8/31/2023 0 Comments Editready vs adobe media encoder![]() ![]() I work most of the time in Adobe Premiere Pro CC and freelance at a shop with nine edit workstations connected to shared storage. In spite of that, there are many reasons to use other editing tools. Everything else is a compromise, which is why feature film and TV series editorial teams continue to select Avid solutions as their first choice. I have worked both sides of the equation and without a doubt, Media Composer connected to Avid Unity/Isis/Nexis shared storage is simply not matched by Final Cut Pro, Final Cut Pro X, Premiere Pro, or any other editing software/storage/cloud combination. Let me say up front that if you want the best possible collaborative experience with multiple editors, then work with Avid Media Composer. But, before we do, a primer on the computer that I used to test the software.There are many workflows that involve collaboration, with multiple editors and designers working on the same large project or group of projects. I own two computers, a mid 2010 Macbook Pro with a dual core 2.66GHz i7 processor and 8GB of RAM, and a custom-built editing PC that is insanely beefy in terms of specs and raw power. SET METADATA FOR ALL EDITREADY REEL NAME PRO Back in the day, the Macbook was no slouch in terms of performance, but time has not been kind to it, and the performance these days is pretty underwhelming. Suffice it to say, I would NEVER choose to do transcoding work on the Macbook unless it was absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, EditReady is a Mac-only app, so in order to test its speed and overall performance, I had to use the Macbook.Ĭoming into the conversion process, I had been expecting all of my tests to be painfully slow because, frankly, the Macbook is on its last leg. However, once I started using EditReady (and comparing it to Adobe Media Encoder, which is what I normally use for all of my encoding), what I found was pretty impressive. I used a single 57 second h.264 clip shot on my Canon 60D to conduct my test. The original clip was full HD, and the original file size was 274MB. 54 Seconds for ProRes 422 HQ - Clip Size: 1.28GB.36 Seconds for ProRes 422 - Clip Size: 799MB.27 Seconds for ProRes 422 LT - Clip Size: 499MB.1 Minute, 7 Seconds for ProRes 422 HQ - Clip Size: 1.11GB.58 Seconds for ProRes 422 - Clip Size 784MB.50 Seconds for ProRes 422 LT - Clip Size: 432MB.Here are my results as I encoded the clip into 3 different flavors of ProRes in both EditReady and Media Encoder: SET METADATA FOR ALL EDITREADY REEL NAME FULL Obviously, this is an incredibly simple test, and it has its limitations in terms of really putting the performance of both softwares to the test. However, I ran the clip through this test twice to make sure that the results were accurate, and sure enough, they were exactly the same the second time around. Other than EditReady being faster than Media Encoder (and way more intuitive to use), it seemed to strain my computer less during the encoding process than did Media Encoder. Of course, that's just subjective observation as I wasn't measuring CPU or RAM usage during the encoding. ![]() With that said, I felt like I could multitask with other programs while EditReady was encoding. The same cannot be said of Media Encoder, which seemingly turns the computer into a giant paperweight while the program is encoding. SET METADATA FOR ALL EDITREADY REEL NAME PRO. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |