Has anyone removed Adobe CC completely from their PC?

Doug Jensen said:
I agree, that is an excellent example of where rendering speed would be paramount. In the typical situation you have described, what would you say is the length of the final video and how long does it take to render? What is your NLE and/or rendering engine?
Click to expand...
The edit is/was around three and a half minutes and will usually be between 3 - 4 minutes on this type of thing. 4k timeline and 4k export resolution. Corporate testimonial style of edit, interview and b-roll with some light effects/transitions.

I have the most recent base model of the M3 Ultra Mac Studio (96 GB unified memory, 28 core CPU, 60 core GPU, 32 Core Neural Engine).

Shot on Sony cameras. FX3 shooting in MP4 and FX6 shooting in MXF.

Using DaVinci Resolve I can export the previously mentioned edit in around 1 minute 45 seconds.
 
DustinSchmidt said:
The edit is/was around three and a half minutes and will usually be between 3 - 4 minutes on this type of thing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the details.
Just to make sure I understand, 3-4 minutes is the rendering time for a 3-4 minute 4K video? Which NLE is that? To what CODEC are you rendering to?
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
"In my specific situation, using a new Apple Silicon ‘Mac’ and ‘Ultra’ computers, the speeds are multiple times faster for the common codecs I am asked to use in FCP and Resolve as opposed to Premiere."

@alaskacameradude

Wow, that is very impressive.
Please go back to post #67 and look at the questions I've asked you about your rendering speeds. You boasted about how much faster FCP is than Adobe and it doesn't seem like it should be to much to ask for you to put some numbers to those statements. I thought you'd be very eager to provide some evidence to back up your claims if the difference is as big and important as you say it is.
Click to expand...

Around 5 times faster to render a 13 minute mini documentary for PBS and the Alaska State Ferry system. Multiple layers of 4k footage, graphics, titles, large still images with ‘Ken Burns’ style pan and zoom on them as well as 20-30 layers of audio
for sound design. Took about 5 minutes to render in FCPX about 24 minutes in Premiere (rendering to H.264 UHD 3840x2160, 23.98fps). In this specific job, I had to have alternate endings for each version of the doc, depending if it was airing on
statewide PBS or for the on board
system for the state ferries….so the time savings for me was actually twice what is noted above as I was doing 2 encodes of the finished product.

Sorry, I can’t run any specific tests for you right now with because I refuse to install that pig of a program on my edit computer for my business, it’s tough to dig out and make sure you have deleted all the ‘hooks’ from
Adobe’s programs and I don’t want to go through that again, once was enough. Larry Jordan has a ton more info, articles and statistics if you are actually interested.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5734.jpeg
    IMG_5734.jpeg
    661.9 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
Thanks for the details.
Just to make sure I understand, 3-4 minutes is the rendering time for a 3-4 minute 4K video? Which NLE is that? To what CODEC are you rendering to?
Click to expand...
Yeah that probably wasn’t as clear as it could have been.

The edit is 3 1/2 minutes long.

The rendering time is 1 minute 45 seconds.

Export format is the H264 master setting that is one of Davinci Resolve’s presets.
 
alaskacameradude said:
Around 5 times faster to render a 13 minute mini documentary for PBS and the Alaska State Ferry system. Multiple layers of 4k footage, graphics, titles, large still images with ‘Ken Burns’ style pan and zoom on them as well as 20-30 layers of audio
for sound design. Took about 5 minutes to render in FCPX about 24 minutes in Premiere (rendering to H.264 UHD 3840x2160, 23.98fps). In this specific job, I had to have alternate endings for each version of the doc, depending if it was airing on
statewide PBS or for the on board
system for the state ferries….so the time savings for me was actually twice what is noted above as I was doing 2 encodes of the finished product.

Sorry, I can’t run any specific tests for you right now with because I refuse to install that pig of a program on my edit computer for my business, it’s tough to dig out and make sure you have deleted all the ‘hooks’ from
Adobe’s programs and I don’t want to go through that again, once was enough. Larry Jordan has a ton more info, articles and statistics if you are actually interested.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. I accept the fact that Premiere renders a sequence slower on your machine than does FCPX. So, if you had to render two versions of the ferry video, you'd save yourself about 38 minutes of rendering time (24 - 5 x 2 = 38) vs. the same video in FCPX. And, from what you have said, that 38 minutes is more important to you than the many hours you'll spend sitting in front of the computer actually putting together the edit. I have just the opposite priority. Rendering time is nothing to me because I'm not going to sit there waiting for it to render. I'll take a break, answer some email, get lunch, or post something on DVXuser while it does its thing. To me, it is the speed and efficiency of editing that is my priority. Now, I can't say whether editing with one NLE is faster or slower than the other, because I don't use FCPX. But with that said, that perfromance would be 10x more important to me than the rendering speed.

I also think your render speeds for Premiere are slower than they should to be and I wonder if something is wrong. For the type of video you describe, I'd expect my M2 MacBook Pro and SSDs would render it in 12-15 minutes. But we will never know for sure.
 
