evanbutson
Active member
They have worked on it, I personally dont feel its completely there yet, but the addition of more RAM has helped.
CS5 Launch Event... Ppro silence
- Thread starter MagicCat
- Start date
They have worked on it, I personally dont feel its completely there yet, but the addition of more RAM has helped.
scapsinger
Well-known member
I'm not sure which version of PPro you are using, but I can tell you that the 4.1 release (PPro CS4) remedied a lot of those problems where loading or saving a large project took fooooorrreeeeevvvveeeerrrrrr.
A lot of the hangs and crashes that occurred when people were working in large projects went away as well. I myself had a few weird crashes right after I installed CS4 a couple years ago (or whenever it was). They happened randomly and not terribly often, but the first patch that was released a few weeks after CS4 shipped fixed that. I never had any hangs or crashes after that.
CS4 v4.0 as well as CS3 and CS2 to some degree all handled large projects very poorly compared to CS4 v4.1 and later.
Hope that helps! Can't tell you what the case will be in CS5 just yet...
evanbutson
Active member
OK so here is the official list of supported cards as of launch:
Supported NVIDIA graphics cards for GPU acceleration
Quadro CX (Windows)
Quadro FX 3800 (Windows)
Quadro FX 4800 (Windows and Mac OS)
Quadro FX 5800 (Windows)
GeForce GTX 285 (Windows and Mac OS)
Thanks for this. I think some of the confusion people are getting around this is because Adobe touted CUDA as being the game changer. In one of their own promo video's there was a guy showing RED footage under mercury, he stated something to the effect of "any off the shelf system with a quadro like my 5800...". Out the window goes clarity. As you know, many of the Nvidia cards support CUDA. So I think allot of folks are getting mixed messages and that is why there are so many posts on the net surrounding this. Is the actual CARD that is supported, or will CS5/Merc see a card that supports Cuda as a viable option? Adobe has always suggested official support of specific gear over the years, they have been clear and I build my systems around much of that recommended hardware. However, there is allot of stuff out there that is not officially supported, that works very well. Like my on board sound card.
That I think is why many are taking the "Emperors New Clothes Mindset" to the Graphics cards that will "actually work", versus officially supported. Adobe sees 5 cards, many say, yes I have Cuda on my card too!!
Nvidia's own site adds to this shroud of Cuda'd mystery. 3 or 4 oficially supported cards, a statement about ANY Quadro, and the omission of the 285, that Adobe DOES say is supported???. Who shot JFK is the end result here.
I don't want to start anything, just bring to light what I see on other blogs and posts. For what it is worth, it should be noted that all the cards Adobe officially supports for mercury, coincidentally, all have a dump truck load of on-board memory. Im betting that has a good deal to do with it too.
Quadro's and Cuda's and Bears, OH MY! ... one thing is for certain, we arent in Kansas any more! CS5 seems to be well worth the wait!
That I think is why many are taking the "Emperors New Clothes Mindset" to the Graphics cards that will "actually work", versus officially supported. Adobe sees 5 cards, many say, yes I have Cuda on my card too!!
Nvidia's own site adds to this shroud of Cuda'd mystery. 3 or 4 oficially supported cards, a statement about ANY Quadro, and the omission of the 285, that Adobe DOES say is supported???. Who shot JFK is the end result here.
I don't want to start anything, just bring to light what I see on other blogs and posts. For what it is worth, it should be noted that all the cards Adobe officially supports for mercury, coincidentally, all have a dump truck load of on-board memory. Im betting that has a good deal to do with it too.
Quadro's and Cuda's and Bears, OH MY! ... one thing is for certain, we arent in Kansas any more! CS5 seems to be well worth the wait!
Last edited:
scapsinger
Well-known member
In my opinion, I agree...the whole CUDA thing is a bit of a mess and quite confusing.
The on-board memory plays a role, as does the actual GPU itself, pipelines, speed, etc.
My best guess would be that yes, there will be other cards that will "work" to one degree or another, but that the "certified" cards will work 100%, and the more expensive cards simply being faster. I absolutely expect Adobe to add to the list of "certified" cards over the next few months (as they have already indicated support on at least one other card in the future).
