Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Premiere Back on Mac

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the back-in-the-saddle dept.

Media (Apple) 161

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?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp? (-1, Offtopic)

2ms (232331) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470632)

first post?

Re:fp? (-1, Redundant)

2ms (232331) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470656)

yes!!!!!! had to do it once. sorry, but I've been a member for like 10 years and had to once.

Re:fp? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472834)

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."

Cinelerra (2, Interesting)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470634)

How does After Effects and Final Cut Pro compare to Cinelerra [heroinewarrior.com] ?

Or even Premiere? (1)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471078)

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.

Re:Cinelerra (4, Informative)

rduke15 (721841) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471820)

How does After Effects and Final Cut Pro compare to Cinelerra?


They don't.

Final Cut Pro compares to Avid. After Effects is for effects, as you might guess from the name. People editing in FCP or Avid sometimes use After Effects to render some special effects before re-importing them into their editor.

As for Cinelerra, I would guess that no professional editor would have ever even heard the name, let alone have a clue about what it is. Well, even I couldn't quite figure out what it was supposed to be last time I looked at their site. Apparently also some sort of special effects rendering thing, except it cannot import from or export to your editing program, so I'm not sure what it might be used for.

A little experiment: search the Cinelerra site (which includes the documentation) for various very specific keywords which would be relevant for any professional film/video editing program:

Time code stuff:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aheroinewarri or.com+drop-frame [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aheroinewarri or.com+ndf [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aheroinewarri or.com+%22time+code%22 [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aheroinewarri or.com+timecode [google.com]

Edit lists stuff:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aheroinewarri or.com+edl [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aheroinewarri or.com+ale [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aheroinewarri or.com+flex [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aheroinewarri or.com+%22edit+list%22 [google.com]

NLE programs:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aheroinewarri or.com+avid [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aheroinewarri or.com+%22final+cut+pro%22 [google.com]

Now try the same searches on the avid.com site.

Re:Cinelerra (1)

rudlavibizon (948703) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471942)

It's five to ten years behind in terms of stability and even playback is a problem on some systems. By the way check out how this guy [adobe.com] (After Effects production manager) ends his blog entry (on Jan 3rd)...

Re:Cinelerra (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473894)

You meant Cinelerra is behind them, right? If so, I fully agree.

Re:Cinelerra (1)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472390)

I think you should rephrase your question: "how does Cinelerra compare to Premiere Pro and Final Cut Pro?"

Re:Cinelerra (0, Flamebait)

jonathan_the_ninja (704301) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472902)

Easy. Cinelerra sucks. Now I know lots of people are probably jumping to dispute this, but it is nonetheless a fact that Cinelerra is non-intuitive, unstable, and, from my experience, unsuitable for anything. Adobe Premiere, on the other hand, is exactly what Cinelerra isn't. It's stable, full-featured and gets the job done. I remember when I tried to switch to a completely Linux-based video production solution using Cinelerra and I was sorely disappointed. I kept going back to Cinelerra each time thinking, "Okay, this time I'm gonna figure out this stupid UI and make it work some magic!" And I never did. Until Cinelerra is usable and can do what Premiere does as well as it does it (or better) I'll be using Premiere, thanks very much.

Re:Cinelerra (1)

Micah (278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473578)

Well my experience was a bit different. I had no prior video editing experience, but have wanted to get into it and figured, what the heck, I'll try Cinelerra.

I admit that it was not super-easy to pick up, but after going through two or three sites with attempts at documentation, and trying things, I got the hang of it in a few days. Without much trouble, I was able to produce what I thought were some cool effects. Example: I had the main screen panning around a still image, while in the corner there was a small window of video from my DV cam, *rotating*. Useful? I dunno, but it looked cool.

Unfortunately I haven't had reason to use it since, so those skills rusted. But I hope to get back to it this year, and my previous experience convinced me that it certainly is a valuable Free Software program.

I can't wait (-1, Offtopic)

GoatPigSheep (525460) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470636)

I want to make a goatse video on my macbook

not unless... (2, Informative)

scapermoya (769847) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470638)

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.

Re:not unless... (0, Offtopic)

blooooooper (1019624) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470738)

I'm friends of a friend, who's friend is friend of a friends mother, who's sons dads neighbors cousin knows this guy who.....

Re:not unless... (0, Offtopic)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472274)

The penis of your vagina is the planet Uranus.

Re:not unless... (2, Insightful)

Nirvelli (851945) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470862)

I mostly use Premiere for my video work (which I don't do much of), and on the few occasions that I've used Final Cut, I haven't been impressed.
Fans of Final Cut always tell me that I just haven't used it enough to appreciate it, but I've never found a fan of Final Cut who has given Premiere a decent try either.
The bottom line is, people like what they are used to, and for most users of one of the two, they never try the other because it is on a different platform. That might change now that they will both run on Apple.

Re:not unless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17471312)

... and some users remember Premiere from the good old days - version 4 was laughably basic but at least worked, version 5 installed on the same machine was buggy as hell and made it impossible to get any work done, with the bonus of a nasty interface. So, however great CS3 might be, I've been there, tried that, and I'm sticking with Avid and FCP.

Re:not unless... (0, Offtopic)

natd (723818) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471756)

im good friends with the son of a major hollywood editor, and she has

Shudder. These LA trannys don't even try anymore.....

Re:not unless... (1)

pestilence669 (823950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474672)

"Does Final Cut have a fight on its hands?"

Obviously a statement from someone that's never used FCP before. If FCP ran on Windows, Premier would have a fight on its hands... and it would lose very quickly.

ppc (1)

sankekur (998708) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470660)

what about a version for the power pc processors?

Re:ppc (2, Insightful)

Yakman (22964) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470710)

They've said it's Intel only. Given that by the time it's out (late 2007 at the earliest) anyone that's serious about video editing will have likely moved to the Intel Macs it's not an issue. And if you're just doing it for kicks, then iMovie or your exisitng version of Final Cut isn't going to stop working.

Eventually even Apple will stop releasing Universal Binaries of their software, probably when they do major rewrites like Adobe is doing. Isn't the new rewrite of Shake Intel only?

Re:ppc (1)

ThatsNotFunny (775189) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474318)

I doubt it... they build those machines to last quite a long time. Besides, i bought a quad core G5 about a month before the Intel Mac Pros came out, so they better support my G5 for at least the next several years!

Re:ppc (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17470714)

Why would Adobe waste time and money developing it for PPC processors? PPC processors are dead. Intel-based Macs are the future. Besides, there's still Final Cut Pro.

Re:ppc (3, Interesting)

Tragek (772040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471102)

PPC Macs are dead. PPC processors are far from it.

Re:ppc (1)

diamondsw (685967) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473984)

Show me who ships PPC-based systems in bulk - not even IBM does. POWER processers are still very much viable in the server space (my preferred platform, actually), and PowerPC derivatives like Cell, but the PPC itself (G5, etc) are more or less dead. Apple was the largest distributor by several orders of magnitude.

Re:ppc (1)

BostonPilot (671668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475222)

Mercury Computer was the second largest shipper of PPC processors, second only to Apple. After the Apple switch to Intel, I would expect that Mercury is probably the largest consumer of PPC. Mercury makes very interesting massively parallel machines for realtime signal processing. Their machines range from a handful of processors up to 1,000 processors, all connected by a high speed proprietary switched fabric. You can check them out at MC.com

Another big consumer of PPC processors is the embedded market. They're much smaller processors (IBM 8xx and Freescale 8xxx) but they're full PPC processors and I'll be they ship in huge quantities.

Re:ppc (3, Insightful)

vought (160908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470818)

Yes, and Framemaker next, please.

Maybe Adobe's figuring out that the Mac is still a market to be reckoned with...or maybe someone at the VP level grabbed the Premiere product manager and showed him that all his Windows customers were buying Macs to run Final Cut Pro. There are a lot of Dual-G5 owners out here who love FCP, but want Apple to have real compettion - and we're not above trying new tools and adopting them if they are better.

Hopefully Apple comes out with a decent document authoring tool (not layout; they're different) like Pages on 'roids. Given Frame's anemic sales and upgrade business, maybe they can steal another market and prod Adobe into becoming competitive again.

Re:ppc (2, Interesting)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471440)

Dunno. I'm a FrameMaker fan (have been using it for 10 years now), but we're currently seeing many documentation groups moving away from FrameMaker and towards applications that have better options for document management.
When your documentation becomes very complex (e.g. using one set of documents to describe dozens of similar machines), you'll run into limitations in Frame. It'll continue to work, but the author will be too likely to lose track of which configurations a given chunk of text is used for, increasing the number of user errors.

AuthorIT is one popular option for replacing Frame. As a text editor it's not great, but it stores all its information in a database, and scales to complex documentation better than Frame. We're still using Frame to post-process AuthorIT output, though. AuthorIT's default output process uses MS Word. It does a good job of skirting Word's long-document limitations, but Word page layout is still hopeless.

Adobe's FM support has been lacklustre for the past several years. We've seen few new features, and several longstanding complaints [1] remain unaddressed. I've heard rumors that this is because the FrameMaker core code is such spaghetti that Adobe's programmers won't touch it.

1: e.g. limitations in the UI, such as non-resizable dialog boxes, which obscure most of the information contained in them

Re:ppc (3, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472622)

Yes, and Framemaker next, please.

As far as I know Framemaker was not cancelled for the Mac, Linux, and Solaris because those platforms were not profitable. It was cancelled because Adobe suffered (suffers?) from a serious case of Not Invented Here syndrome. You'll notice even the PC version is nearly mothballed with few improvements as it just barely keeps up with some of the new technologies on the market. As of a few years ago I was told that Adobe dearly wanted to kill it off, but users were unwilling to switch to their replacements. Of course their replacements were simply pulling a few of the features into InDesign and assuming that would make everyone want to switch. So they didn't want Framemaker, just the customers of Framemaker and they were unable to deliver something else acceptable.

In my mind the Premier re-release was simply because their is such a demand in video editing for Mac compatibility and they were losing sales left and right not just to people who wanted to use a mac, but to people who worked somewhere where they needed the option to use either. What holds more hope for Framemaker is the merger with Macromedia that might help cure the NIH syndrome Adobe has always had, which in turn could save it on both platforms. Given all the work integrating both product lines, however, I doubt this will be a priority unless they get some real competition.

Hopefully Apple comes out with a decent document authoring tool (not layout; they're different) like Pages on 'roids.

This might help, but Apple is in the business of selling Macs, more than anything else. They are unlikely to make such a program cross-platform and as such it would miss a big chunk of the target market and probably not really take off. I think someone like Microsoft could actually do more damage in a hurry and restore competition, but we all know they would immediately try to tie it to other products and undermine that competition. So I'm not really optimistic. This might actually be a job for someone starting with TeX and building an open source, cross platform tool that they intend to use internally (IBM I'm looking at you).

Re:ppc (2, Interesting)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472942)

Maybe they figured out that their low-level assembly code, already tailored to the Intel processor, could be married to their already existing OSX front-end code, thus making bringing it over to OSX relatively easy to do.

As for competition? Hardly. Premiere is already a mediocre program on Windows. I doubt it's going to suddenly get better just because it runs on OSX.

Re:ppc (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474486)

Maybe they figured out that their low-level assembly code, already tailored to the Intel processor, could be married to their already existing OSX front-end code, thus making bringing it over to OSX relatively easy to do.

More likely they noticed that the mac market had doubled since they made the decision and the mac video editing market had quadrupled and did not want to be left out of it.

As for competition? Hardly. Premiere is already a mediocre program on Windows. I doubt it's going to suddenly get better just because it runs on OSX.

I've never used it, but I hear it has improved greatly in the last few years as they struggle against Apple. It certainly does get suddenly better if it runs on OS X though, because cross-platform portability is a huge feature they are losing out on.

Re:ppc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17472202)

Is there an ASCII code for cricket sounds?

Switchers? (4, Informative)

phalse phace (454635) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470674)

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 [adobe.com] .

Re:Switchers? (1)

iangoldby (552781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470816)

In immediate practical terms it probably doesn't matter, but I have to say I have difficulty understanding why they wouldn't make it a Universal Binary.

It is not as if they would have to maintain two versions of the code. The primary area where you have to be careful when writing cross-processor code is in binary interfaces (e.g. binary file formats) where you must use endian-safe methods of writing multi-byte words. But this is just good practise anyway.

In fact, building and running code on a variety of platforms is a great way to uncover coding errors.

But I suppose Adobe might have coded some critical sections of Premiere in x86 assembler and these would have to be rewritten for other processor types.

Re:Switchers? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17471004)

Not quite. The PowerPC processor uses AltiVec (Velocity Engine in some documentation) for vector processing acceleration, while Intel chips use some revision of SSE. The new Intel Macs use Core processors and OS X for Intel specifically uses SSE2 and 3 capabilities for doing fast computations.

Programs like Premiere and other media applications do quite a bit of this type of computation so Adobe would need to write their code using both APIs.

Re: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Performan ce/Conceptual/Accelerate_sse_migration/index.html# //apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002729 [apple.com]

Certainly not saying it isn't possible to do it, but they would likely need two copies of many functions and to sprinkle #ifdefs all over their code.

Re:Switchers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17471608)

But I suppose Adobe might have coded some critical sections of Premiere in x86 assembler and these would have to be rewritten for other processor types.
Yeah, I think you basically answered your own question. Considering they basically rewrote Premiere Pro when they did the new Windows-only version, I gather Adobe's just looking at the Intel switch as a great opportunity to dump all their PowerPC development. I suppose they'll probably keep their other apps Universal (although it's not clear from the article), but Premiere Pro is only probably making a come-back because it's an Intel-only version.

I guess it's somewhat scary for portability to realize that all 99.9% of all the (non-embedded) computers in the world are now x86, and will be so for the foreseeable future. It's like things like Java won't even matter anymore, because it's all x86 anyway. The only thing you'd need to standardize are APIs. (Fat chance, but I shudder to think of all the x86-specific assumptions that go into software these days.)

Re:Switchers? (3, Insightful)

solios (53048) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471806)

Not from FCP. Maybe from FCPE or iMovie. It'll be easy for Adobe to inject the app back into the Mac world - many people use Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects with all kinds of video work.

The fact that it's not a UB is a big setback - just about everyone I know who does video on a Mac is still on PPC. Why? Because all the coder and sysadmin kiddies with the macbooks make about two to three times the cash that we do.

That and there's a huge variety of workflow software that's still either PPC or has yet to be updated to UBs.

Re:Switchers? (1)

egomaniac (105476) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473478)

The fact that it's not a UB is a big setback - just about everyone I know who does video on a Mac is still on PPC. Why? Because all the coder and sysadmin kiddies with the macbooks make about two to three times the cash that we do.

Universal Binary refers to a program which includes both PPC and Intel code and can therefore run on both platforms. "Non-UB" does not mean "PPC-only", it means "either PPC-only or Intel-only". And in this case Premiere is going to be Intel-only and therefore will not run on your G5s. It's sad that Adobe seems to be the only company really having trouble supporting both platforms...

Re:Switchers? (1)

diamondsw (685967) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473902)

That and there's a huge variety of workflow software that's still either PPC or has yet to be updated to UBs.
Yes, and this is being released at the point where most of that software is scheduled to become Intel native. I'd wager you'll see a LOT of people move to nice shiny Mac Pro's in the second half of this year.

Weeee (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470750)

It was about time, really.

student version hopeful (1)

Warbringer87 (969664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470754)

from TFA
The company did not announce pricing.
I seriously hope they have a student version of the suite that would be very awesome and helpful! Most students I know end up buying the "education" discounted version.

Re:student version hopeful (2, Funny)

IAmGarethAdams (990037) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470928)

I must know a completely different type of student to you. The students I know all get the "extra discounted" version available from all good P2P networks. When I was involved in student TV we made sure our copy was legal, but outside of that I don't know anyone at uni who paid for video editing software

Re:student version hopeful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17471084)

Most of the students who end up buying the software for sure (student or otherwise) have Macs, and while software for Macs are available, they aren't as easy to get (for most people, like those who don't even know what a torrent is)

Re:student version hopeful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17471446)

Most students I know wouldn't pay a penny for it ;)

Not the best but "good enough" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17470794)

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.

Re:Not the best but "good enough" (1)

superversive (1045418) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471070)

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.

It may, but how many film editors are looking to switch at this time of day? This marketing method makes Premiere look like the toy in a box of cereal: cheap, flimsy, fun to play with for a few minutes, but tossed aside and forgotten before the cereal is gone. I suspect a lot of copies of the new Premiere for Mac will be installed because they came with the suite, and just as quickly uninstalled.

You'd think Adobe of all companies would know better. If you want to break into a mature professional market with a well-entrenched leading product, selling a consumer-grade app at lowball prices is not the way to win. It was a losing strategy for Adobe when they put PageMaker up against QuarkXPress. It was a losing strategy for Corel when they put the Mac version of CorelDraw up against Adobe products. But the boffins of Adobe seem not to have learned from this. Sun Tzu would not approve.

It's also bizarre that Adobe should be releasing Intel-only products for the Mac when their Creative Suite is still PPC-only. I rather think they're making this move just to be flying the Adobe flag in Macland, and not because they expect any significant number of FCP users to switch.

Re:Not the best but "good enough" (1)

solios (53048) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471828)

The problem with "good enough" is that most graphics and video professionals consider the current crop of pay-soft to be just that. FCP is "good enough." After Effects is "good enough." Photoshop CS2 is "good enough" - older versions are "better than," depending on what bit Adobe's recently changed just to piss you off.

I thought AE was incredibly easy to learn, but I'd already had a few courses in 3d Studio MAX. AE is a combination of MAX's track view (you want to talk about a pain in the ass? THAT is a pain in the ass.) and Photoshop layering. I picked up the basics in AE3 in about ten minutes - the only thing that's really changed since then is that each successive version has more restrictive licensing and seems to render slower than the one before it.

Re:Not the best but "good enough" (1)

rduke15 (721841) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471984)

Most editors use one or the other


In fact, all (about a dozen) editors I know use both (FCP and Avid). Some prefer FCP, and others prefer Avid. The choice for each particular project depends on many factors, in which the editor's personal preference usually doesn't count much. The production company or director may have their own editing room with an Avid or FCP in it, or they may get a good renting deal for one or the other. In the best case (not too often), the choice is made knowingly to ease the global workflow. Depending on source material and post-production choices, one or the other may make the workflow simpler.

Premiere is really in a different league. It seems to be used by home users, students, some local TV stations, and a few graphics designers. I never heard of a motion picture film or any feature-length project edited on Premiere. Even if it is a nice editing program (I don't know), it probably just doesn't fit well into a professional workflow with sound editing (usually ProTools around here) and color correction and finishing (FCP for very cheap projects, or Avid Symphony or Nitris, DaVinci, etc.).

Re:Not the best but "good enough" (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472130)

My understanding is that Premiere has a bigger installed base than FCP, from what I heard from Adobe reps, about three quarter of a million, vs. half a million that Apple was tooting this year at NAB2006.

After Effects is harder to learn, but it's a more sophisticated program. I know a guy that makes his money using After Effects + FCP and I've seen numerous hints that he's not alone in this either.

Re:Not the best but "good enough" (1)

mdarksbane (587589) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472286)

They aren't going for exactly the same market - they're more competing with Final Cut Express. Premiere has always been significantly cheaper than FCP, and from what I understand you get what you pay for, but it isn't necessarily a bad product.

I know local TV stations and educational programs often used to use Premiere because it allowed them to be cross platform, was good enough, and was cheaper.

I don't know that Premiere was ever really as big in the movie space where FCP really makes its mark.

Now, after effects has always worked hand in hand with FCP or premiere, and it will be nice to have a mac native version of it for Intel.

VLAD FARTED (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17470800)

hey vlad, you fat child-molesting piece of fuck, here's a hint: you're more likely to get a job if you don't tell the interviewer halfway through that you have to get up and go "blow some mud"

I hope you're kidding (3, Informative)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470822)

Does Final Cut have a fight on its hands?

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.

Re:I hope you're kidding (1)

themadplasterer (931983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471218)

I would have to agree with you. My first video editing experience was with Premiere 5 on OS 9 and I was very fond of it. When OS X was released and Adobe came out with carbonized version 6? iirc, that's when I abandoned it. Ton's of crashes and instability. Making the move to Final Cut wasn't an easy one due to the familiarity that I had with Premiere, but now that I know Final Cut there's very little chance of me switching back. I will probably buy the suite for the other app's and at least try it, but I think it's too late for Adobe to make a comeback in video editing on the mac. Everyone's already moved on.

Re:I hope you're kidding (1)

zootm (850416) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471228)

That's quite an old version of Premiere though; I'm not sure that you can so validly hold comparisons made with such an old version of software. You seem to hold that your comparison is as relevant now as it was when you made it, which seems very unlikely. I mean, the current series of the software started again at 1.0 for what would have been Premiere 7.0 in mid-2003, so your comparison was probably made with a piece of software that's had about 5 years of development on it since you used it...

I'm not saying you're wrong that Final Cut Pro is great; I hear that all the time. What worries me is that (especially in software) comparisons made on such archaic versions of a product are almost never relevant to the current one.

Re:I hope you're kidding (1)

themadplasterer (931983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471368)

"What worries me is that (especially in software) comparisons made on such archaic versions of a product are almost never relevant to the current one."

True. But at that time that I switched to FCP there really was no comparison. So I have stuck with it since. Like I said I will buy the suite for the other apps and at least give it a try, but unless they've got some tricks up their sleeves, I will stick with Final Cut which should also have an updated version out at around the same time.

Re:I hope you're kidding (1)

zootm (850416) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471408)

Fair enough, I've not used either piece of software and I know several happy FCP users, so I'll not try to argue that Premiere's "better" in any way. In any case, competition is always a good thing. :)

Re:I hope you're kidding (1)

MojoStan (776183) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471276)

Does Final Cut have a fight on its hands?
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.... Why go back to a Yugo when you already own a Ferrari... 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.
I'm no video editing guru, but I know the version of Premiere you used (5.5) was replaced by version 6.0 in 2001 and rewritten in 2003 (Premiere Pro 1.0). Is it really fair to judge the upcoming version of Premiere Pro based on your experiences with a version from 2001 before the rewrite? Isn't that like someone judging OS X Leapord based on their experiences with OS 9?

Re:I hope you're kidding (1)

stu9000 (861253) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471506)

Premiere Pro 1.0 (PC only) was a direct reaction to Final Cut Pro and it was a lot better than pervious versions. It took a lot from FCP and was even a bit more logical and easier. That said it lacked a couple of power features that kept FCP in the lead IMO. The exciting thing about Premiere Pro on the Mac is its integration with After Effects which is still a terrific program. Being able to cut in PP and then online (finish) in After Effects without having to go through a cumbersome conversion process would be a welcome improvement to my workflow.

Re:I hope you're kidding (1)

Morky (577776) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471702)

Yes, but the pervious versions were great for editing porn.

Re:I hope you're kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17471800)

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.

Actually, the McDonalds on the corner of High and Henderson is hiring.

Re:I hope you're kidding (1)

rudlavibizon (948703) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471884)

premiere (849$) is cheaper than fcp(1299$). So if you are not in "real" movies (don't do film transfer and import log files) production and just edit videos, premiere should do more than enough for you. As an extra (in production studio) you can edit composition sequences in after effects and see them instantly in premiere.

Re:I hope you're kidding (1)

aztecmonkey (949418) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472464)

A more apt (or Avid) comparison would be why go back to a Yugo when you already own a Honda?

For the price, FCP can't be beat IMHO. But it ain't an Avid.

Re:I hope you're kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17474092)

"For the price, FCP can't be beat IMHO. But it ain't an Avid."

Yeah, You're right. the last avid I used took about 90 minutes to render in hardware what final cut did in software realtime, on the same machine.

Sorry, Avid is even crap compared to FCP.

Re:I hope you're kidding (2, Insightful)

juiceCake (772608) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473042)

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.

Is the current Mac OS competition for Unix and Linux based operating systems? The simple answer is no. I switched to Linux from Mac OS because with Mac OS I lost a lot of data, removable media drives crashed, and hard drives disappeared. Not to mention, the OS itself didn't have preemptive multitasking. If you asked me to use Mac OS again I rather work fast food than do it. Linux is a joy to work with. Why go back to a Yugo when you already own a Ferrari? I can now, actually run multiple programs effectively and I can even use 64 bit chips!

Oh wait, things have changed on the Mac since that time? It's Unix based? It has proper multitasking? It runs on fast chips now? Performance has improved? Imagine that!

But lets pretend that despite the fact that years have passed, the application, the OS, etc. hasn't been completely rewritten. It's the intelligent response.

Re:I hope you're kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17475126)

Dont be a smart ass
he was saying that at the time he had to make a business decision on what kind of technology could assist his business, as he made a good one - the choice he made has subsequently continued to support his business - it continues to be a good business decision and there is still no compelleing reason to switch. Change for its own sake is not cost effective. He switched initially because something substantially better was availabe. In order for businesses that cut video and film for a living to consider the new Adobe package, it'll have to be substantially better than FCP before they spend the money and time (which in this business is the bigger $ cost) to switch.

good luck! (3, Interesting)

roberthead (932434) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470840)

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.

Re:good luck! (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471032)

I can't even imagine what Adobe could do to woo me back over.

How 'bout a free laptop?

Re:good luck! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17471450)

South? Are you some kind of fucking retard?

Re:good luck! (2, Funny)

Morky (577776) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471724)

He's not, but you clearly are.

Re:good luck! (1)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472414)

After Premiere disappeared from the Mac Adobe rewrote it (Premiere Pro) to be much, much closer to Final Cut Pro in terms of features. It's pretty nifty now. Just to let you know.

Final cut threatened? Not a chance. (4, Interesting)

meta-monkey (321000) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470854)

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.

Competition improves the breed (4, Insightful)

joetheappleguy (865543) | more than 7 years ago | (#17470876)

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.

Re:Competition improves the breed (1)

woof69 (952829) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471170)

adobe bought out avid some time last year.

Re:Competition improves the breed (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472716)

adobe bought out avid some time last year.

I had not heard that and Google doesn't come up with anything on the first few pages. Do you have a source? Are you sure you're not thinking of their huge Macromedia acquisition?

Re:Competition improves the breed (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473342)

Adobe and Avid are indeed two different entities. They even reside on opposite coasts.

Re:Competition improves the breed (2, Interesting)

juiceCake (772608) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473152)

Final Cut Pro is the best thing to have happened to Premiere, at least as far as Windows users are concerned.

As a Windows user I'd say Vegas Video was the best thing to happen to Premiere, and FCP for that matter. We already had a serious but affordable video editing suite (with spectacular sound editing as well.) I hated the old Premiere, like so many others, but the new one looks quite good.

Considering their general SoftEng incompetence... (0, Offtopic)

eddy (18759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471322)

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?

Re:Considering their general SoftEng incompetence. (1)

Morky (577776) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471730)

Uh, yeah. Photoshop. Illustrator. InDesign. A monkey could have programmed these, right?

Re:Considering their general SoftEng incompetence. (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472422)

Uh, yeah. Photoshop. Illustrator. InDesign. A monkey could have programmed these, right?
Maybe not a monkey, but I bet an infinite number of monkeys given an infinite amount of time could.

Compete with FCP? HAH! (1)

solios (53048) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471780)

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.

Re:Compete with FCP? HAH! (1)

infolation (840436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472032)

Agreed, Premier has its deficiencies. But the lower-end Avids have some fairly restrictive workflow impositions because of the highly stratified nature of Avid's offering (Avid expects all projects to be onlined on a Symphony Nitris, or at least MC Adrenaline, and cripples the rest of its offline product line in various ways).

Premier on Windows at least has a reason for its existance: it provides an alternative to Avid's proprietory hardware, codecs, Avid 'qualified' computers and Avid storage. So for VFX video professionals (after effects, combustion etc) for whom editing is secondary, Premier (plus third party video hardware/storage that they're already using with VFX apps) is a cheap way to edit footage without going down the expensive proprietory full-blown Avid route.

But on the Mac, FCP is already a 'third party hardware' type solution. It's designed to be used with Decklinks, Aja Konas and third-party storage. And unlike Avid, FCP is both Apple's low and high end solution. So on the Mac platform, Premier doesn't offer an alternative to a proprietory system. That's why it looks less attractive for professional purposes.

Upgrade Path (1)

maximthemagnificent (847709) | more than 7 years ago | (#17471842)

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

Re:Upgrade Path (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17472394)

That's not true at all. Apple had a deal where I could "cross-grade" to the Intel version of FCP Studio (from FCP itself, not even the full Studio) for $99. Call a rep at Apple. All you need to do is fill out a 1 page form and send in your DVD of the original.

What's that? You don't have the DVD? That's what I thought...you weren't using the paid version anyway...

Re:Upgrade Path (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472450)

Sort of.

Final Cut 3 was PPC only, and you're right wouldn't run on x86.

Apple then released Final Cut 3.5, which wasn't just a universal binary of the same app, it had additional features, too. Soundtrack and LiveType are also two components that received quite an overhaul.

So there is also that to consider.

competition... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17471940)

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.

This is ridiculous. (-1, Troll)

lstellar (1047264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472304)

It isn't even a question of FCP v. Premiere. That is essentially a Win v. Mac debate, because despite the pre2003 Mac presence of Premiere, Premiere has always been the AMATEUR choice on Win. And FCP is, in fact (despite what Apple kiddies who love to drag and drop will say), an amateur video editing
suite. When it boils down to it, if youre serious about video editing, neither of these are in the running because youll be using Acid.

So the debate of FCP v. Premiere is basically an interface question and any beginner editor who just bough their fresh MacBook Pro I can very well see using the Adobe path.

Re:This is ridiculous. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17472370)

When it boils down to it, if youre serious about video editing, neither of these are in the running because youll be using Acid

I think the person using Acid is you, if you don't see that a large number of professional editors have adopted FCP...

Re:This is ridiculous. (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472514)

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?

Re:This is ridiculous. (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473192)

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.

Re:This is ridiculous. (1)

lstellar (1047264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473816)

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.

Re:This is ridiculous. (1)

HarukiShinju (823628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474400)

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.

Re:This is ridiculous. (1)

lstellar (1047264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474516)

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

You can't write off Premiere (1)

AlanAudio (946295) | more than 7 years ago | (#17472810)

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.

Great News! (1)

TempusMagus (723668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17473000)

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!

Premiere Pro == Final Cut != Premiere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17473136)

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.

A sign of rising marketshare (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#17474016)

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.

Quark to InDesign (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475026)

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.

Market? (1)

fscrubjay (1030738) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475058)

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?

Cool Edit Pro/Audition (1)

neildiamond (610251) | more than 7 years ago | (#17475070)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?