-
MacBook Pros “underpowered?” Not for FCP X editors. Not AT ALL.
-
[Bill Davis] “If BlackMagic can handle an FCPXML in Resolve – why can’t Adobes Lumitri accept the same FCPXML? You tell me. “
Huh??????!!!!! You do know Resolve is a full application, while Lumetri is effectively only a plug-in. Right? Lumetri by itself can’t accept any sort of list – same as Hawaiki, Colorista, etc. I understand what you are saying, but this isn’t the best example.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Huh??????!!!!! You do know Resolve is a full application, while Lumetri is effectively only a plug-in. Right? Lumetri by itself can’t accept any sort of list – same as Hawaiki, Colorista, etc. I understand what you are saying, but this isn’t the best example.”
Fair point, Oliver.
Then perhaps a fairer question is if why can’t Lumetri take in information from Color Finale any more than Color Finale can take in information in from Lumetri?
Bob’s point seems to have been that it’s a noble goal for everyone to accommodate everyone elses approaches so as to enhance cross-platform workflows.
He’s asking for Apple to “open up” to alternative programs needs.
So in that context, I’d simply ask what the other NLEs have done to “open up” to X’s evolutionary workflows?
Are there “accommodations” built into AVID or Premiere Pro to accommodate the way X works? Or is this just a matter of “you MUST accommodate us”, regardless of whether that slows down the propagation of the ideas that have made Apple products more effective and efficient for their own users?
I’d be happy to hear examples of other NLEs accommodating anything significant that Apple has pioneered in X. I can easily point to the other companies ADOPTING efficiency concepts X has been using for 6 years like the proxy workflow and skimming and folding those into their own software as their hardware has developed to accommodated them. Are their not equivalent concepts that those other programs pioneered that X has incorporated. Perhapst I’m just woefully ignorant of them. So, help me out. What are the most recent and most effective ones? How has AVID or Premiere Pro singularly evolved to move the industry forward?
And does what you can cite tell us anything about the direction that, say “Adobe innovation” is headed compared to the direction Apple Innovation is headed? Or is innovation simply NOT important anymore. Is the editing industry “done” with where it needs to go?
If the argument is that it’s important to promote inter-action and sharing across the industry, is it still OK if what’s being asked for is exclusively ONE WAY accommodation?
Just asking.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “He’s asking for Apple to “open up” to alternative programs needs.
“Yes, their Hardware and OS platform, has nothing to do with what other NLE Software Companies do with their interchange.
-
My bad.
The first few paragraphs of Bob’s post seems to be about EVERYTHING Apple.
I didn’t focus on the one time he mentioned Hardware in the last 3rd of his post.
But it begs the question: Is it’s similarly Apple’s responsibility to insure compatibility across hardware approaches?
Hasn’t that ALWAYS been a Apple hallmark?
Apple seems to make systems it feels are are cohesive and optimized for it’s OWN ecosystem. THAT is our their first priority. Secondary to that, they will attempt to keep things open – but NOT, it seems to me, at the expense of performance or value to the customers that directly support them.
I’m not sure how the doing anything else makes sense.
Or again, is it your view that Apple sublimates what they can do with their own systems – in order to be compatible with another companies systems?
Seems to me APPLE stockholders might have some issues with that.
FWIW.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “I’d be happy to hear examples of other NLEs accommodating anything significant that Apple has pioneered in X.”
Adobe and others expend huge amounts of development time trying to keep abreast of the vagaries of Apple’s OS updates.
I use vagaries as a euphemism there.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Simon Ubsdell] “Adobe and others expend huge amounts of development time trying to keep abreast of the vagaries of Apple’s OS updates.
I use vagaries as a euphemism there.”
Oh I ABSOLUTELY agree with this Simon,
Heck, I’m the guy that had to jettison 8 months of work at the 10.2 transition when they changed the look of the FCP X interface and re-start everything in my own tiny XinTwo initiative. So I’m acutely aware that the downside of rapid development is that people who depend on the software working and looking ONE WAY can get snapped, big time.
But even tho it set me back directly. I had to suck it up and understand that what I get in exchange for the setback is software that moves forward faster than if they prioritized compatibility over innovation. And I have to live with that.
And so it goes.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “Then perhaps a fairer question is if why can’t Lumetri take in information from Color Finale any more than Color Finale can take in information in from Lumetri?”
Unfortunately none of the color correction tools talk to each other, because they all do their color math differently. A CDL is the main way color info gets transferred. But CDL values only address a limited number of handles compared with the full controls that most advanced apps and filters offer.
[Bill Davis] “Are there “accommodations” built into AVID or Premiere Pro to accommodate the way X works?”
I would say no, not X specifically. However, prior to X there was at least some attempt at interchange with FCP ‘legacy’ – at least on Adobe’s part. Avid has tended to be the outlier, mainly because they’ve dominated the markets that were most concerned about interchange. Thus, people had to conform to Avid and not so much the other way around. Another side of that is that Avid has participated in standards bodies and designed accordingly. Apple usually hasn’t. Of course, it could be countered that the standards that were developed, were built around Avid, such as OMF and later AAF.
[Bill Davis] “I’d be happy to hear examples of other NLEs accommodating anything significant that Apple has pioneered in X”
Well, not X specifically, but there’s certainly been a lot of effort to natively support ProRes. That’s pretty significant.
[Bill Davis] “Are their not equivalent concepts that those other programs pioneered that X has incorporated. “
No. What did you have in mind? For example, Avid offers ScriptSync/Script Integration and PhraseFind, which are unique to Avid. Nothing like that in X. Adobe and Avid both offer media management with trimming (like FCP ‘legacy’) – can’t do that in X. The way you can deal with 60i footage with 3:2 pulldown and turn that back into true 24p media is also superior in Media Composer. It would be nice to have that in X.
[Bill Davis] “If the argument is that it’s important to promote inter-action and sharing across the industry, is it still OK if what’s being asked for is exclusively ONE WAY accommodation?”
I don’t know if that’s a fair statement. Apple has offered FCPXML and left all outside integration to third party developers. I think that’s a smart approach for them – and cost effective – but, it is a bit of a “take it or leave it” attitude.
OTOH, it does let them focus on getting it right without developing something that works so-so. We all know they could have done in-house, exactly what Intelligent Assistance, Automatic Duck, Blackmagic Design and others have done. And we now know that when they said it wasn’t possible, that wasn’t exactly the truth. However, none of those solutions are perfect and Apple probably didn’t want to put its name on something that might have issues.
In fairness to Apple, these teams do talk to each other and do work behind the scenes. So there’s not quite as much of a wall between Apple and Adobe and/or Avid as the general user might think. Trust me, I’m not necessarily arguing Bob’s position, but it is more difficult to work with X in a mixed environment. You get great results when everything is set-up as being X-centric, but not so much when you have to deal with different NLEs, different server/SAN structures, etc.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Bill Davis] “I had to suck it up”
With respect, your “suck it up time” is insignificant compared to the effort that developers have to put in to adapt to whatever curve balls Apple decide to send down.
All of us here are used to having to adapt to changes in the applications that we use, but developers have a much more arduous job.
It’s frustrating to have to run to stay in the same place, which is what adapting to OS changes involves most of the time.
The chances are that Adobe would be doing much more interesting work if they didn’t have to dodge and weave to accommodate the latest Apple whim.
At times, you wonder if Apple don’t deliberately make it difficult for the opposition … or is that too cynical?
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
I think we’ve gotten into the weeds a bit and are talking past each other. Long story short, I just disagree with your statement that if Adobe dropped Mac support and went PC-only that somehow performance would increase remarkably. I think the hurdles created by so many hardware and software variables on the PC side dwarf the hurdles created by maintaining MacOS compatibility.
I’m aware that AMD and Intel both produce x86 CPUs, I’m also aware of how differences in things like chipsets, drivers, and firmware in various PC components can have ripple effects that cause performances issues/bugs in Configuration A but not in Configuration B even though both meet the recommended system requirements. Adobe could ‘go narrow’ and severely limit the range of hardware and software it supports in an attempt to get meaningful performance boosts at the cost of broad compatibility, but I think that would be a penny wise/pound foolish tactic. IMO a large part of Adobe’s general appeal is that the software is incredibly accessible from a device standpoint. Mac or PC, laptop or desk, Android or iOS… Adobe’s solutions are there regardless of your choice of mainstream computing platform.
In 5 or 6 years though, who knows. That’s eons in tech time, but I do think Adobe likes being ubiquitous.
[andy patterson] “Actually there are PC gamers playing XBOX games at 4K instead of 1080 and they can also get more FPS than an XBOX. That is not to say the XBOX does not work good.
“A more apples to apples hardware comparison with optimized vs non-optimized software was what I getting at. Those PC gamers aren’t playing 4K games on PCs that have the similar hardware specs as an Xbox One (which by PC gaming standards are pathetic).
[andy patterson] “You are saying an XBOX 360 from 5 years ago can play the newest games as good as a brand new XBOX ONE?”
No, I’m saying the games that come out near the end of a console’s lifecycle generally look and perform much better than games that came out in the beginning of a console’s lifecycle because devs learn how to better optimize for a fixed hardware platform.
For example, the Xbox 360 came out in 2005 but one of the best looking games for the 360 was Crysis 3 which came out in 2013. Contrast that with a PC where its gaming performance goes down over time, not up. Trying to play an FPS from 2013 on a middle of the road PC from 2005 won’t be pretty (assuming the game will even launch). For another example, the PS3 was much more powerful than the PS2 but many early PS3 games didn’t look remarkably better than late cycle PS2 games because the devs had ‘mastered’ the PS2 but were still figuring out how to take advantage of the PS3’s hardware.
When you can optimize the software to the hardware then you can get better performance than using unoptimized software on the same hardware. Video games are just an easy example to illustrate this point.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “With respect, your “suck it up time” is insignificant compared to the effort that developers have to put in to adapt to whatever curve balls Apple decide to send down.”
OK.
I get it now.
For non-developer folk like me, whatever issues I have are “insignificant” so they apparently shouldn’t matter much to anyone EXCEPT me.
Check.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up