Hello fellow editors. I know that a lot of us are still using the Legacy Titler for our titling duties in Premiere Pro.
While "change" is never fun, my impression is that some people just have not taken the time to learn or become fluid or fluent with the tools, and that's understandable.
I've found the new title tools pretty compelling. I've swtiched to them. I found that some people are not even aware of the tools or how they function. Surprisingly, making a simple .mogrt is something many have not even tried. Sound familiar? No problem, here's the documentation.
Please respond here as to why you are using Legacy Titler below and I will pass along the feedback to the Premiere Pro team. Not here to judge, just to provide good feedback.
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
I've been pushing for some time that we get more shape options and capabilities, such as being able to set say an angle of a vertice so no matter whether you scale both axis, or scale one, the angle of that vertice would not change.
You can make most shapes by creating several shapes, some used to mask parts of something else so the result is the shape you want. Then use the "pinning" controls so the mask shapes stay where they need to for any motion or scaling.
But I want vertice angle controls, along with several other shapes pre-built.
I hope the programers are reading this thread. Like everyone else I want more creative options for the EGP but putting titles in the bins has to be top priority for me.
If you move to a Productions based operation, which for me even in my one-man shop is pretty awesome ... they suggest you discontinue using bins.
As you use folders on disc to organize the Job sections, and project files to hold the Job assets ... so you use project files as you would have bins before. This breaks the total job into much smaller project files that, within a Production process, can pull from each other without 'opening' the other project and loading every asset record of that project to RAM/cache.
You would essentially then have say a project file with nothing but your graphic elements in it with that workflow. But if you organize the browse panel of the EGP, then ... all graphics you've turned to mogrts are available quickly also. From any project file.
We do read this thread and others like it. Putting Graphics into Project Panel Bins is the number one reason we hear about from users who still use Legacy Titles. I can't say for sure what changes we plan for the future, but I can echo what Kevin and others said erlier on this thread... It's a good idea to start using the EGP Browse tab for storing and applying titles (mogrts) now in preparation for a time when Legacy Titles might not be an option at all.
I'll add something that to me seems pretty obvious ... mogrts added to the Browse panel of the EGP are available from any project on that machine or (if in CC libraries) any machine sharing that Library.
Graphics in a bin are only ever accessible within that project.
I'll add something that to me seems pretty obvious ... using the EGP Browse tab for storing and applying titles (mogrts) is not the problem, what's gone missing is the means to sort/browse/filter 'timeline instances' of EGP titles.
For what its worth, I rolled my own 'Timeline Index' panel for Premiere years ago, and it works a treat for the above issue ... maybe its time Adobe played catch up and provided a properly integrated Timeline Index panel for all users.
Would you confirm whether or not Legacy Titles in years old projects will be properly interprited by the EGP when the LTM is removed?
Why has the "Essential" Graphics Panel never been renamed to indicate that it is now the primary interface for titling?
The "Essential" moniker was to indicate analagous and more streamlined controls, but I think we're off the rails there
They've been as clear as humanly possible in many blog posts, replies here, and presentations at NAB and IBC and MAX. There is no way to simply transfer titles from the old titler to the EGP/motion graphics process, nor do they expect this to ever happen. While all of us would wish this otherwise, it ain't gonna happen.
I think the reason they've carried the Titler along this far is primarily because of carrying along the old projects still using it. And when it seems that those projects are so old to be ancient by broadcast standards, it will cease to exist. They have all sorts of ways for creating metrics, and I think that from comments at MAX last fall, the Titler is not used all that much as a percentage of the user base. And dropping.
As to the name, I'm not sure where you got the assumptions about the name. They used the same pattern as for the Essential Sound panel ... not as a temporary item in any way shape or form, or transitional ... but as the "home" for graphics tools in a Panel, as the Essential Sound Panel is for sound. And though named differently, as the Lumetri Panel is for color.
If you note, in all three panels, you do not need to apply an effect to a clip on a sequence before using the controls. With a panel like the ESP, EGP, and Lumetri open, when you touch the controls they are applied to any currently selected clip. That is where a Panel applying sound, graphics, or color differs from an effect used to apply sound, graphics, or color differences.
Hey Neil, I've taken a bit to come back to this reply, and my conclusion is still that the migration workflow they've proposed is untenable.
We're going to suddenly, some day in the future with no specific notice, loose the ability to make and read these titles on the same day? Ridiculous. They should be announcing things like this BEFORE it auto updates even though I've got it set not to by configuration file.
The escrow time should be multiple years of allowing people to read the titles while preventing them from being created. Not just putting "Legacy" in the title and telling us to use a half baked alternative.
I remember the messaging in 2017 around the "Essential Sound" panel being that it was analagous, faster, and easier even if it didn't have all the handles. That was how the "Essential Graphics" was brought up to me too. Maybe that wasn't the overall message.
The migration process is they've allowed the old one to be used for several years while the new one has been fleshed out ... and been recommending from every source they've got that users move to the new EGP and abandon working in the Legacy Titler.
You said the process should be over several years ... and it has been. I just wouldn't expect it to go on much longer.
That we've been in the migration process for years seems clear enough to me. I do realize for some, they prefer the layout of the old tool. But whether the old tool or new one is more sensible for any one user kind of misses the reality here ... the old tool is an ancient tool, and is going away at some point. We all know that ... at some point, to me, you just have to move on.
I had to leave working with SpeedGrade. Yea, I know the pain. And we dropped a TON more capablity going from then-SpeedGrade and then Lumetri than between the current Legacy Titler and current EGP.
The comparisons to the ESP are not even necessarily useful, let alone the consideration if they're valid. Each tool is a different thing. But ... the ESP was designed for the rapid use by the tons of editors who don't need to get into the weeds, just get something adequate done and that quickly. Which the ESP does allow.
Note, any effect used in the ESP then appears in the ECP, and can be modified there to suit. I know a number of editors who complained about the ESP at first ... then realized that within certain processes, it actually was a quick way to apply basic changes, and then they go into the ECP without having to grab an effect from the Effects panel first. As the ESP had applied the effect to the clip.
The ESP was designed as a quick ... substitute? ... for going to the Audio effects list, that could be used instead of or alongside working with the full Audio effects listings.
The EGP was not conceived of as a simplified shortcut, but as evolving into a complete tool for doing the graphics work. Which is why they have allowed the use of both while the EGP was brought up to specs better. And over the last four years, they have brought the EGP a long way. It's got nearly any capability of the Titler, and some things that the Titler can't.
Yea, we're all still pushing for more shapes that you can simply choose from a list than create ... and a few other things. But for the most part, the EGP is usable for most anything you can need. If it isn't, then it's work for Ae. But then, it would be work for Ae anyway at that point.
As I only see a black screen when I click the link ... it actually doesn't shed any light on the subject. It's a private video it says.
EDIT: the third time I clicked on it, the link worked ... yay!
And it can be instructive to see what someone is talking about in a video. It can also be annoying when you spend 10 minutes viewing a video and know that four quick written phrases could have encapsulated the entire content. And saved you 10 minutes of blown time.
So perhaps a summary of the preferred working steps in the Titler might be good along with a working link. As we all work differently.
For this vid, it seems that would be:
That would primarily cover the video I think.
It can also be annoying when you spend 10 minutes viewing a video and know that four quick written phrases could have encapsulated the entire content. And saved you 10 minutes of blown time.
So very true.
Listing the ability to save EGP titles in the bin would not demonstrate why bins are better. A lot of people do not know how to enable video and audio useage. I think the video demonstrates the advantage of the Legacy Titling Tools much better than a simple list.
You're not getting it, Andy. A LOT of people will simply never look at your video if they don't know what you're covering. And for experienced users, they want to know if there's anything interesting/worth their time in watching it.
So as I said ... do both. List what you're going to demo, and include the link.
Why do I still use Legacy Title? Because I have been using Premiere since CS3 and I have thousands of titles saved via specific folders. I use 50-70 titles per 1 hour project, but I only have to create 10 or so for any new project because of the ones I have saved, so the clunky having to reset the window every time I need a new title does not aggravate me as much since I'm mostly drag and drop. All those titles take up very little space. Yes, it takes Premiere a long time to open, worse than Dreamweaver, but that's OK. I'm kind of slow, so as far as I know there is NO way to save my titles and I can not open them or convert them with the new title maker. Can I?? I will not live long enough to save all of them to media files. When Adobe removes the Legacy Title Maker and I lose all my titles I will quit Adobe. I know, they could care less, but that is 95% of my work. If my understanding is wrong please tell me. Will I lose all my work? Is there a work around?
Did you watch the video?
Thank you Andy,
No, I had not seen that video and I will have to watch it again as I did not know I could search by title. I thought (hoped) you were sending me instructions how I could save my legacy titles in the new title maker, but... Thanks for sharing the video, unfortunately Adobe does not allow us to vote. I will keep using the legacy title maker till they pull the plug. Again, thanks for the video. Searching by title might be faster than scrolling through bins. Have a great day.
When they drop the Title maker, we will probably loose ability to modify old titles. Might be able to use unmodified ones, we don't know of course. And yea, with a ton of saved titles to just mod a bit losing them will be painful.
Now ... anywhere you go, you'll be starting over with titles in a different titling process. So I take it you'd be "leaving Adobe" just on account of being ticked at them. Which I get. (I'm still ticked about SpeedGrade ... )
But for practical purposes, just getting work done ... it seems like you already know how to work in Premiere, and all these apps are so freaking different from each other.
I've talked with engineers at NAB about the need for converting from one to the other. They actually are sympathetic ... remember, they're all editors themselves. And they've got their store of older titles. The problem they say is it would be a very difficult job to accurately 'translate' as the codes and processes have nothing to do with each other. It isn't just it 'looks' different. I've heard of several scripting masters that were going to sort out how to do that, but none has ever been posted anywhere with a means to do so. Not for lack of trying, I think.
Yea, it's a massive pain.
Dont think that is ever going to happen, being able to use legacy titles as Mogrt in the Ess Graphic.
Besides if you upgrade the graphic to a Master Graphic it will appear in the Project Panel.
Thought I'd pass this on. I downloaded the new Premiere beta to see if the Legacy title maker is still in it. It is. My custom styles are gone, even though I opened my previous project, but here is the strange thing. When I close the panel and then reopen it the panels are right where I left them. I could not believe it! I did it four times and it opened the same way. I know, I know, it is going away, but for right now it is better than before. I hope this works for others too. Just an fyi.
Several valid reasons were given. I hope this thread was done out of concern for the users and Adobe has decided to keep the Legacy Titler and perhaps revamp it a little.
You can put EGP titles into bins as seen in the video below.
The Legacy Titles are vastly better than the new graphics version.
1. It's really fast - the new version slows down the edit and is very fiddlly, not good for floow or fast editing, which we do a lot of here (never met an editor that likes working with new titles (we did a 26 ep sewries with it and nearly pulled our hair out, because of the extra amount of time it took to make an adjustment).
2. If we want fancy titles, we would create it in AE, not Premiere.
3. Leagacy titles - Stability, Stability & Stability....
The new titles have crashed every machine in the office, and have cause significant distruption.
4. Sending text to clients and mastering houses is really quick and seamless, new version is not.
Hope that will give you an idea why many editors prefer it and I wish Adobe would stop trying to re-invent the wheel.