Slashdot Mirror
Premiere Back on Mac
woof69 writes "After dropping OS X support for Premiere some time in 2003, Adobe is bringing it back in the new
Adobe Production Studio. The new software includes After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere Pro, Encore DVD, and Soundbooth, and will be available for Apple's Intel-based computers in mid-2007; an updated version of the Windows suite will ship at the same time.
Does Final Cut have a fight on its hands?"
How does After Effects and Final Cut Pro compare to Cinelerra?
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
im good friends with the son of a major hollywood editor, and she has talked about the different systems she uses. final cut (she doesn't use it) is good at what it does, and its deeply embedded in the editing community. I've used premiere for a while (pc user), and it isn't amazing. i doubt this is a threat in the least.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
what about a version for the power pc processors?
I can't imagine that too many people would switch to this from Final Cut Pro.
And for those wondering, this will NOT be a Universal Binary. It has been built from scratch and will only run on Intel-based Macs.
Adobe's press release.
It was about time, really.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
It's a little surprising they went through the effort, but there will be some who will use Premiere either because a) that's what they know, b) they're primarily designers who will have it with the bundle and will see it as a "good enough" alternative to paying $1000 for Final Cut Pro, or c) they will use it as a supplement to After Effects. The latter is actually a pretty strong selling point for some, as After Effects is still a very viable app (though a true bitch to learn) and has a strong professional following and Premiere naturally integrates with it much better than FCP.
Final Cut's competition isn't really Premiere at this point anyway, it's Avid. Most editors use one or the other depending on their training and place of employment (FCP tends to be for the self trained, small production houses etc. though that is changing, Avid for major houses and television/movie productions as it has been the standard for over a decade and many if not most pro editors- particularly those who learned to edit *gasp* film- prefer to work with it)
Having worked with all three-- Premiere, FCP and Avid-- I can safely say that Premiere is the weakest of the three but is more than "good enough" if you're not cutting The Lord of The Rings. As I said it may get use just because the owner purchased the suite for Photoshop and hey, it's there.
The simple answer is no. I bought my Mac specifically for Final Cut because Premiere was such a miserable editor. I cut a feature on Premiere and easily lost 1/3 of my time to crashes. I haven't used the latest versions but the one I used, 5.5, was lightyears behind Final Cut Pro. If you asked me to cut another film on Premiere I'd rather work fast food than do it. Final Cut is a joy to work with. They are porting Premiere back to Mac because they are loosing ground to Final Cut but what they don't understand is it isn't the Mac OS people are after but Final Cut itself. Don't even bother porting it because editors that have switched are lost forever. Better to make it more stable and add features. Anyone one on Final Cut isn't likely to switch. Why go back to a Yugo when you already own a Ferrari. I'm sure there are Premiere fans that will boast of it's stability. If you're happy have fun. Personally I'm thrilled with Final Cut and would never use Premiere for any reason. It made my life a living hell so if they are loosing customers it's their own fault for putting out such a lousy editor.
Final Cut Studio has a total lock on the video editing software market south of $10k.
Premiere disappeared from the Mac because it couldn't compete. Speaking as an independent filmmaker, I can't even imagine what Adobe could do to woo me back over.
There is no chance Premiere will take the market from Final Cut. The installed user-base of Mac video editors all use Final Cut. They're not going to take the time and expense to switch to Premier, when Adobe could decide to pull the upgrade plug at any minute. The only possible result is that Windows-based Premiere users might switch to a Mac. This is only good news for Apple.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Final Cut Pro is the best thing to have happened to Premiere, at least as far as Windows users are concerned.
The last version of Premiere on the Mac (6.5) was a clunky just-good-enough app that contrary to popular belief was not pushed from the Mac market by Final Cut Pro.
It was Final Cut Express "killed" Premiere - Premiere itself was never competition for Final Cut Pro as Avid systems were it's target. Final Cut Express (FCE) came in at $300 and did just about everything that Premiere did for $700, and for it's target market it mostly did it better and continued to get better.
Adobe went back to the labs, licked their wounds, rolled up their sleeves and Premiere Pro was born. Windows users benefited from finally having a serious, but affordable video editing suite, but by this time the Mac market and in many ways by proxy the Pro video market was solidly split between Final Cut Pro and Avid's solutions.
Competition is a great thing for customers and just as all pro video editors benefitted from Avid's wake up call from Apple (Avid systems are no longer so expensive that you have to lease them and Avid finally took notice of these gizmos called laptops), Final Cut users will benefit from Apple's increased need to improve the product to compete with Adobe's return.
I've used a ton of editing packages. I started with Premiere in the early nineties. I sure hope Cinelerra works better than most of them out there, and that I can get it to compile someday. Otherwise, I'm not about to edit video at the command-line.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Considering that Adobe, even at version 9.0, hasn't been able to implements neither bookmarks nor "desktop save/restore" (that is, the application restoring open documents/positions in them between restarts) into their Adobe Acrobat Reader PDF viewer... I just don't see how they can have ANY chance with something as advanced as video editing when they can't even develop basic, much requested features for a document viewer.
It's pathetic. Imagine if in 2007 your web browser didn't have bookmarks?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Uh, yeah. Photoshop. Illustrator. InDesign. A monkey could have programmed these, right?
Premiere 6.5 was a steaming pile of ass - somewhere slightly above iMovie and very, very far below FCP in terms of functionality - and a collosal pain in the ass to use for capturing. Premiere was always crap in that department, especially for anyone stuck using it on, say, a 601-based PPC... and, much like Quark Xpress, Premiere for OS X didn't change much and definitely had a rushed feel to it - making it even easier for anyone to switch up to software that worked better and offered vastly more functionality for the price.
For the kind of work I do, Premiere and Media100 were gross, horribly constrained applications that were dumped for FCP as soon as I could convince my division manager to budget for a DVR.
For my needs, the only thing "Premiere Pro" might be able to add to the mix is better After Effects integration, which I'd appreciate.
Personally, anyone who thinks Premiere competes against FCP in any of its forms just doesn't understand the market - much like the GIMP vs. Photoshop argument. Pro video users don't need "good enough." They need "better than."
If Premiere Pro is Better Than FCP for a few things, I'll probably wind up running it when the division moves to intel powermacs (a day that will suck for me, as I'm continually constrained to Classic for functionality Adobe keeps screwing up and moving around in successive versions of Photoshop). Until then, the only instances of Premiere I've witnessed are 4.x, 5.x, and 6.x - all of which are rancid redneck underwear stains compared to the ease of use and functionality of FCP.
Older owners of Final Cut can't upgrade to the intel mac other than
buying a whole new copy. It won't even run under Rosetta, so I will
definitely consider alternatives before just automatically plunking
down $1000 for the intel version.
Maxim
anyways, competition is -almost- always a good thing to have. I'd like to see how iPhoto would evolve if there was an OS X version of Picassa, for instance... n.
I think the person using Acid is you, if you don't see that a large number of professional editors have adopted FCP...
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You show an incredible level of ignorance. I would suggest you research just how many studios actually use FCP before 'assuming' only drag and drop kiddies use it. Where do you source your information from?
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
I used to use Premiere before Adobe walked away from the Mac platform. After that, I migrated to FCE, which turned out to be massively more stable, more intuitive and much more versatile. Bearing in mind how much better FCE turned out to be and how little loyalty Adobe showed to it's Mac using customers, there's not the remotest chance that I'll switch back to Premiere.
However, it would be foolish to underplay how important the bundling of Premiere with other creative apps might be. A full-time video editor will choose FCP or Avid, but somebody who merely needs to join some simple video together as part of a multimedia project won't want to pay those sorts of prices, particularly if Premiere is bundled with apps that they really do need.
I have no doubt that there will be a significant number of Premiere users on the Mac platform, but I don't think that many of those users will be people who see video editing as their primary interest.
Yeah, it's worth burning a little karma just to say you did it once. And, I suppose, to burn karma for saying it's okay.
Though you should have said something at least slightly relavant to claim honest FP honors. Even something like "based on WordPerfect's in and out of the market during it's buyouts, it managed to lose practically all of its market share to Word, what makes anyone think that it can go back and unseat Final Cut."
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I'm one of those mac lovers people love to flame. However, I love Premiere Pro and use it over FCP on a Windows box. I'm sorry but I do everything else on a mac but *GASP* the user experience with PP is far superior FCP. FCP is a great alternative to Avid boxes but I was never an Avid user. I can work so much faster in PP and it's a GREAT program. I'm happy that I can go back to my mac to use Premiere Pro!
-_-
I've cut full-length feature films on both Premiere Pro and Final Cut Pro.
Premiere Pro is far different from Premiere (which stopped at version 6.5 or something like that). Premiere was not a professional-level editing tool. Premiere Pro is, at least as far as Final Cut Pro is, too. Premiere Pro's redesign is very similar to FCP's, to the extent that cross-adoption of new features has been occurring in the last couple of years. In other words: the two are practically the same, and no editor who isn't irrationally either a Windows or Mac advocate would inordinately trumpet one over the other.
And they're both far, far different from Avid, at least professional-level Avid (not counting the "new" Avid Liquid, which Avid recently bought and redesigned for the sub-pro market).
What does this mean to FCP users? Maybe it'll put the heat on Apple to fix some of the outstanding bugs/feature requests. That'd be nice.
Not to mention he refered to Avid as "Acid". Unless, or course, he means the awful ACID Pro suite of sound editing software, which would only double his ignorance.
Wow. As soon as I read that I knew I was going to get flamed for hitting the "c" which is right next to the "v." Hm, must be my ignorance though.
And seeing as reading comprehension isn't the cool thing anymore (judging by the insta-replies), let me explain. WHAT I SAID/meant is that the "drag and drop" kiddies will no doubt endorse FCP (NOT saying that FCP is not used by *any* studios), where in reality there is a very evident "ceiling" to FCP that TRUE major scale production studios will reach. So the question really is what realm are we talking about where FCP needs to worry. If its in feature length Hollywood its relevance is not strong enough to make the discussion worthwhile. If we are speaking the consumer to pro-amateur to small studio level, then Premiere is certainly comparable to FCP and it boils down to an interface/gui and components/integration, with other apps, situation.
So before you accuse me of ignorance, read the post for what it says and maybe think about it.
art is science made clear. -cocteau
This is just one indicator of how fast the Mac marketshare is rising - Adobe walked out on OS X in a huff because they didn't like FCP, now they are forced to return by the reality of a rising percentage of video editing switching to the Mac.
Interesting they went Intel only though, the only real gain I can see is simplification of testing - but they are missing out on a lot of people that still use G5's. Then again, perhaps Adobe sees a larger mass migration to Intel macs when CS3 is released for real.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes, those amateurs over at the BBC need to get their shit together and start using REAL editing software, I guess.
And, FCP is used plenty in Hollywood as well--you wouldn't online something with it when you've got a huge budget, but it's great for offlining and editing in the field. I guess I just don't see how that immediately defines it as "amateur," though. Yes, it's not the fully-integrated hardware/software solution that Avid present with its higher-end packages, but it is a damn impressive piece of software.
NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT FACT. What I was talking about is that within the realm of discussion of FCP v Premiere (ya know, the REAL post) it is important to define to what capacity these programs are being used. /. FTW
art is science made clear. -cocteau
For all you naysayers who claim Final Cut will not be dethroned, just look at how InDesign took a chunk of QuarkXpress's market. Sure Quark is still out there making a product, but Adobe has given them a run for their money. My agency switched to InDesign about four years ago and hasn't looked back since. And I know of hundreds of other people who have done the same.
Final Cut is awesome, no doubt. But people like Adobe apps, and if they're already using Photoshop and Illustrator they'll likely be tempted to give the new version of Premier a shot.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Why re-enter that market? The last fifteen years of digital video production is littered with the remains of companies and good ideas that could never sell enough licenses to keep developing. In the mid 90s I talked to a Kodak software engineer about why the Cineon software had to cost $160,000. They had spent $400 million developing it and were already losing money at that price. Within a few years they had shut down the division and sold the assets to Silicon Grail (Chalice) which integrated it into Rayz and then was bought out by Apple to eliminate competition with Shake. If Apple can sell 10,000 FinalCut licenses at $1000 each, that is $10 million. 30 or 40 full time programmers will cost you 3 to 4 million, phone support, marketing, constant developing and qc, and you have no profit, probably a loss. Adobe can afford the losses, as it has Photoshop and Illustrator and all those other bundled apps to make up the difference. Premiere is just a value added to their application suite. The only reason I can think that Adobe would do it is to get people to not buy final cut, as Adobe has no hopes of controlling the video editing market, and really wouldn't want to. It may be a nod to the people who continue to use Mac and do creative work; by giving them the exact same suite everybody else (ms-pc) has, they can increase dependence on the adobe interface and perhaps throw a wrench in Apple's application market. It may also be about controlling the flow of video to the web, as Adobe now owns flash and with it the main means of streaming video to the internet. Perhaps it is a backhanded way of getting at Quicktime, by integrating all their apps straight to the web no one will be tempted to quicktime package movies. All my career determining why Adobe does things is like Kremlinology. I was amused to see that they claim in their press release that customers wanted this. I have never met anyone who uses Adobe products on a Mac asking for Premiere. Has anyone else?
That on the Mac could get me to consider a Mac... Seriously. I know on the audio front many love Pro Tools, but I can't stand it. It was always bloated and slower to work with than Cool Edit (personal experience). If Adobe release that for Mac (which they don't seem to be doing yet), that would be a big deal. Unlike Premiere, Audition/Cool Edit is an excellent alternative (better imo). I also wish the Ardour folks would do a Cool Edit skin a la Gimpshop.
FWIW the open source applications The Gimp, Inkscape, and Scribus are rapidly catching up to where Adobe is in terms of functionality. Oh sure, in some cases they're still quite far behind, but they're catching up faster than I ever assumed they would even in my rampant fanboyism.
The Gimp in particular is getting to be a fantastically credible Photoshop clone; the only thing missing really is the rich collection of plugins. Unless, of course, you're one of the weirdos who thinks that an MDI interface is better than a virtual desktop. I admit some things are harder than they should be but if you examine how far it's come, you can only conclude that it won't be long before it's superior to PS.
Scribus is probably the furthest from the application it would compete against (in this case, InDesign.) It seems more like a clone of the previous version of QuarkXPress than anything. Still, it's getting there too; how long has it been since there was not a single credible DTP app for Linux? Not very long.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I got my start on a beta version of Premiere in 1990, when quarter screen video at 15 fps was "exciting". I stuck with Premiere until OSX came out, as it was incredibly easy and powerful. I've used Avid, and found it to be the least friendly interface for video editing anywhere. I now use FCP, but will absolutely give Premiere another look when it's released. If they can integrate their products the way FCP Studio does, Adobe could seriously give Apple a run for the money. For me, the decision will be based on acceleration... I don't like FCP's lack of options in that department. Either way, competition in this arena will be a good thing, especially if it screws Avid. Seriously. Avid's interface sucks sweaty balls.
Someday a real rain is gonna come...
The document you quote was originally published at the moment Jobs announced the Switch and is now over a year old. It was specifically aimed at programmers who wrote to bare metal (e.g. people who wrote endian-dependent code), and was written before OS X had generic vector processing APIs that now compile to AltiVec/SSEx depending on target.
I think the reason is simpler. If I were a betting man, I'd say that Adobe's using XCode to develop the OS X version of the core application, but that the heavy computational lifting (encoding, transcoding, etc.) is being done by highly hand-optimized OS-neutral 686 binaries. Adobe can't devote the time to replicating this process for a defunct processor line when it's obvious they'd have to EOL support for it eventually, and if they're using commercial optimization tools those tools may not have PPC targets.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
don't forget to save your stuff about every 3 minutes. The program has always been highly unstable. It always reminded me of windows software. Avid, FCP, Media100 never seem to crash. With premiere, you always save before doing something.. Moving a clip could cause a crash. It is very touchy. When it works, it is nice though.
I'm still wondering why adobe doesnt make it's own linux system to run it's products. Adobe products are a big reason why people by the computers they do, weither it be a pc or a mac. Adobe is constantly competing with microsoft and apple in the software componets, even more so with microsofts version of pdf. So why doesnt adobe just come out and compete with apple and microsoft completely? Take ubuntu, put all the adobe software on it. and make it for ppc and x86? That would be a killer combo in the creative feild. You could even have trial live cds jsut to test it out. Get rid of all the window's problems, step outside of some of the mac funkieness and bring people to unix in a new creative way. Just an idea.
From what I've seen posted in this discussion, most people hate Premier because they used an old version of it. Now, to clarify:
Final Cut Pro was written by the very same team that wrote Premier at Adobe. After version 5 of Premier was written, Apple convinced them to come work for them, and the result was Final Cut Pro.
Adobe was left holding the Premier bag, and didn't know what to do with it. The results were 5.5, 6.0, and finally 6.5 (all three of which were absolutely horrible in terms of bugs). In the meantime, Final Cut Pro was released. Adobe simply could not compete -- they didn't have a good enough program and they didn't have a good enough development team to devote energy to fixing Premier on the Mac.
As a result, Adobe hired an entirely new development team and started to completely redesign Premier from the ground up. The catch was that they didn't want to go head to head against Final Cut Pro yet -- Final Cut had the Mac market to itself, Premier was the only one for Windows. So they redesigned Premier on Windows and the result was Premier Pro 1.0.
Now that Adobe has Premier Pro refined enough, they feel they can go head-to-head with Final Cut (their old dev team). And with the platform turmoil, it makes sense that they would wait for the Intel decision to boil over before starting.
So instead of rushing in and saying how bad my OLD Premier experience was (I used it in my multimedia classes at college and hated it -- it was a completely useless pile of steaming crap but that's another matter) and comparing that to my Final Cut experience (works great but some features are a little lacking), I'm going to wait until the new Premier Pro comes out and make a comparison when they're actually on equal footing.
My conclusion: Premier Pro is a new codebase that has only a name in common with the old Premier. It's apparently going to be designed fresh for the OSX platform instead of being a kludge designed for OS9 and ported to OSX and Windows badly. I think it'll compare favorably, but I'm going to wait and see.
It's not easy to start with it, but as soon as you understand how it works, the possibilities are incredible.
There are two versions of Cinelerra (both are licenced under GPL2+):
- the Official Version of Cinelerra, which is available here: http://www.heroinewarrior.com/
- the "Community Version" (aka Cinelerra-CV), which is made from the official version, but developped in a community way (mailing-list, bug-tracking, IRC channel...): http://cvs.cinelerra.org/
To get you started with Cinelerra, you can read the manual which is available in different formats (PDF, HTML, TXT) here: http://cvs.cinelerra.org/docs.phpThe source made some videos tutorials about Cinelerra: http://www.thesourceshow.org/node/11
Here is a trailer of a DVD I made with Cinelerra-CV last year: http://www.europephoto.com/studios_conti/2006/200
Give a try to Cinelerra, read the doc, look at the tutorials, ask for help on the mailing-list. It's really worth the effort, it's a very good software in my opinion.
The consequences have been enormous - dumps like AII "train" people to use software that "the industry" uses, and the industry uses that software because that's what they learned in school, and they learned it in school because back in the early 1990s, Adobe (and Apple) did one helluva job embedding themselves in every art and design school they could find.
Macromedia tried to do the same thing, but they didn't have the range of products: they had an image editor for a while, xRes, but it was such a buggy piece of shite, and Macromedia had done such a crap job of getting into schools, that MM decided the thing to do was to switch enemies. Adobe used to be their hated target - they saw the Internet as the next big thing and dumped their graphics orientation for the Web. With a proper panoply of tools (Dreamweaver, Flash) they got their web software into schools, and ceded the graphics market to Adobe.
Fundamentally, people use what they know, and what they know is what they learn, and that's why Quark Xpress, possibly one of the single most over-rated pieces of software EVER, still has a deep hold in the printing industry. Quark 2 was WAY better than Pagemaker aka, RAGEmaker, and Quark 3 completely blew Pagemaker out of the water. Here is where Adobe's Education strategy started to pay off... Pagemaker was a dud, and the first rev of InDesign was putrid. However, they quickly fixed InDesign, and it is now an extremely competitive product to Quark. Combined with Quark's dramatic expense for minor upgrades, InDesign is now making massive inroads into Quark turf - and the kids coming out of design "schools" have experience using it and know it as a decent product. They use what they know...
Now: this brings us to Premiere...
Adobe and Apple were on the skids when Apple cooked up FCP and iMovie. There was zero incentive for Adobe to continue developing Premiere o nthe Mac, and they stopped doing so. That, at the time, Premiere was a buggy piece of shit was not that much of an issue - the Top End was AVID at $150k for a decent set up, and then there was the rest of us... FCP (originally developed by Macromedia and sold to Apple when MM changed their focus to the Web) came in and sawed AVID off at the knees. The lead programmer for FCP was the guy who had developed Premiere for Adobe - Randy Ubillos. With massive infusions of cash from Apple (Jobs didn't care - he saw FCP as a way to sell hardware...) So, Adobe saw this all as one big Bitch Slap. Adobe's response? The Education Angle... people will use what they know, and what they know is what they learn in school...
If Apple was going to eat Premiere's lunch, then Adobe was going to de-emphasise the Apple platform, and crush FCP from without. How? After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator on the Mac is OK - Adobe defeated MM there. But Premiere ? Windows. Encore? Windows. Soundbooth? Just a repackaging of CoolEdit Pro - Windows only. And sell ALL of that software to Art Schools at a cut rate price...
Translation: an end run around Apple - a reverse Bitch Slap.
Problem: It didn't really work. In the Windows World, AVID hadn't surrendered. They used their Cash Cow (Digidesign) to help drag their ailing video editing systems along until they could get a new strategy going. AVID cooked up a pile of new software, all of it superior to Premiere et al. Cost competitive? No, but the UI was extremely similar from the low end to the high end, and with increased integration from AVID into ProTools, there was no way that Adobe could possibly compete with AVID. AVID provided an entry -> pro environment, and was deeply embedded in the industry - recording studios use ProTools, and Hollywoo
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I'm a multimedia dev for a large textbook publisher and I've used just about all of the afore-mentioned apps where I work. I've personally used Premiere since 4.5 (yeesh). It and the versions that followed were mostly slow boats to hell to work with (crashing, weird preview bugs), but if you didn't want to use Avid (and I usually didn't, not being a fan of the Avid editing style) or Media 100, Toaster, etc. that's what you used (prior to Vegas, which now has a rabidly loyal small professional user base). FCP turned the biz on its ear when it came out and Adobe is now finally getting it together. For those who haven't experimented with Premiere Pro 2 yet, I advise you to do so. Completely different product than its predecessors. The integration with the other Adobe apps is terrific also. Each editing suite has areas where it outshines others these days, just stick with the one that compliments the type of work you do. Personally, I've been a PC user/builder/frankensteiner for over a decade now and I'm finally planning to switch my loyalty to the Intel-based Mac this year. This announcement is more wind in my sails to make the decision.
Absolutely not. Although I have a love/hate relationship with Adobe, the Gimp is nowhere near being a true Photoshop competitor, and the reason is not plug-ins. The reason are the tools Adobe have put in which make Photoshop the only tool for high-end retouching and production: the amazing-but-flawed color engine, adjustment layers (which are getting even better with CS3), the Channel Mixer and so on. Plug-ins are a non-issue: there are very few I use on a regular basis. I use the Gimp on my Linux machine, and it's good for low-end stuff. But it couldn't do half the things Photoshop does with high-end retouching, color-matching and the like.
