will now get a full screen display on that monitor. As long as you are using the HDMI or display port output and an accurate monitor you'll get an acurate display, I am getting very good results with my HP ZR30.


http://goo.gl/5tnBl

If you need 30 bit you should get the quadro card and use a monitor like HP's Dreamcolor.

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/nvidia-and-adobe-solutions/10bit-color/

 

[Subhadip Sen]

Not to mention, Smoke, Resolve for Mac or Color being Mac OS X exclusive applications cannot take advantage of 10-bit output (it's not available on Mac).

 

[Troy Smith]

You can also get the Sdi daughter card for the quadro, and get HDSDI out that way with premiere.

 

[Uli Plank]

AFAIK only on PC.