Adobe Premiere is a joke - why does LMG use it?

[BecauseICanTBH]

After using Vegas Pro since 2010, I decided to give Adobe Premiere a try this year, since so many professionals use it.

 

I'm baffled, because after exploring it and using it pretty extensively, it honestly seems like a very expensive practical joke.

 

 

Does anybody know why people (especially LMG editors) use Premiere instead of better video editing software like Vegas?

[Princess Luna]

Because they use Intel/nVidia hardware, Premiere Pro highly prefers CUDA and QuickSync.

 

If they used AMD hardware then Vegas Pro with its massive favor to OpenCL and better utilizing of Zen processors would be an obvious choice on the performance standpoint.

 

Now I have used both software and it's really a matter of preference too, I personally do prefer Sony Vegas but my brother who works professionally with video editing prefers Premiere and thus built his Workstation with the best hardware for it.

[Guest]

It's their current workflow.

To switch to another software would destroy productivity.

Though I do hear they are playing with Resolve, you don't just swap our your software.

Not how it works in a production environment.

[Radium_Angel]

11 minutes ago, Den-Fi said:

To switch to another software would destroy productivity.

This is one of the biggest impediments for migrating to another platform (win to apple, win to linux) re-learning a whole new batch of software and the associated loss of productivity.

If it's a hobby, it's less important, but if you make a living with the software, this can be a deal-breaker.

[BecauseICanTBH]

22 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

This is one of the biggest impediments for migrating to another platform (win to apple, win to linux) re-learning a whole new batch of software and the associated loss of productivity.

If it's a hobby, it's less important, but if you make a living with the software, this can be a deal-breaker.

It seems like the lack of GPU-accelerated exporting alone would be an obvious deal breaker for Premiere. Especially for professionals who are making a ton of videos like LMG.

 

I've never seen a single edit in one of their videos that couldn't be done - easier, too - in Vegas.

 

59 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

If they used AMD hardware then Vegas Pro with its massive favor to OpenCL and better utilizing of Zen processors would be an obvious choice on the performance standpoint.

By the way, Vegas doesn't favor OpenCL anymore. They balanced it out in the recent years.

[Princess Luna]

4 minutes ago, BecauseICanTBH said:

By the way, Vegas doesn't favor OpenCL anymore. They balanced it out in the recent years.

I was talking in comparison to Premiere.

[BecauseICanTBH]

1 hour ago, Princess Luna said:

I was talking in comparison to Premiere.

Premiere doesn't seem to leverage any GPU (whether AMD or NVIDIA) by any noticeably greater measure than Vegas, IME. Except with Vegas you can export with the GPU, so you don't need 112 processing cores to render a video in less than 9 hours.

[FluffyPuppyKasey]

7 minutes ago, BecauseICanTBH said:

Premiere doesn't seem to leverage any GPU (whether AMD or NVIDIA) by any noticeably greater measure than Vegas, IME. Except with Vegas you can export with the GPU, so you don't need 112 processing cores to render a video in less than 9 hours.

It uses Intel QuickSync, which was added in CC 2019. 

 

[BecauseICanTBH]

29 minutes ago, will0956 said:

It uses Intel QuickSync, which was added in CC 2019. 

 

That's my point, $240/year and it can only use integrated graphics. LMAO

[The King of the Undead]

2 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

This is one of the biggest impediments for migrating to another platform (win to apple, win to linux) re-learning a whole new batch of software and the associated loss of productivity.

If it's a hobby, it's less important, but if you make a living with the software, this can be a deal-breaker.

linux to win is my problem

[enigmakahn]

I dunno, this sound more like a "My software is better than that software" argument, I may be biased because of the amount of money adobe has hoovered out of my account over the years, but I have never seen any real cost - performance numbers that  really give any clear advantage to any suite that doesn't boil down to workflow adjustments.

I would love to be wrong on this front, and it would be even better if someone could prove me wrong with an open source cross platform option, but i'm not optimistic on that one.

[GoldenLag]

3 hours ago, Den-Fi said:

Though I do hear they are playing with Resolve, you don't just swap our your software.

Not how it works in a production environment.

They are due for an hardware update for their editors this or next year. Could be possible they are planning to swap then. Just taking their time to do it without having issues like remappikg all the shortcut keyboard.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

They are due for an hardware update for their editors this or next year. Could be possible they are planning to swap then. Just taking their time to do it without having issues like remappikg all the shortcut keyboard.

I was referencing something Linus said in passing in a video. I'll post it if I can find it.

Edit: I think it was the rendering server update video which I think is FP only (until YT release that is).

[GoldenLag]

3 minutes ago, Den-Fi said:

Edit: I think it was the rendering server update video which I think is FP only (until YT release that is).

Neat, considering the hardware you can get at a consumer level today, an update to that isnt a bad idea. 

 

Has he allready picked out hardware or?

 

4 minutes ago, Den-Fi said:

was referencing something Linus said in passing in a video. I'll post it if I can find it.

I think they do hardware updates every 3 years i think. Or something like that. So they could be doing a bigger overhaul yes.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Neat, considering the hardware you can get at a consumer level today, an update to that isnt a bad idea. 

 

Has he allready picked out hardware or?

 

I think they do hardware updates every 3 years i think. Or something like that. So they could be doing a bigger overhaul yes.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean they're willing to sacrifice workflow. What you get in something like Resolve being faster, you lose and then some by having to create another workflow. The rate at which they produce content makes that just plain not ideal. It's not like Hardware Canucks where Dimitri can switch to resolve and it just means 1 person has a learning curve.

[GoldenLag]

8 minutes ago, Den-Fi said:

The rate at which they produce content makes that just plain not ideal. It's not like Hardware Canucks where Dimitri can switch to resolve and it just means 1 person has a learning curve.

A bigger overhaul can go over 6 months. They dont need to move everyone over to the new program instantly. 

 

They have the capability to do a transition period

[Guest]

Just now, GoldenLag said:

A bigger overhaul can go over 6 months. They dont need to move everyone over to the new program instantly. 

 

They have the capability to do a transition period

Yes, I know how it all works. I'm just saying that it's unlikely to be worth it.

We shall see I guess. Not much point in over-analyzing it.

[GoldenLag]

Just now, Den-Fi said:

Yes, I know how it all works. I'm just saying that it's unlikely to be worth it.

We shall see I guess. Not much point in over-analyzing it.

They do enough production and they have backlogs of videos. 

 

Shortening the workload per vid by say 5% is enough to consider a swap. That is how little improvement it really has to be for it to be massivly worth it.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

They do enough production and they have backlogs of videos. 

 

Shortening the workload per vid by say 5% is enough to consider a swap. That is how little improvement it really has to be for it to be massivly worth it.

I'm sure they're on there way to determining if it's worth it.

Not really going to continue debating it here.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Changing the main program that you use to do your work is a change in the process of workflow. Depending on how mature the process is, this will totally wreck productivity for a while. In a professional environment, a process will only get updated if it significantly improves productivity. If the gain is 0 or even say less than 15%, it may not be worth considering. If you want to use the argument that "but all that time/money saved could add up!" then the question becomes "when?" Because if the company recoups the cost of switching over in say 10 years, that may not be a worthwhile investment. But if they can recoup the cost in say a year or two, it might be worth considering.

[DrMacintosh]

4 hours ago, Princess Luna said:

Premiere Pro highly prefers CUDA and QuickSync.

Surprisingly not that much. At least not for CUDA. CUDA really isn't an advanced or impressive technology.

 

[Princess Luna]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

CUDA really isn't an advanced or impressive technology.

Speaking of CUDA acceleration, we decided to torture ourselves just to give you an idea of how much that still matters. With CUDA disabled in our NZXT M22 review render, it took the 8700K 350 minutes – that’s 5.8 hours – to render the same clip that was finished in 34 minutes with software rendering and CUDA. - Gamer Nexus.

Eh...?

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Princess Luna said:

Eh...?

That graph tells me nothing. 

[pizapower]

AMD CPU + NVIDIA GPU = Premiere Pro  /  Vegas Pro
Intel CPU + NVIDIA GPU = Premiere Pro
AMD CPU + AMD GPU = Vegas Pro
Intel CPU + AMD GPU = ????

Am I right?

[DrMacintosh]

2 minutes ago, pizapower said:

Intel CPU + AMD GPU = ????

FinalCut Pro/ Premiere Pro / DaVinci Resolve / Vegas

 

Premiere on macOS has been optimized to make CUDA irrelevant thanks to AMDs Stream Processors and the METAL Rendering engine. However that is obviously limited to macOS