Premiere V Avid

Avid is a very stable platform and has great media management. Premiere is a good program but Avid is what the big boys use so it prepares you for the real world. I mean this as no slam on Premiere. It's a great program and I use it all the time, but it's not what is used at the industry level. Avid and Final Cut Pro are the tools of the trade.

Now the great thing about Premiere is that it integrates well into After Effects.

Scott

If I had the choice between Avid and Premiere it would be avid because of all the hardware that comes with it! Also you get Pro Tools and all that jazz - great for audio!

Premiere is middle to low market and really awful with all the transitions and effects... and no room for expanding to HD of uncompressed SD.

Quite like to go on a little tangent here - how about going Final Cut Pro V Avid...
I know avid have a lot more packages and hardware under their umbrella - Nitris / Mojo / Digi002 and Pro Tools...
Just wondering what you people think....

I don't think Premiere is that low of software. Especially with the release of Premiere Pro they are quite a legitimate challenge to FCP.

Premiere Pro 1.5 does support HD and 24p

Avid WAS the industry standard. Now Final Cut Pro has carved alarge market share.

Personally I use Premiere because I am on PC format, but if I were on MAC, I'd use Final Cut Pro. AVID seems dated, but the truth is there that learning AVID DV preps people for the high end AVID media compsers and beyond. That's why AVID Xpress has made a name for itself over Premiere.


CORRECTIONS/MISCONCEPTION
Premiere Pro has HD support, 24p editing and the transition are great. Take it from someone who uses it daily to make a living.

AVID has many grades and levls of software and hardware. Not all of AVID's software comes with hardware. Can you really compare a $14,999 hardware/software editing suite with a $500 piece of stand alone software? NO. Comparing the $695 Avid Xpress DV software to Adobe Premiere Pro - I'm sorry but Premiere offers a lot more in it's package. But there is alwasy the benefit of learning the standard AVID interface for later in your careers.


As is always the case in the countless threads comparing NLE (non linear editing) software packages - it's like DaVinci and Picasso arguing over which brush is better to paint with. It's 100% preference. Use the demo's and pick whichever one you're most comfortable with.

- Hope this helps,
Ross
www.sonnyboo.com

As with all these types of questions, they only make sense if there is more information in the question.

If the question is,

What is one of the best editing platforms for editing a feature film shot on High Definition, for commercial purposes? Then the answer is going to be Avid Inferno.

If the question is, what is the fastest growing professional editing software? then the answer is going to be Final Cut Pro, especially for ENG, Video Documentary and low end TV production (DIY shows for example)

If the question is, what's a half decent piece of editing software for the PC? Then the answer is going to be Premiere.

The question really is, what are you trying to achieve?

From my personal point of view, I think there is a distorted view of the industry at the moment that goes along the lines of:

"If I buy a Sony PD170 or a Panasonic AG DVX100, I can shoot a feature film and edit it at home on my PC on Premiere and then I'll be able to sell it."

The only thing is, as Sonnyboo points out, there is a vast amount of difference between a $600 software package and a $75,000 edit suite; there is a massive amount of difference between a $5000 dollar camcorder and something like a Panasonic DVC Pro 50 camera which is closer to $50,000 (before you even buy the lens)

I have Final Cut Pro and imovie on my mac, I use them for messing around with hobby projects. I don't even own a mini dv camera and I do like the Panasonic AG DVX100, it's great for scouting locations and training students in basic film making (which is what it was designed for)

I think Sonny Boo is right, Avid Express doesn't compare favourably with the competition for home editing, except in the fact that Avid is the primary editing tool of professional filmakers.

If I was just starting out and intended to get serious about film making I'd definately go with Avid Express, I'd invest in a secondhand Beta SP Camera and deck. These would be the cheapest "pro" tools I could afford. I'd learn cinematography and editing on these, by making loads of short films and by seeing how my decisions translated into actual footage and then how that footage edited.

Then, after spending at least a year and seven rewrites on my first feature script, I'd shoot a simple, straight forward, genre movie, that would have direct to DVD/cable potential and I'd shoot it on Panasonic DVC Pro50 and cut the best deal I could to get my post production done professionally.

I'd borrow some Avid space/time, to do the rough cut myself and then pay a professional editor to tidy up.

I've said this before, I don't think indie film making should be about doing everything myself, it's about finding other people who are passionate about what they do.

If you want to know what the best editing system in the world is, it called a "Richie." That's because Richie loves to edit, he's creative and he makes my films better. The fact that he uses Avid is not the most important thing about him.

Again, I think the art of editing has nothing to do with the software you use. Any monkey can press a button, not everyone can pace a scene well with raw footage. The software you use is pretty much irrelevant.

These are al just different brushes in the hands of artists.

okay,
(Thanks to everyone who replied by the way)
So basically Avid really isnt that special, its just that its the industry standard so thats why its handy to learn and seems to be so popular. Got ya'.
I was just confused, and i'd had put up with people rolling their eyes whenever i said that I use premiere for long enough.
I had seen several different types of Avid-edited material compared to Premiere-edited material and there seemed to be not much -if any- difference at all.

So thanks to everyone

I realise that it is really all about the editor him/herself, i was just having a nose into the technical side of things.

Testing

I had seen several different types of Avid-edited material compared to Premiere-edited material and there seemed to be not much -if any- difference at all.

Click to expand...

Actually the comparision you've made isn't a fair one. The only way to decide which piece of software is the best system in terms of image quality, is to shoot a piece of footage, digitise into both systems, edit both, layback on identical decks and then project both laybacks to as large a size as you can possibly go.

It's only when you project stuff to large sizes that the quality of each image can really be assessed.

Your final assessment of each piece of software can then be made on a number of factors, how easy it was to get the images the way you wanted and the overall image quality.

The problem with any other comparision, is that there are too many other factors involved.

I really believe in this kind of empirical testing and can honestly say that every short film I made was only really a camera/equipment test.

Re: Testing

clive said:

I really believe in this kind of empirical testing and can honestly say that every short film I made was only really a camera/equipment test.

Click to expand...

I love that statement clive! It sounds scarily close to home!

Click to expand...

Well thanks for the information Clive but im just a sixteen year old film-maker, my movies only have to look good on VHS and that will do.