IMO, the Adobe product most ripe for picking off is Illustrator. Adobe hasn't added anything worthwhile to it since CS (or 10, depending on who you ask) and it's getting more and more bloated.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Illustrator is another program that really fucking pisses me off. Check this out: When you drag an object, the object doesn't snap to guides, the mouse pointer does. This is the worst decision in UI since Apple gave us the amazing expanding dock that eliminates all benefits from muscle memory.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I was under the impression that it's fairly easy to make an application "univeral" with XCode, especially if you build it from scratch. Why would Adobe want to exclude PowerPC users on purpose?
Psst... don't mention products which compete with the software OS X is forcing everyone to use, despite there being third party apps which already do the same thing.
It might make Slashdotters look like hypocrites for loving when Apple adds features to OS X, while hating when MS adds features to Windows.
The sin isn't hypocracy... the sin is pointing out hypocracy. That's the secret to being happy at Slashdot. That, and all the free Kool-aid!
If it were only that which pissed me off. How's about the fact that they've barely touched the graphing abilities since 5.5? And that the graphs will still corrupt if you update them more than a few times?
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Actually, my favorite feature is that illustrator is the single program which most commonly hangs OSX to the point where I have to hard-reboot it. Photoshop, unfortunately, is #2... QuarkXPress is #3 and InDesign hasn't done it to me yet, but I'm expecting it any day now. Illustrator is the only one of these apps I've had get in a state where after I force-quit it and ran it again, it beachballed every time until I rebooted... Adobe can go straight to hell.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm not going to switch, but Premiere Pro is not bad at all. I'm a professional video editor, and we're outfitted with Premiere Pro at work, since a group engineers (ie: Mac haters) buy all the equipment for the station I work at, but I run Final Cut at home, and have a lot of experience on both. Bottom line is, there's little question that Final Cut is the better video editor, but Premiere still has some large advantages, namely:
It marries Photoshop and After Effects PERFECTLY, which is a big deal if you're doing a lot of graphics intensive stuff, like commercial spot editing (which is what I do). FCP has some annoyences when it comes to Photoshop rendering, specifically with blending properties.
There are some definite advantages to the Premiere interface: the timeline zoom bars are MUCH MUCH better in Premiere (strangely, the ones on After Effects are identical to the ones in FCP, which is obnoxious), and they appear in all editting windows, including the canvas and effects window. When working with 20min+ video in the canvas, trying to pick out a few frames here and there in FCP is just excrushiating. Maybe it's personal preference, but the idea that adjusting the zoom bar simply centers the window around the play head just seems natural to me.
That said, FCPs filters are noticibly superior, and there are quite a few interface advantages to FCP (the fact that I can edit with FCP on my laptop about as fast as I can edit with Premiere on a standard 2-screen setup is really saying something). That said and done, I think its fair to say that both are very decent video editors, are at least in the ballpark as far as quality is concerned. If I were to buy a new one from scratch, I'd likely take FCP over Premiere, but the difference is a lot less than most people make it out to be.
I consider Apple and Adobe to be the two best interface design companies for software (add Nintendo if you're counting non-professional software). In this case, i'd say Adobe has an every so slight edge on intuitive interface design, while Apple has a slight lead on filter quality... both are very important in video editing, so take your pick.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=love+site %3Awww.collinslake.com&btnG=Search
and the transposition
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Aww w.collinslake.com+love&btnG=Search
Google just throws ANDs inbetween all query parts that don't specify OR. Order doesn't matter much.
My bad! I forgot I have Final Cut Express! Final Cut Pro does seem to go
back all the way to version 1 on the crossgrade path. Oops. Motion 1.0
is out, as was my DVD Studio version, and I mentally lopped them all
together. Sorry about that.