Please DO NOT eliminate the Legacy Title creator in future updates.
Adobe tends to update with only the highly skilled pro in mind. But there are many advanced amateurs like me who DO NOT want to lose Legacy Title creator.
Mick Staines commented
Our only solution now is to never update from now on,
We did that in 2018 for over a year because of instability.
Sergiu's assessment is, sadly and unfortunately, spot on.
Adobe seems to want to force us to adapt to its vision of doing things, even when doing so has absolutely zero benefits for end users and is nothing but a detriment to our workflows.
Case in point: the continued insistence that universal selection conventions need not be respected in Pr - https://adobe-video.uservoice.com/forums/911233-premiere-pro/suggestions/41277514-fix-selection-inconsistencies-in-timeline-ecp?fbclid=IwAR0dqF-txsgxLMQqiI85W7qiC1RAXjUxPHY_P1yJLtXaA9ZtPx2NHFK0UNo (see illustration)
When will the culture at Adobe become less one of "We'll do it our way" and more one of respect? i.e. Respect for users, for world-wide software conventions, for thoughtful consistency between (and even within) Adobe apps, for basic logic and for decency such as not wasting resources on petty things no one ever asked for (or did any user ever ask for Adobe's app icons to be changed to new colours everyone hates?)
I appreciate the feedback from Adobe staff, but actions speak much louder than words, and the words all too often are to say "we're not going to do what you want", as Sergiu points out.
Hi Michael -
You can control which join type is used for strokes in the EGP, so if you want the rounded joins you can choose that as a pref (EGP wing menu) or on a per-layer basis (wrench menu in the Text settings in the EGP).
The brightness issue is a known bug with some GPUs. It also happens with other kinds of transparent material. It is being worked on.
Michael Condiracci commented
If I may add to this discussion, I'm personally saddened to hear about the end of the Legacy Titler. I imported most of my Legacy Title styles to Essential Graphics text styles, only to find several features missing. The EG panel doesn't have Inner Strokes (which many of my saved Legacy presets have) and the existing Outer Stroke feature is horrendous on some typefaces. It looks jagged and blocky on fonts like Gotham and Arial; the LT stroke feature always rounded these edges. The jagged stroke is also a major reason why I kept using LTs instead of the Type Tool.
I've also encountered an odd glitch on export wherein EG and Type Tool layers make the entire video noticeably brighter when they appear onscreen. This does not happen after rendering in-sequence, only after exporting through PrPro or AME. While I've found an effective quick-fix, it involves more work to circumvent. All the more reasons why I have kept using LTs. Hopefully the features I mentioned above or a better way to upgrade existing LT styles to EG can be added in the future...
@Annika "So thank you to everyone who has invested the time. The team sees it. I also want to ask to keep the tone respectful. No harm in being critical, but we are all humans here."
Thank you for your words Annika. There certainly are times that Adobe members participate and therefore we feel heard, but more times than not, what we get in exchange for the time and effort we put in our FRs, votes and comments (for free, mind you, unlike paid Adobe staff) is the sound of crickets. Sometimes the silence is truly hard to understand. For example, with regards to the gaffe Adobe made when changing the colours of its app icons, rather than simply admitting the error and fixing it promptly, dozens of FR posts requesting the reversal of that gaffe were met with silence for a long time. Situations like this erode trust between a company and it's users. How long would it have taken someone at Adobe to fix this gaffe? 1-3 hours? A day? After all, fixing something like that should be as simple as swapping the new icons everyone hates with the old ones people liked.
I think open, straightforward communication like in your post goes a long way towards building trust. More of it from Adobe team members is always welcome! Of course, words also needs to be met with action, and I think fixing some of the little things that would be a quick fix for Adobe Engineers yet speak volumes towards the company's consideration of its users is a good start.
I also think that the reason many users are dismayed by the coming loss of LT is because EG has been such an abject failure at performing some of the most basic things imaginable, such as resizing titles/shapes. Why was the perfectly functional resizing design in LT, Photoshop and Illustrator thrown out the window to be replace by EG's junk resizing code? It's a given that some users (and perhaps even Adobe staff members) won't complain about EG's lack of asset resizing options, but it's also a given that they're the wrong people to consult about design changes! The right people to consult are those who use and understand multi Adobe app workflows and who recognize and respect the incredible value of keeping things consistent whenever doing so is beneficial, by not redesigning the wheel when there's no need to.
I agree that Adobe staff members are humans and deserve respect.
Adobe's users are also humans that deserve respect... and over time, far too many design decisions and omissions have revealed a lack of understanding of and/or respect for our needs. Thus the palpable frustration that can be heard in this thread because of eroded trust. You post is a step in the right direction towards building trust so, once again, thank you!
And as always, thank you for listening!
"It's a modern day trend to replace real support with "community support." ... the only option you get is to write on a forum or "board" ... Adobe is deliberately and consistently not providing."
You're saying you don't like Uservoice?
I must counter your point. I think Adobe's move to Uservoice has been fantastic. For one key reason: It's a 3rd party website. They don't have control over it. They can't remove stuff that is inconvenient or unflattering.
Before Uservoice, there was a feature request page on the adobe website. You'd send off a feature request, never to see it again. Some of my feature suggestions defied written explanation, so I included video screen capture of the error. They were not long... just a minute or two.
But since I uploaded them unlisted to youtube, I can see that many of those videos still have 0 views. Adobe wasn't watching them.
Uservoice is public. Everyone can see your request. Everyone can comment on it. This is MUCH better.
Before uservoice, for public discussion of bugs and features, we pretty much only had the Adobe forums. This was a big problem, because, either through negligence or deliberate meddling, many of those threads have been deleted.
Like this one from 11 years ago, about an issue with track mattes that still persists to this day:
Or this one, containing tons of diagnostic and preventative steps that users can take to battle an error that still persists to this day:
(Archived here, by me):
I could go on and on. I have a lot of those links, because I personally had already compiled a public feature suggestion/bug report list, which is still available here:
But I genuinely think that Uservoice is better than my own list, because anyone can submit, vote, and comment. I'm slowly moving my suggestions over to uservoice, when I have spare time.
Adobe has made many mistakes. Implementing Uservoice is not one of them.
Hi everyone. I am a Quality Engineer on the Motion Graphics Team. In the spirit of being transparent and engaging with the user community I want to add something, especially to the last couple of comments. This thread has in fact been under review of the team since the beginning. There has been engagement by multiple team members since the beginning. One of the reasons we had not moved forward with retiring the Legacy Titler are threads such as these. We are actively watching them and working on solutions. We appreciate every one who takes the time to give feedback and we are very much discussing and analyzing it internally. UserVoice is not replacing customer support. If you need customer support please go to https://helpx.adobe.com/de/contact.html. What you are getting here is attention from the Product Team, the engineers, the designers, the Product Managers and we are interested in reading from your experiences. We are in fact planning on releasing more features to close the gaps of Legacy Title users before retiring it. And even after that, we will continue to enhance Essential Graphics.
Lots of users have given valuable feedback here and described their workflow issues. That's exactly what we are looking for. So thank you to everyone who has invested the time. The team sees it. I also want to ask to keep the tone respectful. No harm in being critical, but we are all humans here.
I agree 100% with Taran. Confirmation bias is a very real thing, and Microsoft's Windows 8 is proof of that.
When determining what users want/need in Pr, it's important to consult the right users, not just the greatest number of users (and certainly not the meek "I'm cool with whatever" users who are mostly responsible for confirmation bias in the first place) ;) After all, a lot of people don't even know what they want until they get it because they don't have the imagination to think of better ways of doing things.
I'd put incredibly dedicated and smart users like TaranVH at the top of the list of users who should be consulted before changes are made. I'd add myself to that list, as someone who's contributed more FRs then 99% of Pr users. And I'd add programming geniuses like Sir Ivan to the list as well (he's the genius behind the Excalibur plugin which absolutely should be on the radar of every single Pr team member since it not only points out dozens of shortcomings in Pr, but actually fixes them).
Hi Taran -
Parenting is available in the EGP ("Upgrade to Source Graphic") and is optional.
We know the pen tool still needs some work in the EGP, and it is on the list.
"The large majority of users we have surveyed prefer the standard EGP, un-parented, graphics."
Careful. Microsoft said the same thing about Windows 8's Metro UI (getting rid of the start menu, among other things.)
"Microsoft, instead of dealing with the pain of their existing users directly, has trotted out pages of surveys, charts, tables, and even some college-level calculus formulas to prove why the new system is, in theory, an improvement."
