Adobe Premier Elements supports Blu-ray exclusively

Janet Harris

September 25, 2007

Adobe Premier Elements supports Blu-ray exclusively
The newly launched version 6 of Adobe’s Premier Elements software, does not support HD-DVD.

The Pocket-lint site reports that Adobe has succumbed to pressure from Sony, to support only the rival Blu-ray HD format with its latest Premier Elemenets movie-editing software, although Adobe has not endorsed this view.

Adobe works closely with Sony, and both Photoshop Elements and Premiere Elements are included as standard with Sony Vaio PCs.

The HD DVD format has also recently gained support, with Toshiba and Acer both choosing to install HD DVD drives in newer laptop models rather than Blu-ray.

The format war looks set to continue for some time.


Comments in chronological order (2 comments)

  1. John Dowdell says:

    If you’re pimping for ad revenue on Digg, then you really should link to the source article too.
    Adobe opts for Blu-ray only support in latest software

    And then your sourcing and reading are distorted… here’s the original quote in question, as weak as it is:
    “An Adobe spokesman told Pocket-lint that he wasn’t sure why the next gen high-def format isn’t supported in the company’s software, however talking to industry insiders who wanted to remain anonymous, they believed that it was pressure from laptop maker Sony insisting that the rival format isn’t supported in the software.”

    Anonymous “sources” amplified & modified by what appears to be a spam site which advertises on the social sites… not the best use of our time on this planet.


  2. Brian Turner says:

    Hi John Dowdell –

    Presuming you actually authored the original comment below, I’ve got to admit I’m surprised and disappointed by your invective. is a syndicated news site. It’s not written as a blog, hence the lack of subjective analysis on our part condemning Adobe’s position on HD-DVD – or not, as the case may be, and additionally the lack of linking out to every passing webpage which may not even be present a few months down the line.

    As Pocket Lint gave the original report, we gave due credit. I’m not sure why that should be regarded as a problem, let alone “anonymous” as claimed.

    Additionally, the comment “If you’re pimping for ad revenue on Digg” is nonsensical. While we display social media links in posts, we certainly have no organised attempt other than that to be submitted to social sites.

    The following is downright disingenuous:

    “Anonymous “sources” amplified & modified by what appears to be a spam site which advertises on the social sites…”

    This reads as a suggestion that is a spam site, which is a very irresponsible comment to make. If you would be happy to clarify this, I’ll be happy to try and help illuminate otherwise.

    Best regards,


Post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Visited 1797 times, 1 so far today