Possible downgrade?

Hi Bob, apparantely Pinnacle Studio 11 has been introduced into the market & from what I hear is stable & only minor "glitches". We use Studio 9&10 even though they are renown to crash systems but Joy has mastered these problems & has found workarounds. We have just obtained Studio 11 & will be trialling it this week to see if the comments are true. Not everybody's cup of tea but because the programme is so simple to use we have persevered with it. We have got Avid Liquid but as yet have not mastered that yet due to time on other projects!

Hi Bob,
I'm the wrong person to advise on alternatives as I tend to stick to the Adobe suite.
Your question imples though that premiere pro means enforced use of single line editing, whereas it will also accommodate multi-line editing, so wonder if you are dismissing premiere on technical grounds too quickly, though on cost grounds it may well be there is something more suiting to your needs.

In reviewing this I'd suggest you also look at the options for making dvd menus from the same software to avoid exports/imports etc between packages, so saving time and hard drive space. Premiere pro has this ability to make chaptered dvd menu's, which I think wasn't on v6.5

Big reductions are to be had if you are a student.;)

It looks like I have misunderstood the longstanding argument about 6.5 V pro.

What is the difference between A-B editing and multiline editing? I have been under the impression since Pro came out that it was single line editing.

Ooooh I feel such a fool.

BobA

I am bringing this back to the top. I have never used anything but A-B editing since starting and have no idea what multiline editing is. I have been on the Adobe site and they are only pushing new features. Can anyone point me to an explanation.

The embarrassing thing is, I have joined in the 6.5 V Pro debate thinking that Pro only had the single line option that is in 6.5.

BobA

OK, I've used both AB and multi-line, no problem.

In AB editing, you pretend that the A and B tracks are tape sources, clips overlapping, and transitions take place between the tracks. Effects live on separate effects tracks and apply to the results of the operations on the AB track.

Multi-line editing goes far beyond that. Take one track at a time. You place source clips on this single track and apply transitions between them. Here's the important bit, the clips can (indeed must) overlap for the transitions to work. You'll usually be shown how big the overlap is. You apply transitions as with AB, but they live entirely in this single track. Now, to extend it to multi-line, you can do exactly the same on all the tracks. The output picture is the results of all this mayhem, usually with the lowermost track being the master, obscuring everything above it. Apply transparency to any track and you see the higher tracks through it. Keying operations create holes in the lower tracks through which you see upper tracks.

When I was still using Cinetsream (EditDV as was) I once created a sequence of a rotating postcard on a background, writing on one side and 9 video tracks on the other, one of which pulled out to fill the screen after the rotation. This occupied 12 video tracks, with effects and AB editing on all but one. The joy of doing it this way was that none of it needed rendering until I was happy with the entire thing. Doing this on an AB editor would have involved creating lots of subedits, layer on layer. Really nasty.

Multi-line is the way to go these days, AB is only a mimic of tape editing. You can still do AB on a multi-line editor, just treat two tracks as the A and B, and transit between them, but it's clunky and you quickly find it a lot easier to go to single-line AB editing.

Thank-you for typing the response Alan.

Bob, It's not complex to use multi-line - personally I have always used it over single line as you can see what you have and organise clips better - instead of all clips on track1, you can have say camera 1 shots on one track, camera 2 shots on 2nd track, titles and stills on another.

Imagine you have an overhead projector with multiple layers of acetate sheet, to build up a composite image. Look at the sheets side on, to see the layer edges. This is analagous to seeing the multiple tracks of video.

HTH

Thanks Alan. I will give single line another try. I have plenty of time to decide.

I still have to decide which format to go for when I make the move. For size and convenience the SD cards look like the way to go, but then I have years of DV tapes. I suppose I should be archiving them to DVD (which looks like yesterdays tech already)

If you make a living with your equipment then you have to keep up with new formats but if it just a hobby then you have to not only watch your pocket but also try to keep your old stuff playable.

I had no trouble copying old SVHS tapes to DV, as VCRs were still about then but when my Hi8 camcorder gave up I had to make the choice between buying another obsolete camcorder or pay to have them copied.

I suspect that it might happen again with DVs and formats are changing quicker all the time. Anyway I must stop rambling now.

BobA

You might consider capturing them all to Hard disc - they're pretty cheap now.

That's not to say that HD won't fail or that a "new improved" computer software system will stop reading your AVI files.

I have thought of hard drives Dave, but they have moving parts and with the new laptops using flash memory, how long will they be about.

