-
Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
-
I’d like to hear about the shortcomings. What are they? The same plugins that exist for 7, X, and Premiere seem to be much better in their X implementation in my experience.
-
[Oliver Peters] “the only option that they could offer at this time was a Creative Cloud Team subscription. “
aaarrrrrggg. if they actually try and do this the amount of volcanic FUD that will erupt out of the ground will make the mountains of madness look like disneyland.
The PR risk is insane.
the boardroom would want to be utterly hell bent to insanity to get at the bank account direct debits to even consider this.
It would fundamentally damage the narrative of the release. not to mention their actual brand.because then its not the nice Adobe of Al Mooney and Monaghan and them that everyone was so tickled by at NAB –
its just an insane board and CEO frothing at the mouth trying to please the funds that own over 90% of the company, by financially breaking the arms of every customer to get into their bank accounts ongoing. It’s a PR nightmare that narrative.https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Bret Williams] “The same plugins that exist for 7, X, and Premiere seem to be much better in their X implementation in my experience.”
This has not been may experience with FxFactory Pro, Sapphire Edge, Magic Bullet Looks, BCC, Tiffen Dfx, Filmstocks, etc.
There is no plug-in API for FCP X, so effects cannot be properly optimized for X the way they can be for other hosts. They all have to be built to FxPlug in Motion and then “published” as Motion templates. This adds a layer of overhead that is not otherwise there in other plug-ins. There cannot be sophisticated UIs without venturing into on-screen controls in the viewer.
Specifics that I run into are the poor response of screen updates when sliders are adjusted, slow renders, etc. Complex filters that do multiple tasks, like DV Shade, perform noticeably worse than filters with only one task, like a blur. As a contrast, I can apply a Sapphire effect in Premiere Pro and it runs in real-time at 1/2 res. The same filter, using Sapphire Edge chokes in X set to “better performance”.
I have not had a single developer tell me that they have an easier time developing for X than the others. In fact, exactly the opposite. They are only in it, hoping for the numbers.
There is an argument to be made that the nature of Motion templates is better – assuming you stick to Motion’s native effects – than the older methods. To some extent this is true. Many of X’s effects create very unique and high-quality looks. Some of the transitions would be nearly impossible in other NLEs. But that gets us back to the core argument. Namely, have the business models of Apple and Adobe both, killed incentive to do new, high-quality custom effects?
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
**edit** this was totally better answered above*
well the fact that magic bullet looks was dead in the water for four or five months, along with many other plug-ins with no response or acknowledgement from Apple springs to mind.
there’s this bit i’d just paste in from below conversation:
[Walter Soyka] “FCPX users may have needs for FxF/BCC/Sapphire, but may find those needs better-filled in another host like Ae anyway.”
[Oliver Peters] Agreed. Their performance is terrible in FCP X versus AE. I really don’t consider X to be a very good host for effects, though it has an edge with transitions. The various stylized “look” effects do function reasonably well within X as long as they are Apple’s.
Also – there is an issue considering what kind of GUIs the plugins can represent – sometimes it leaves only really clumsy looking implementations – say where MB LOOKS controller/booter to the full interface can only exist as a burn in drop over on the video itself, that you have to turn on and off in the inspector.
that stuff is just stupid. the inspector is extremely limited in the kind of controls you can put in there. forget about putting an S curve tone controller in there.
Or a colorista wheel. Both of those are good to go in Premiere for instance.https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
Wouldn’t that depend on what computer and GPU you have? If a plugin is tapping into cuda, great on a particular card on a Mac Pro, or on a hacked 2012 imac, but a dog on a 2011 imac.
And maybe I don’t hang out with enough designers, but I always thought plug-ins were the cheat, and real designers used plug ins sparingly.
-
Usually the plugins work for whatever apps you have don’t they? My few do.
-
[Bret Williams] “And maybe I don’t hang out with enough designers, but I always thought plug-ins were the cheat, and real designers used plug ins sparingly.”
For me, plugins aren’t about getting a specific look from footage. They’re really about extending the feature set of the host application and bringing more creative options in reach.
