Talk:Adobe Premiere Pro: Difference between revisions

Computing: Software Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Film: Filmmaking Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

• "Edit and video in real time" - Should this say "edit and view video..."?
• Is there an Adobe Premiere manual/guide we could link to at the bottom?
• I think it is unnecessary, also I don't think HDMI is a format. Commando happy!® 23:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrigley's is the #1 resource anywhere for Adobe Premiere help, and has been for many years. Anyone using Adobe for a while would have used Wrigley's at some point. I've no connection with the site and if others believe it's an inappropriate link please delete it Poweroid 19:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good contribution. Nice link!

Husky 00:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• We should include a/k/a version info next to v 1.50 and v 2.00. Some Premiere Pro users refer to v 7.0 causing confusion. I'm not sure of the exact a/k/a version number, but will research and get back. Videotaker 00:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Who the hell is the goddamn idiot who made a redirect from Adobe Premiere? THERE IS AN OLDER PREMIERE --85.217.32.239 15:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Adobe Premiere's REDIRECT so we can write about the older version itself. --PierreWiki 15:56, 12 February, 2006

• I changed the default screenshot because the previous one was an image of someone showing off their zune theme on their computer. --resxhacker

Should someone mention HOW DAMN EXPENSIVE IT IS? WikiChicken81112 (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Oh,by the way, this isn't even the most exspensive one, Avid Media Composer is. It's price level is OVER 2000!!!!!! WikiChicken81112 (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't even REMOTELY useful to the conversation, but I thought I'd mention: I edit on Avid Media Composer, Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere and DPS Velocity, and I would rather pay for Avid than get any (or all) of the others for free. Bloody useless, the lot of them. Alright, as you were... 41.133.62.97 (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Nick[reply]

Adobe Premiere redirects here, so there should ideally be a brief history on the earlier versions. Shawnc 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the same thing. odd. Where's the history on Adobe Premiere? Dave-G 21:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I came across this page because I wanted to read more about the history of Adobe Premiere (a program I've been using for years the earlier versions). But I was very suprised to be redirected here, with no mention of the past Adobe Premiere versions. Limitedexpresstrain 21:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should "Latest release" read 2.0 or CS3(3.0)? Because technically CS3 isn't released yet so it can't really be considered a latest release; but is it a matter of what the most recent version on the market is at this specific moment in time (2.0), or is it just what the most recent announced version is, period (CS3)? I had been on After Effects' page and seen the Latest release there as being CS3, so here on the APP page I changed it from 2.0 to CS3 to maintain consistency. Then I noticed in APP's history that someone had already done what I'd done and then another had reverted it to 2.0 again with an edit summary of "a future release is not the latest release"; and so I figured this might be a matter of contention. I'll leave it as CS3 unless it's decided it should be 2.0. Iamthedeus 01:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So leave a comment that you have brought it up on the talk page instead of blindly reverting in the first place. Nevertheless, it'd be just as silly to say that Windows Vista was the latest release of Windows when it was announced back in 2005. I really don't the the time or will to argue about this, but I do oppose that a version that as of yet has not been released is called the latest release. --Servant Saber 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Que? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.224.135 (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We gotta add a section for premiere CS4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.250.144 (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna change the screen shot cause it's not from CS4 it's from CS3 and it's not clear, on the other hand i think it should be discussed that premiere has been failing a lot since CS3, crashes with windows xp, windows vista, windows 7, and CS4 freezes a lot with very large projects, i don't believe in the neutrality of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.155.151 (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere has always crashed. It's almost like a feature.41.133.62.97 (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Final Cut Pro has a list of major movies made using it, would it be possible to add something like that for this? Lord Seth (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, because nobody has.41.133.62.97 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true, but certainly none worth mentioning. Not that most of the ones on the Final Cut Pro article are worth mentioning either.80.42.251.215 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, the comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I was simply annoyed at Premiere and (ESPECIALLY) Final Cut that day, so I got my stab in. Personally, I think it's inane to have a section devoted to informing readers what films were cut with what NLE. Are we going to mention EVERY film that was cut on a Steinbeck too? Doubt it. The fact that a good film was edited on a system does not make that system good, or bad.41.135.44.248 (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, the current screenshot is from a version that is two versions out of date and running in OSX Tiger. This needs to be updated. Doshindude (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the DAW programs inside of Adobe allow display and editing of voice prints of famous politicians or actors from the past? Most of the articles on DAW appear to use audio sampling instead of frequency extraction, these being matters that are worlds apart from each other. Charles DeGaulle and Winston Churchill had different styles of speaking, and the opportunity to import their styles would be very useful in editing old film clips. A series of frequencies that depart and return to a handful of frequency base lines is a lot easier to use than a DAW that relies upon sound samples instead. If at least one of the Adobe sound packages supports this feature, it should be noted.

The main page of this article would be improved if there were some mention of this. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]