But as the Adobe reps have been hammering...if you want guaranteed 100% MPE goodness, buy the supported cards listed. Outside of that, they mentioned that even lesser systems with unsupported cards will still have much better playback support in CS5 than CS4.
So everyone gets to go to this game...some of us are lower level, 50 yard line...others are in the nosebleed. The people with the real money got luxury suites.
The on-board memory plays a role, as does the actual GPU itself, pipelines, speed, etc.
My best guess would be that yes, there will be other cards that will "work" to one degree or another, but that the "certified" cards will work 100%, and the more expensive cards simply being faster. I absolutely expect Adobe to add to the list of "certified" cards over the next few months (as they have already indicated support on at least one other card in the future).
But as the Adobe reps have been hammering...if you want guaranteed 100% MPE goodness, buy the supported cards listed. Outside of that, they mentioned that even lesser systems with unsupported cards will still have much better playback support in CS5 than CS4.
So everyone gets to go to this game...some of us are lower level, 50 yard line...others are in the nosebleed. The people with the real money got luxury suites.
I guess that is what I was getting at all along. Either way, Quadro or not, we will all reap benefits. I just hope Adobe try's to control their PR a little better. There are also people and Buisnesses that dont have allot of captiol or financial resources that also need to keep dinner on the table. Steering them wrong can create tomorrows Mac user, Avid user, ETC ETC. I'm willing to bet, they are an integral part of the statistics radar in the bean counters office at Adobe. I've seen much less than 300 bucks spent on a wrong card create a bitterness that has no cure.
Anyone that has done a wedding or two in thier carreers knows all too well, The less a client has to spend, the higher thier expectations are. The likely hood of bad word of mouth is always looming behind every corner. Being the "affordable videographer" can quickly become your problem, not the clients.
Anyone that has done a wedding or two in thier carreers knows all too well, The less a client has to spend, the higher thier expectations are. The likely hood of bad word of mouth is always looming behind every corner. Being the "affordable videographer" can quickly become your problem, not the clients.
Last edited:
EIREHotspur
Well-known member
I know maybe some would say this should be in the Hardware Forum but it also applies to Adobe and Processor discussion here.
My Dell M90 Laptop Graphics card is fried methinks.
Green vertical lines on XP Splash Screen and Blue Screen with Stop: 0x0000007E error.
Plus the output to my LG Monitor won't work to my LG.
I need to get a Desktop Workstation anyhow.
Will
Two Intel® Xeon® E5620(2.4GHz,5.86GT/s,12MB,4C)-Memory runs at 1066MHz
be compatible with CS5?
Also wondered would 96gig of RAM really give me 3 times the rendering power of 24gig?
scapsinger
Well-known member
Um wow...lots of RAM there.
The main points with CS5 are that it runs 64-bit only, and on the specified operating systems. Minimum RAM is 2 GB (but honestly...6-8 is a good minimum nowadays in the "real world").
Then there's the specific video cards for Mercury.
Other than that, there aren't a lot of sticking points...your machine is certainly not going to be underpowered, assuming you don't mind paying a decent electric bill for it
I'm on the latest version and continue to see issues where crashes become more likely and project load time become unacceptably long as the amount of HD footage increases. It's improved from CS2 and CS3, where sometimes those issues became unmanageable, but it's definitely not to a point where I would trust it to handle larger projects like a feature. I'm on a quad-core computer with plenty of RAM, pretty much a mid range rig, so the fact that it's still happening is worrying. Hopefully this will be improved.
evanbutson
Active member
Umm, Im nt sure they can do any more than they have, they cant really control people assuming things, like assuming if you have CUDA your good etc. They have a very clear list of supported cards, that list hasnt changed for a while. You have those cards, Mercury works in hardware. You don't and it works in software thats IT. There will be further cards put on the list but not now. Its funny, I see people arguing the cost of a GTX285 is a lot. It is the same price an an Intensity, half the price of a Decklink and even cheaper than an AJA, Matrox MXO etc. As far as pushing people to AVID etc, have you seen the hardware requirement for AVID, they own the market on controlling and limiting you to only a few systems.
Lol, you can't even run Avid unless you own a Quadro card anyway.
scapsinger
Well-known member
Agreed w/ evenbutson...the cost of the GTX 285 is just about NOTHING considering what it gives you in terms of performance for a one time investment of like $300.
I'm only guessing, but I would suppose that the GTX 285 will deliver all the power needed for most users. The higher users in major motion picture work will want (and need) more, but most of us will probably quite satisfied with the bottom level supported card.
And yeah, good luck with FCP (whose hardware requirements are steep if you don't already have a Mac) and Avid (which, as evanbutson said, goes out of its way to require enormous hardware investments). The difference between the 3 A's (Adobe, Apple and Avid) is that one of them is a software-only company that allows many MANY 3rd party hardware configs. The other two have practically locked it all down and that results in higher costs.
If it's a money thing, then the argument is in Adobe's favor. If it's a features thing, then each user has to determine which product out there is best for you, because all of them have their particular strengths.
I'm only guessing, but I would suppose that the GTX 285 will deliver all the power needed for most users. The higher users in major motion picture work will want (and need) more, but most of us will probably quite satisfied with the bottom level supported card.
And yeah, good luck with FCP (whose hardware requirements are steep if you don't already have a Mac) and Avid (which, as evanbutson said, goes out of its way to require enormous hardware investments). The difference between the 3 A's (Adobe, Apple and Avid) is that one of them is a software-only company that allows many MANY 3rd party hardware configs. The other two have practically locked it all down and that results in higher costs.
If it's a money thing, then the argument is in Adobe's favor. If it's a features thing, then each user has to determine which product out there is best for you, because all of them have their particular strengths.
To say nothing of FCP's hardware requirement. If you think it's an outrage to spend $300 on a graphics card, how about having to buy a Mac?
scapsinger
Well-known member
Hey, to all you editors who can/do use Premiere Pro in a professional environment - this is gonna be a great update to you, especially with the hardware acceleration. I might actually buy a GTX285 for my machine at home (I need a new card anyway) just because of this news. Unfortunately my work is in television, where we basically exclusively use AVID and FCP (and shifting more and more to FCP as the years go by). We always watch these Adobe updates ... and with every release we say something like "hmm, maybe we can use that text-to-speech thing to save on transcribing costs?" and this year it might be "hmm, I wonder if that facial recognition thing really works?" ... Premiere always gets us talking in the office ... and usually ends up in one of us downloading the demo on a mac pro edit machine .... and then it usually ends with "OMG the media manager is terrible, stay away from this thing" - and that's how it ends. Privately we mostly love Premiere as many of us learned on it .... but running it within a multi-step television environment where projects are passed around like a frisbee is what locks Premiere out our workflow without question.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Just a question of how you organize your workflow. We had 12 AVID suites 10 years ago, that got replaced by Premiere workstations as we send the AVIDs to retirement.
I agree, it would be hard to integrate Premiere into a AVID network. But if you only work with ADOBE Products it´s great. Sending a timeline over to the After Effects department without rendering is so great and fast and something you can´t do with AVID. Once you get used to the ADOBE workflow you feel limited and restricted on FCP and AVIDs.
Bottom line, we use Premiere in a pro environment and everyone here is happy with it.
Frank
I agree, it would be hard to integrate Premiere into a AVID network. But if you only work with ADOBE Products it´s great. Sending a timeline over to the After Effects department without rendering is so great and fast and something you can´t do with AVID. Once you get used to the ADOBE workflow you feel limited and restricted on FCP and AVIDs.
Bottom line, we use Premiere in a pro environment and everyone here is happy with it.
Frank
And unfortunately that's where it ends. I wish it was that simple for us, but alas it isn't. Many shows include an initial (or final) step to an outside post house, usually for color correction. These guys are all using Apple Color (outside of AVID). We actually had an animation house at first deliver us assembly edits in Premiere Pro (and I know the FCP XML support is 'supposed' to work), but after a few glitches we couldn't afford to trouble shoot and our studio managers made quick to demand they switch to Final Cut Pro to streamline the workflow. But... I'm aware that issues like this can't be blamed on Adobe by any means.
Also keep in mind that I am a freelance television editor -- and I would never find work if premiere was my weapon of choice. At least in Toronto, we are in a land of Final Cut Pro on the low to mid end, and AVID on selected high end shows. Nature of the beast. Still doesn't stop me from dabbling with Premiere at home though
scapsinger
Well-known member
I'm freelance in a sense...that is, I run my own business producing corporate and event videos. I often get looked down upon by the other people I work with that I'm both on a PC and I use PPro instead of FCP. It's a compelling argument to say that if you want to work in this industry, you have to use FCP.
While that's true for a good majority of the work, I actually work in reverse. I only hire editors that work in PPro (not to be a jerk, but because it's what I use). The few people who have adopted PPro to work with me have not regretted it, and of course, they keep FCP on a Mac if they need those jobs.
A friend of mine who works in an international newsroom in the city (guess the name) says the same kind of stuff. They're frustrated with the FCP workflow. They don't miss the Avid (and previously, Pinnacle Liquid) workflow, but they keep watching the streamlining of the Adobe workflow and wishing there was a way, SOMEHOW, to integrate it all. But since this big company's well-publicized adoption of Apple solutions a few years ago was mega millions expensive, another total change out is probably not in the works anytime soon.
Point being, it's a common sentiment that I hear a lot...you want to work in this industry, you need to know FCP. It's very true. But...if Apple keeps ignoring their professional video base like they (mostly) have for the last few years, then the indication is that people will start shopping.
Look at the LAFCPUG meetup at NAB...they had representatives from Adobe and Avid for the first time. Ever. That's an indication of a growing displeasure, so it seems.
Adobe has done well, no doubt. And there are still bugs of course, but Apple is not immune to errors or timewasting workarounds either. The longer Adobe keeps at it, and the more Apple becomes focused on the hardware, the sooner you will probably see people disappearing from FCP. Unless, that is, Apple prohibits Adobe from running applications on a Mac (a la iPad and Flash).
Time will tell.
While that's true for a good majority of the work, I actually work in reverse. I only hire editors that work in PPro (not to be a jerk, but because it's what I use). The few people who have adopted PPro to work with me have not regretted it, and of course, they keep FCP on a Mac if they need those jobs.
A friend of mine who works in an international newsroom in the city (guess the name) says the same kind of stuff. They're frustrated with the FCP workflow. They don't miss the Avid (and previously, Pinnacle Liquid) workflow, but they keep watching the streamlining of the Adobe workflow and wishing there was a way, SOMEHOW, to integrate it all. But since this big company's well-publicized adoption of Apple solutions a few years ago was mega millions expensive, another total change out is probably not in the works anytime soon.
Point being, it's a common sentiment that I hear a lot...you want to work in this industry, you need to know FCP. It's very true. But...if Apple keeps ignoring their professional video base like they (mostly) have for the last few years, then the indication is that people will start shopping.
Look at the LAFCPUG meetup at NAB...they had representatives from Adobe and Avid for the first time. Ever. That's an indication of a growing displeasure, so it seems.
Adobe has done well, no doubt. And there are still bugs of course, but Apple is not immune to errors or timewasting workarounds either. The longer Adobe keeps at it, and the more Apple becomes focused on the hardware, the sooner you will probably see people disappearing from FCP. Unless, that is, Apple prohibits Adobe from running applications on a Mac (a la iPad and Flash).
Time will tell.
Absolutely. FCP grabbed marketshare from Avid back in the days because Apple were willing to be innovative and implement professional features in a lower cost package. Now it's Adobe who is aggressively coming out with new and innovative features while Apple sits on their laurel. Eventually people are going to wonder if FCP is working for them and they'll make their own decision as to which is really the "professional" app.
I agree. I am privately giving apple about 1.5 more years until I officially get scared. But...the fact they laid off 50 FCP employees a few months ago does NOT give me any fuzzy feelings. I'm a little lenient due to the fact that a) they are probably tackling 3D editing to once again compete with AVID, and b) they need to rewrite everything into 64bit. One thing that DOES make me feel better is that they are (at least) still filing for patents on various editing technologies, such as the semi-recent story board integration idea that was leaked a while back. Intel also confirmed that Apple would be getting a 6 month head start on the new 6-core ships... and FCP is pretty much the only reason to keep that line-up alive. So... they be workin .... a little bit 
If I may plug a small interesting bit...did anybody notice that the new ARRI camera shoots PRORES 422 HQ and 444? Looks like apple made a new friend...
If I may plug a small interesting bit...did anybody notice that the new ARRI camera shoots PRORES 422 HQ and 444? Looks like apple made a new friend...
Last edited: