I am familiar with both software, but for my next project i wonder what software would run better on my 5.1 2012 12 core system with 48 ram and AMD Radeon 7970... i have footage in 2k in pro res proxy or should i toss everything in avid dnx36.. both programs have pros and cons.. but if avid will be smoother id go with that
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Avid or Premiere
- Thread starter ludykriz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yeah i know.. i can manage my media little bit better and the searchable markers are a plus.. but then i can export out of premiere straight into h264 much faster and i dont have to transcode the already transcoded media.. to go with avid id have to start with scratch and will lose 2 days.. but may be worth in the end
Well you could AMA link the originals and do your markers and general prep while transcoding at night?
Also, since you have Adobe you can just export native DNxHD and encode to H264 in Adobe Media Encoder while you continue working in Avid.
Also, since you have Adobe you can just export native DNxHD and encode to H264 in Adobe Media Encoder while you continue working in Avid.
true! so Avid would be better on that system with the AMD card than Premiere? I know premiere gets sticky sometimes..
This statement is 100% false. Adobe CS6 may not support AMD GPUs fantastically, but CC 2019 supports all officially approved AMD GPUs on Mac with both OpenCL and Metal acceleration.
You may find some info in this thread helpful. This was with CC 2018 and Metal/AMD support has greatly improved in CC 2019.
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...1080-fe-vs-sapphire-pulse-rx-580-8gb.2135417/
I'm biased toward Media Composer as I've been using it for over 20 years. Have had mixed experiences with Premiere.
But my experience is that even quite low-powered computers are completely fine for the edit process because of the rock-solid media management and codecs, particularly with a lot of RAM like you have.
I do use After Effects for compositing and graphics though, and Avid is a bit clunky with multi-layered stuff.
If you're doing a lot of that kind of thing Premiere may be more suitable, but personally I'll stick with Avid every time.
[doublepost=1548285755][/doublepost]
100% false is a bit harsh, but perhaps I expressed myself poorly.
NVIDIA provides significantly better performance than AMD in Adobe products, particularly in Premiere and AE. Avid partner with AMD in development, so there is strong integration there.
But my experience is that even quite low-powered computers are completely fine for the edit process because of the rock-solid media management and codecs, particularly with a lot of RAM like you have.
I do use After Effects for compositing and graphics though, and Avid is a bit clunky with multi-layered stuff.
If you're doing a lot of that kind of thing Premiere may be more suitable, but personally I'll stick with Avid every time.
[doublepost=1548285755][/doublepost]
100% false is a bit harsh, but perhaps I expressed myself poorly.
NVIDIA provides significantly better performance than AMD in Adobe products, particularly in Premiere and AE. Avid partner with AMD in development, so there is strong integration there.
I mean, if it were my edit, I'd go either Final Cut or Black Magic DaVinci Resolve. Out of the two listed, I'd go with Avid though. It's faster on the computer I'd wager, but I also just personally prefer it to Premiere... But I'll have to admit I have a bias against Premiere. I think it's currently among the worst NLEs on the market. My bias is not against Adobe in general though. Whilst I don't like the subscritpion model, I think AfterEffects, Photoshop, Illustrator and more are great products.
Anyways, tiny rant
Anyways, tiny rant
LOL, I assume you're either being facetious or haven't worked on a big production with demanding turnarounds. Antiquated my arse, there's a reason why Avid is the industry leader in TV and film...
But I agree, either Avid or Premiere should be fine for the OP performance-wise. Avid brings stability and editorial functionality that trumps the rest, in my experience.
Haha! I’m close to this age and running away from Avid as fast as I can! This is really a workflow question as both will run on the system. Premiere is just so much better in the proxy workflow, reframing shots vs. frame flex which is clunky, import/export and dynamic link all work to speed up processes, this is not really a hardware question in my mind, but good luck you’ll be fine either way!
Agree that some of the frame flex stuff is a bit clunky. I tend not to work on projects that mix a lot of different non-matching sources though, and assistants deal with a lot of the procedural stuff for me.
Even so, the editing in Media Composer would be worth some hassles when conforming at the end.
Even so, the editing in Media Composer would be worth some hassles when conforming at the end.
I have worked on quite of a big productions. last year, i had 4 movies in Tribeca, one in SXSW and one in Sundance coming this year.. On the technical side i had a 3.1 Mac Pro at home and when i needed to work from home, Avid was working slow but now i have a 5.1 and its upgraded.. neither avid or Premiere is perfect but for a full feature film i prefer Avid due to script sync, better management and once premiere get too big lets say 70+mb project file its very slow and laggy.. I have worked both on Avid and Premiere for the last 10 years and each program has its pros and cons..
You didn't mention "Spinners" vs SSD's vs RAID.
Here is some 4K @ full rez on a 3,1 Avid 8.10
1. AMA the footage
2. Edit
3. Export as AAf
4. Import AAF into Resolve
5. Deliver (this is when the CUDA card comes in handy)
I understand the need to avoid rendering from Avid. What takes 18:00 in Avid takes 3:52 in Davinci!
![Screen Shot 2019-01-23 at 11.55.01 PM.png]( "Screen Shot 2019-01-23 at 11.55.01 PM.png")
![Screen Shot 2019-01-23 at 11.49.03 PM.png]( "Screen Shot 2019-01-23 at 11.49.03 PM.png")
![Screen Shot 2019-01-23 at 11.53.45 PM.png]( "Screen Shot 2019-01-23 at 11.53.45 PM.png")
Here is some 4K @ full rez on a 3,1 Avid 8.10
1. AMA the footage
2. Edit
3. Export as AAf
4. Import AAF into Resolve
5. Deliver (this is when the CUDA card comes in handy)
I understand the need to avoid rendering from Avid. What takes 18:00 in Avid takes 3:52 in Davinci!
Have always worked with AVID software with teams and/or server-based workflows in newsroom or broadcast style environments. It is a much different type of tool when working with Media Composer individually. If you're relying on assistants and/or tech help, but working on a project without that really available 24/7 it can be cumbersome. The OP should consider that aspect of their workflow.
Premiere has improved their team-based approaches with CC 2019, but it's far from perfect. Some third party integrations can help if that is necessary for your workflow and would look at something like frame.io (also works with FCP, AVID, and others). Same with script-based tools tools like Transcriptive and PowerSearch attempt to bring some of that AVID functionality to Premiere, but it's not 100% the same (better for news and documentary vs. cinema). Something like Prelude CC 2019 may be more in that vein.
For clarity, that post wasn't directed at you - agree with all the above. Phrasefind is also incredibly useful.
Good points here too. In most tests I've seen, Premiere lags well behind FCP and DaVinci in these areas.
Avid could improve here too, but I think tying up an edit machine encoding isn't a great use of resources even on a smaller production.
[doublepost=1548379413][/doublepost]
I'm not sure I'd call it cumbersome? I find it incredibly stable and the feature set is great for editorial.
If we're talking about deep integration with effects being created in AE and moving those back and forth I would say Premiere has an advantage.
Don't know if you post in the Avid forum but "Gains" myself (Tiger_XP) and others have been pushing for a "Mercury" type engine for Avid for years! Marianna said she has not been this excited in 15 years about what is coming down the Pike. If Avid's "new" engine takes advantage of multiple CUDA cards like Davinci, it will indeed move into the 21st century! 3,1's playing 8K multicam!
Don't know if post in the Avid forum but "Gains" myself (Tiger_XP) and others have been pushing for a "Mercury" type engine for Avid for years! Marianna said she has not been this excited in 15 years about what is coming down the Pike. If Avid's "new" engine takes advantage of multiple CUDA cards like Davinci, it will indeed move into the 21st century! 3,1's playing 8K multicam!
i doubt it that there are people out there editing pure raw 8k into their timelines.. everything is proxied and with luts it looks beautiful even for temp..
Depends on project size. If it's 3 minutes or less, well not 8k, but I'd certainly edit up to 6k straight to not bother creating the proxies.
Don't know if you post in the Avid forum but "Gains" myself (Tiger_XP) and others have been pushing for a "Mercury" type engine for Avid for years! Marianna said she has not been this excited in 15 years about what is coming down the Pike. If Avid's "new" engine takes advantage of multiple CUDA cards like Davinci, it will indeed move into the 21st century! 3,1's playing 8K multicam!
I haven't ever linked my master account and posted over there to be honest, although I remember Marianna from the Media 100 days...
So what's the talk in the forums over there?