And they continued using data to justify that Metro UI was good, that people like it, and even to justify the lack of a tutorial. (I still don't know how it was supposed to work)
But ultimately, enough people hated Metro UI, that Microsoft backed off a year later.
As for Premiere's essential graphics, I still can't so much as draw a line with it. And why do I have to click, move, and click again, just to make a circle or rectangle? Why does Adobe insist on constantly hiding tools inside of dropdown menus? "We feel that this decluttering is a boon," they say. But I, the user, know that it just slows me down.
And when I've rotated a shape, why does the position change unpredictably when I just want to move the anchor point??
These are smaller points, but it still makes the legacy titler just that much better/more usable.
I don't mind losing wacky features like the drop face 4 color gradient...
But core features like titles in bins, easy duplication and parenting on the timeline, and perhaps most importantly, the ability to easily draw any shape I want... (which I most commonly use for masking) I can't give those up.
Yes, the parenting behaviour of the legacy titler IS quite confusing when you're first learning to use it. But that doesn't mean Adobe should get rid of that feature, or use that info to justify getting rid of the legacy titler completely. It means that that feature should be made optional, so that those who want it, can still use it. Because once you understand how the parenting works, it can be extremely useful. (To be clear, "parenting" is how you can re-use the same title twice on the timeline, then make a change, and both instances will be updated, right?)
I've made other comments previously, which I still stand by.
Hi Pierre -
Yes, we do have longer term plans to share styles in Libraries as they are compatible with Photoshop Character Styles, which currently can be loaded in libs. That will also bring thumbnails.
Note that the project items for styles all have thumbnails currently, so you can see them in bins.
Hi Mike, first of all, thanks again for participating in this thread! I'm sure everyone appreciates it, myself included.
The Styles option in EG that replaces the Styles tab that used to be available in the LT is very strange: Why replace a visual grid of styles (LT) with a text-only drop down list (EG)?
Are there plans to turn the current text-only list of EG Styles into a more visual interface? Perhaps an option to display a pop out window all saved styles displayed visually? I don't think there's any need to explain why a visual approach is better than text only since it's rather self explanatory.
Hi Pan -
The EGP system has text styles, which are a more powerful version of the text templates from the legacy titler. They will let you do the shared style workflows, and they even can be used to update all of the children that use that style. The text styles are not the same as the motion graphics templates that I think you are describing.
Multiple shadows is in process in the EGP and should be showing up in beta soon.
The upgrade legacy title feature is already in the beta builds.
If you want the ripple behavior where one title changes all of its siblings, you can upgrade an EGP item to a Source Graphic, which adds a project item which behaves like the legacy titles do.
Pan Os commented
Hi, I'm here from basically the very beginning of this thread.
Though I still don't understand what the talk is about right now. It's been stated, explained and proven that and HOW the new Essential Graphics panel does not suffice and can't work as a replacement for many users.
How is it that the Legacy Titler still will be removed? Working with actual title objects vs. title FX on random clips is so much more versatile! This switch would AT BEST destroy the current workflow of a lot of users and at worst make what they aim for impossible.
One quick example:
I use(d) a special text style where I had just text in one color and specific font, plus outline and TWO drop shadows. Which was possible to do with the Legacy Titler just like that. Everything in one element. And I could just press Ctrl+T, go to the presets (which are gone after CC2014 even in the """LEGACY""" titler?!), click on the right one and I'm done. If I want to use the same text on two different spots I'll just drag it 2 times from the bin. Another text? Just duplicate it.
With the Essential Graphics panel it's theoretically possible to have a preset like that. You "just" create a transparent video, add the text effect, add the text, outline, two times the special drop shadow FX because having a shadow is a boolean choice in the text effects now(!), save it as Essential Graphics preset. But USING it is even worse. Because not only does it load like 10 times longer if I add it to by project from my presets, working with the same text on different spots of the video is impossible?
E.g. if you want to write two times "Hello" and one time "guys". With the Legacy Titler you just add the same element two times from the bin and then duplicate another time (e.g. with alt+drag iirc). This way, if you misspell "Hello" to "helo" you can just edit ONE of them and both/all occurences will be updated. That's impossible with Essential Graphics to my knowledge. Every text element is by itself.
P.S. last time I checked there are no stroke settings (e.g. outer, inner, middle stroke), ugh.
P.S.S. at the very least, Adobe should offer a tool of some sorts to automatically convert any text layers created with the Legacy Titler to the new format for all those users you're currently actively pushing out of your expensive ecosystem.
Hi everyone -
We have not ignored this thread - every post shows up for my team. And James Strawn on my team commented on the thread way back in the beginning. But for several years there wasn't much new to talk about. We knew that eventually the legacy titler would be removed, but we also knew it wasn't about to happen.
We now do need to officially sunset the legacy titler, and so the message you now see in the app is to stimulate exactly the kind of discussion that is happening here. We know that this is disruptive for some people, and we want to help as much as we can - both by making sure that the EGP workflow has the features you need and that there are ways to smooth the transition. But the fact remains that some things are going to be different (for usually good reasons, but different nonetheless). And some legacy titler features with extremely low usage will not be brought over to the EGP.
Thanks for working with use to make this transition as smooth as possible.
Nigel Jones commented
Thank you Mike B for stepping in.
I'm only using Premiere Pro as a serious hobby for editing, but I can see the frutstration the guys below have been faced with.
Can I make what I hope are constructive comments-
- Adobe please dont allow an important thread like this to go on for ages without stepping in. A lot of issues could have been addressed much earlier on.
- Suggest a very focused tutorial/video/communication is created (and advertised widely) to help users with the transition from Legacy titler to EGP. Also decsribe what is in the pipeline or under investigation requiring input (wherever possible)
- Promote the Beta platform more than you have done. I am aware of it myself, and have used the beta version when looking at a specific issue around H264/H265 hardware encoding. It was very useful to have a totally separate Premiere Beta Installation to try things out.
In conclusion, as already stated, we appreciate you have finite resources like any organisation, but can we see a little more time on User Forum interaction please. I think you will find it is time well spent to interact more regularly with your customers.
I agree 100% with James that it would be helpful to have EG titles default as Source Graphics. This should be a user selectable option though. I'll add this idea to the Source Graphics thread I've been participating on in the Adobe Support Community. Here's the link if you'd like to check it out James, or anyone else: https://community.adobe.com/t5/premiere-pro-beta/discuss-upgrade-legacy-titles-to-essential-graphics/m-p/12039710#M3257.
And thanks for chiming in Mike. I agree with other posters that seeing more interaction from Adobe reps would be a big step towards creating a better sense of community here on User Voice.
I find there's much more interaction from Adobe reps on Adobe Support Community posts asking for feedback about new features than there is here on User Voice. It's too bad that sometimes that interaction seems intent on ignoring/discrediting real issues we point out with new tools/designs, but even in these cases, interaction is still better than none at all.
Hi James -
The large majority of users we have surveyed prefer the standard EGP, un-parented, graphics. In fact, this was the top complaint (and source of confusion) about the legacy titler before the EGP was introduced. There are also things that source graphics cannot do - for example, they cannot have the intro-outro regions that regular graphics have, because those move keyframes based on the track item lengths in the timeline. The lack of keyframing in the legacy titler made this not an issue. And they also can't be rolls, because rolls are also dependent upon the track item length which can vary for different children. This is why we offer the upgrade as an option for those cases where it does make sense.
The Premiere Pro Beta can be downloaded from Creative Cloud Desktop under the Beta Apps section. It can live side by side with the official Premiere Pro app without collision. It usually has updates available every day. For features that are in development, we use the Beta forums for conversations. For example, here is a link to the post about Legacy Title Upgrade:
James Brady commented
Thanks for your responses. This is certainly helpful. I just tested the "Upgrade to Source Graphic" feature and have to say that will solve a lot of issues our studio has had with EG.
Something to consider: Why not have EGP default to creating "Source Graphics" rather than it creating something "lesser" requiring the editor to fish around for the "Upgrade to..." function for the graphic he/she just created?
Also I will be very interested to test the upgrade feature once it graduates from beta. And for those of us interested, what is the best way to beta test and participate in comments on beta versions?
Hi James -
Currently in beta, the Upgrade feature is something you can do manually to a single legacy title, or all of the legacy titles in a project. For now, we also leave the legacy title around so you have a reference. Later, this will become an option on project open. And then finally, it will become an automatic requirement on project open.
Any EGP graphic can be turned into a source graphic using the menu Graphics->Upgrade to Source Graphic. This will create a project item for it in the current bin, and it will be parented in the same way that legacy titles are parented.