Aindreas Gallagher
Forum Replies Created
-
[Oliver Peters] “That’s a HUGE “IF” and I just don’t see that sort of a system based on the demos Adobe has made available so far.”
sure.
but there are large parts of it standing, direct collaboration on the project is there, the assets are virtualised, and adobe do actually iterate like the proverbial hammer.
2013, as you say, is probably pretty much it.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Oliver Peters] “I don’t see small shops or even big agencies with media departments pursuing this.”
disagree. You are incorrect here. I’m regularly in one- on two floors with 200 + peeps – regularly as freelance, and if adobe anywhere works, it is fundamentally transformative.
the kind of media duplication going on at OS level – grandfathering of renders, asset duplication, both primary and H264 offline across the network is off the scale. It’s a mess.
look oliver – there is an opportunity to fundamentally improve the workflow. FCP7 shunted and opened file organisation back into the finder, and we all stopped using avid because it was a locked box. It is fundamentally important to be able to see the assets contained in the edit in process, for multiple parties during the edit.
however. It cannot be as messy as the direct single finder item getting repeatedly duplicated, and it can’t be as black box as avid.
If adobe can properly virtualise and distribute the core video assets that feed into the suite, allowing trivial simultaneous collaboration, safe client clip picks and feedback tying into software like prelude from parties inside and clients outside the design organisation, within an ongoing project, if anywhere can implement this – if adobe manage a quarter of it, there actually is something fundamentally transformative and day to day useful in it.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[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
-
[Oliver Peters] “Most of the change was cosmetic and in generic, a mimic of Avid Media Composer.”
So I’ll disagree with this anyway.
as far as I understand it, and in my playing, I now have realtime jkl trimming on a near par with media composer – that is a core attribute of avid long touted, entirely absent in FCPX and FCP7 before it.
In FCPX I have a laboured precision tool, mouse driven, where if I space bar slap to pause beyond the edit point for a dialogue point say, the skimmer will override the stop point once I move the mouse and I lose it. this is correct right?
Also in 6 I have both clip level and track level audio effects – not that I have ever gone mad for track level adjustment, but this combo is both useful and new?
bottom line oliver; you do phrase things nicely, but if it broadly, and successfully mimicked Avid’s core editing functionality, which people seem to say it has – considering where 5.5 was, cosmetic seems a very odd word to choose.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “but the organization and tracking of footage is particularly rugged, at least in my opinion. “
that’s a kind way of putting it.
If they can’t get out of the box of single project, second project import (and footage duplication) ala AE, thy’ll run into real adoption problems. That said, if adobe anywhere is any indication, adobe appear to be preparing for some pretty surprising strides.
https://blogs.adobe.com/VideoRoad/2012/10/adobe-anywhere-for-video.html
They’ve done quite serious stuff at the backend to read it, including muxing all the operations down to a single stream to allow for multicam over a realistic dsl pipe.
If they implement adobe anywhere anything like as well as they generally implement on the whole – you could imagine it percolating pretty damn widely.
It reads as insanely useful for mid range boutiques, and, maybe even more so, within multifloor new media agencies where multiple parties chew on the same material for shifting collaborative reasons. Ending the duplication of those assets within premiere and prelude feels immense to me.
Its almost like 50’s style IBM servers virtualised in the spine of the building delivering ubiquitous media for near trivial backend hardware investment and existing software. that’s a sell.
adobe still have something like an apple level ability to call the game. After effects shifts tend to determine the kind of stuff we see, PS owns image editing – adobe might actually end up stepping in and determining the practice of distributed media as a backend to media work.
If – if – that pans out, the Adobe Suite cloud would present a pretty sizeable challenge to Motion 5 and FCPX 10 as they sit on the mac appstore.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
hey hey – that was sober ranting peters – drunk is a lot more incoherent.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
good god oliver you are infuriatingly rational and measured. its not on.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Oliver Peters] “That portion is primarily the organizational tools and features like skimming.”
ok – I have, on a reasonably honest level now, with my quids in paid for FCPX, played about.
a few things – do you have any problems with all the tags and events exposing into the one window? do you miss multiple bins on a second monitor? this feels dangerously like a name drop, but say I have, due to unusual circumstances, been cutting a thirty second TV advert destined for your good nation, for a major sports company’s software product the last week – it involves transitions through various rooms. It is literally an edit of rooms. needless to say, those rooms have bins.
so – I cannot get how some people are willing to completely forgo the visual and cognitive importance of multiple bins containing postcard video picons (or list) – nicely arranged on a second screen – not to mention the continuous re-arrangement of them onscreen as reminders and thought process. The physical call to a bin, tossing it to the left or right, tapping something on top of it – I cannot see how this is not fundamentally important to the internal process of recall and prioritisation. how this is improved by transplanting tags intended for semantic word search into visuals, which by definition demand a spatial scenario to delineate them – given we do this on the timeline to begin with – given we spatially organise on the timeline, how stupid were apple to decide that spatial organisation in the preparation of the edit, in the form of objects to be fundamentally delineated and categorised in containers – how did they decide this was old hat?
further on – do you have problems with the need to twirl down the clips, repeatedly, to see the sub selections? Or do you work mostly in filmstrip mode> how can anyone in existence do that outside an apple demo?
Do you have problems with the actual GUI size of the elements? I find for instance the basic type choice too large – the available screen real estate in the single viewable bin area, the one bin, on a laptop strikes me as ludicrous. its designed for minimum use case scenarios. I see a quarter of the attributes I saw in FCP7.
do you find the timeline clip lozenges far too vertical and compressed at mid zoom? Do you find it easy to perceive the clip relationships at mid zoom? Do you find the reaction on current top spec hardware unsatisfactory when lifting and repositioning clips? do you find the drop shadows and dissolve delete animations gratuitous and counter productive?
[Oliver Peters] ” I feel that I have already been able to do better grades with X “
no arguments here to a point. the power masks are superlative, and make a mockery of all other editing systems. Avid, I now realise, hasn’t even geometrics as a native attribute, and the application of effects, where you are made dive inside them, in russian doll fashion – is a joke for the ages.
however effects raises an important point -which is that it is largely based on motion, and interesting as that may be, it is the sony connect music service of graphics and motion design applications.
which is to say that all of its innovations, its behaviours, its layer and timeline dichotomy, while interesting, are of no use to anyone – because no one, since 1910 has been employed to drive motion. I have always felt that apple’s adherence to a completely insignificant application that no one will ever care about in their professional lives is a mark of a sony style inward view. they don’t care that no one cares.
have you tried curves in premiere? they are curves.
anyway –
Oliver mate – I am down with you being up for FCPX, but, god as ever I am here to kick its shins. It just feels intellectually sloppy and inattentive to the craft to me – sure, they’re iterating now, they’re a little red faced, but I find that I have decided that FCPX, in all of its chrome heavy, process stupid glory is about as important to me or anyone as motion ever was.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
if the world economy falls, and the cow crumbles, I will spend the last of my savings to run and host this forum, just so I can occasionally come back and kick FCPX in the shins. I would plan on doing this until retirement age.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Oliver Peters] “Awww, see, now you’re taking it personally”
hah – sure, I play a heartfealt instrument – and that by design.
but oliver, i find it near impossible to believe that you cannot form a basic value judgement in this situation.
FCPX is near mangled as a concept and completely unused by people who are paid or pay for editing.
Again, and read it closer – FCPX is near statistically unused by people who pay or are paid for the practise of editing. I am comfortable on this point in my hemisphere.
– and this is not a new well put together up and comer in 1999,
it is 2012 – and FCPX is a quite the joke: is it primary? secondary? how do roles work? who came up with this stuff? how do connected clips work? when are the connections made? how do I change the connections? Why did the editing system begin to assert child parent connection in the first place? why is the colour corrector square? why am I parroting meaningless tosh?
Why did apple glom reductive metaphors on top of the essential functions of editing and call it FCP?
Why did they pour consumer imovie gloop over the horribly tricky and fidgety craft of editing? and in the process burning out tracks, necessary conflicts – the lot.
Why could apple not make two products? why take us all to moron town? Is that the apple crossroads?
Oliver and here I mean this: You are actually willing to go with this mess? Seriously? you go with this stuff?
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics