-
And Desktop Adobe Rush overview from the “Premiere” FCPX site ;)
-
The most interesting thing in the article was this nugget by Phil Hodgetts in the comments section:
“Philip Hodgetts
I think Chris Hocking found that – on desktops anyway – Rush was a wrapper around Premiere Pro CC and not a different (or new) app, just a new interface. That would explain the support.”Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
Scott Simmons has a good post over at ProVideoColalition talking about who Rush is designed for (Content Creators) an who Rush is not designed for (Video Editors).
-
And a lot of changes can take place… over time. Look how long it took even for FCPX to fill many of the holes.
If, as others have indicated, it’s built on Premiere Pro, it’s possible that years down the road it may be an alternate (not even necessarily a replacement) GUI for editors that grow up with it. -
[Herb Sevush] “But you wouldn’t understand that, because you have no experience outside the Apple bubble.”
But Herb, this wasn’t MY criticism, as I noted.
It’s what I’ve been reading on outside forums focused on working editors who DO use programs like Premiere Pro.
I have no deep knowledge of how Adobe’s ecosystem functions for it’s users. So all I can do is read what others who do use that system post on-line.
And if you haven’t run into those who are upset that they think resources MIGHT have been diverted from PPro in the building of RUSH, (THEIR suspicion not mine, to be clear) then I don’t know what to say.
We’ve seen Apple and AVID get EXACTLY the same criticism over and over again. ALL editors are unhappy when they get a whiff that some company might not be prioritizing what THEY prefer them to prioritize over all else. It’s human nature.
This is just the same. That’s all.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Neil Goodman] “That winky face indicates that Im making a joke, but thanks for that little bit of apple history that IVE never heard before. ????
“How clever of you to address the form, but not the substance of what I wrote. ????
Which was that if Rush becomes a fresh code base upon which a new Adobe Editorial platform might someday develop (in EXACTLY the same way the iMove re-built code base became the initial digital scaffolding upon which FCP X was constructed) that might bode well for Adobe editors.
Or not. Nobody knows.
THAT was my point. Not what was “jokey” enough to be taken seriously or not.
????Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Craig Seeman] “And a lot of changes can take place… over time. Look how long it took even for FCPX to fill many of the holes.
If, as others have indicated, it’s built on Premiere Pro, it’s possible that years down the road it may be an alternate (not even necessarily a replacement) GUI for editors that grow up with it.”Bingo.
A way to ween the next generation off aspects of the existing program that are long in the tooth, while preserving what’s more modern. While adding in some of the best new interface and operational ideas.
Which is a pretty decent top level analysis of what Apple did with X verses Legacy.
Rethink. Cut away the cruft. Don’t try to deliver everything right out of the gate. Test and develop over time. And keep things tight, fast and agile: unlike what you might be working with if you try to keep the ENTIRE construct that you’re flagship program represents.
Seems kinda smart to me.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “How clever of you to address the form, but not the substance of what I wrote. ????”
Its code base was built ontop of premiere pro according to others in this thread.
-
[Neil Goodman] “Its code base was built ontop of premiere pro according to others in this thread.”
On top, doesn’t mean “on top of the entire PPro code base” tho.
Oliver posted the hardware and software restrictions that RUSH requires you to meet. And they are a pretty clear indication that the program relies on technology that does NOT try to maintain the type of backwards compatibility that professional desktop users (notoriously slow to upgrade things) prize in order to run their older generation applications.
I can’t think of a starker division in how Adobe sees Rush.
It’s a lighter, cleaner, fresh, approach, that uses what it can from the old program — and I’m SURE attempts to maintain as much overall compatibility as possible — but also DOES NOT try to keep doing the same things the same way their old software does things.
If RUSH is just a interface re-work on the same code, there would be no reason it’s requirements would be different from those of it’s parent.
But they are.
So SOMETHING under the hood has obviously been eliminated or changed which the old approach needed, but that the new approach does not.
That seems kinda obvious to me. Not to you?
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “A way to ween the next generation off aspects of the existing program that are long in the tooth, while preserving what’s more modern.”
Define “long in the tooth”.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] “Define “long in the tooth”.”
I don’t know. I’m a programming moron. But I might say something like:
Code that can’t efficiently leverage the advances in computer science from the most recent half-decade?
Just off the top of my head.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up