DustinSchmidt said:
Yeah that probably wasn’t as clear as it could have been.

The edit is 3 1/2 minutes long.

The rendering time is 1 minute 45 seconds.

Export format is the H264 master setting that is one of Davinci Resolve’s presets.
Click to expand...

Those numbers don't sound all that fast to me. Maybe a little faster than Premiere, but only by a few seconds. Would an extra 60 seconds (or less) really make a big difference in the example you described?

As a test, I just re-rendered one of my Z200 nature videos that is on YouTube:
Length: 4:38
All 4K footage; slow dissolves between every clip; watermark graphics overlaid from end to end.
Computer: M2 Mac
Time to render as 4K MP4: 3:45
Time to render as 4K ProRes: 1:09

Another example is the "How to setup a tripod" video that I posted in another thread. It's a 37:00 minute video with a mix of 4K and HD footage, graphics, charts, effects, transitions, etc. Time to render as an HD MP4: 4:13. That's 210 fps rendering. How much faster do I need?? I can't even go take a piss faster than 4:13.

I guess I just don't understand why people put so much importance on rendering speeds, when the difference comes down to just being a matter of a few minutes between the slowest and fastest methods. It's the hours and hours of time I'll spend to actually do the editing that is far more important to me. If I can shave just 1% of time off that process, then that will more than make up for the tiny difference in rendering time.
 
Last edited:
Rendering speeds matter to me because I do a lot of it. Legal can be many hours. I did an inspection video 7hrs. Need multiple encodes, audio rips, dvds with variable bitrate it’s easy to get wrong too large of a file and need to re encode, encode HD, 4k and digital download versions, doing multiple revisions for client approval, fixing mistakes, etc

In addition FCP is faster and easier to edit. It performs better because Apple designed it to work with it’s hardware.

Only reason to use Premiere is if you collaborate with others who use it.

If you like Premiere then that’s fine too you should continue to use it, telling others to use it well that’s another thing. Everyone has different types of work, preferences and opinions.
 
Last edited:
Selecting a NLE is a personal thing, although they may look similar in some ways, they may have differing way of carrying out the same functions. Some may take longer to get used to, but offer advantages in the long term. Also, other people may like using a mix of software from different manufacturers to create their own personal editing suite.

The type of productions you work on can also affect the NLE decision, together with the "politics" that can happen with producers.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Thanks for the info. I accept the fact that Premiere renders a sequence slower on your machine than does FCPX. So, if you had to render two versions of the ferry video, you'd save yourself about 38 minutes of rendering time (24 - 5 x 2 = 38) vs. the same video in FCPX. And, from what you have said, that 38 minutes is more important to you than the many hours you'll spend sitting in front of the computer actually putting together the edit. I have just the opposite priority. Rendering time is nothing to me because I'm not going to sit there waiting for it to render. I'll take a break, answer some email, get lunch, or post something on DVXuser while it does its thing. To me, it is the speed and efficiency of editing that is my priority. Now, I can't say whether editing with one NLE is faster or slower than the other, because I don't use FCPX. But with that said, that perfromance would be 10x more important to me than the rendering speed.

I also think your render speeds for Premiere are slower than they should to be and I wonder if something is wrong. For the type of video you describe, I'd expect my M2 MacBook Pro and SSDs would render it in 12-15 minutes. But we will never know for sure.
Click to expand...
I totally accept the fact that speed and efficiency in editing is even MORE important than rendering and output. I do have a lot of projects which want alternate versions, social media cuts and so on so I do a ton of outputting but still it’s true that efficiency in editing is more important. I’m definitely a lot faster in FCPX than Premiere Pro but could see if someone had keyboard shortcuts memorized in Adobe and so on it would be tough to switch.
However just doing basic things like adding. a large still in the timelines or several layers of 4k video would give me a spinning beach ball of doom with Adobe. Not always but it happened enough that I was pretty leery of it. Also it has been at least a year since I even used Adobe so
a newer version may have improved
performance with Apple Silicon
computers.

My contention is that the NLE itself does (many) things faster than Adobe. That may well not be as important as associated knowledge built up for some users. And as for the user operating the NLE, that is gonna depend on what they are used to, knowing keyboard shortcuts and so on. This thread started with people asking if anyone had totally replaced Adobe. Some of us said we had and then as I recall, it was the Adobe users questioning how someone could be ‘efficient’ that way or seeming to say it would ‘waste hours’ of their day. It can be done and can save you money. Some will say the money saved is ‘peanuts’ or that the time savings will be ‘small’ or whatever. Point is, yes, there is choice and other options. You can choose Adobe or choose not to use it. I think that is what this thread was about, is there actual legitimate options other than Adobe? I continue to say yes there are and you can be just fine with no Adobe products at all on your computer. Whether it will work with your workflow, or will hinder your ability to collaborate with others,
depends on lots of other factors and ultimately if you want to take that step is up to you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top