Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com ([209.85.214.175] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4945739 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 20:52:07 +0100 Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id vb8so2587837obc.20 for ; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:57:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=8UDxO6wJNIu1YK8FhaMCLQgI1CZFiAfpYAPzMyejpDs=; b=b0foFHrFphavLXGmpRIkbYxKNrDEwa2RE3MmQRat7/O6/ij/IbiugUypAnc5xrYGC5 jp4R4x8teKRdcfImDWjR9JoxbU9/kxi4z9K2OEtLLcPHjkS3HZEsiqcvJHa6ZQtEYH/t wcNjEzkHJNSQvePTFuZuzgNkw9GJrj7Sc8O5PGV3Eg+v9gJc0Rwg4KRiX2R7AMtqUo2R 9/0Wb4GAmstawZTq+IKbaqWTB84Eir1dnZYWS/+bOzuoxGoyPuKwGnQ01AhJi5f/K/US z0v6NpXgR07N/dhczN4Wx758mJsU1BhY2GcYLBYUHGx4kR/Vp554uIwoPofXp2i0OSP9 MajQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.170.10 with SMTP id ai10mr40631018oec.72.1357761428571; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:57:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.94.174 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 11:57:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 14:57:08 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Comparing speeds from CS4 to CS6 From: rendernyc To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54a35d4a3c5e304d2e07774 --bcaec54a35d4a3c5e304d2e07774 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 yes.. premiere is a HUGE difference. cs4 i still didnt like using. cs5 seemed a bit better but still wasnt for me. i played a bit with 5.5 but we just couldnt be friends CS6 PP however... thats a different story. I have switched to premiere at home and have been using it at several places that i freelance at. that never happened with the older ones On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Walter Soyka wrote: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:01 PM, mike cardeiro wrote: > >> I am still experiencing bugs with the new cache system (but I love it and >> am still using it). The bug I am encountering is ae displaying >> pre-rendered frames from the cache even though tiff sequence frames used in >> the sequence have been revised (the workaround is you have to erase the >> disk cache and purge all). > > > Mike, I'm curious -- are you reloading the footage in Ae (right-click on > the sequence in the project panel, choose Reload footage), or just relying > on Ae to pull the new files from disk? > > *Walter Soyka* > -- danny princz exposedideas.com --bcaec54a35d4a3c5e304d2e07774 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
yes..=A0premiere=A0is a HUGE difference.
cs4 i s= till didnt like using. cs5 seemed a bit better but still wasnt for me. i pl= ayed a bit with 5.5 but we just couldnt be friends

CS6 PP however... thats a different story. I have switched to premiere at h= ome and have been using it at several places that i freelance at. that neve= r happened with the older ones


On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Walter Soyka= <walter@keenlive.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 2:01 PM, mike car= deiro <mcardeir= o@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am still experiencing bugs with the new cache system (but I love it and a= m still using it). =A0The bug I am encountering is ae displaying pre-render= ed frames from the cache even though tiff sequence frames used in the seque= nce have been revised (the workaround is you have to erase the disk cache a= nd purge all).
=A0
Mike, I'm curious -- are you reloading the foo= tage in Ae (right-click on the sequence in the project panel, choose Reload= footage), or just relying on Ae to pull the new files from disk?

Walter S= oyka=A0



--
danny princz=

exposedideas.com
--bcaec54a35d4a3c5e304d2e07774--