I may be mistaken but I thought this used to be a thing. I wanted to try the new cc 2019 for a bit (and yes I know that this is risky to use new software once it's been released). So yes I found bugs and it keeps crashing sporadically on copy and pasting a clip in a sequence and moving that said clip.
Either way I just want to save my work and go back to cc 2018 for a bit but there's not an option for this. Do I just lose my work?
Quick note it's a sound synced multi-cam sequence embedded into another so Final Cut XML will not work here.
Thank you will do
Is there a mac OS equivalent to 7-zip?
7zip can perform multiple types of compression. The one used by Premiere Pro is gzip/gunzip. The Mac command line/console provides gunzip by default. See macos - Command to 'gzip' a folder? - Super User
7zip is not required for Mac or PC, all that is required is gzip/gunzip
Command line amateur here.
So where the above instructions say [right-click on the remaining file, go to 7-zip/extract here] I would [gunzip filename.prproj] in the Console? Then change the document in a text editor, and gzip back to a .prproj?
Thanks for holding my hand.
Keka in the app store
Might I say this is crazy. Adobe what is up... Obviously you can open a 2019 project in 2018 it just takes a lot of steps. Why not have a save copy in previous version? Post a lot of warning about what might not work, but give us a chance. I have a very basic video project I need to hand over to a coworker who is still using 2018. You are making me jump through hoops. NOT COOL ADOBE! Not cool at all. My opinion of the company just went down a notch. In the future I am certainly going to hold off upgrading to the next version of Premiere as long as I can to stay compatible with as many of my associates as possible.
There are so many users that would appreciate an option that would do as you say. Offer to revert, with warnings that "X feature is unavailable in that version and will be disabled".
Adobe is driven by metrics. So go over to the links to the UserVoice system and vote up on both of the two top requests for this. Enough metrics, the upper managers open the budget bag to get something done.
Sure - though its patently absurd that we should have to do that for what should be 'no-brainer' funcionality. The feature parity in their apps is beyond frustrating. For me - what I encoutner the most - its the layered PSD imprort / export in to / out of After Effects that drives me out of my mind. They really need to put a pause on adding shiny new crap and instead make these applications work together like a proper ecosystem.
Sorry - not really trying to vent at you, but having just stumbled acoss this thread after having need to save a Premiere 2020 file down to 2019 only discover its basically impossible just pushed my button. lol...
I couldn't agree more. Given that nearly EVERY Pr x.0.0 release has had crippling bugs, it's inexcusable not to have a downgrading option built into the app. This is hubris from Adobe.
I doubly agree with your sentiment "They really need to put a pause on adding shiny new crap and instead make these applications work together like a proper ecosystem." Dynamic Link shows such promise, but even the latest builds of Pr and Ae still lose the links. I'm constantly having to Relink Ae Comps in Pr that get lost when I reopen a Pr project with Linked Comps, or just save my Project in Ae, and switch back to Pr. And half the time I reopen an a Pr Project with Links, if the Links are still working, they've become unrendered.
@Neil: YOU ARE SO AWESOME! Thanks a lot and a lot and a lot! Why the heck doesnt adobe provide a service to just simply reset this that way? Anyways, thanks!
Because it's not Adobe policy. I don't understand but I know their practices.
And yes, the engineers all know that there are "hacks" that users do for a number of things that most of us would prefer to gave user settings for. But ... corporate policy is what it is.
And then they do a new Ireland something that has been untouchable is featured as now settable.
Are you saying that lack of feature parity across their own suite of apps which are meant to be used together is the result of policy?
Man, if anyone ever steps up with worthy challengers in this space, Adobe is hosed.
All the current apps work together. It's only going to a previous version which is an issue. And as previous issues don't support some newer effects, or even previous effects that have had their code updated, they seem to figure that users would have troubles if they reverted projects on a regular basis.
It's one of those things where we users would like options to do something, and they tend to see the problems that some users would then complain about how "this didn't work right!".
No, I don't think you get where I'm coming from. After Effects and Premiere are frequently used together. After Effects can easily save a project back up to 2 versions previous. The fact that Premiere cannot do this is the very definition of lack of feature parity. AE and PP deal with many of the same type of files, and there is no real technical limitation which would prevent PP to accomplish this.
To broaden this topic to further illustrate the issue, I could point to the fact that AE can export layered PSD files, but has blending modes which are 'unsupported' by PS, making the feature practically useless. Likewise, importing a layered PSD into AE typically results in a hot mess, owing to the differences in the way the respective programs handle mattes / masks.
The AE / PS pipeline issues are technically a little harder to sort out, but not impossible. Given the length of time these 2 apps have been in the same ecosystem, it's just madness that these issues persist.
Honestly, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Rather than focusing on flashy new tent pole features, I really wish Adobe would devote developer resources toward making parity and interoperability a reality across the range.
First, they haven't had any "flashy new tentpole features" in about 18 months, working on stability/performance/bugs primarily. Every time I see this sort of comment I tend to think people don't actually pay attention, they have a preconceived notion and just go with it.
Second ... each app has its own development team, and remember ... Adobe is a massively international company. They don't have a single facility where all the teams work, they are based in different countries even. Yea, we users think it would be easy to 'blend' things, it's one company, right? But internally, things aren't even close to what "we" users assume.
Yea, that's been a bit weird to find out. But around 6 years of talking with engineers at NAB and four at MAX ... it's a pretty segmented operation. The DVA section ... digital video apps ... is finally under one over-all supervisor. But each team is based in different facilities, Premiere in San Jose and AE in Seattle, and each team has a number of other 'offices' around the world.
For me, the entire Pr/Ae Dynamic Link thing is ... sketchy. It works mostly sort of. But when I need something in Ae, I tend to get it finished and exported out, never leaving a comp as part of a sequence longer than I need. Yea, I'd like that upgraded some. I really preferred the "Direct link" process between Premiere and SpeedGrade, that was much more usable and stable for me.
And yea ... I wish that Illustrator and Photoshop both had more 'links' to working with Premiere. Not anticipating it next week to be polite. They are amazingly segmented.
It's interesting that you decry preconceived notions, when you seem to have a few of your own.
I'm not talking about the last 18 months, I am talking about the past 16 1/2 YEARS. It was then that Adobe first launched their 'Creative Suite', bundling groups of apps together as an interoperable ecosystem for creative professionals and pipelines.
I am all too aware of the compartmentalization of development resources, and the philosophy behind that which suggest that when forced to self-innovate rather than piggybacking off the ideas of another group, better solutions to the same problem may be found. Adobe is far from the only company that operates this way.... NASA does this, and even my former employer Roland does this.
A frequent failure of this approach is that when a 'best' solution is found, that solution is not disseminated and integrated across other divisions, and the end result is a wonky and uneven experience.
The simple fact that these functional disparities have existed for so long is absurd, and speaking to me in a condescending fashion is not really doing anything to help.
I live under no false assumption that fixing these issues are 'easy'. As a motion graphics designer by trade, the one thing I hate most is a producer or client comes to me with a "This should be an easy fix" or any derivation thereof, as simplicity is rarely if ever an apt adjective for describing the work needed to facilitate the request. However, the simple fact that these glaring holes continue to be ignored for a period of time equal to that of a person being born to the point at which they can legally operate a motor vehicle demonstrates that it is lack of interest rather than ability which is preventing these issue from being addressed.
At this point, a clean and elegant interoperability across the range would be headline news. I hardly expect that to come in the form of an under the radar maintenance update, but rather something announced with a major release. But, each time such a release comes about, we get new features, many of which are niche, cool sure, but not something every workflow is ever going to need. Interoperability however would benefit damn near everyone and I think should be made a priority.
As someone who has relied upon these tools for their daily work for almost 20 years, I don't think being a little frustrated that the situation has not improved over time is in no way unreasonable.
You are relying on past operations not having changed ... which they have, rather dramatically.
The last couple years, we've had very few 'major' features. Mostly updates or replacements to current practices and such things as camera format additions for the meta-driven "pro" cameras like RED, Arri, and the major Sony rigs.
So ... there have been major changes. Not recognizing this is everyone's option but of course doesn't mean it's reality.
Now ... you did a great discussion of the across-apps interoperability issues. Totally agreed there.
And Kevin's comments are helpful ... the Adobe managers who decide budgets and therefore features and such ... live by metrics. One of their main sources are the UserVoice system collated reports they get. So ... give them metrics. It's about the only way we users can work to get some changes done.
I just wrote a post which has the step to down-grade a PP project. Similar to Neils but only 4 steps
AWESOME workaround. Many, many thanks!
I tried this a few times and it was useful as it showed me the timeline but wouldn't play properly. It was a few months ago so I can't remember the details. So I'd worry about getting any important work back into a usabe 2018 project.