Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
54,971
17,352


Versions of Adobe Premiere Pro, Premiere Rush, and Audition that run natively on M1 Macs are now available for public beta testers.

adobe-premiere-rush-audition.jpg


According to an Adobe Support Community document, spotted by The 8-Bit, Adobe will launch native M1 support for all features within Premiere Pro in phases, and many parts have not yet been ported.

The first phase, included in this public beta release of Premiere Pro, features core editing functions and workflows like color, graphics, and audio, as well as Productions and multicam. Adobe has also prioritized support for the most widely used codecs, such as H.264, HEVC, and ProRes.

Adobe says that beta testers will need to initially upgrade their project files to make them compatible with the new captions workflow, and it is advised that users create extra copies of projects to use within the beta version.

Beta testers should also be aware that Adobe has released a list of known issues in the beta. For example, tapping the Tool Selector on a MacBook Pro's Touch Bar can cause the app to crash, and estimated file sizes while exporting may show incorrect values by an "order of magnitude."

While Adobe completes its M1-native version of Premiere Pro, it urges most users to run the current release version of Premiere Pro using Rosetta 2 emulation on Macs with an M1 chip.

Even when Adobe Premiere Pro is fully updated for Apple Silicon, it should be noted that third-party integrations such as panels, plugins, effects, and drivers will need to be updated by developers to run natively on Apple Silicon and may not work reliably under Rosetta 2 emulation.

In addition to Premiere Pro, Premiere Rush and Audition have also been updated to run natively on M1 Macs for public beta testers.

In November, Adobe made the M1-native version of Photoshop available in beta. Adobe Lightroom CC was updated to run natively on Apple Silicon earlier this month. The company appears to be on track to update most of its apps to support Apple Silicon in 2021.

Article Link: Adobe Premiere Pro, Premiere Rush, and Audition for Apple Silicon Available in Beta
 

DVD Plaza

macrumors member
Jan 12, 2008
61
82
adelaide.sa.au
Meanwhile their admin version of Adobe Creative Cloud won't even install under Rosetta 2 - we have literally rolled out several hundred devices in the past few weeks without the Adobe Suite because of this, and hundreds more to go in coming weeks, because Adobe say they won't have it nipped until later in January.

Yet they have "native" versions of specific apps ready for beta testing... wonder what the point is when their bulk education/enterprise customers can't even install the CC self-service portal on M1s even in Intel emulation in the first place ☹️
 

Nozuka

macrumors 68040
Jul 3, 2012
3,007
4,654
Meanwhile their admin version of Adobe Creative Cloud won't even install under Rosetta 2 - we have literally rolled out several hundred devices in the past few weeks without the Adobe Suite because of this, and hundreds more to go in coming weeks, because Adobe say they won't have it nipped until later in January.

Yet they have "native" versions of specific apps ready for beta testing... wonder what the point is when their bulk education/enterprise customers can't even install the CC self-service portal on M1s even in Intel emulation in the first place ☹️

So you ordered several hundreds of devices without testing the new hardware first? Especially on a big transition like this?
 

me22

macrumors member
Jun 15, 2012
74
53
Why anybody would use Premiere Pro these days I will never know. Resolve/FCPX are far better and far cheaper. One payment and use it for life. PP is also far less optimised. Subscription models are just a complete ripoff.
Maybe for cross-platform compatibility and/or integration with other adobe apps? As for subscription, I'm not a huge fan, but for less than the cost of an hour of billed time per month, I don't think many professionals have a problem with it if these are their main tools.
 

citysnaps

macrumors G3
Oct 10, 2011
8,323
14,493
San Francisco
Why anybody would use Premiere Pro these days I will never know. Resolve/FCPX are far better and far cheaper. One payment and use it for life. PP is also far less optimised. Subscription models are just a complete ripoff.

That's OK. There are many things you'll never have an answer to. In the meantime, there are many people who prefer Premiere. And that's fine.

"Subscription models are just a complete ripoff."

For you, yes. For others, no. Try not to sweat what works for others. I use Lightroom CC and find it to be an excellent value for how I like to manage and edit images.
 

cheesyappleuser

macrumors 6502a
Apr 5, 2011
552
202
Portugal
That's OK. There are many things you'll never have an answer to. In the meantime, there are many people who prefer Premiere. And that's fine.

"Subscription models are just a complete ripoff."

For you, yes. For others, no. Try not to sweat what works for others. I use Lightroom CC and find it to be an excellent value for how I like to manage and edit images.
You sound more offended than you probably should.
 

ChrisMoBro

macrumors 6502a
Oct 31, 2016
696
2,778
No After Effects? That's a shame although I was expecting them to launch these far later in the year. Will be interesting to see how they run on Apple Silicon.
 

anakin44011

macrumors member
Jan 6, 2004
34
135
You sound more offended than you probably should.
I thought he sounded reserved and polite.

The market will ultimately dictate whether software subscriptions are the right way to go for more developers. It appears to be working very well for Adobe...while at the same time providing opportunities for the likes of Resolve, FCP, Affinity's suite, etc.

As a user, I just want them all to make enough money to continue to develop (and fix bugs).
 

macdrej

macrumors newbie
May 16, 2017
22
29
Why anybody would use Premiere Pro these days I will never know. Resolve/FCPX are far better and far cheaper. One payment and use it for life. PP is also far less optimised. Subscription models are just a complete ripoff.
Why is it a rip off? You understand the only reason Blackmagic and Apple can sell it so cheaply (or give out for free) is because they make their money selling hardware? If anything, they should be criticized for price dumping. But that's not the world we live in.
 

buttongerald

macrumors 6502
Jan 29, 2016
304
546
St. John's, Newfoundland
Nice to see the Betas out. For folks who will brave the wilds and download these builds, push them to the limits. They are betas, treat them as such. Report bugs every step and don't try to use it to build a massive project outside of testing purposes.
 

ArPe

macrumors 65816
May 31, 2020
1,282
3,306
Native Premiere is good. The project opened faster than the Rosetta Premiere.

But both Native and Rosetta versions have a major bug. When I apply a LUT during export the video is blank, completely black.

That doesn’t happen on my Intel Mac with the same project and LUT.
 

baryon

macrumors 68040
Oct 3, 2009
3,701
2,268
Why anybody would use Premiere Pro these days I will never know. Resolve/FCPX are far better and far cheaper. One payment and use it for life. PP is also far less optimised. Subscription models are just a complete ripoff.
Resolve for video editing is just an absolute nightmare. If you do simple things like a 5 minute wedding video then sure, go for it, it will handle it just fine. But a 1.5 hour feature? No way in hell.

As for FCPX, since it's not Windows compatible, you have to make sure that no one involved in your project will be working on Windows, ever, at any point down the line. And most video editors have long transitioned to Windows due to the lack of Mac Pro updates for years, and their love for AVID, so FCPX is not even an option. With Premiere you can just send a .prproj to literally anyone and not have to care about whether they have Mac or Windows.

That's why Premiere is industry standard and FCPX and Resolve (for editing) are not. Premiere may suck absolute balls in stability and its archaic file handling system, but you can guarantee that it does what you need, and no matter how big your project gets, no matter how many audio channels you end up adding, and no matter how many unexpected people join the project, there will be a way to figure it out. With FCPX, forget it. In a professional environment it's not the prettiness, stability, or responsiveness that decides what software or equipment you use. It's the simple question: is there a way, any way, no matter how silly, to make it work with our crazy workflow? If the answer is no, then you won't be using it. If it costs more, so what, you'll just pay more for it. If it's inefficient, so what, you'll just get a computer that's 10 times more powerful. If it takes more time, so what, you'll just hire another assistant. These are non-issues. Not being compatible with your workflow, that's an issue.
 
Last edited:

ArPe

macrumors 65816
May 31, 2020
1,282
3,306
I would say AVID is more industry standard than Premiere.

There isn’t just one industry in video. There’s :

Big budget film
Medium budget film
Indie film
Colleges
Social media
Apparel
Advertising
Etc

The higher budget you go the more preference there is for something like an Avid station, especially if they are making an old school EDL from film scans. But overall Premiere is most widely used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Captain

Techwatcher

macrumors 6502a
Sep 21, 2013
756
1,778
NYC
Why anybody would use Premiere Pro these days I will never know. Resolve/FCPX are far better and far cheaper. One payment and use it for life. PP is also far less optimised. Subscription models are just a complete ripoff.
It depends on how deeply integrated these applications are in your workflow. If this is something you need to use and keep updated, it does not make much difference to buy every new release of Premiere vs. a subscription model. For some people it just makes sense.

Final Cut Pro is amazing I agree, but many others will say Premiere > FCP. It is what it is.
 

chfilm

macrumors 68040
Nov 15, 2012
3,010
1,735
Berlin
Really curious if these versions will be able to adress some of the fundamental performance issues that are plaguing Premiere on Intel Macs since YEARS. I'm talking specifically about the lackluster UI rendering on the new Mac Pro with the 6k Display attached - it's unusable. http://chfilm.de/download/premiere.mp4
 

anthonyjr

macrumors regular
Sep 27, 2007
117
185
Why anybody would use Premiere Pro these days I will never know. Resolve/FCPX are far better and far cheaper. One payment and use it for life. PP is also far less optimised. Subscription models are just a complete ripoff.

The film industry (and also surprisingly the audio recording industry) has a very strong attachment to workflow. (Creative industries that often pass projects between each other really despise change.) Premiere only became a hit because many indie and small studio filmmakers were totally blindsided by Apple’s abandonment of the FCP7 workflow when announcing version X. AVID’s offering was often too expensive. Premiere was surprisingly nearly identical to Apple’s older FCP7, and thus began the mass exodus from what was deemed “iMovie Pro” to Adobe’s offering.

Fast forward to today, and I understand why Apple decided to start from scratch on both FCPX and Logic X. The vast under-the-hood changes in technology allowed for the adaptation of new tech over the years faster than nearly every competitor app. They’ve been able to scale up their apps for 4K, 8K, HDR, new codecs, and new hardware - while Adobe’s antiquated video engine (Mercury) has been very slow to match Apple’s speed.

I finished grad school in 2013 having learned FCP7, but also moved to Premiere like many others in the industry during that timeframe. Watching Blackmagic’s rise in the editing sphere has been a blessing. It has many of my industry peers interested, but again - it’s hard to break workflow. (Many of them joke with me about how they wasted the pandemic by not learning Resolve.) As of 3 months ago, I finally made the switch to Resolve for my own work - despite that most of the commercial agencies I work work with still use Premiere. A few of my clients also use FCPX. I’m forced to use all apps depending on the workflow needs across the board.

While I find Resolve an intuitive editor, it’s node-based system turns many people off. FCPX’s timeline and color correction tools also turn many people off. Premiere’s video engine is the only thing inherently wrong with it, and I’ve heard from many professionals that it’s just about time that they’re going to do a complete rehaul like both Apple and Blackmagic did.

I’m all for choice, but this is a hard one because all of my workflow is typically connected to someone else’s in different software. It’s a bit of a pain in the butt, and some interchangeable industry standards are still not on the same page.

But hey, aside from all that. Can Apple just add back eGPU support in their next Pro-line of Apple Silicon Macs? The video editing application debate is hot, but what’s even more challenging is the PC vs Mac debate when talking about decoding RAW video files (RED, etc.).
 

CIA

macrumors 6502a
Jun 17, 2003
610
309
There isn’t just one industry in video. There’s :

Big budget film
Medium budget film
Indie film
Colleges
Social media
Apparel
Advertising
Etc

The higher budget you go the more preference there is for something like an Avid station, especially if they are making an old school EDL from film scans. But overall Premiere is most widely used.
A lot of this also depends on the level of entrenched editors on the projects. Big/Medium budget films (and big budget TV) are usually cut by seasoned veterans who have only lived Avid in their long careers. Medium or Indie film, advertising and most TV production is in the Premiere world these days. Most people working on these started on FCP7 and then migrated to Premiere when Apple initially launched iMovie Pro (I'm in the group). Finally there's the social media kids who are a total mixed bag, most of which started editing on whatever free software they could find at the time.

FCPX is leaps and bounds better then when it launched, and there's no denying the value of it's one time $199 purchase price. But remember that price is only made possible by having a multi-trillion dollar company behind the software. I still chuckle that you can spec out a $50,000 MacPro editing behemoth, and you still have to pay $199 for FCPX. You couldn't just toss that software in for free with my purchase Apple? No other company could offer a software package at this level of polish, with endless free upgrades over a decade+ besides Apple.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.