-
Less a showdown, more a decision – Phillip Bloom outlines his reasoning for choosing PPro 6.
-
[Oliver Peters] “I’m not sure I agree that PPro is a good example of this. The CS6 UI is certainly more streamlined, but there are similar operational issues with CS6 as there have been in most of the recent, previous versions. Little was changed operationally – aside from a performance boost evident with each new version. Most of the change was cosmetic and in generic, a mimic of Avid Media Composer.”
I don’t know if that’s completely fair, Oliver. Multicam, timeline trimming, project panel operations (hover scrub, setting I/O) and audio track assignment/routing are all (now) operationally different from previous versions. Of course, Adobe did work alot on the UI as you mentioned. But PPro CS6 is a lot more than a few UI and performance tweaks… at least in my opinion.
Also, I’m not sure Herb was talking about CS6 when he was talking about the ground up re-write of PPro… the 64 bit overhaul happened in CS5.
Thanks,
Shawn
-
[Oliver Peters] “I’m not sure I agree that PPro is a good example of this. The CS6 UI is certainly more streamlined, but there are similar operational issues with CS6 as there have been in most of the recent, previous versions. Little was changed operationally”
I believe it was in PPro version 5 that the 64 bit re-write occurred and the mercury playback engine installed, and the whole point of my comparison is that they could do this without changing the GUI operationally. Starting with a new slate can mean changing the underpinnings to allow for future evolutionary change without radically changing the editing experience. Adobe has done it both ways – the change from Premiere to Premiere Pro was as radical as the X introduction as far as users were concerned, right down to the inability to open old files. However this time around they tried the “everything’s the same but better” option for a re-write, proof that you don’t have to throw the entire program away to start anew.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Walter Soyka] “Absolutely. 30 seats will need some serious server-side heavy metal, though the clients could be very, very light.”
Doesn’t that kind of maths feel rather overwhelmingly strategic by adobe? and must have required pretty serious R&D to deliver the scenario?
*if it works*I don’t remember adobe being this melded into backend hardware spec sheets for next gen suite delivery.
the thing you would think about it is that it is aimed squarely to buttress their core editing platform – as a next generation suite component – it doesn’t exist for AE or PS really, but as an underpinning to the entire suite through prelude and premiere as core suite components for small to mid-sized facilities?
if adobe execute it becomes an industry argument about paradigm delivery that apple, and FCPX, may have some difficulty with.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Herb Sevush] “proof that you don’t have to throw the entire program away to start anew.”
Remember that they weren’t starting with 12-15 year-old code based on QuickTime, which is now, no longer a core media architecture for Apple.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Jeremy Garchow] ” I think that the metaphor is incomplete in FCPX, that is to say, that there isn’t quite a full track replacement mechanism in place, even though I believe one has certainly been started. What is needed is a few of the advantages tracks offer (free standing clips, visual organization, etc).”
I’ve seen nothing from Apple to indicate that this is true, although as has often been stated, on these matters Apple follows the Tao — “he who speaks does not know, he who knows, does not speak.” I will believe it when I see it.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I also didn’t know we the collective editing community has been using computers for 100 years. That’s a new one on me!”
It’s been a hundred years in dog years.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Oliver Peters] “And when you get right down to it, how many projects really function long-distance?”
I’m currently working with editors anywhere from 40 to 3000 miles away using Ichat theater and Skype Video and it’s not very satisfying. I would love to be able to interface with editors over long distance. I think if it allows true collaboration at a distance without major SAN expenses it would be huge.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Oliver Peters] “Remember that they weren’t starting with 12-15 year-old code based on QuickTime, which is now, no longer a core media architecture for Apple.”
I remember this but now we’re back to the old argument that the magnetic paradigm was necessitated by the re-write. I fail to see how this can be true. There were many traditional NLE’s that never used Quicktime, that never used any media wrapper for that matter. What does the absence of Quicktime have to do with the trackless magnetic timeline?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “I’ve seen nothing from Apple to indicate that this is true, although as has often been stated, on these matters Apple follows the Tao — “he who speaks does not know, he who knows, does not speak.” I will believe it when I see it.”
Just like I will believe Adobe Anywhere when I see it, or better media management in CS6 when I see it?
We all know what has “officially” been leaked to the press regarding FCPX’s next releases. One of those is multichannel audio editing tools by the end of the year, along with dual viewers and some different format support.
They are speaking, whether or not an editor chooses to hear them is another story.
-
[Herb Sevush] ” I think if it allows true collaboration at a distance without major SAN expenses it would be huge.”
The demos don’t seem to indicate that it will be that type of system. The media, compositing/effects and steaming engine live on the server. You access a project long-distance and the server feeds you a single, compressed stream while you edit. Nothing lives locally. I don’t see anything where two or more editors can be working on the same project at the same time. It’s not long-distance Unity. It’s more of a long-distance check-out/check-in/publish operation.
How do you see this as NOT involving major SAN expenses? If we’re talking about your facility, you would have to purchase, install and maintain the infrastructure, with includes additional server-side software.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Herb Sevush] “but now we’re back to the old argument that the magnetic paradigm was necessitated by the re-write.”
I’m not saying that at all. They certainly could have decided to rewrite a track-based, traditional NLE. They simply chose not to. We’ll see if that’s the right choice in a few years.
I do kind of find it ironic that on this same forum in another thread we are discussing the relative merits of Sony Vegas. It is certainly a is a good NLE, but just as foreign in design and methodology to most Avid/Adobe/FCP7 editors as is FCP X.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up