How much time does using Adobe Premiere Pro’s text-based editing really save?

Text-based editing saves editors time, that’s obvious. But how much? Shiv Rajagopal downloaded some footage and took out his stopwatch to find out…

Adobe Premiere Pro recently added text-based editing tools to their feature suit. This rapidly growing post-production workflow aims to make it easier for an editor to assemble a rough cut. Content creators can edit through a transcript instead of scrubbing through footage and manually making each cut. This workflow promises to reduce the time spent editing a rough cut, but how much time does it save?

To find out, we will conduct an experiment…

The process

For this experiment, we will use identical source footage and create a rough cut using two different workflows. To truly understand the benefits of the text-based editing workflow, we must compare it against a traditional editing workflow.

We have chosen podcast footage since text-based editing is most commonly used for podcasts, interviews, and other dialog-heavy projects. The raw footage is a single take of the speaker that is 20 minutes long. As part of the experiment, I will edit the footage into a 10-minute video.

The ‘control group’ for the experiment will be a rough cut created using the traditional editing workflow. The workflow will consist of the following steps: 

• Import and review footage
• Assemble edited clips in sequence
• Edit clips and trim any unnecessary dialog, pauses, or filler sections

On the other hand, the ‘experimental group’ will be a rough cut created by leveraging the text-based editing workflow. This will consist of the following steps: 

• Import and transcribe footage
• Review transcription and assemble clips
• Edit transcription to trim pauses and other blemishes

We will be timing each step listed above to establish how long it will take to create a rough cut using both workflows. This will show us how much time text-based editing can save. Let’s begin!

Traditional editing workflow

Import and review footage

The first step was to watch and familiarize myself with the footage. I also tweaked the video settings and made minor adjustments to the audio levels during the initial watchthrough. 

Total time: 27 minutes

Assemble clips in sequence

After the initial viewing, I rewatched the footage to identify key edit points. I highlighted these edit points within the timeline using the marker tool. This allowed me to quickly cut out big chunks of unusable or irrelevant footage.

Then, I focused on restructuring the video using the remaining clips to establish a clear beginning, middle, and end for the video. 

Total time: 39 minutes

Trim unnecessary dialog, pauses, or filler sections

The speaker tended to pause often, making the editing process much more tedious as I had to manually edit and delete each pause. Deleting pauses required scrubbing back and forth the timeline multiple times, becoming the most time-consuming aspect of this workflow. 

Total time: 51 minutes

In total, it took approximately 2 hours (117 minutes, to be exact) to complete a rough cut of this 10-minute video using my traditional editing workflow. 

Text-Based editing workflow

Import and transcribe footage

The quickest and easiest way to transcribe footage is to do so while importing. On the latest version of Premiere Pro, users will be promoted to import their footage while creating a new project file. During this period, editors can also choose to transcribe the footage. Please note that transcription time will differ depending on your computer and hardware settings.

Total time: 6 minutes

Review transcription and assemble clips 

The most critical step in a text-based editing workflow is reviewing the transcription for mistakes. I played the video and read the transcription in real-time. Depending on the tone or accent of the speaker, Premiere Pro might misinterpret certain words. Correcting these mistakes at this stage is good practice, so you won’t have to worry when creating closed captions or subtitles. 

While reviewing the transcription, I also decided to cut any chunks of dialogue that I felt were unnecessary or irrelevant to the video. These edits simultaneously occur on the video timeline. 

You can copy and paste sections within the transcript to assemble the clips in the correct order. However, I chose to do this in the video timeline because it was much easier to drag and drop the clips. Once again, the transcription automatically reflects any edits made in the video timeline. 

Total time: 33 minutes

Edit transcription

The final step was trimming pauses and refining the rough cut. This is where the text-based editing workflow shines. Premiere Pro automatically detects and identifies pauses in the transcript. It also gives users the option to mass delete the pauses. However, this can sometimes ruin the pacing of the video. 

Therefore, I chose to playback the assembly cut from start to finish and deleted any pauses on the transcript. This process was much easier to execute and saved me a lot of time. 

Total time: 25 minutes

In total, it took me a little over an hour (64 minutes, to be exact) to complete a full rough cut of the same footage using the text-based editing workflow. 

Reviewing the results

The traditional workflow took 117 minutes, whereas the text-based editing workflow took 64 minutes. Therefore, using a text-based editing workflow saved me close to an hour (53 minutes, to be exact) of tedious editing. 

After going through both workflows, I will admit that reading the dialog and editing feels more natural than listening to the dialog multiple times before making an edit. However, this observation is only relevant to editors who work with dialog-heavy projects such as podcasts or interviews.

Another important caveat is that I conducted both experiments one after the other. Therefore, I had a clear idea of what the video should look like while experimenting with the text-based editing workflow. I knew what sections had to be cut and had already created a structure for the video. While I don’t think it would have significantly impacted the final result, I feel it is important to acknowledge that the experiment did not occur under ideal conditions. 

That being said, text-based editing has much to offer for editors who want to quickly assemble a rough cut for podcasts or interviews. While I cannot guarantee the exact amount of time text-based editing will save, it undoubtedly reduces the tedious work editors often have to do. Using this workflow will subsequently free up time for editors to add unique creative elements (such as graphics or animation) to elevate the overall video quality.