-
we’re gathered around a very small pond.
-
[Oliver Peters] “[Shawn Miller] “There are millions of folks doing 3D, motion graphics and compositing work… Blender alone claims to have over 2 million downloads a year. I can’t even begin to guess how big After Effects’ user base is, but I would be willing to believe that it dwarfs the FCP user base.”
And by default the majority of those folks are on PCs.”
But that’s a different kettle of fish all together. An open source program like Blender encourages people who’s core interest is programming and code manipulation to “try their hand” at these skill sets. Yes, some high level artists use them as well, but it’s not equivalent to plopping down $1000 plus to purchase a personal work tool.
I’m all for open source concepts like this. But I thought that in this group, the central angst was coming from “the pros” who see FCP as falling to the wishes of the great unwashed “consumers” rather than being a better protected to serve the needs of the priest class.
Like FCP, Photoshop, and many other “pro” programs, AE appears on a VERY wide range of users computers. Heck, the guy who fixes my Macs has FCP, CS4 and AE installed and has paid for all of them over the years. AND he owns a really nice DSLR. But barely uses any of that hardware or software in a meaningful professional way. They are affordable toys to him. Nothing more.
This is totally true of all software, and has been since the early days of commercial programs. There are likely more “INACTIVE” seats of all successful software out there than “active” ones – and more on point, there are probably far FEWER seats in the class of “professionals who depend day to day” on any particular software than we’d guess.
I note this because after my recent update to Lion, I started playing with LaunchPad – and was kinda shocked to see the rows and rows and rows of icons for programs I had long forgotten I’d installed and used over the years. (Some of them l hadn’t opened in maybe a decade! I clearly need to spend more time cleaning up during OS migrations!)
Kinda shocking, really.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
“But that’s a different kettle of fish all together. An open source program like Blender encourages people who’s core interest is programming and code manipulation to “try their hand” at these skill sets. Yes, some high level artists use them as well, but it’s not equivalent to plopping down $1000 plus to purchase a personal work tool.”
Possibly, but I suspect most Blender users choose that application because it’s powerful and it’s free. Blender’s UI is quirky to be sure… but it simply does things that can’t be done with commercial software costing less than $3,000.00 US… like fluid simulations.
Truthfully Bill, I’m not sure what the rest of your point is; that there are fewer folks using 3D applications and AE than FCP? If that’s it, then I just don’t agree. The world of postproduction is much bigger than that… as I’m sure you know.
Shawn
-
[Craig Seeman] “I think he saw that independent translator apps would be on the way out and that developers would do more to build these in.”
Except FCPX that is relying on third party developers to do more. Ergo Wes doesn’t think FCPX is a winner.
Can’t have it both ways Craig.
-
[Michael Gissing] “Except FCPX that is relying on third party developers to do more. Ergo Wes doesn’t think FCPX is a winner.
Can’t have it both ways Craig.”I think you’re a bit confused. Translation is being built into apps directly. Resolve understands FCPX through FCPXML for example. There will be little need for products like Automatic Duck’s tools.
Adobe hired Wes to built this into their products. That’s the standard.Adobe products will handle FCPX just as Resolve does . . . just as others will as they add them in house.
-
[Craig Seeman] “I think you’re a bit confused. Translation is being built into apps directly”
No confusion at all. FCPX from day one had only Duck to get audio out. Even with the .1 update it still requires third party apps to do the XML translation. If Apple subscribed to your theory then they would be putting in the translator for all the formats we used to have in FCP7 plus. Instead they’re saying “here’s the XML hooks, off you go and develop interchange with us because we don’t have any translation software at all ourselves.
Does FCPX import anything from PP or AVID, OMFs or AFF? No. Still confused at the logic of your argument?
-
This might sound dumb, but do you have to pay Avid to add OMF capability to an application?
Does anyone know any jokes that have nothing to do with a particular video package? We need some levity.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “This might sound dumb, but do you have to pay Avid to add OMF capability to an application?”
AAF requires licensing. That was an important part of the cost for Automatic Duck software. I don’t think AVID gets anything anymore for OMF and frankly why should they.
Can’t think of any editor jokes Jeremy, but this place does need to lighten up.
-
[Michael Gissing] “AAF requires licensing. That was an important part of the cost for Automatic Duck software. I don’t think AVID gets anything anymore for OMF and frankly why should they.”
I knew AAF does, but I couldn’t find anything on OMF. If a new application wants to add OMF, where do they get the recommendations?
I’ll start us off.
And the barman says, “We don’t serve time travelers here.”
A time traveler walks in to a bar.
Its too bad because if the time traveler was any good, he would have seen the bar coming, and ducked.
The time traveler says to the barman, “Wow, it’s been a long time since I’ve been here.” The barman chuckles and says, “That’s a good one! Your first drink is on the house on occasion of our grand opening.”
I’ll be here all week
-
[Michael Gissing] “Does FCPX import anything from PP or AVID, OMFs or AFF? No. Still confused at the logic of your argument?”
Actually I think all this will be coming.
I’m sure Wes will be building it in to all Adobe products for example.
Just as Resolve now can.
As I expect ProTools will.
All these are going to start happening by the developers.
I think Wes saw that coming. The market for $500 translators would shrink.
Adobe hiring him is the example. Developers building it all in so their apps can talk to each other. -
[Shawn Miller] “There are millions of folks doing 3D, motion graphics and compositing work… Blender alone claims to have over 2 million downloads a year. I can’t even begin to guess how big After Effects’ user base is, but I would be willing to believe that it dwarfs the FCP user base.”
[Oliver Peters] “And by default the majority of those folks are on PCs.”
I’d suggest that 3D for film or effects is predominantly PC, I think you might be surprised by the number of Mac-based 3D/motion graphics studios and freelancers. I don’t have hard numbers, but speaking anecdotally, I know way more Mac-based AE and C4D users than PC-based ones.
Since apps like these render on the CPU, a well-equipped Mac Pro has been a reasonable and cost-effective choice for a lot of this work, especially for motion graphics with relatively low polygon counts where Mac’s subpar GPU options don’t hurt viewport performance too badly as they would for film, effects, or games.
My question is this: of the Mac-based graphics shops (like mine), how many will stay on Macs?
In my article FCPX and the Domino Effect [link], I wrote about how I built my business on Macs with FCP editorial and stayed on Macs even as I did more graphics work. Now, without FCP keeping me on the Mac platform, I’m evaluating PC workstations.
I doubt I’m alone.
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
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up