battlevova.blogg.se

1. #Editready vs adobe media encoder full#
2. #Editready vs adobe media encoder pro#
3. #Editready vs adobe media encoder software#

Many first-time users may find themselves asking, “Why is Premiere Pro rendering so slow?”-and the answer often lies in their hardware.Īdobe Premiere Pro mostly utilizes the computer’s central processing unit (CPU) for rendering, which means it’s often necessary to invest in a powerful CPU to cut down on wait times during the rendering process. Rendering in Premiere Pro is the process of creating preview files prior to exporting the video in the desired format.

#Editready vs adobe media encoder software#

While the software is relatively easy to learn for beginners-and can be explored in depth with a free seven-day trial-it is notorious for slow rendering times. Adobe Premiere Pro enables users of just about any experience level to cut and merge videos, do color correction, as well as include components like titles and text. But, before we do, a primer on the computer that I used to test the software.Adobe’s popular video editing program Premiere Pro makes it easy for video creators and editors to generate captivating videos with audio components. 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.

#Editready vs adobe media encoder full#

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.