This is huge - BBC is known as rather conservative.
The BBC is switching to Premiere Pro CS5 software, through which the corporation is improving workflow efficiency, creating a tapeless environment and reducing costs. The corporation is now implementing an additional 2,000 seats of Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 software as the company’s primary tool for desktop nonlinear editing. The broadcaster’s expanded use of Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 software highlights the growing momentum for Adobe Creative Suite 5 Production Premium across the broadcast industry.
Premiere has always been a somewhat more flexible editor than Final Cut, but you had to be more of a computer person to understand why. FCP was always mroe like Avid, which was always going to make it "better" in the eyes of the old guard. I've never held this view and always thought the Adobe offering was more useful. Nice to know I'm no longer as entirely alone in this view as I once was!
Umhh... Premiere runs on PC and MAC. Basically both use the same hardware from the same manufacturers (Intel, Nvidia etc.) only difference is the OS which plays no role at all, when you working in the application.
You won´t find a virus on a editing workstation anyway, unless you are stupid enough to connect a computer, which makes your living as an editor and has customer data on it to the Internet. Professionals have dedicated computers just for surfing the net.
If you want to learn about computer crashes, look in every FCP or MAC forum and count the threads.
Edited by Frank Glencairn, 09 September 2010 - 10:36 AM.
I think Frank made an excellent point, that a major weakness for Premiere is internet connectivity. It is an open door, and I agree that any pro will have a separate system. It's what I do. I just upgraded to a new multi-core system, and it will never be connected to the internet. Instead, I use my prior editing system, which is more than adequate for all my other needs, to surf the net and all of that. With portable hard drives and the high speed of data transfer, it is a small matter to transfer files from one to the other if I need to upload to the net. The minor inconvenience is more than made up in not having to worry about my new system being corrupted.
I've had great success with Premiere. I also love using Final Cut. They are both useful for different applications, and I feel that I am a stronger editor by being able to move fluently from one system to another. Editing programs are like languages I think...no one language is better than another, but each is appropriate for different circumstances.
I often have wondered if people cling slavishly to one system or another simply because they fear trying something different, or are afraid of discovering they've put a lot of money into a system and software which is inferior. I certainly am guilty of this, having cut my teeth on Premiere, and having been told for so long that Final Cut is the standard and the best, and I admit avoiding it because I was afraid I'd discover I'd been spinning my wheels on a second rate program. Eventually I overcame such stubborn pride, and learned Final Cut. I still use Premiere, but now it is a decision based on informed experience rather than ignorance.
There's a lot of things CS5 as a suite does better. Check out On Location and Story - which allows multiple users to collaborate. That was Avid's strong point a few years ago with the NewsCutter. My guess is that this is what's of real interest to the BBC. I bet they've been developing software with Adobe.
The Apple stuff is excellent, but not as strong on remote collaboration as CS5.
Edited by Karel Bata, 09 September 2010 - 02:47 PM.
I think Frank made an excellent point, that a major weakness for Premiere is internet connectivity. It is an open door, and I agree that any pro will have a separate system.
I don't agree, the major plus point of a networked system is they do have internet connectivity. I've run post houses large and small and whilst you have to police internet connectivity via Firewalls and so on its really not really so much of an issue for mac and linux based operations. Where it can be an issue is via Windows based operations where the potential for problems from malwear is much greater.
Premiere on Mac is a good move premiere on PC much less so, Apple strength lies in its ability to innovate and in recent years has created excellent and affordable hardware with a very solid OS. I think the point thats being missed is QT workflow has been the secret of successes here on Apple platforms, not so much FCP or any other app. If the media can be exchanged between vendors apps so much more becomes possible.
I think the most significant factor in switching to Premiere would be the 64 bit system and Mercury Playback Engine, which is incredibly fast stuff when it comes to rendering all around. But the fact is that it is only really utilised with nvidia GPUs, which makes all of the Mac ATI preconfigurations pointless. Only way is to get a Mac Pro (ridiculously over pried in comparison to any self made PC around/most PC manufacturers) and change the card out (as well as up every other piece of hardware too).
And CS5 works swell with Mac systems, 32 and 64 bit. I occasionally use it on my iMac for editing, very fast, but could be faster if Apple used Nvidia. Besides my everyday Final Cut, I would certainly consider moving to Premiere if Apple don't step up their game.
I've tried all three (Avid, FCP and Primere CS5). I understand that the reason Avid uses the types of icons and nomenclature they do, but I find that Premiere is more straightforward. Maybe because I AM a computer user I find it easier to use than either Avid OR Final Cut. Now, on the other hand, I do not like the fact that, depending on the capture format, Premiere is a little less edit playback friendly.