-
Death of Aperture-FCPX Next?
-
[Bill Davis] “It also sports a good bit of what I think of as feature creep, with stuff like a slide show generator and “order me a photo album” crap that I just ignore.
“FWIW – this was adding because Aperture had it first.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Bill Davis] “But it’s internal semi round trip link to Photoshop (the return file shows up as a separate tiff alongside the unretouched original) is a good indication that Adobe did not try to make it anywhere near a full fledged photo editor.”
PS – also added because that’s how Aperture did it.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “I think that’s descriptive enough. Yes, you overwrite. No, it’s not destructive.”
Yep, exactly right.
“Destructive” in the NLE context is actually a technical term. It should be used accurately.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[David Lawrence] “”Destructive” in the NLE context is actually a technical term. It should be used accurately.”
I kind of see Bill’s point. Clip collisions are (often needlessly) destructive in (most) tracked NLEs.
That makes sense on video tape, which can actually only hold a single stream in a video track, but this limitation is artificial with computers. There’s no reason that a track couldn’t hold multiple overlapping clips for later collision resolution.
FCP X handles clip collision truly non-destructively in all cases, so I think the distinction is valid.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
Ok then. Clearly I am and continue to be a talentless, hack. You’ve found me out Herb. Congrats. I’ll get right on refunding that two decade of income the idiot clients paid me for making their videos.
Actually, on reflection, I realize that my solice is that I get to remain happy as a delighted X editor getting improved software regularly – while you appear to remain pissed off and strangely sensitive to someone using a word you don’t approve of to describe a piece of 4 year obsolete software.
I actually think I’m fine with my relative position here.
Have a great weekend.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
Interesting, Oliver.
I barely used Aperture before I started working with a group of pro photographers here in town trading my video expertise for introduction to their RAW photo workflows.
They led me to Lightroom well before the Adobe rental mess.
I’m delighted that they’ve exempted LR from the cloud only straight jacket, but wary of the new Photoshop bundle since even tho it essentially makes a 1 year Photoshop license only about $40 over the purchase cost of LR alone, it would suck me into becoming yet another CC “signup” just a few months after i cut those ties – plus seduce me into spending more time gaining skill on a rental app I’d like to replace with something “ownable” ASAP.
BTW, isn’t it interesting that the new deal requires the $120 payment for the “rental” year up front?
Odd how all this is needed to keep the photo side happy, while the video side gets the “this way or no way” treatment.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bill Davis] “I barely used Aperture before I started working with a group of pro photographers here in town trading my video expertise for introduction to their RAW photo workflows. “
The frustrating part about Aperture is that Apple essentially invented the genre of this software and then neglected it. Although, I, too, believe Photos might still be sufficiently “pro” to make everyone happy. However, for the folks who actually used the photo books function, I’ll bet that goes away.
FWIW – the same “edit in” plug-in path that lets you use Photoshop with Aperture (like with Lightroom), also works with a number of other apps, including MB Looks and various DFT products, like Tiffen Dfx, Film Stocks, etc. There also used to be a nifty plug-in that worked between Aperture and FCP “legacy”. You could select a set of photos in order and export them as a sequence (complete with dissolves and sequence codec settings) to FCP. Once in FCP, adjust timing and add moves.
[Bill Davis] “Odd how all this is needed to keep the photo side happy, while the video side gets the “this way or no way” treatment.”
Seems interesting to me as well. Probably because there are a lot more users there and many more fit into the high-end amateur camp than on the video side.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Bill Davis] “But it’s internal semi round trip link to Photoshop (the return file shows up as a separate tiff alongside the unretouched original) is a good indication that Adobe did not try to make it anywhere near a full fledged photo editor.”
Dennis already addressed this, but I’ll add my .02. Lightroom is a RAW image processor and organizer. It’s not intended at all to be a full fledged photo editor. Why would it when there is photoshop? RAW processor means that it only writes a set of instructions for processing the data. Only when you export a jpg or tiff does it bake those edits into the final output. When you send a file to PS for more advanced editing/retouching, PS is actually altering the pixels and/or adding layers which are outside the scope of a RAW image processor. It wouldn’t make sense to replace your digital negative with a tiff or psd file, which is why it is added along side the RAW file. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
[Bill Davis] “Then it has a basic suite of touch up tools to let you quickly enhance and repair your selected raw files.”
Maybe you haven’t used a recent version of LR. It has quite a huge selection of powerful editing tools. The spot healing tool now works like the tool in PS (you can paint in your healing edit instead of just a single round spot), it has graduated/radial filters, adjustment brush (which was huge for me), and over the years the array of color/tonal tools, sharpening, noise reduction, have been improved a ton. I do 90+% of my photo editing in LR. I’ve been using it since the original beta version.
-
[Walter Soyka] “Clip collisions are (often needlessly) destructive in (most) tracked NLEs.
That makes sense on video tape, which can actually only hold a single stream in a video track, but this limitation is artificial with computers. There’s no reason that a track couldn’t hold multiple overlapping clips for later collision resolution.
FCP X handles clip collision truly non-destructively in all cases, so I think the distinction is valid.”
I disagree. It’s an incorrect use of the term.
There’s a technical difference between overwriting and destructive editing. They’re simply not the same thing.
NLEs have always been non-destructive by their very nature.
If a clip collision deleted a chunk of the clip from the file on disk, then it would be considered destructive. Overwriting something accidentally on the timeline does nothing of the sort.
In fact, one of the things I find so frustrating about the magnetic timeline is that it’s sometimes over-protective of clips. For example, it doesn’t allow a simple audio cut and overwrite paste directly from the primary into the primary. This is something I easily do hundreds of times an hour when cutting dialogue on a tracked timeline. Even the simplest text editor can overwrite paste.
I agree that there’s no reason a single track couldn’t hold multiple overlapping clips. IIRC, Vegas has an overlap mode and I’ve also seen this in some DAWs. There are many interesting UI possibilities that could be explored. FCPX’s clip-collision handling isn’t the only solution to the problem (if it’s even a problem).
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[David Lawrence] “I disagree. It’s an incorrect use of the term. There’s a technical difference between overwriting and destructive editing. They’re simply not the same thing.”
I’m not familiar with the term “destructive” in the context of editorial. What is an example of the correct use of the term “destructive editing?”
Is film editing destructive? Those cuts are real!
Is linear tape-to-tape editing destructive? Once tape is recorded, its previous contents cannot be restored.
What’s the difference between a timeline operation that causes an overwrite of something that was in a timeline track and what is certainly properly called a destructive Photoshop operation that causes an overwrite of pixels that were in the raster (as opposed to a non-destructive operation in which the pixel modification is performed by a separate layer)?
I use media servers that allow overlapping clips as you are describing with Vegas. Don’t overlapping clips show what is “destroyed” in what you are calling an overwrite — a prior editorial decision? (Clip extents and placement in time.)
I see your point, too, David, but I’m not sure that the term “destructive editing” was ever a thing. I think Bill’s definition actually matches the use in Photoshop pretty closely.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn]
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up