Any designer worth his beret (I kid, I kid) wouldn’t just slap a single instance of MB Looks on a clip, load up the first preset in the list, call it finished and ship it — unless of course that actually best solved the design problem at hand.
Single-effect processing with presets usually isn’t design. Creating new elements or combining elements in different ways can serve design needs, and that’s where plugins come in.
In FCPX, SliceX makes new things doable in FCPX.
In Ae, generative effects like Trapcode Particular, Trapcode Form or Video Copilot Element 3D open up all kinds of new visual possibilities that would be impractical or impossible to achieve otherwise.
Even standard processing/filtering effects can be used very creatively in support of design, given enough control and layering. I don’t think there’s any honor in building your own visual from built-in effects if you could have done the same thing in a quarter of the time with a third-party plugin.
I use plugins extensively, because they extend creative options or speed up my workflow — but I use the defaults settings and/or published presets sparingly, because they rarely fit a project’s specific design needs.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Bret Williams] “Wouldn’t that depend on what computer and GPU you have? If a plugin is tapping into cuda, great on a particular card on a Mac Pro, or on a hacked 2012 imac, but a dog on a 2011 imac.”
Yes and no. I am comparing the same plug-ins on the same machine without any CUDA. Obviously anything CUDA-enabled would benefit that app, but not FCP X. Nothing that works with FCP X uses CUDA, AFAIK. Anything optimized for FCP X uses OpenCL, while most plug-ins are optimized for OpenGL or some for CUDA. Generally iMacs have been better, but at NAB a number of demos I saw were running on iMacs and they actually performed worse than on Mac Pros. Enough so that the developers had to apologize.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “But that gets us back to the core argument. Namely, have the business models of Apple and Adobe both, killed incentive to do new, high-quality custom effects?”
Looking at the examples listed, what I see are largely high-end, expensive plugins (which I happen to rather like and have come to rely on) faring poorly in mid-tier and low-end markets which are probably significantly more price sensitive.
Effects sets like BCC and Sapphire may be staples on big finishing systems like Smoke or DS, or may be commonly used via OFX on other big-ticket systems like Nuke, Fusion, SCRATCH, or Mistika. Even given some moderate success with finishing-oriented FCP/Ae solutions, why should we assume that will translate to huge successes on even smaller/cheaper systems?
With Resolve Lite 10 being free, the number of seats of OFX-capable software will skyrocket, but how many of those new users are really potential customers for BorisFX or GenArts?
I’m not convinced this is a case where a rising tide lifts all boats. I think that some of the effects we’re discussing are simply niche products, and that niche is not growing nearly as fast as the market as a whole.
Maybe they’re just being disrupted by more broadly-targeted, broadly-priced tools? There seem to be no shortage of new effects from other developers.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “Effects sets like BCC and Sapphire may be staples on big finishing systems like Smoke or DS”
Actually not. These are used extensively by Media Composer editors among other. I would consider that mid-tier. But your basic point is still correct.
[Walter Soyka] “With Resolve Lite 10 being free, the number of seats of OFX-capable software will skyrocket, but how many of those new users are really potential customers for BorisFX or GenArts?”
Lots of potential with probably zero buyers. I don’t hold a lot of stock in vast numbers of Resolve users. The only editors I know (not counting DITs) who have touched Resolve are those who already understood grading apps like Color. That’s a small subset of all working editors.
[Walter Soyka] “I’m not convinced this is a case where a rising tide lifts all boats. I think that some of the effects we’re discussing are simply niche products, and that niche is not growing nearly as fast as the market as a whole.”
Completely agree. For better or worse the market has been devalued. If anything the high-end niche is struggling even more. I think a prime example is Smoke 2013. The Sparks (Autodesk plug-ins) developers had to make a strategic decision to reduce the cost of the plug-ins in order to play in that arena. These plug-ins have historically been tiered to the cost of the host. Sapphire was more for Flame or Pablo than Media Composer or After Effects. Now you’ve got a much lower priced host and those owners won’t pay the Sparks prices that Flame owners had.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up