How Far Can I Go with Premiere Elements 13?

[BigEater]

I really like the simplicity of Premiere Elements 13; it helps me focus and be more creative than Premiere Pro because there are fewer rabbit holes to go down and fewer toys to play with.

But does anyone know whether the finished video output from Elements is the same quality as that from Pro? Is Elements a dumbed-down version of Pro that reduces the quality somewhere along the way?

For instance, with a broadcast-quality camera and all output settings being equal, If I sent a video to the BBC or NBC would the engineers there be able to scope out a difference between the two files?

I'm doing a one-hour doc that won't need much more than titles, dissolves, and fades. We don't anticipate the need for any higher-level SFX (yes, I am aware that I will have to eat my words on that at some point).

In other words, is Premiere Elements capable of producing broadcast- and theater-quality films? Or is there something about the program that prevents it from reaching the same level of quality as its big brother.

Thanks!

[sidd finch]

Welcome to the forum.

Based on your question both programs out put to the same kind of files. Pro might just have more variety. Depending on what your final destination is will dictate what type of file you produce. If you are making DVD's or outputting to the web or want to just play on your TV. You will need to match the desired output

You might check with a local station and see what kind of files that they normally require. I would anticipate that Elements can do the job.

Also contrary to popular belief there is no such thing as broadcast-quality. Any video that is broadcast on TV is broadcast quality, albeit cell phone video might be poorer than a Canon camcorder. They are all broadcast quality. One of the biggest differences is in the lenses that are used to capture the video. DSLR lenses will have a vastly improved look compared to a camcorder lens.

The question to answer is what is the video's final destination. Different scenarios require different file formats. H.264 is great for the web. MPEG2 is for standard DVD. 60fps is good for action and 30fps is better in low light etc. So based on where you plan on viewing the video will dictate the type of format you need.

Elements is pretty full featured and is a great alternative to Pro.

Sidd

[Steve Grisetti]

Excellent answer, Sidd!

Short answer, in terms of video quality, it's exactly the same coming from Premiere Pro or Premiere Elements, as long as you're comparing apples to apples (or format to format). It's the variety of outputs available where Pro has the definite advantage.

[Peru]

The quality should be the same. The biggest difference is that the hardware requirements to run Premiere Pro smoothly are much greater:
http://ppbm7.com/index.php/tweakers-page

[Bob]

I agree with Steve Grisetti that the question to answer is what is the video's final destination.

If you really are going to be submitting your video files to the BBC or NBC, there are requirements that go way beyond video quality. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of conformity as to what a station will accept for broadcast -- you'll need to know the individual networks requirements. As an example of requirements, see these standards for delivery to BBC. Note that the BBC wants a specific file format, codec, and color subsampling ratio. Premiere Elements is not capable of delivering that. You'll probably run into similar issues with other broadcast networks.

[BigEater]

This is great info. Thanks! You guys have saved me a ton of time and tsuris. I poked around a little in the BBC requirements and they are very specific even to the bitrate of the video and the sound specs.

I would prefer to edit with Elements just because it's so much less demanding of the hardware and gets the job done quicker. It has been great for creating client videos that go onto YouTube and Facebook. But sounds like for the next step up, career wise, I'll need to switch to Premier Pro full time.