I think the time of the large tower are coming to an end – and the bloated software suits with it :-)

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Bret,

[Bret Williams] “Aren’t useful waveforms important in dedicated audio apps too?”

Absolutely. FCPX seems to have useful rectified waveforms, though Aindreas would disagree (so this is not an uncontroversial point).

[Bret Williams] ” But my point is basically FCP X is a better, more powerful audio tool than legacy in every way, except that it doesn’t have a mixer, …”

I’m not convinced at all about “every way”.

Definitely the plug-in implementation is better, but if you’re comparing to FCP7 that doesn’t say much (7 is and always was a disaster that way). How are 3rd party audio plug-ins? Any experience? Also does FCPX have native M/S decoding? (I think I’ve asked that before and not got a response).

I also like the core of the idea of how audio clips are implemented, collapsible and expandable in the timeline (though I don’t have enough experience to have a good opinion on that).

[Bret Williams] “If they add a mixer, it would make it a better app. It’ll just have to be a roles mixer or something a bit different.”

If they add a mixer, I’ll be very intrigued to see how they implement it. The implementation will be everything (see: PIOPs) and whether or not it will be a “better app” rests on that.

Franz.

[Kevin Monahan]

[Steve Connor] “True, but what I’m saying is that in reality Adobe aren’t actually TELLING us anything beyond the fact that you are listening and that you know the areas that need to be addressed, even if some of them have been problems for considerably more than one release cycle.”

That isn’t true. Adobe has technology previews all the time. You can definitely see the technology we’re working on for future new features. Here are some examples:

Warp Stabilizer
Audio “Rub a dub”
Adobe Edit Anywhere
More Adobe TV Sneaks

We are constantly showing our new technology, much of which gets integrated into new features for our video products. Just take a look around.

As far as fixing longer standing bugs, we are doing the best we can given the staff and time constraints we have.

Kevin Monahan
Sr. Content and Community Lead
Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere Pro
Adobe Systems, Inc.
Follow Me on Twitter!

[Craig Seeman]

[Bill Davis] “Nobody would imagine a market opportunity there, right?”

Oh Bill, don’t you know that if a third party does it, it’s not “pro.” I mean if Apple doesn’t start building RedRocket cards into the next MacPro they’re just plan consumer boxes. And like who would ever want to hook a Pegasus RAID or AJA Io XT to their MacBook “Pro” or their 27″ iMac. Like Apple should really build that stuff in.

🙂

[Aindreas Gallagher]

and that was put a lot better than I could.

in terms of my own noodling – adobe anywhere – honest to god is anyone, (at all?), curious about the implications of adobe’s potential effort there?

I’m a bit surprised we don’t bat around the potentially broad implications of anywhere. It has undergone full public demos – in a suite that costs thirty quid a month. thats less than a sky subscription.

on a personal note – the 3D camera tracker for graphic elements in AE6 is ludicrously effective software. I just plopped a ton of camera tracked GUI stuff over Sony products at IFA berlin with it. Its a tank. the warp stabiliser speaks for itself.

honest to god – the point is that I somehow don’t think editing types have fully internalised adobe’s real long term intellectual heft . – because they haven’t, to this point, met them in editing.

I’ve personally been at AE since about 4.1. in 2000(?) – when they executed multiple masks on a single layer.

Adobe execute – sometimes at their own pace – but they are rabid savage right now after editing in case anyone is curious – they are foot to the floor

Adobe are supposed to be an editing provider. It’s a really good idea that happens, because they face multiple, strong, existential editing competition.

they’re not facing pixelmator: they’re facing Avid – and Apple – their bête noire.
Isn’t it perfect?

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Walter Soyka]

I’d love to discuss the second bit of the subject line.

Are you suggesting that big software suites are an anachronism?

With editors being tasked with ever-more responsibility (editorial, color, graphics, sound), I would think that suites and all-in-ones alike would be more valuable today than ever.

Or am I just being dense and missing the point?

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

[Carsten Orlt]

I was more teasing 🙂

But I dislike bloated software in general, that’s why I like FCPx. And I can see some development going towards to post pc area where you have many specific tools rather than one-fits-all. Of course they don’t make a finished film, but they will make part of what you need to do. And because they’re small in functionality they can be faster updated and maintained. But really this is all about what I like and not what I think WILL be happening 🙂

Happy editing

[Bret Williams]

You’re right, comparing it to an audio engine from over 10 years ago isn’t fair. But I was really just jumping off from Shane’s assertion that 7 was better than Adobes audio in so many ways. I was saying, well, X has addressed this and that AND the core of it is more powerful as well. So if I can argue X is easily better than 7 in so many ways, and even 7 is arguably better than Premiere, then I think that speaks volumes to the argument for X vs Premiere. There is no argument as to X vs 7. Or at least there won’t be much point in the near future. It’s eol’d and done. The question here should be now what?

I forgot to mention how helpful editing audio at 1/100th of a frame increments is. However Premiere does do that.

[Bill Davis]

I’ll take a little of this on.

Let’s just look at one small area of editing – color correction.

Once upon a time it wasn’t a key part of the editing process at all. It was left to the field engineers to balance and shade the cameras to get them as “correct” as possible.

Then when NLE came along, there were fewer and fewer engineers, so camera matching fell to the editors in post.

Today I have two totally different approaches to color correction depending on whether or not I’m shooting what I edit or not.

Situation A is if I’m generating my footage myself, I consider the need for color correction to be largely a FAILURE of my execution in the field. It means I didn’t take the time to shoot things properly. Maybe I didn’t set the camera correctly, or maybe I didn’t take the time to gel the windows, or turn off the spiky overhead green fluorescents – or SOMETHING took place where I’m not coming back with footage that looks extremely professional right on the desktop from the get-go. So I can fix that if I do my job properly. And the more I do so, the LESS important color correction in post will be to me.

The second situation is where I’m NOT in control of my source material and can’t determine whether things will come in shot properly or not – or I just have to face the fact that for whatever reason, I can’t create an acceptable project without significant color correction to meet the projects delivery standards.

If I MOSTLY work in situation A then the color correction tools in X will likely be 100% effective for me. I know enough to fix issues in the field. And I also know how to correct the common issues with the tools I have.

If I work MOSTLY in situation B – then the color correction tools in X might prove to be woefully inadequate. If I’m working in an environment where the reverse angles shot at 3pm MUST absolutely and perfectly match the tones of Master shot done at 10am – X’s tools might get me there or not depending on how well the crew corrected things in the field. And I might need every ounce of a totally professional CC toolset to get things to my standard.

So look, I totally understand how others who face B situations every day would want boatloads of Primary, and Secondary corrections with lots of agile masks for each.

But again, more shooters are A – players than need to be B players. The truth is, the way I see it, if I shoot properly – then I’ll seldom touch the controls that another editor might live inside every day.

THIS is the issue.

Not every editing suite can be everything to everyone. Tradeoffs are inevitable.

I haven’t faced a situation yet where X’s approach couldn’t get me results I’m very happy with in making my videos acceptable to my clients.

But that’s me and my clients – and it’s certainly not universal.

So I’m an advocate of letting X grow up serving the needs of the largest group of it’s users first.

Over time, I suspect that since it’s built on technology that CAN handle color really, really well – sooner or later the controls and capabilities WILL improve – and I”m just happy they’re already more than acceptable for me right now.

My 2 cents.

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.

[Andrew Kimery]

[Bill Davis] “Once upon a time it wasn’t a key part of the editing process at all. It was left to the field engineers to balance and shade the cameras to get them as “correct” as possible.”
In terms of things like ENG or EFP I would agree but in film-land post processing is as old as the medium itself.

With regards to large software suits, I feel like devs are fighting a never ending battle to give customers what they want while also trying to save customers from themselves. If you don’t add features then users won’t keep buying the software and you also run the risk of being a one trick pony and having that trick copied by your competitors. The more features you add though the more complicated the software gets (both as a user and dev) which can weigh down the software so then, as a dev, you might try and get multiple programs to seamlessly talk/roundtrip with each other and that just opens up a whole new can of worms.

Personally, I’m not worried about the size of a program or a suite as long as it meets my needs (which includes being stable and w/in my budget).

[Steve Connor]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “sure, but there is a real quality of life difference in the culture”

Absolutely, I think it’s great that Adobe engage their users so well

[Aindreas Gallagher] “And also look – there’s no way we don’t want PPro 6.5/7 to be anything less than a first rank field player. London has a bit of an avid sky closing overhead.
“

True as well, I’m confident that Adobe are trying their hardest to fit into the gap left by FCP7 and I hope they do well.

Steve Connor
‘It’s just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure”