In article ,
says...

"Hywel Jenkins" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...

"Edmund St. Geoge Willamus III" wrote in
message om...
Adobe Premiere alongside After Effects probably.
Thanks for the excellent adive by the way Hwell,


Which version of Premiere, if you are thinking about 'Pro' forget it
!...

Why?


Adobe apparently say that 'Pro' won't run properly with AMD CPU's, and CV
magazine couldn't get 'Pro' running on a AMD chipped system when they
reviewed the software - which is all rather a pity as one can build a duel
AMD system for not much more than a single P4 3 Gig 800Mhz system.

If you know different though....

No - I was just wondering what you meant by your comment.

--
Hywel I do not eat quiche
http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php

If i were you i'd stay away from premiere - very resources hungry!!! IMHO

I moved from premiere to vegas video and it has been much quicker to render
and i get to see the effects in realtime which never happened to me even in
Prem 6.5.

i would try demos of whichever system you think about and see how they work
on your system. I even got vegas to work on a old K6 400 - it was a little
slow for rendering but there were no dropped frames in capture and the
effects were also realtime - but a little slower than my current system -
Althlon 2.8.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.557 / Virus Database: 349 - Release Date: 30/12/2003

"Paul Harrison" wrote in message
...
If i were you i'd stay away from premiere - very resources hungry!!! IMHO

I moved from premiere to vegas video and it has been much quicker to
render
and i get to see the effects in realtime which never happened to me even
in
Prem 6.5.

Do remeber that 'Pro' and 6.5 are totaly diffrent, Pro's software has been
compleatly rewriten.


i would try demos of whichever system you think about and see how they
work
on your system. I even got vegas to work on a old K6 400 - it was a little
slow for rendering but there were no dropped frames in capture and the
effects were also realtime - but a little slower than my current system -
Althlon 2.8.


What I / don't / like about Vegas is what appears to be a total alien user
interface to the norm, there doesn't seem to be a [ 'source monitor' ] [
'edit monitor' ] type layout. If the user is used to (or needs to gain
experience with) working within a 'industry standard' type interface then
Vegas could cause problems.

Or have I miss-interpreted the blurb ?!...

True but in premiere 5.1 6 6.5 you could have a one 'monitor' setup. Even
in Avid (which is used in the industry - but what is industry standard? I've
never seen premiere used in industry!) you don't have to use two 'monitor'
setup. I used to work with SVHS and Umatic systems which obviously had two
monitor setup - but you have to, to be able to see what was on the source-
but you don't need that when you can preview the source in the monitor
before using; or in the trimmer when trimming. You also can see the source
video as thumbs on the file when dropping to timeline - so do you really
need two monitor windows to take up extra desktop space when really they are
not needed!!! And of course you see the video in the 'edit' monitor when
playing the timeline.

I haven't found the change that difficult, it relly comes down to what you
want- and i wanted ease of use i.e. being able to see effects as i placed
them and a cheaper option than premiere with its £500+ pricetag and all
consuming need for resources.

Paul

Paul
"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"Paul Harrison" wrote in message
...
If i were you i'd stay away from premiere - very resources hungry!!!
IMHO

I moved from premiere to vegas video and it has been much quicker to
render
and i get to see the effects in realtime which never happened to me even
in
Prem 6.5.

Do remeber that 'Pro' and 6.5 are totaly diffrent, Pro's software has been
compleatly rewriten.


i would try demos of whichever system you think about and see how they
work
on your system. I even got vegas to work on a old K6 400 - it was a
little
slow for rendering but there were no dropped frames in capture and the
effects were also realtime - but a little slower than my current
system -
Althlon 2.8.


What I / don't / like about Vegas is what appears to be a total alien user
interface to the norm, there doesn't seem to be a [ 'source monitor' ] [
'edit monitor' ] type layout. If the user is used to (or needs to gain
experience with) working within a 'industry standard' type interface then
Vegas could cause problems.

Or have I miss-interpreted the blurb ?!...




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.557 / Virus Database: 349 - Release Date: 30/12/2003

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:11:08 -0000, "Jerry." wrote:

Or have I miss-interpreted the blurb ?!...

Yes.

Tempted to leave it at that :-) but what would be an 'industry standard
interface'?

Just about every piece of equipment I've used over the years has had a different
interface.

Stuart McKears

www.mckears.com

ps Feeling very grumpy today because an audio connector came loose and a radio
mic failed to record............grrrrrrrr

In message , Paul Harrison
writes
If i were you i'd stay away from premiere - very resources hungry!!! IMHO

I moved from premiere to vegas video and it has been much quicker to render
and i get to see the effects in realtime which never happened to me even in
Prem 6.5.

i would try demos of whichever system you think about and see how they work
on your system. I even got vegas to work on a old K6 400 - it was a little
slow for rendering but there were no dropped frames in capture and the
effects were also realtime - but a little slower than my current system -
Althlon 2.8.

The minimum system requirements (direct quote from the Vegas website)
a

Microsoft® Windows® 2000, or XP
400 MHz processor
60 MB hard-disk space for program installation
64 MB RAM (128 MB recommended)
24-bit color display recommended
Windows-compatible sound card
CD-ROM drive (for installation from a CD only)
Supported CD-Recordable drive (for CD burning only)
Microsoft DirectX® 8 or later
Internet Explorer 5.0 or later

Far more modest than any of the current video editors that I have seen..
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info
http://www.rhylonline.com

In message , Paul Harrison
writes

Snipped....

What I / don't / like about Vegas is what appears to be a total alien user
interface to the norm, there doesn't seem to be a [ 'source monitor' ] [
'edit monitor' ] type layout.

Umm... What about the Media Pool window and the Video Preview window?
These are just two of the twelve windows that you can either hide,
stack, or float to your own particular requirements.

Vegas allows you to set up whatever user interface that you wish. You
can also set up your Video Preview window to output to an external
monitor (subject to having the hardware) or (if you haven't the
hardware) Video Preview via firewire to your DV-in camcorder, and
through there to an external monitor using your camcorder's A/V -- DV
menu setup using pass-through; if you haven't an external monitor you
can use your camcorder's LCD as an "external monitor".

If the user is used to (or needs to gain
experience with) working within a 'industry standard' type interface then
Vegas could cause problems.

It's interesting that Sony have bought out Sonic Foundry. To use Vegas
in their professional video ending suites perhaps?


Or have I miss-interpreted the blurb ?!...

You might like to download the Vegas 4 manual and spend a little time
working through it to see just how powerful and totally flexible it is.
You might also like to look through the features on Sony's Vegas 4
web-site.

The big downside (at the moment) is that there is only one book
available about it - and that is very poor IMHO.

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info
http://www.rhylonline.com

In message , Tony Morgan
writes
Snipped...
What about the Media Pool window and the Video Preview window?
Sorry, I should also have mentioned the Trimmer Window (most important).

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info
http://www.rhylonline.com

"Stuart McKears" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:11:08 -0000, "Jerry."
wrote:

Or have I miss-interpreted the blurb ?!...

Yes.

Tempted to leave it at that :-) but what would be an 'industry standard
interface'?

Ok, thanks (and to TM), I'll have another look at Vegas (planning a new NLE
system and need to work out the spec and thus what would be the best
software to go with...), budget spent in one place can't also be spent in
another and all that !


ps Feeling very grumpy today because an audio connector came loose and a
radio
mic failed to record............grrrrrrrr


I know how you feel, videoed a (celebratory and thus un repeatable)
fireworks display once, only to find after that the main mic' lead had come
adrift. I was to worried about the visual side of things, which was no
problem as it turned out, to worry about simple audio - a lesson learnt the
hard way.... :~(

Thanks guys, i never expected anything near this kinda response. I'm
beefing up my system to 600mb RAm and a new graphics card. I tried
adobe and it was pretty much fine, had some glitches which will be
sorted hopefully with me new graphics card, and rendering was slow but
again the RAM upgrade should take care of that nicely (i hope!). Vegas
probably isn't viable, simply as i'll be networking with the college
edit suites and they're on adobe premiere, until i can persuade the
bigwigs to do some more research anyways.

Thanks alot everyone, it's been MEGA-helpful,

Ed