-
Prem vs FCPX – Panels
-
The panel architecture that Oliver is talking about is much bigger than just plugins adding panels to the interface.
Panels are part of Adobe’s Common Extensibility Platform (CEP). What’s particularly cool about CEP is that it’s based on HTML5 for the interface and Javascript for the logic. It provides a set of APIs for interfacing with Adobe apps, it provides a really rich set of industry-standard web development libraries, and it essentially runs it all this in a web browser inside an Adobe app.
Why on earth would someone want a web browser in their NLE? Not for browsing the COW (sorry, Tim), but for allowing web developers to easily customize or integrate Adobe apps. As a developer, you do not need to be an expert on C++ and the entire breadth of the Adobe plugin SDKs; you can be a web developer, like Frame.io or Vimeo, focus on your main development efforts, and just learn a couple of relatively easy hooks into the host app (like Premiere).
This is a very, very natural way to integrate a web-based service into a desktop-based product.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Jeff Markgraf] “Counterpoint: Premiere Pro has a lousy GUI. Crowded, fiddly, ugly, not at all pleasant to use on a daily basis.”
I think fiddly is a great word to describe the Pr UI. I do seem to fiddle with it it a bit every time I use it.
I disagree on crowded, ugly and unpleasant, but I do feel that the design of the application and the default layouts promote a larger number of obvious UI interactions than FCPX does. I think at least part of this is a tradeoff between flexibility and complexity.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Robin S. Kurz] “Look at AE. For each new tracker there’s a completely different way of using it and a completely different place it’s been put. So I guess it’s “pro” to not consolidate features and functions that go together in a comprehensive way, but rather just introduce yet another tab, menu and pop-up? ????”
The point tracker, mask tracker, face tracker, camera tracker, and the warp stabilizer are all available in one place: Ae’s Tracker panel.
The Tracker panel itself has a common set of general controls. There are some differences in workflow and UI for some of the specifics, but that seems necessary — points, masks, faces, and cameras are all different.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “The point tracker, mask tracker, face tracker, camera tracker, and the warp stabilizer are all available in one place: Ae’s Tracker panel. “
Okay. Then that may have changed since I last checked. Unfortunately that doesn’t change anything about any of the other points and is really is only a tiny side-note overall. Just something I recall irritating me some time back.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
Sorry about your father, Chris. It’s a tough losing loved ones like that – best wishes to you and your family.
Shawn
-
[Walter Soyka] “Panels are part of Adobe’s Common Extensibility Platform (CEP).”
Walter,
I think the panel thing Adobe has going on is a great tool. Very nice integration with other Adobe products, and a great way to interface with other products (media managers, etc.). I wish FCPX had similar hooks available to third party products. I thinks it’s a key shortcoming.
The difficulty with this extensibility, from a usability standpoint, goes back to one of the fundamental differences (IMHO) between Adobe and Apple philosophies. The “everything to all people” approach of Adobe (of which panels is a valuable element) has very real drawbacks in terms of user experience. As you said in an earlier post, it’s a tradeoff. I find that what I may lose in extensibility/flexibility/customizability in FCPX (and many Apple products in general), I more than make up for in simplicity, ease of use, and the ability to focus on the work without other stuff in the way.
UI/UX is hard, it’s squishy, and it’s the very definition of a moving target. CF, Windows vs. Mac OS. Both can get the job done. Both can inspire near stroke-inducing fits of rage in some users. Years of using Adobe products hasn’t changed my opinion of their fundamentally unfriendly UI and UX. Neither has years of Windows use. But they both have come up with some great features over the years.
-
[Jeff Markgraf] “I find that what I may lose in extensibility/flexibility/customizability in FCPX (and many Apple products in general), I more than make up for in simplicity, ease of use, and the ability to focus on the work without other stuff in the way. “
Exactly.
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Scott Witthaus] “[Jeff Markgraf] “I find that what I may lose in extensibility/flexibility/customizability in FCPX (and many Apple products in general), I more than make up for in simplicity, ease of use, and the ability to focus on the work without other stuff in the way. ”
Exactly.”
+1
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Robin S. Kurz] “Okay. Then that may have changed since I last checked. Unfortunately that doesn’t change anything about any of the other points and is really is only a tiny side-note overall. Just something I recall irritating me some time back.”
You’ve mentioned that tiny side note before [link], but it’s just factually incorrect. I agree with you that the Adobe UI is complex, and that Premiere in particular is “fiddly,” but your example that the UI is inconsistent is wrong.
And this is not a change. Each of the new trackers have been integrated into the Tracker panel as they were released. Creative Cloud gives you access to old versions of software and allows side-by-side installation (another useful feature if you work with other people), so you can go back and check if you like.
You took a lot of time to count the controls in Premiere, and there are quite a few! But volume is not the same as chaos. If Ae’s trackers were all separate as you had alleged, that would certainly be chaotic, but that’s not the case.
Adobe UIs can be pretty hard to learn. They’re close to the metal, so to speak, relatively thin wrappers over the underlying mechanics, with lots of options and controls exposed. I know that you don’t value that, but I do. Once you learn them, they generally make sense and are easy to use. They value consistency within each app and respect their users’ training. Over a span of years, the UI evolves quite a lot, but there are no revolutions. That makes it hard to rethink problems from the ground up, but very easy to keep rolling through production.
Vive la différence.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “Adobe UIs can be pretty hard to learn. … I know that you don’t value that, but I do. Once you learn them, they generally make sense and are easy to use. … Over a span of years, the UI evolves quite a lot, but there are no revolutions. That makes it hard to rethink problems from the ground up, but very easy to keep rolling through production.”
I would add, that in a lot of the general post production world, knowing Photoshop and After Effects to at least a functional level is very important. From there, Premiere isn’t that much of a difference. Then, if you compare that to Smoke, it’s a walk in the park.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up