Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Adobe brings Premiere back to the Mac
macworld.com — Adobe will announce on Thursday that it will revive a Mac version of Premiere, the software maker ’s video program aimed at professional editors. The new Mac version will only run on Intel-based Macs and will be part of a larger Adobe Production Studio suite that will include Adobe Encore DVD and Adobe Soundbooth.
dcconz- 764 diggs
- digg it
- kelly, on 10/12/2007, -5/+113Apple: We're offering you several technologies that will make premiere much better. Please Use them.
Adobe: Microsoft doesn't offer these. We work to give parity to our software releases so your efforts don't help us
Apple: Well then would you at least give performance parity with the WIndows version?
Adobe: No real reason to. Windows is the future. Live with what you got.
Apple: Nearly half of your market is Macintosh users. If you don't do this you'll be sorry.
Adobe: How could we be sorry. We're the kings of video. Which current software company can change this?
Apple: We warned you... *introducing final cut pro*
Adobe: Holy crap... we just lost our Mac customers
Apple: Again... we warned you... many times.
Adobe: Holy crap, we're now starting to lose Windows customers to Final cut pro on Macintosh!!!
Apple: You only have yourselves to blame
Adobe: Ok... we're sorry. Here's the new Premiere you requested- thetanbark, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28I think most users on Mac will take FCP over Premiere any day. I honestly don't know any professionals worth their rate that use it as their primary video app. The price difference is about $500, which is worth it for FCP. Unless Adobe plans to cut their price, I doubt they do any damage to the FCP/Avid marketshare on Mac users.
- flipmeat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33most users would take iMovie over Premiere...
- bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I've used both FCP and Premiere Pro. I prefer Premiere Pro, but frankly, the two have more in common than they have different. The big issue that FCP has over PP is its ability to easily intake .MXF files and edit HD video. PP has a problem with HD Video, even on a good system (I've got a brand new core 2 duo 2ghz with 2GB RAM and a GeForce 6800 with 128 on it).
- adam84a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I'm imagining this conversation taking place in the style of the get a mac ads
- virtualball, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2I've been using FCP for 6-7 months and I have never even heard of Premiere! No way is Adobe taking FCP away from me! I love it, it is so simple to use once you get used to it and it is too late to switch now.
- anti_hax0r, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5Most FCP users are like virtualball.
Premiere is so much more flexible and usable than FCP. Most FCP users have their heads in the sand. FCP has serious faults that users overlook like most Apple products.
Adobe should not do this, they should fix the issues with PPro on Windows and steal the market share back. - rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Lame. Adobe: In order to compete with Final Cut Pro, you will need to totally rewrite Premiere. It is awkward to use. Final Cut Pro is much easier to use, and the Production Suite bundle kicks ass.
- archerx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I use both A LOT! I prefer Premiere 2 over Final Cut, Premiere handles thing in a more organized way than FCP. Also Premiere 2 handles 16:9 footage better when you want to use it as 4:3, final cut stretches it you has to guess to get it back at the right ratio but with premiere it's is all you have to do it scale it down.
But thats just the opinion of me, a film student... - 04TL, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"FCP has serious faults that users overlook like most Apple products."
yeah, the ipod was a real flop...maybe i'll go out and buy a zune instead...
you throw around idiotic apple-hating statements, but yet don't provide any facts to back it up...i could call you gay and it would have to be true because i said it, right...?
premiere doesn't compare to the capabilities that fcp has...like already mentioned, it doesn't handle HD content as well, fcp accepts a greater range of formats and has far more creative tools rather than just filters to apply...
if i want a graphics program, i'll use photoshop...but when it comes to professional video editing, it's final cut pro (or vegas if i need to use a pc)... - gregcotten, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@flipmeat
Well, that would be due (primarily) to their ignorance.
@04TL
Premiere ingests HD content just as well as FCP. You don't know what the ***** you are talking about. A true ignorant editor would take Vegas over Premiere. Discreet's SmokeHD is the best, in my opinon. - JoeNick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5
The only advantage I see for switching back from Final Cut to Premiere is the new compatibility features between Premiere and After Effects. The fact that you can now import AE sequences into Preimere and change them (in realtime!) back in After Effects is HUGE. For animators that is going to save entire days worth of work. For me, thats well worth the switch. - bias, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7JESUS ***** CHRIST, you ***** fanboys use whichever you like to use, and stop talking like you own the whole video editing industry. Adobe is releasing another video editing program for you to choose, how in the hell is that not a good thing? Are you fanboys ***** retarded? If Adobe pull all the products out for Mac, what do you think will happen to Apple.
- Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Still wondering what technologies Apple offers that a PC doesn't, considering a Mac is 98% PC these days.
- 04TL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@gregcotten
it's always funny to read the 'intelligent' posts (or in your case, irrelevant replies) on here.....in ten seconds i learned i don't know what the ***** i'm talking about and that i'm ignorant for using vegas, when it comes to pc, all by someone who fits the description of my initial post perfectly and probably googled "the coolest way to say import" by using the word ingest...
your one-line comments have no value other than taking up space...you could have at least provided ONE fact as to why premiere is better than vegas...you know, to educate us ignorant folk...and finally, you mention smokeHD as the best editor, in your opinion of course, most likely as your scapegoat rather than a valid recommendation, to sound somewhat knowledgeable on the topic without knowing anything about the products at hand... - GaysUseTheMac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah at last. That's the way they learn.
- gregcotten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@04TL
I apologize for what I said. I was slightly enraged at the point of posting. No, I don't believe ingest can be found by "googling" to coolest ways to say import. I try to avoid saying digitize (because that would refer to changing an analog signal to a digital signal) and import, well, just because it is the "norm". Anyway, smokeHD runs on Linux, and I prefer their GUI approach to streamline editing more than FCP or Premiere (or Vegas, for that matter). For example, Smoke's footage proxying features for working with 4K, 2K, or HD footage really are far superior than FCP or Premiere. Additionally, its interfacing with RS devices (such as HDCAM CINEALTA decks and basically any other deck with serial interfacing) is unparralelled. This can probably account for the price difference. Sometimes I just get annoyed with elitist/snobs (which you are not) who will push their agenda needlessly. Let's face it, FCP does have critical acclaim (all be it self-fueled from Apple) and has found it's way even into the lower-budget Hollywood community and mainstream commercial television. They're right - why use proprietary hardware for things that you don't need proprietary hardware for? However, this does not excuse flaming other editing systems with (in my opinion), comprable features that help people make a living. I use Premiere Pro at home for self-projects, but stick with more streamline applications at work. For some background, I work with compositing on a daily basis. Usually this involves integration with Maya, Shake, (sometimes) After Effects, and (sometimes) Combustion.
In any case, I again apologize for my flame - it was uncalled for.
- mac-interactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5An interesting announcement but are they too late?
It may however bring Premiere users to the Mac platform. - motherwell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16FCP is finally making inroads in Hollywood over Avid. There is absolutely no way people are going to suddenly switch to Premiere.
FCP is a better application anyway. - mikeflynn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Wow I didn't see this coming at all. I switched from Premiere to FCP when they stopped making it for the Mac, but there is no way I am switching back now. Way too late Adobe.
- jeickholt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6As a heavy After Effects user Premiere on mac should save me time. At the end of the day that's all i care about.
- dvddesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You didn't see this coming? After they decided to exclusively write PPro 1.0 for Intel? And still, the program, at 2.0 is best threaded for Intel CPU's?
Uh, okay. Well, either way, I switched a few months back, moving from PPro 2.0 to FCP 5. I'll be more than happy to use Premiere again if it integrates with AEX as well as PPro does.
And even aside from digs at premiere, it's SO much less time consuming to build a quality DVD in Encore than it is in DVD Studio Pro. DVDSP is just a hair easier to use and work through than REELDVD, which was just shy of being useless if not for the fact that the german translated into poorly worded english manual that Sonic provided with it actually clicks the 5th time you read it at 3am on the last day of a project...
I avoid DVD projects all the time now while trying to slog through DVDSP. Nothing I bring in from AEX wants to work properly like it does in Windows, and I'm not about to start using Motion as some sort of crutch for production when I've got AEX and Combustion available to me.
- Zzone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3the way I always saw it was Avid on a PC, and FCP on a mac, the only benefit you get out of running PP is it's integration with After Effects.
- chedabob, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Any software worth its two cents can export to After Effects.
Personally, its gotta be Vegas for me. Best thing by Sony ever, and its a breeze to use. - anchorman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@chedabob
Sony bought Vegas from SonicFoundry. So you can't really give them that much credit.
- chedabob, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Any software worth its two cents can export to After Effects.
- earthtoandy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Just a little market research could of told Adobe that no one cares anymore. FCP has taken over and either people just like FCP better or they won't take the financial and time consuming hit it would take to completely switch to premeire. This is a silly move
- dvddesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, why do people think there's like no support on the mac for Avid anymore? They knew they were beat, and despite Apple's dominating prescence, no one wanted to deal with two companies that skewed towards contract support and THAT much proprietary hardware.
The Avid Symphony systems I used to build were SUCH a pain to work with on the mac, and they were no better on the PC, but at least on the PC if something broke, you could fix it same day on your own...
BTW, I hate Avid. I know it's industry accepted to bend over and take it from Avid, and to like it... But people out there have no idea what's good if they blindly accept Avid's old editing techniques, poor render times and miserable support team. Avid is where they are because they developed a lot of the original tools. That certainly doesn't mean someone else can't make your product better.
- dvddesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, why do people think there's like no support on the mac for Avid anymore? They knew they were beat, and despite Apple's dominating prescence, no one wanted to deal with two companies that skewed towards contract support and THAT much proprietary hardware.
- Joyrex, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Final Cut PWN
- bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I disagree. Premiere Pro *does* have better color management/correction tools than Final Cut Pro does. Adobe knows more about imaging than Apple, honestly. Doesn't mean it's a better piece of software, only that its color correction tools are amazing.
Also, if you make any move/change to a video file in FCP the program wants to re-render everything. FCP is messy at times as well, storing captured video in strange places, making it tough to find things if you aren't used to the way it works. That caused me many heartaches when I first started. Organization and color correction are two big pluses for PP.
The .AVI format that Premiere Captures in is also visually superior to QuickTime.
Both, though, are more like each other than they are Avid. So it really comes down to either you're an Avid style editor or you're a FCP/PP style editor. The two workflows are very, very different.- mikeflynn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Also, if you make any move/change to a video file in FCP the program wants to re-render everything"
Only if you are changing the values of a filter or effect. And even then it only needs to render that clip. Not sure what you mean here. Moving a clip doesn't require a re-render.
"FCP is messy at times as well, storing captured video in strange places, making it tough to find things if you aren't used to the way it works."
Scratch disks FTW. - crawdad62, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5>"The .AVI format that Premiere Captures in is also visually superior to QuickTime."
I think that's the Achilles heel to Premiere. I'm not about to get into the quagmire that is .AVI. - bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2What problems with AVI? The format of Premiere AVIs works on all windows stations i've been on, without much of a problem. You may be talking about all the little different subsets of AVI, but then the various versions of Quicktime are equally confusing and even longer. Exporting to quicktime in a quality format that will play on multiple systems AND retain your FPS (a big problem I've had with Quicktime) can be rough.
- vegasmacguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually the AVI that Premier captures is just an encapsulated DV file. The same thing that FCP captures. I've used AVI's from PP in FCP on productions. You get a warning but it is perfectly usable. But both are of the same quality because they are both the same technology.
Quicktime does do a poor job of rendering DV to the screen, but honestly I don't care about that, it looks fine on output. VLC shows you what it should look like.
The only thing I don't like about FCP is the preview is choppy so I just right click and preview in Quicktime to find my marks. As for PP, It sucks all around. I've never seen a program crash so much and forget about HD unless you're running DP and 3GB RAM. - ahansent, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4RE: bleutuna
I disagree. Premiere Pro *does* have better color management/correction tools than Final Cut Pro does.
You mean built in right? And right now, because there is an incredible FCP plug/application Final Touch (http://www.siliconcolor.com/) that Apple has just purchased. This is not for wedding videos, this is for uncompressed HD and 2K.
Also, if you make any move/change to a video file in FCP the program wants to re-render everything.
- you don't know what you're doing if that's been your experience. I sometimes edit on my g4 laptop and this is not the case, let alone on a dual core G5.
FCP is messy at times as well, storing captured video in strange places, making it tough to find things if you aren't used to the way it works.
- FCP has an extremely open and powerful architecture, that once you understand can let you do some amazing things. It always stores video in the capture scratch, which you can find under your system settings. RTFM.
The .AVI format that Premiere Captures in is also visually superior to QuickTime.
- what are you talking about? Which codec? I have never heard this and I've been a professional editor on a variety of platforms for years.
Both, though, are more like each other than they are Avid. So it really comes down to either you're an Avid style editor or you're a FCP/PP style editor. The two workflows are very, very different.
- no, actually, it's the person, not the system that defines the style. The software is just a tool. Some software gets in the way more than others, but in the end and editor envisions something in his/her head and follow through, whether it's with a razor blade on film or a NLE. - bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yes, but capturing to the Capture Scratch isn't always the best solution. That's the problem with FCP. It takes getting used to, if you've used other systems like Avid, Vegas, or Premiere, which make it much more clear exactly where things are being stored. Additionally, regardless of your reply, Premiere is much better at keeping organized than FCP is.
Of course I'm talking about Built In Color Correction. Have you actually used Premiere Pro 2.0? What's available to you is amazing. Like most Adobe Imaging software it has things for 'n00bs' as well as masters. You use what you need.
And the uncompressed .AVI format that Premiere uses DOES look better than the Quicktime Codec used with Final Cut Pro. And to say that the systems are the same and it's all about the user is erroneous. FCP/PP have a set of tools and options that are eerily similar (read: Apple took what Adobe had done and modified it) compared to the tools in Avid.
ANYONE who has used the three knows this. You can't deny it, all you need do is look at the tools palette to see this clear as day. - dvddesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No, tuna, Apple bought what Adobe'd done. If you knew the applications, both Premiere and Final Cut had their beginnings with the same set of programmers, with one going for Adobe, and the other going to Macromedia. When Final Cut got sold, Apple retained the coders and had them work in DV and other features before the product officially launched. Meanwhile, Premiere chugged along on it's broken code for YEARS until they gave up at 6.5 and started over on 7.0/Premiere Pro. PPro was a complete rewrite and stole a lot of design elements from what the FCP and Avid people had put in the software from the getgo.
I can't TELL you how many people I had to switch back from 7.0 to 6.5 because they didn't like the 7.0-current changes to Premiere. I had so many complaints about how broken or useless the application is in it's current state. Personally, I liked the changes because they were more universal, more like FCP and Avid. I've built several hundred NLE machines, and I tell you, I like FCP. It's smart and it works just fine. It's a lot better now than it was at version 3 or even 4. I've built, trained, and edited on every machine from edit 5.5, Speed Razor, Video Toaster 2-4, Avid Symphony, Edius, DVStorm, to Matrox Axio HDs and Pinnacle Studio machines. The only configurations I've ever liked were: Edit 6.0 on a Digisuite, Axio HD on a PPro system, and FCP. Until 1.5, DV editing on a PC was a joke in Premiere. The render times were ungodly. Unless you had a render card for your editing (Matrox RTX100), you were kidding yourself thinking you'd get things done in a timely fashion. And renders were VERY inconsistent as well. I'd have to render things 3-4 times to get settings right, and I eventually stopped messing with it and I'd just do my end renders through Cleaner/TMPEGENC/VirtualDub, 'cause, even though it was slower than Premiere, at least I could visually see what my end result would be BEFORE I rendered, and could customize my quality a LOT more before hand.
I don't have any of this with Premiere. I know what an h.264 render is going to look like on FCP every time. I can batch export my renders out to file for digital a lot easier on FCP than I could on PPro. (I mostly do ingest and export stuff now for YouTube based television shows) I would never have agreed to do some of the YouTube stuff I do in FCP on a PPro platform.
- mikeflynn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Also, if you make any move/change to a video file in FCP the program wants to re-render everything"
- matt4836, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3“I believe we can help Apple sell a lot of Intel Macs,” said Hayhurst.
The only reason they are bringing it back is because they can use the same code for osx as they do for windows, lazy bastards. I really cant believe they are bringing over Encore too, that is the worst Adobe App I have ever used, lightroom doesnt count because its STILL beta. The only positive thing about it is there will now be a standalone DVD authoring software for the mac, DVDSP is only available in the FCStudio.- Morky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Er, it's not the same code for Mac just because it running on intel. It's a completely different API.
- rockon81, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3First of all, stop with all the "FCP is better/Premiere is better" crap. To those of you who have never heard of Premiere, you probably haven't been editing very long or all you do is make slide shows of your sister's My Little Pony collection on your iMac. Premiere has been around longer but it is totally up to the user. And with Adobe Bridge, Adobe products integrate more fully. It's not about "any software worth two cents can export to After Effects" Its about being able to drop an After Effects comp straight into a Premiere time line and not have to render twice. And I agree that PP has a tough time dealing with HD without third party help. The TV station that I work at just got an HVX and trying to figure out a tape less, HD work flow has been a pain with PP. I still prefer it though.
- bleutuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Rock, what did you guys decide on? How are you handling it?