No I'm afraid when we went from carving in stone to that flimsy paper, we were on a slippery slope. Now if we could get our AVIs carved in stone, that might do it. ;)

BobA

I had a play with single line editing and absolutely hated it at first. One thing I liked is that once you have chosen exactly what you want in a clip then it uses other frames for the transition.
I am a bit tied up with slides at the moment, but will try it on my next video project.

BTW when I got my laptop with premiere elements on it there were about 30 extra transitions on it in a folder called Sony Vaio and they seem far superior to the premiere transitions, smoother and even the straight cross fade is better. Are the transitions better in Pro?

BobA

Bob

Alas, it is not just the lack of A/B that makes Pro so different from 6.5. I have a long list of missing features (I won't go through them all again - some people get very worked up about this topic). Suffice to say that if you have the chance to try Premiere Pro before buying you'd be well advised to do so.

Single track editing has it's place but it is not, repeat not, the best in all situations. As has been discussed in the past, there are edits (the example I've quoted in the past is the sequence involving multiple contiguous transitions where some transitions will spread over three clips. However, edits don't have to be as complicated as that to be better suited to A/B). 6.5 will do both A/B and single track so I have a choice. In Pro I don't. The claim that 'Pro can do A/B' is false since it's not the fully-featured A/B available in 6.5.

Ray Liffen

Consider moving to Liquid! Best of both worlds! :-)

I'm not sure Jane Asher would agree with that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stone_Tape

Steven

There you go, now if we can make these rooms the size of SD cards we have a product. :)

Ray I remember the thread from a while ago. What about a pointer?

I googled liquid Barry and it looks good, but it does say it is nothing like Premiere and as a part time hobbyist I haven't got the time to start learning something completely new, not that it looks that cheap.

When I reach the point when I have to make the choice, my options will probably be a Premiere upgrade or a cheapie but things may change before then.

BobA

I am personally very annoyed that Adobe would removed the A/B feature in Pro. I find that single line editing leaves me guessing where the transition will start and stop. I have to fuss with it (while going blind.) With the a/b format, it is much more precise, and the transitions snap right into place exactly where the overlap is. In any case, an upgrade should ADD features not take them away. Does anyone know of a decent program who offers A/B editing as an option? Thanks! Mike

I am personally very annoyed that Adobe would removed the A/B feature in Pro. I find that single line editing leaves me guessing where the transition will start and stop. I have to fuss with it (while going blind.) With the a/b format, it is much more precise, and the transitions snap right into place exactly where the overlap is. In any case, an upgrade should ADD features not take them away. Does anyone know of a decent program who offers A/B editing as an option? Thanks! Mike (Sorry I posted twice...messed up the first time.)

I have held off from contributing to this, as I am aware that the Premiere6/Pro debate is a thorny issue for some. Dropping A-B roll editing was a strange decision, as they should have been aware that there was a pool of users out there who would be upset, but there are a number of compensating features - notably multiple timelines (NOT in Elements), and nesting Sequences.

The single track edit transition is really no big deal. you simply trim your clips so that only those frames which you wish to appear unmodified are included, and then drag your chosen transition over the join. As with roll editing, you need some frames beyond this trim to create the transition, but if there are none, you do not have to have the transition centred on the cut, you can position it at the start, end, or anywhere in between. If you do not like the length, you can drag the ends. You can have a transition at the end of an isolated clip too. If there really is a shortage of frames available for the transition, Premiere Pro will create repeated frames - OK if there is not much motion, but rather weird if there is!

There are also two audio transitions, which saves fiddling with rubber bands.

In Pro 2 and. I assume, CS3, as well as Elements 3, they have done an odd thing with titles. They are no longer saved separately, but are embedded in the project file. I find this a nuisance, but I am not tearing my hair over it. I have a library of old Titles that I can edit and re-use. you can always save the new title as an avi, as it forms a clip on the timeline.

An elderly friend, who is very set in his ways, and extremely hard to please - he has just taken eight months to replace a Dell computer, including returning two systems as he claimed they were not what he ordered - has just made the switch from Pinnacle Studio 8 to Premiere Elements 3, and is delighted. He thinks that single track editing is wonderful.

Finally, I hesitate to contradict Alan Roberts, but my understanding of transparency is different to what he stated earlier. The highest track is the one you see, masking all those below it, unless alpha channels are used to create transparency. A title has the alpha channel built in, so when you place it on a higher track than the video you see the text with the under-laid video around it.

>Ray I remember the thread from a while ago. What about a pointer?>

Bob

This popular forum has so many back pages that although I tried searches using various key words the relevent threads were nowhere to be found. I'll try again using 'time' references.

During the six months before Premiere Pro was released on the market, I was part of the worldwide 'team' that was asked to beta-test the new software. There were many outcries among the testers about all the losses of valuable features but the answer was always the same - that the decisions had already been made and we were just there to find out if the program mis-behaved or crashed when used with a wide variety of computers and operating systems. In other words, Adobe had already decided that Premiere would be given limitations as to the type of editing it would perform and were too arrogant to admit that they had made a mistake.

Ray Liffen

To Alan Craven

You and I were obviously writing at the same time! To reply to your last message, your second paragraph is a neat summary of why transitions on single track are such a 'bodge'.

>you need some frames beyond this trim to create the transition<

>If there really is a shortage of frames available for the transition, Premiere Pro will create repeated frames - OK if there is not much motion, but rather weird if there is!<

Compared to the straightforward logic of A/B editing this sort of faffing around seems akin to a man with a nail in his shoe who painfully hobbles along saying "It's really all right once you get used to it"

Ray Liffen

But you need frames in your clip that extend beyond the area that remains unmodified with A-B roll editing too!

If there are no such frames available, you have a problem whatever method you use.

Personally, I prefer single track editing. I've tried AB and got on well enough with it, but single track's just fine by me. Particularly when I can get lots of them; just occasionally I use pairs of tracks in Edius to mimic AB, but most of the time I can't see any need for it.

Premiere 6.5 has multitrack with the single track editing and I am assuming that works the same as Premiere Pro?

I am not taking sides in the debate about which is best, but I think I have to agree with Ray that dropping the option could never be seen as a positive move.

I edit family hols and events and play around for my own amusement and have only used A-B since I started. I am playing with single track now and although if that was the only choice I would persevere I still prefer A-B.

I am fairly sure that if I made a living from it or indeed it was my only hobby, I would be trying all the latest and best programs, but as I say all I need is Premiere 6.5 but with HD capabilities and the cheapest way to get there.

BobA

Bob, with a background as a contented (more or less) user of Premiere 6, you would almost certainly find the new Premiere Elements 4, which Adobe have just featured on their UK site, the easiest to transfer to, and the most cost effective option.

As I said earlier, and Alan Roberts has confirmed, the single track editing is really a rather minor issue.

Hi
The major productivity-enhancement for me when I moved beyond Premiere 6.5, which outweighs by far any other timeline workflow disadvantages, is 'sticky' timeline renders - whereby once a clip + filter that needs rendering, or a group of superimposed/transitioned clips, are placed on the timeline, then once rendered they can be moved around ad infinitum on the timeline tracks with no rerendering required. A whole timeline can be fiddled with in this way, with everything staying fully rendered.
That for me provides a huge productivity boost...

I too no longer use rubber-band keyframes for most audio tweaking, but single-track +3dB or 0dB audio cross dissolves, used with the razor tool.
Much quicker and can all be done from the keyboard if necessary (if thats where your hands are ;) ).
(A Mac user who moved to Final Cut from Premiere 6.5).

Yes, of course, I had forgotten this, as I used a non-Adobe plug-in (The Consolidator) to achieve this sticky render effect, with Premiere 6. This is such a major advance that it far outweighs the minor disadvantage of the loss of A-B roll editing.

Sorry, Alan, but not true. In 6.5, if a clip on the A line is trimmed so that it ends on a shot change (with the material after the shot change not wanted) and the clip on the B line is trimmed so that it begins on a shot change (the material before the shot change is not wanted), then at no time is unwanted material in danger of being used. The editor has complete control over the overlap and the transition will never make use of unwanted frames.

That's why the bodging around on single-track is so retrograde - it creates problems where none exist in A/B.

Ray

But the point he's making is that if you butt up together two clips, each to/from a shot change, then you can't apply any transition because there are no spare frames. Edius 4.5 now has the nice trick of automatically tweaking the clips to allow overlap, should you want it to do so. Premier just freezes the first/last frames to do it.

Thank you , Alan.

I can see what Ray is getting at, but as one who has used both methods extensively, I really cannot see that they are chalk and cheese as Ray keeps on telling us. With AB you trim the clips to avoid including material which you do not want to appear in the transition. With single track you trim clips in exactly the same way, going in to the clip 15 (say) frames further. In any case you need not be too precise as the last few frames of the out clip, and the first few of the in clip are hardly noticeable in the simple transitions most of us use.

What worries me is that this repetitive argument will give potential newcomers a false impression. There are many advantages in the newer versions of Premiere, which in my opinion more than offset the loss of A-B roll editing. I had already made the switch to single track whilst I was using Premiere 6.5

Out of interest, just what does Edius do when it "automatically tweaks" the clips?

Going back to my suggestion of Premiere Elements, I have checked and the "sticky" renders are included in Elements 2, so one can expect them in v3, and the brand new V4.

Yes, I can see Ray's point as well, but I can't see that it's ever a problem, it's just a new way of doing it (actually it's an old way, I was doing single track editing in 1999 in EditDV, Premier's insistence on AB seemed very backward to me). As far as I'm concerned, AB editing is a throw-back to tape editing, and we've moved on since then. Time to drop it.

In Edius, suppose you capture a tape with Scene Detection on, so you get a capture of the tape split into individual clips. Now, take two clips and simply drop them on the timeline, touching at the join. You can't do any fancy transition because there's no overlap. But there's a new control button, if this is set while you're editing, you can drop a transition on this join. If it's, say, a 1 second dissolve, the whole of the timeline to the right of the join is slipped left by a second to create the overlap needed for the transition. Of course, the total duration then changes, but that's what's needed anyway. A nice feature.

A VERY nice feature! It gives you Ray's claimed advantage of A_B roll editing, together with all the convenience of single track, with the bonus of being even easier than either.

It's in v4.5

Too late for me, I think - I am definitely in old dogs mode. The only sort of learning curve that I can cope with is a down-hill slope with a gentle run-out!

Hard to believe that no software Co. providing a program for the MANY people who want the a/b format. In the competitive software business, it seems someone would see the oppertunity to make money. Also, have you noticed that video clips on the timelime of "Pro" cannot be seen frame by frame? 6.5 was cleaner.

Just a thought... If (in single track mode) there is a dissolve transition that can link clips on the tracks above or below each other. It would snap into place where the two clips overlap.

Hi
You just put the same cross dissolve transition on twice, one on each track...
There was just such an A & B (+ C & D & E &...) editing program a few years ago - which failed at $100, then failed as a freebie...
But it was Mac OS X only, and the company disappeared because all its Win XP audio software tools were hacked and pirated so its income disappeared...

Edit: Actually for a straight cross dissolve you only have to put the transition on once, on the top track.

Edius already does exactly that, AB editing on two time lines if you want to, and will treat any adjacent pair of tracks as an AB pair. I don't see the problem. Also, at DVC on Wednesday, I saw Prem Pro deliver a picon for every frame on the time line, but you have to be zoomed in a very long way before it makes sense.

I tried playing with that idea, but it you have to zoom way in to make sure they are exactly over each other.

Hi Allen, is Edius a good program? I know nothing about it. P.Pro seems to be more cutting edge, but I'll switch in a minute if Edius is equal. (ps: what's a picon?)

picon = picture icon. It's the little image of a frame you get on the timeline so that you can see what your clip is of.

I like Edius because it's largely intuitive. I don't do a lot of editing, so I always have to learn again each time, and Edius is quicker to get started with. The guys at DVC say that as well, Premier has lots of effects and better sound handling (edit down to sample level, Edius only goes down to frame level) and will give a better result most of the time but will take longer because you have chances to do more fancy things. Edius is still amazingly powerful, but more straightforward, generally a process in Edius takes fewer keystrokes/mouse clicks than the same in Premier. The shoot-out between Edius and Prem at DVC showed that rather well.

The intro version of Edius is very cheap, and has some features left out, but is probably enough more any hobby editor. And I think you can get a full version for a trial period as a download anyway.

You should really be talking to Richard Payne at Holdan (used to be at DVC, moved to Holdan this year) for more on this, you can send him a PM here, his forum name is, unsurprisingly, Richard Payne.

Hope that helps.

Which is why I am relectant to abandon A-B editing. Mind Alan (Roberts) makes a good point. I have to relearn everything after a break and he is making Edius sound inviting.

BobA

This has been an interesting thread. Let me make it quite clear that I am not against the single-track editing mode as such - I use it frequently (for situations like big multitrack video/audio edits where I won't be using transitions)

My objection all along has been that Adobe took away choice - that Premiere Pro has not been an adequate successor to 6.5 because lacks valuable features and because many of the tools and features that it does have are not as fast to use as those in 6.5.

I would welcome an upgrade to 6.5 that was a true upgrade - valuable features retained and new ones added.

The title of this thread is correct - Premiere Pro is a downgrade.

Ray Liffen

Since there are always new people joining this forum who wish to compare the features of editing programs it might be worth mentioning that Edius fails in one major respect when compared to Premiere 6.5 - it does not have a full picon display.

The equivalent in audio terms would be like trying to edit a piece of music where all you were allowed to hear was the first and last note. Plainly a nonsense, but Edius is crippled in exactly that fashion when it comes to pictures on the timeline.

Ray

Hi
I seem to remember there were those who said that having a car's accelerator pedal in the middle between the clutch and brake was much more better, because you could do double-declutch gear changes just heel-and-toeing with your clutch foot, which was more efficient.
Well synchromesh has made all that ancient history... ;)

I can't remember when I last magnified my timeline so much and used individual picons.
I used to with Premiere 3 and 4, frequently, because the multiplying clip-monitor window problem made the timeline the easiest and speedy viewing option.

But nowadays the other operational tools and windows, and in particular the keyboard shortcuts, mean that I monitor the video purely on the computer and video monitor screens, and never as a timeline picon.

None of the current big-name NLEs seem to be deficient in their workflow options.
Different, yes - more advanced I'd say, than the old days. Plus ça change... ;)

Sorry Ray there was a time when i would whole heartedly agree with you
but things have moved on, nothing does complete pic icons anymore, No-one does AB editing you have to move on.

Premiere pro is far superior and faster than 6.5 and its a 100 times more stable on the right machine (as with any version of premiere).
when i first moved from 6.5 to Pro i would agree with you but i gave it a chance and now find i prefer single track editing and adding transitions is far easier than AB it really is, now the video,title or image you want to apply a transition to can be on any track.the problem is you really never gave it a good a try as you should have, you were always to negative

As for pic icons i don't miss them and i don't need them.
as for comparing it with music that is just ludicrous just scrub through and you can see all the little pictures on your tv screen, and they move.
Ok fair enough maybe Adobe could have given you the choice but i suppose as no one else did it that way and they wanted to compete more with the big boys they changed the interface, i wouldn't go back.

I could not agree more with the views of the last two posts.

One thing that is never mentioned with regard to A-B roll editing is the fiddly process of getting the overlap for the transition just right. Far easier to drag the ends of a picon to adjust the length, or to simply dial it in in the effects panel.

To Paul and M_M

Whenever someone says "I don't need picons" what they are saying is "I don't do the sort of editing that needs picons".

For many years now I have been working on concerts, conferences and other stage productions shot on three and four cameras. Each of the cameras rolls continuously so I am editing clips from each camera that are often an hour long and more. The action on those cameras changes continuously. In a concert, a camera might be on the lead vocal for 20 secs then move to cover one of the guitar players. The drum camera goes in tight on the high-hat triplets then pulls back for the roll round the toms. The wide-angle camera is re-centred when the guest harmonica player unexpectedly moves to a mic on the extreme edge of stage. And so on. There is a constant need to be aware not only of what is happening at the edit line but what is going to happen in the next few seconds, or in a minutes time when the number finishes. The picon display lays out the show in front of me with all the action changes and all the offerings from the four cameras visible now and into the future.

Yes, I could do the edit without a full picon display, but it would be slower and less efficient, because I wouldn't have access to the picture information that I need to plan ahead for the cutting points and to maintain the 'rhythm' of the editing pattern throughout the show. I have two four-camera concerts in the latter stages of production at present. I challenge anyone who doubts the need for picons to visit Carshalton, see what I'm doing and how it's done, and then do the same, at the same speed, with the picons turned off.

When editng with Premiere, my three main tools are Razor At Edit Line, Enable/Disable and Multitrack Select. With a full picon display they offer fast and efficient multitrack editing. I'm sure that for the type of work that you do (which is obviously very different - short clips, limited numbers of timelines?), different things are appropriate. It's like that old saying about sex - "If you ain't tried it, don't knock it"

Ray

Hi
Mostly everybody else doing your sort of music editing commercially has moved on to multi-cam solutions where you see all the angles on the main output video monitor.

What they lose in look-ahead they gain in seeing their edit point descision process in real-time in large-scale - with a variety of customisable shift-the-edit-you-last-made, or move-forward/back-along-the-timeline keyboard commands - all unheard of options when Premiere <6.5 held sway.

It takes the edit process back to a more real-time 'vision-mixing' switcher like experience which is probably the most efficient workflow so far devised, which has always worked in a broadcasting music studio. But with the added advantage of speedy edit undo/redo at any point, and moving 'cutaways' to where they are needed.

Your call, of course.

Ah, once again that recurring misunderstanding that I want to continue editing with Premiere 6.5!

Of course I want to move on - but I don't want to work with less than I have at present. Why lose look-ahead? Why go backwards in technology?

The >multi-cam solutions where you see all the angles on the main output video monitor< is still a bodge compared to a full broadcasting studio where each camera has their own preview monitor. The equivalent in computer terms would be individual preview windows which could be assigned to individual timelines - a p/v window for Cam1 timeline, a p/v window forCam 2 timeline, etc. PLUS a full picon display for the look-ahead. That's where the future lies, if any company had the sense to realise it.

Ray

Hi
At HD resolutions, on a 30" Apple Cinema Display, with full forward/back timeline scrub preview, most multi-cam editors using Final Cut are getting by. ;)

Excellent. A good step forward. However, as I have a major investment in Windows technology and a problem with my hand (it freezes when I go to take money from my wallet) I'll be on the lookout for a similar upgrade (with full picon display, of course) that doesn't involve a move to Apple. ;-)

Ray

um............Vegas has had that for years, if I understand you correctly. I wouldn't work any other way.

:)

Hi
In 1993 I was chatting to a ex-BBC TM (TV studio production gallery Technical Manager) as I was deciding what video edit equipment to buy for a sponsored project we were both involved in, and he said "of course Windows is the way to go, its taking over everything". Meaning get a Sony tape-to-tape edit suite, but get a Windows machine to do the EDL dump etc.
And funnily enough every single ex-BBC engineer I've met has thought the same - Windows is the way to go...
Being as I was an ex-film editor, things looked different to me, so I only bought the one Sony Beta SP deck, and a Mac, for the edit suite. With Premiere 3.0.3.

Funny how its taken the BBC's technical people a dozen or so years to work out for themselves what I worked out on my own in 1993 ;)

All the best.

So if I have, for the sake of argument, seven video timelines then in Vegas I can create seven indiviual preview windows that can be individually assigned to timelines? No 'four in a cluster' ? no 'reduced frame rate for each preview' ? Separate timeline preview windows plus an output window showing the selected camera? I have a copy of Vegas which I've played about with and I didn't spot that feature.

Ray

nah, is like the pic Paul posted of his fcp. with picon timeline.

frame rate is fine, depending on machine/grunt/codec.

Ray i do all types of editing
Drama,documentary,events AND Concerts AND i do it the way you do it but i still don't need pic icons and don't miss them.
Oh and Paul Windows IS the way to go ;)

I didn't start this thread to provoke an argument between A/B and single track, although it is rather fun ;) What do you use for HD Ray?

I was showing my son the difference between A/B and single track and he went with the concensus here that it was swings and roundabouts and he would be more interested in other features of a program.

I think that I will put the decision on hold until I have to and in the meantime practise a bit on single track and see if this old dog can learn new tricks.

BobA

Bob

I'm not editing in HD yet.

On shoots where I think there will be a market for an HD version in the future, I record HDV and downconvert to DV, which I then edit for todays market.

Until the stupid Blu-ray/HD DVD battle is resolved, mass-market HD seems to be going nowhere.

In the meantime, every year that passes means that the investment that I made in DV editing equipment looks to be better and better value.

Ray

Well if not all of you serious users have made the decision yet, I suppose I have plenty of time to make a decision :)

BobA

Edius has picons at start/end of clips. That said, I turn them off and use the monitors, I find the picons a distraction. But that's just me, the software should be able to offer what the user wants, and to allow him to choose which offerings he accepts.

I like a picon at the beginning and end of a clip, but having a set right through the clip would simply be a distraction, and I would seek to turn the "feature" off.

Exactly. Everybody has different ways of working. A good editing programme should offer a wide range of tools and facilities, with the possibility of customising those tools and facilities to suit the person using them.

There will, of course, be voices who say "You can't have everything", but this is often a reflection of their type of personality which always expects the worst and is never disappointed.

More of a problem is the snobbish attitude which starts with software designers who say "This is what you want because this is what Program X has and people think it's the best". In a very young industry like computer video editing there is no 'best' . The hardware is improving all the time, the media and the formats we use keep changing, so there can be no fixed 'best'. We need all the options that can be offered so we can make our own choices.

Ray

Hi There,

I have been reading this thread avidly. Its interesting as I used to edit days gone by on Prm 5.1 with an RT2000 and got used to the A/B editing method. (The RT2000, for me, really was a passage of rights, not akin to a "Lost in La Mancha" of the editing world). Getting your edits right mean that a) you don't notice them and b) they enhance the subject matter or c) you notice them because they enhance your subject matter. It is both subjective and an exact science, rather an odd combination.

I migrated completely away from windows altogether after the RT2000 and purchased a mac and have not looked back since except the difference between single line and A/B editing.

I actually thought I was missing something and questioned my ability to edit footage when I first used single line. It seems very odd to have to create extra footage both sides (Handles), to perform a simple transition. You pop your stuff on the time line and say 'right I want to dissolve between these two clips' the clips are there, so why cant I just dissolve between the two, without a little having extra both ways. I understand the thinking behind it but it seems an arse about face way of doing it.

It has altered the way in which I actually film on set for a client. Instead of saying "Cut" and knowing exactly the transition point between a clip I took in the morning and one I took in the afternoon. I actually film 5 seconds either way before and ending so that I have enough for the transition to take place. I find this a little bit annoying, but the trade off in advancement perhaps cancells that out. (Or perhaps not).

However, if the feeling is mutual why not raise the point with the software makers at adobe, apple, canopus etc? If there are enough who feel this way......

Yours, Oddball XX (Armed with a can o'worms and a tin opener)

PS- I have no experience of other software packages, so apologies if my comments are out of place or not relevant.

FWIW, in all the features I've worked on over the years, using 35mm, never saw anyone cut exactly. ALWAYS left breathing room for the edit - my point is that features are more 'predictable' in the edit due to the script etc.

Also, I hate having to use apps where a simple dissolve requires accessing a menu, or multiple clicks, when all that's needed is to drag one clip into another, and the amount of overlap determines the length of the transition. simple.

OK - I'm in the same boat... about to upgrade from 6.5/Storm to PP CS3/Matrox Axio so I downloaded the trial and that convinced me that CS3 is the way to go IF it's stable...

The A/B issue didn't cause me a problem. All you do is put the 2 clips on separate tracks and overlap them. Then you can drop a transition on the "higher" track and the transition shows neatly in the higher track so it's the same as A/B but without the need for a transition track. I have a screen shot that can be seen at http://www.mediainventions.com/dvdoctor/transition.jpg as I can't seem to upload images here.

If I've missed something, please say!!!

The missing feature is that the transition does not fit itself automatically to the size of the overlap. In 6.5s A/B it does - such a sensible thing to have a computer do, rather than have to do it manually each time. Would you want a word processing program that didn't automatically justify the text when you were typing between margins?

I find it odd that people take a pride in doing things the hard way (like choosing not to have the computer fit a transition to an overlap or choosing to work without picons when picons can offer so much extra useful information about what is on the timeline). But then, I find it odd for people to enjoy golf (manouvering a small ball over ridiculous distances manually using an inadequate implement).

Ray

I keep promising myself that I will abandon this fruitless argument, but I seem to be unable to do so!:(

With AB editing, Premiere only adjusts the transition to fit, once you have done the tricky bit of setting the overlap to be the length of transition you want.:rolleyes:

With single track you have to adjust the length of the transition, having done the tricky bit of ensuring that there are adequate handles.

The actual length of the material used is the same in both cases.

The actual amount of work done by the editor is the same in both cases, as far as I can see. I have used both methods in my time.

It is not chalk and cheese, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other, which all boils down to horses for courses!:D

Hmmm. True A/B = 1 easy operation (dropping a transition on the overlap). Single track = 2 fiddly operations (ensuring enough handles AND adjusting length of transition).

There really is a vital difference - with True A/B there will ALWAYS be exactly the right number of frames to cater for the overlap AND the number of frames is flexible in exactly the right way - that, for example, if you want a short transition it doesn't matter whether you make the overlap 9 frames, 10 frames or 11 frames, you can do it by eye because the result will always be satisfactory.

Six of one and a dozen of the other?

Ray

Yes Ray, exactly that. With your preferred method, you have first to create the overlap of exactly the length you want - you always ignore that aspect in your proselytising.

In both cases one has to ensure that no unwanted material shows through in the transition, so one ends up with exactly the same material used in the timeline, you simply trim at different points.

I fully accept your point about the unreasonableness of Adobe removing this feature when they moved to Premiere Pro, but that is a different matter. One could produce a longer thread even that this if one went down that road.

How about charging for frequent "Updates" AKA bug-fixes more than once a year? I bought a laptop at the end of January this year, with Premiere Elements 2; a friend bought a new system in August with Premiere Elements 3; they are now offering Premiere Elements 4! Two to be paid for upgrades in a matter of months? Not for me.

Alan

With respect, that was exactly the point I was making - that the overlap is easier to do because it can be done by eye in one smooth movement of the incoming clip (and the transition will always fit exactly)

Ray

To sum up then, I take it that there are no other progs that do A/B editing?

If you look at the point I made at the opening of this thread, editing is only one of my hobbies and I don't give it the time it deserves. Apart from being an occasional user I am also "getting on" and reluctant to spend hours learning techniques that I will probably forget next time I use the program. My method is to do the family holidays etc, using the minimal amount of techniques. In other words not exploiting the potential of the programs that I use.

This I think makes me a typical user, rather than the experts, that I think most of you are.

I am experimenting with single line editing and find that I still prefer A/B.

I often find that I haven't got the footage needed at the beginning and end of clips that I would have liked. In A/B, I just put the clips on and experiment with overlaps to get the best result. With single line I find that the program will sometimes not let me add a transition as there is no extra footage to use. I know that I can trim the footage first, but that is a decision I would prefer to make after trying things.

Another problem is sometimes I am unable to change the length of a transition and seem to need to erase it and start again.

I suppose if there is no alternative and I do move to HD then I will have to bite the bullet.
When did premiere pro start to allow HD editing? As I have had several chances in the past to buy second hand versions. Was it there from the start?

BobA

For Premiere Pro, HD presets appeared in Pro 2, Pro 1.5 only offers PAL and NTSC standard presets plus Panasonic 24p.

Premiere Elements 2 did not have HD presets (they can be added as my Sony Vaio laptop has two Sony HD presets). Elements 4 does have HD presets, as far as I am aware, so does Elements 3.

I think that you are being unduly concerned about single track editing, as I keep stressing, you need exactly the same material for a pair of clips linked by a transition for either method. I too have the problem that I do not always have the necessary material to use in the transition, as I use video exclusively with wildlife, and the subjects are not always obliging. With both methods I have had problems achieving a transition which did not have unwanted material visible. I have a number of dodges to create the necessary handle, as I do not like the static repeat frames produced by Premiere for a transition without the necessary handle.

I am certainly no expert, my concern with this thread is that an unduly negative view of recent versions of PremierePro/Elements is being put forward. Single track editing is a minor point within the entire editing field.

And I agree with that. I've used both A/B and single track, and have no problems with either. Specifically, I don't like Premier's approach to "short" handles, that of freezing frames. That's a solution, and it works if you like that sort of thing, bit it's nothing to do with A/b vs single track editing.

The second hand offer was pro 1.5 and I have elements 2 on my laptop. :(

back to the drawing board.

I was casting my lustful eye over the HD camcorders in the Sony shop today as well :(

Does anyone ever buy anything from the Sony shop or is it just a showroom? My theory is that they are quite happy to have people trying out and then buying elsewhere and if the odd punter is willing to pay at least a third over the internet price it is a bonus.

BobA

Actually HD presets appeared in an update to Premiere Pro 1.5 which became 1.51
although these are pretty basic

Bob - Just read this thread with intrest and YOU ARE NOT ALONE!!! many people!! some to shy to admit are very happy with A/B editing and PREM 6.5 and until only a month ago I was too!!

But times change and support for older programmes dies.................and the inevitable!! happens even the camera technology moves on and so you cant even capture the footage you have shot without the right tools.

FOR ME!! and I say that loud because it is a personal response to the follow on to premier 6.5 - Pro I could not get along with it..........IMO its clonky and flaky and a nightmare for the person used to A/B editing.

I opted for the Grass Valley / Canopus product - EDIUS and I can say even on a low powered pc of yesteryear the realtime ability is fantastic. Stability is refreshing and the ability of the programme as an editing programme is fantastic AND heres the nice thing.....EVEN though its a single track editing (MULTI SINGLE TRACK) You can use it almost as an A/B editing platform

Yes it has its limitations in the sound dept................But if you are consious of that there are plenty of programmes out there for tweeking sound just the way you want it!

The first thing to do Is NOT feel foolish that you cant get on with Premier Pro! and try the free trial of other programmes............

There are plenty out there!

Cath