Premier 7 or Studio 9 - which??

Discussion in 'Video Cameras' started by Jackson, Feb 25, 2004.

  1. Jackson

    Jackson Guest

    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
     
    Jackson, Feb 25, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jackson

    Tony Morgan Guest

    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
     
    Tony Morgan, Feb 25, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jackson

    KW_UK Guest

    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.
     
    KW_UK, Feb 25, 2004
    #3
  4. Jackson

    Trev Guest

    Studio might be. But Pinnacle market Very Proffesional Software too
     
    Trev, Feb 25, 2004
    #4
  5. Jackson

    Dave R Guest

    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.
     
    Dave R, Feb 25, 2004
    #5
  6. Jackson

    Tony Morgan Guest

    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
     
    Tony Morgan, Feb 25, 2004
    #6
  7. Jackson

    Tony Morgan Guest

    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
     
    Tony Morgan, Feb 25, 2004
    #7
  8. Jackson

    Jerry. Guest

    But do you know any professional to ask ?....
     
    Jerry., Feb 25, 2004
    #8
  9. Jackson

    Jerry. Guest

    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 ? :~((
     
    Jerry., Feb 25, 2004
    #9
  10. Jackson

    Dave R Guest

    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.
     
    Dave R, Feb 25, 2004
    #10
  11. Jackson

    Tony Morgan Guest

    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
     
    Tony Morgan, Feb 25, 2004
    #11
  12. 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.
     
    Malcolm Knight, Feb 25, 2004
    #12
  13. Jackson

    Jerry. Guest

    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...
     
    Jerry., Feb 25, 2004
    #13
  14. Jackson

    KW_UK Guest

    errrr...

    star wars episode 2.....



     
    KW_UK, Feb 25, 2004
    #14
  15. Jackson

    KW_UK Guest

    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.
     
    KW_UK, Feb 25, 2004
    #15
  16. Jackson

    KW_UK Guest

    apologies for apalling grammar and spelling!!!


     
    KW_UK, Feb 25, 2004
    #16
  17. Jackson

    Tony Morgan Guest

    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
     
    Tony Morgan, Feb 26, 2004
    #17
  18. Jackson

    KW_UK Guest

    Oh, by the way tony..

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

    ;-)

    jus pullin ur leg!!!
     
    KW_UK, Feb 26, 2004
    #18
  19. Jackson

    Tony Morgan Guest

    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
     
    Tony Morgan, Feb 26, 2004
    #19
  20. Jackson

    Dave R Guest

    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.
     
    Dave R, Feb 26, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.