- wordsofwisedumb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The company was able to build the type of application it wanted to, instead of porting old code over to the Mac platform. The end result, Hayhurst added, is a fast performer."
Bull.
1. There's nothing stopping them from scrapping old code whether there has been a processor change or not other than a retarded feeling of devotion to time spent coding in the past.
2. Because there is nothing stopping them from scrapping old code they probably really viewed the architecture change as a downside.
3. When their marketing decided to announce this they made that seem like a positive thing that they wanted to do when in reality they probably wined about it the whole way. - HeatVision, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5They're gonna have to give it away to get users back from Final Cut Pro.
- diggumjonez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oh, just like Apple did when they started releasing FCP? Several studios not only received full FCP software, but the computers to run it on and additional funding. This wasn't enough for many of the production houses to switch, but enough did to help Apple's marketing drive.
- SystemError, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How about they bring us the apps we use IE PS in Universal Binary. I will keep using FCP for my editing.
- AHemp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Photoshop CS3 beta is great... It launches in 2 seconds.
- SystemError, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1yes, but how longs has it taken them to get get us to a beta
- dvddesign, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's your own fault if you couldn't guess that Adobe wouldn't even start working on a CS3 UB until Mac Pros shipped.
I saw that one coming the second they said there wouldn't be a UB of CS2.
- AHemp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2FCP FTW.
- esquire360, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2well I'm gonna get it because i have it for windows and love it.
The dynamic link feature is amazing, photoshop to encore to preimere to after effects they lend to each other. its great! this will get people like me, i almost pulled the final cut trigger, since i went mac, but was hoping that adobe would do this.
this will get some PPro users over to the mac for sure. How does final cut work with photoshop files?- flipmeat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 Comment dugg, as integration is very important. I also wish to point out that Final Cut Studio (FCP, DVD SP, Soundtrack, Motion, etc.) has nice integration features as well, which work for one person or a workgroup. Adobe's integration has a cool name and better branding. :-)
Let us not forget that it's not the tools, it's the talent.
My observation of Premiere was that it didn't scale well for larger more complex projects.
- flipmeat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 Comment dugg, as integration is very important. I also wish to point out that Final Cut Studio (FCP, DVD SP, Soundtrack, Motion, etc.) has nice integration features as well, which work for one person or a workgroup. Adobe's integration has a cool name and better branding. :-)
- derekknight, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1A big thumbs down to Adobe for pushing Intel only apps-- a dangerous and insulting precedence. The merits of the program aside, it seems Adobe wants to do the LEAST amount of work to make money from the Mac market. I wish Apple could force them to develop true universal apps.
- stegdump, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ derekknight
Think about it, it will be released in 6 months, a full year and a half after Apple STOPPED selling PPC computers. The people at Adobe have been selling software for quite some time (more that just about any other company). They realize that there are cost over benefits in developing software. PPC is really not worth the money and effort when viewed in the long run. Apple will probably be dropping support for PPC after the major versions of their own software (Apple really wants to sell hardware, remember?)
Say this was all happening one year from now, or even two years. Would a non-PPC version even be mentioned? No, nobody would notice. Honestly, how is being Intel only any different than being only for OSX (I am sure there are plenty of OS9 computers still out there, but should software companies be killing themselves developing software for OS9?).
PPC is a dead architecture, Adobe sees that right now, everyone else should too. - billd222, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why would Adobe even want to write a NEW program for a technology (power PCs) that is now finished?
There aren't going to be anymore powerpcs in the future, so stop whining about the lack of support. Apple isn't even gonna make PowerPC versions of their software in the future.
You think Apple is gonna make a PPC versions of the next releases of FCP, Motion or DVDSP?? Time to drink some coffee, splash some water on your face, or whatever it takes —It's time to wake up.
Apple is in the hardware business: ipods and computers. The proprietary software is just there to get you to buy it's pricey hardware.
- stegdump, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ derekknight
- crazyman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Premiere is a ***** program.
- kevine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I used Premiere for quite some time, then went to Avid and eventually to Final Cut. I'm really looking forward to Premiere coming back.
1) Competition is good.
2) Adobe will probably offer bundle deals, so it will come with other products I want.
3) I'm sure I'll find Premiere to be better for at least *some* of the projects/workflow situations I'll have.
4) It will help me support/collaborate with editors using Premiere on Windows.
