Premier 7 or Studio 9 - which??

I am running Premier 6 and whilst it gets the job done, it does have it's
hickups sometimes.

I am about to build up a new system and want to upgrade to the best
available at present. I run a Matrox RT2500 card and I don't know if it can
be made to work with the Pinnacle software.

Anyway all advice welcome.

Thanks in advance

Jackson

 

Vegas 4 with DVD Architect
--
Tony Morgan
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice,
there is." - Yogi Berra
http://www.camcord.info
http://www.rhylonline.com

 

premiere pro is a huge leap from 6, much much better.

pinnacle software is a kids toy in comparison...

and avid xpress pro if you can afford it is a different style all together
once u get to grips with it.

 

Studio might be. But Pinnacle market Very Proffesional Software too

 

Probably not, but then neither will Premiere Pro. If you want a real-time
card, you could upgrade to the RT.X10 or X100. Or drop it altogether,
rely on the realtime rendering for previews, and use something else to do
your A/D and D/A converstion.

 

I certainly wouldn't say "huge". It still suffers from the same
fundamental problem that 6 had - requiring overly large amounts of
system resource. And it's still incompatible with some hardware.

Depends whether you're more interested in producing movies that consist
entirely of gizmos. For 90% of camcorder-generated video movie makers,
Pinnacle Studio 8.10.something and/or Pinnacle Studio 9 are more than
satisfactory. Then of course, Studio is vastly more easy to learn to use
than is Premiere. .

Most of the folk I've met or read who shout the praises of Premiere are
doing little more than willy-waving, and are incapable of shooting a
half-decent movie, preferring instead to piss-about playing with the
gizmos.

That I can't comment on since I've never used it (nor met anyone who's
actually produced a half-decent movie with it). However, I'd guess that
the same finished movie edited/assembled in Avid would be no different
from that that produced with Studio 8/9 (or for that matter with
Premiere).

It does annoy me somewhat when folks like yourself try to apply peer
pressure on others to spend £500 when for their current and future needs
will be more than satisfied with a video editor costing only £80 (or
even be free if you adopt MM2).

--
Tony Morgan
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice,
there is." - Yogi Berra
http://www.camcord.info
http://www.rhylonline.com

 

I don't think I've heard of any professional who uses Premiere.
--
Tony Morgan
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice,
there is." - Yogi Berra
http://www.camcord.info
http://www.rhylonline.com

 

But do you know any professional to ask ?....

 

Take you views to there logical conclusion and you should still be crash
editing VHS.

Why is it that self improvement is so frowned on by some of the more
ignorant posters to this group ? :~((

 

Have you even used it?

You're so full of it, it defies belief. You constantly berate Premiere as
a tool for losers that like playing with gizmos, yet it's hardly the only
NLE on the market that has a lot of gizmo features. Vegas has at least
the same amount of transitions and effects and it's not like they're that
much harder to locate and apply.

Someone that is going to use some "gizmo" will do so if the NLE will let
them, irrespective of what NLE is being used.

I guess Hollywood editors don't make it round your way very often. I'm
sure that the Lord of the Rings crew would take time out of mastering the
new DVDs to pop round to your place for a quick demo.

Oh, so you *do* actually comprehend that fact.

Hardly application of peer pressure. He was simply stating his opinion
that Pro is better than 6.

 

6 yes, 7 no. But three friends have upgraded to Pro, and wish they'd
spent their money more wisely.

If you mean I don't willy-wave on about Premiere, then I am indeed "full
of it".

I have never suggested it is.

ISTM that most seem to put more store on the gizmos than on producing
good movies (as is often demonstrated here with the particular questions
relating to Premiere's gizmo features).

Actually I only recommend Vegas when someone considers paying out about
the same amount as they will be paying for Premiere. The rest (most) of
the time I recommend that folk spend somewhat less (have a look at
http://www.camcord.info/basics/index.html at "A video editor" section to
confirm this).

I assume that you're still here with us in the realms of reality? Are
you suggesting that the Hollywood editors to whom your are referring
used Avid Express rather than the £16,000 (plus VAT) Adrenaline (and
another £8,000 on the hardware to run it on)?

And you might note that I (unlike yourself) don't recommend anything
unless I've used something (even briefly with one or other of my friends
who might have that something).

Then why recommend that folk pay six times as much for something that
does the same job? I can only assume that you're rich, since you're so
readily do so - and that certainly doesn't excuse your for doing so..

"Better" in what context? Value for money? The ability to produce good
movies? The capacity for spoiling a potentially good movie by the
unfettered introduction of gizmos?

I'm reminded of a neighbour who regularly pays out £400 or more on one
golf club, believing it will reduce his handicap

--
Tony Morgan
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice,
there is." - Yogi Berra
http://www.camcord.info
http://www.rhylonline.com

 

I know lots of people who earn their living with video and use Premier
and swear by it. In my view and maybe yours too they are blinkered but
there is no denying they use it.

 

But as someone else said, if they are going to use the gizmos they will use
them, regardless of what platform or software used. It's the type of person
doing the editing not the software they are using that is the problem...

 

errrr...

star wars episode 2.....

 

Colour correction/grading is a gizmo is it? I think not...!!!

I have used nearly all the nle systems mentioned; all prem versions from 5
thr to pro, vegas, fcp, avide dv xpress, xpress pro, avid media composer,
edit box...

the last two are megga expensive, especially edit box, comapred to which
premiere and xpress pro are "cheap"

I'd regard myself as a semi pro editor, and i know proffesional editors that
use xpress pro with mojo dna compared to a full symphony/compose suite based
on price as xpress pro can do nearly everything that composer does...

in the end it all comes down to snobbery that adobe and the like are too
"gizmo" like.

If microsoft made avid you people like yourself would say it was rubbish
which it evidently isnt.

If people just want to do cut and paste editing them wmm2 and imovie are
fine, but that is pretty much their limit.

 

apologies for apalling grammar and spelling!!!

 

In message <c1j8a7$1ilpq7$-berlin.de>, KW_UK

On the contrary. I know that it's "PC" (pun) to knock Microsoft, but
I've been around long enough to appreciate that all versions of Windows
have evolved from a GUI operating system that was designed to run on an
8080 8-bit processor with support for only 640M memory, and that
Microsoft have been constrained by maintaining backward-compatibility
(right the way back to PC-DOS). And I can also remember Unix on a PDP-11
that was considerably more flaky than XP is today.

And, providing that you have use for the advanced features MS Office
with it's integration and scripting, it is good software.

All that apart, if nothing else Microsoft have brought conformity and
de-facto standards across many areas - something that previously made
all aspects of computing a nightmare.

Anyway, I'm (again) drifting OT

Snipped some more.
--
Tony Morgan
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice,
there is." - Yogi Berra
http://www.camcord.info
http://www.rhylonline.com

 

Oh, by the way tony..

"By general consensus Adobe Premiere is the best advanced editor" - Tony
Morgan 2002

;-)

jus pullin ur leg!!!

 

Well spotted. Though I can't remember the exact time and context (and I
can't be bothered to Google), I suspect that was before Vegas 4 was
introduced (and I started using it), and (I suspect) it was in the
context of those editors that were available for non-professional folk
like almost all here. It was also (I suspect) pre Edit Studio 3, pre
Pinnacle Studio 7, and pre Movie Maker 2. No doubt you've noticed that
things do change

I do think, however, that the "video editor" bit on my Basics web-page
gives a fairly well-balanced view.
--
Tony Morgan
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice,
there is." - Yogi Berra
http://www.camcord.info
http://www.rhylonline.com

 

So having never used it, you are not well placed to make comments on
whether or not it is a huge leap from 6.

Of course you have.

I'll take your word for it.

If you look on the credits for LOTR there are a bunch of Avid editors
and techs that are listed. In the extras features, they also talk about
the Avid systems that they have.

What did I recommend that I haven't used?

I didn't. Do keep up.

I'm not taking the mick, but do you have A.D.D. or something? I wasn't
the poster recommending Premiere. You seem to get mixed up a lot. If we
knew you had a problem, we could be more understanding.

What an idiot. Yes, it's only better because it's easy to turn good
footage into a bad edit. Something that Vegas doesn't allow you to do.

More fool him.