Talk:Adobe Premiere Pro

Untitled

• "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)
• 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)

Seems like a good contribution. Nice link!

Husky 00:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

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

Costs lotsa money!

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)

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

Adobe Premiere 1-7.0

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

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

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)

Future release/latest release

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)

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)

Is there any specific reason why I couldn't/shouldn't add all of the CC versions on here that came after Adobe Premiere Pro 1.0 (last listed version from 2003). We are now up to Adobe Premiere Pro 2017 (11.x) Jmckey (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

CS4

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

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)

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

Movies made with it?

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)

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

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)

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)

The list of movies would be so long, plus it can be used in conjunction with other softwares so its quite difficult to define a 'movie created with premiere pro'. (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2020 (GMT)

Update the Screenshot

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)

Voice Prints?

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)

32-bit Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 & CC Support

As of I have my computer has 32-bit operating system, it doesn't support Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 and CC in 32-bit OS that I want to encode videos like 1080p or 2160p.

The 64-bit operating systems have support of Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 or later (the latest) while I have to encode videos in 1080p or 2160p and upload it to YouTube via Vimeo with exported encoded videos from Adobe programs. --Lt. Allen (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Adobe Premiere Pro. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www2.adobe.com/aboutadobe/publicrelations/PDFS/9510/951018.prem42.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www2.adobe.com/aboutadobe/publicrelations/PDFS/9604/960424.premwin.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.adobe.com/prodindex/premiere/PDFS/Prem4.2Win.NFH.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.adobe.com/newsfeatures/9707news.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www2.adobe.com/aboutadobe/publicrelations/PDFS/9610/961007.sgi.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www1.adobe.com/aboutadobe/publicrelations/HTML/9805/980518.prm5.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www1.adobe.com/prodindex/premiere/feature1.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/publicrelations/HTML/9810/981014.pre5.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200101/20010108premiere.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adobe Premiere Pro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://digitalcontentproducer.com/dcc/revfeat/confessions_tour_hp_08022006/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that the part concerning the preceding Adobe Premiere in section Release history be split into a separate page called just Adobe Premiere and have a full article about that program. This article is in every other aspect about the succeeding Premiere Pro program and only mention the preceding program briefly as a basis. Concerns about this has been raised here as early as 2006, but nothing came out of it. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Adobe Premiere now exists as a separate article. 9ninety (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Changes

Hello everyone! I'm a student editor currently working to apply edits to Adobe Premiere Pro for a college course. I wanted to establish initial communication before I made any edits onto the page. Some changes I would like to proceed with is the formatting/organization after the merge with Adobe Premiere Express and Adobe Premiere Elements. I would also like to work on the descriptions of the different applications. As I am still learning, please feel free to question any edits that I have made. Thanks everyone! Stephaniegarciaa188 (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Missing (2023) was edited on Adobe Premiere Pro

In an interview with the Missing Editors. There are many references to using Adobe Premiere Pro as the NLE. I think it can be added to the "Notable films" section. 111.246.7.126 (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Version history

Not only is this not necessary - as claimed by another editor in their edit summary, but Wikipedia policy (WP:NOTCHANGELOG) specifically says we should not have a version history. MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie: WP:NOTCHANGELOG does not say that no Wikipedia article is allowed to have a version history table; it says that such tables must cite reliable secondary sources and that "Common sense must be applied regarding the level of detail to include". I will restore the table with reliable sources and appropriate pruning of details. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is a great example of the kind of indiscriminate list that WP:NOTCHANGELOG is meant to curtail. While it is true that it doesn't say that 'no Wikipedia article is allowed to have a version history table', what was on this article was clearly excessive and unencylopedic. MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

"This article is a great example of the kind of indiscriminate list that WP:NOTCHANGELOG is meant to curtail": Give me a break. Compared to Firefox version history, the table as I trimmed it is positively monosyllabic. Reliable secondary sources such as PC Magazine and TechRadar discuss changes between revisions in their reviews of Adobe software as a matter of course, suggesting that noting these changes is due weight. The solution to trimming excessive detail is to trim excessive detail—not to remove the entire section wholesale. So what is excessive to you? DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC) (edited for clarity 21:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC))

You've been around long enough to know that WP:OTHERSTUFF is a terrible argument. I find the whole thing to be excessive - which is why I removed the whole thing. But if you want to add a few lines or a paragraph to the prose history section (which is what we are supposed to prefer to table), have at it. MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I only bring up Firefox version history because it had an infamously long, sprawling, heated deletion discussion that closed with no consensus, de facto allowing that monstrosity of an article which is 99% primary sources to stand. So again, compared to that, what about the table is "clearly excessive and unencylopedic" to you? DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

"I find the whole thing to be excessive - which is why I removed the whole thing." You seem to be the only one who thinks that. Should I start an RfC to get consensus? DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If you must, but I'd personally start with a WP:3O. MrOllie (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try 3O. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Added. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

In response to your request for a third opinion...

The History section does need to have more detail. My recommendation would be to put the table back in, but trim it. It would be nice to defer some of the minor features to an link to official release notes or change log. A lot of the citations are to dead URLs so running the article through the automated link fixer would help connect versions to pages backed up on archive.org. It would also be nice to make it so the releases that have no remarks take up at most one line ("Windows and Mac" has a line break in it for me). It's possible and arguably desirable in the long term that the table could be turned into prose and the minor releases (if they have no remarks, can they be all that important?) relegated to footnotes or a link to an official version timeline, if there is one. -- Beland (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Beland and MrOllie: Totally agree with you regarding long-term converting the table into prose. The whole point of my desire to restore these version histories is not because I think that tables are the most ideal form of presentation of this kind of information, but because I want to prevent the unnecessary duplication of research for a future contributor seeking to bring the article to B-class and GA-class standards. @Beland: What do you think about the similar table that was removed from Adobe After Effects? DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page there. -- Beland (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)