I really hope Adobe releases Audition for the Mac as well. - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow! A lotta hate from FCP users. Why not be happy that Premiere is coming back to the Mac? Why not look at this as an affirmation that the Mac is worth developing for? Frankly I wish Adobe a lot of luck and I hope they do well. That will spur Apple to improve FCP and FCE, Avid to improve their products, who knows what other companies to take a second or even third look at developing Mac software that might not have existed before or was Windows only.
Competition is a good thing guys - Aleks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Jesus christ! After reading most of the comments here, there's some actual intellectual conversation going on with Final Cut vs Premiere!
In regards to Color Correction in Premiere over Final Cut.. remember Apple recently bought out Silicon Color - Check out Colorista for more info. I think Final Cut 5.x is long overdue for a new release.. possibly see a new version at Macworld?- AHemp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It will probably be released at NAB 2007, considering that's their target market and it's how FCP 5 was announced.
- swimtwobirds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0its got to be FCP, look whats brewing under the hood.
has anyone noticed apples purchase of proximity artbox?
proximity is about to turn into OSX system architecture..
taken in conjunction with the core architecture,
the OSX video application subset is going to turn into an incredible advanced, metadata rich, proxie available, realtime transcoding MONster.. It goes directly to the inherent strength of the macintosh environment.
in turns of the widget paradigm, it'll make the ipod ecosystem look like small news, methinks...
btw. opening post funnier than anything ive read in a while.
p.s. ive been buried in in editing and postproduction for the guts of a decade,
if apple leverages the proximity purchase properly, its landscape changing. - rowlodge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1another reason i need a new mac...
- swimtwobirds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0aye, the widget is a double edged sword alright...
- cretin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Walter Murch, arguably the greatest film editor alive, won an Oscar using Final Cut Pro on the Mac. I doubt *he'll* be switching any time soon.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HNN/is_12_18/ai_111890064- SystemError, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1nor any or the other Pros or Co's that are switching from Avid to FCP for HD
- polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Can we stop bragging about FCP? Some of us are stuck with Windows. Well, we get 3DS Max, so HAAAA!!!
- zioxide, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Man I hate Premiere. The GUI is pretty much like Final Cut, which I like, but it has less features and seems more difficult to use.
After Effects, on the other hand, is amazing. Adobe should just stick with After Effects.
Also, the guys who said Premiere will be way cheaper than Final Cut Studio, they're probably right, but you can get Final Cut Express for $150 with the education discount, and it has almost all of the features Pro has, it just lacks Motion and DVD Studio Pro. - Mark_DeRidder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've used both, and I prefer Premiere. I'm very happy to hear that it is coming back to the mac. FCP is a great app, but I can't seem to get used to it. Premiere seems more intuitive, especially for manipulating scale, opacity, motion. But I am probably just biased since I started with Premiere and moved to FCP. Either way, happy to have it back on the mac.
- zioxide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thinking about this though, I hope Adobe does a good job on this, because hopefully it will motivate Apple to make FCS6 even better. :D
- shockingbird, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Premiere and After Effects.. beautiful thing!
- DigitalKid215, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I use both Premiere and FCP but I prefer Premiere, especial PP2.0, over FCP for a few reasons. 1. It is far easier to use, as in jumping and just getting something done. FCP isn't quite as user friendly as people would have you believe especially if you're coming from any other NLE. 2. GUI is much better, I can do a lot more without having to deal with extra windows needing to be opened, ie making changes to audio. 3. Since Production Studio 1.0 integration with other Adobe apps. which is even better now with 2.0! 4. Much better work flow with the Adobe Apps and even a lot of non-Adobe apps. 5. This is the most important one of all, NO RENDERING for previewing! With FCP you have render everything before you can see it! From titles to something as simple as a dissolve! You would have thought this would have been addressed when they went to the G5.
A lot of people have to admit that once Adobe Premiere left the MAC OS there was little to no choice and who wants to purchase another Workstation when you just got that nice Dual G4 or G5? You use what is available and compared to the price of Avid, FCP looked cheap for someone who freelances or small company just starting.
Adobe Production Suite will slowly begin to dominate on the MAC Platform and those who think lowly of it just haven't given it a chance. Having said that there are a few things I do like about FCP, I like how you can color code your markers and how any info in them can be displayed on playback and I like that it does support a lot of formats out of the box. I have to remember the rest and to be honest I haven't used FCP much but it is very clumsy to use if you use other NLE's. Vega though nice is hard to use at first too, but I almost feel like FCP is harder for many basic tasks.
Once people start seeing the ease of use of Adobe Production Suite, it will begin to get the "Pro" title that FCP has seemly captured. Try using Adobe Encore and then try to use DVD Studio Pro. You will have what took you longer to do in DVD Studio finished in half the time.
Lastly lets not through in EDU pricing, it makes little sense to even try to compare the pricing right now. FCP Bundle was priced at a nice sweet spot for what you got and if Adobe to meet or beat that price it will be a non-issue. Also have you tried to go from FCP Exp to FCP? It's difficult which says a lot about that app.
No matter what though, like a lot of people said already it's about preference. A good editor can use just about anything once they know where the tools are. Besides, competition is always good for customers!! - Johannesrexx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Adobe marketing has gotten silly. There are way more PPC macs out there then Intel Macs. Also, they should be using Xcode, which is Apple's developer tool and it has a nifty little provision to create FAT BINARY programs that run on both PPC and Intel Macs.
- DigitalKid215, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That maybe true, but PPC is dead. The cost to develop for dead tech would not justify making it. Not only that but the performance hit that software would take vs the Intel hardware have to be considered too.
Think about it, the price per performance is far better with Intel than it is with PPC. A single Core Duo, Not Core2 Duo, can beat a dual G5 in many benchmarks. So why cripple the software when more and more will be buying Intel Macs going forward. Especially if the rumors are true about VISTA being a DRM money pit.
Come to think about it! I wonder if that's one of the reasons Adobe decided to put Production Suite on OS X? Hmmmmm! I'll stay with XP Pro until Apple gives up on the hardware lockout.
- DigitalKid215, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That maybe true, but PPC is dead. The cost to develop for dead tech would not justify making it. Not only that but the performance hit that software would take vs the Intel hardware have to be considered too.
- sdds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I had to throw in my 2 cents here...
Probably my favorite straight editing program on the PC was EditDV by Digital Origin - now owned by Media 100?? by Pinnacle??? so it's been buried and non-updated. It was FAST, but not as 'layer-friendly as Premiere. But it did have something else going for it - full Quicktime support for editing on PC. For anyone that's tried to make a long-format edit of ANYTHING using AVI that did not have any sort of time-line playback codec installed, you know AVI is evil. And FORGET trying to take your long-format AVI-based timeline into another program for finishing. If you had some great program edited in Premiere and wanted to apply an overall 'look' through After Effects using AVI - you better start trying to figure out how to set up a frame server. But with Quicktime, you could edit a huge movie and save a 35Kb QT file that referenced all the raw footage and feed THAT as your movie to any program you needed to - including Premiere! So you didn't have to ass around with 2 GB file limits and all that. You could instantly load well over 2 GB worth of footage to any other program... Ahhhh.... I miss you EditDV...
Now... I've still used Premiere since version 4 all the way through PPro 2.0. It is most CERTAINLY a love/hate relationship. I CANNOT for the life of me figure out WHY Premiere Pro insists on f-ing up the interlacing when applying brightness/contrast or other video transitional things. I cannot very easily edit between one progressive scan framed camera and an interlaced one without things going ca-ca. It's like they forgot how to interpret footage properly. They should be ashamed! I really wish they would lift the code from AFX for footage interpretation - it completely blows my mind. It makes me WANT to go and re-start a project on FCP just for this ALONE... Another annoyance has been the switch when the Pro version started (7.0) that had SO MANY cache files built upon import... If you've previously captured a ton of footage and then import it to PPro, it has to build a TON of cached files that take up a TON of room. And sometimes when you are previewing effects and they don't take, you have to clear ALL of these out and let them be REBUILT which takes forever. My projects are HUGE now compared to pre-pro versions. BUT, I still use it. Some of these projects I'm working on have taken years of playing around and I just can't start over in another program till they are done. The new features have been worth some of those pains - hard drive space is enormously cheap now... PPro still has what looks to be the EASIEST 5.1 mixing solution out there - if someone knows a better way on Mac PLEASE let me know. AND of course the recent tighter integration with AFX has made some things go by faster.
All this said... I STILL want to convert to FCP only. I've edited some short format items in it and it seems to be a very capable program. I really like how THOUGHT was used in making the program itself. Premiere always seems to have features GLUED on top somehow to stay compatible with the latest and greatest in camera tech but FCP seems to have been made a lot better in regards to this. If I can just find some surround mixing love on FCP, then life will be better. I'm sure it exists out there since a whole slew of films are cut on it - I didn't see anything in Soundtrack Pro that convinced me of 5.1...
Encore DVD vs DVDSP... hmmm. Honestly, I find them both to be about on par with one another at the moment. I DO like the editing integration of Encore to Photoshop for menus to be a very handy feature. But for run of the mill DVDs, I seem to get where I need to be a tad bit faster in DVDSP using themes. If it needs to be a completely original set of menus and so forth then I find them both to be about the same in time use - most of the time is in planning the DVD and menu making anyway.
After Effects vs Shake or Motion - Can't even comment yet. Used AFX since v 3 and know it VERY well. I've dabbled in Shake and was impressed with what I saw but have never really put it to use - can't even say anything about Motion yet though the demos I've seen are nice.
In all, I think Adobe is just trying to think ahead. AND, with the processors being Intel now, it's probably fairly trivial to port to OSX. Maybe they can use all the old Win32 API or maye it's their OWN API and port it all to display on one big OpenGL window... Poof, minimal effort for more sales. Makes good business sense. I don't think they will dent FCP market much - only those PC users that switched and have old PPro projects to finish like me... - warnergt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I used to love the audio editing capabilites of Premiere back when it was on the Mac. Adobe did a nice job with that. Now, I have the very expensive Peak and, in many ways, it sucks.
- nufoto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Cool ...I have an old registered copy of LE I hope they can offer me a cheap upgrade path...I use FCE all ready but another option for editing and a complete suite is even better! I want AE but with out the price! Thanks Adobe! glad to see your back in the Mac!
- beggersfunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good stuff at lease now Adobe is showing more flexibilty towards to a Mac user and also showing Mac has another option . And good healthy competion to Apple is great because it's only pushes one another to be a better a software.
- dralien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is great news for four reasons:
1. Competition is great and will lead to better/cheaper tools for all Mac users
2. Adobes full-fledged return to the mac will kill the "Adobe leaving the Mac" rumors and bolster the platform's relevance. I can see the press now "Intel switch makes Adobe and Apple buddy-buddy once more".
3. Premiere users who may otherwise be interested in the Mac can now make the move.
4. This return finally puts to rest the idea that Apple's entrance into application markets pushes away developers. Apple wisely realized that whatever can improve the platform is a net win for developers. Final Cut helped maintain the Mac as a desirable video platform. This is what brought premiere back, as well as Avid symphony and express, which had been windows only.
Now, Premiere has a real uphill battle in the pro space. Avid's strength aside, TV post has moved to final cut in a major way, especially in-house post for network promos and show production (for example, MTV Networks are almost all final cut based now). Film is moving slower, but it's gaining traction there as well. Apple's recent purchases of Silicon Color and Proximity suggest very very powerful new color correction and media management capabilities in coming versions of Final Cut. Apple has wisely moved fast to incorporate new formats and work flows in totally seamless ways, such as Panasonic P2, keeping it on the cutting edge.
Most important of all... core image. If Adobe hopes to compete with final cut on the mac, it's going to need to match core-image's real-time capabilities either through the use of the API or some Adobe-grown solution. I have doubts of an Adobe solution being as low-latency as core-image, given it'll reside a layer above it in terms of abstraction (I could be wrong). Adobe's cross-platform approach can be a blessing and a curse with this.
After Effects integration will be very powerful for animators and lower-end production where one person is doing everything but I don't see Final Cut editors moving to it for this feature alone. It may prove as a useful editing extension to projects that are primarily after effects jobs, even if Final Cut remains the primary solution for a person or studio.
In any event, welcome back Adobe! Now bring on the native technology support! - jb978, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1pretty sorry there wont be an ppc or UB release :( I feel bad about my dual 2.3ghz g5.
- billd222, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As a user of both Premiere Pro and FCP, I can tell all of you there really isn't that much difference at all in the programs.
They both do the exact same things, the menus and keyboard shortcuts are in different places that's all.
Premiere Pro is way ahead of the old school original Premiere which was buggy and bloated.
FCP users really shouldn't just dismiss PP, especially because you are going to be able to very easily find your way around inside of Premiere.
Think of it as FCP, but with an Adobe interface. A lot of the shortcuts and filters that are in aftereffects and photoshop are in Premiere Pro.
I wouldn't dismiss it, Avid users for a long time scoffed and made fun of FCP and look what has happened to the Avid user base.
Muhahha
I hope this made some sense.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by