Aindreas Gallagher
Forum Replies Created
-
[Steve Connor] “what do you think FCPX is lacking that makes it “Consumer” and not “Pro”?”
the fact that it is directly based on the methodology, GUI and workflow of iMovie. And steve – iMovie is a consumer product.
FCPX has simplistic, modal (connected editing mode vs primary editing modes), metaphorically reduced use case scenario/my first colouring book simplifications of the underlying track structure.
FCPX is directly based on, and flows out of iMovies methodology, in events, draggable marquee selections, trackless workflow, connected clips, direct links into iphoto and itunes, horribly simplified audio handling, horribly unusable waveforms.
FCPX is a souped up iMovie. It is, by definition, and the fact that it is trying to empower consumer hobbyists to step it up a gear by employing near identical methodologies to their free consumer video product, a prosumer solution. it is trying to lead consumers into more powerful capabilities, while still offering them the simplified hand holding amateur software environment they are used to.
Its kind of painful watching apple trying to tack multicam and some kind of xml spec on this thing. I literally think they are mostly doing it for PR reasons given the nuclear scale of the blowback they received.
but that in short is why its semi-amateur software – it adheres to the logic and simplifications and reduced use case of amateur software – at best its prosumer. In that context 300 is actually fairly expensive for the target market?
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
windows. to be blunt!
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
don’t forget to stick that stuff on the feature wishlist for premiere at the adobe site – adobe really mean it when they say that consistent feature requests help drive development. A lot of that workflow stuff could come in in a .5 release or possibly sooner with what they’re saying about updates. Just out of curiosity – What are you running Premiere on?
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
the only one I can vaguely answer is the effect copy – It should be a simple copy paste job – select the effect in the effects palette for the clip, copy, and then select one or more destination clips and press paste – that should be it. If its like AE, or how AE used to be, it won’t bring keyframe parameters, just the current effects parameters when you copied it. But basically its a copy paste not a drag type thing. Or I think it is. It looks nearly identical in operation to AE.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Bill Davis] “When X was introduced the first week everyone piled on and gleefully reported every little thing that didn’t work to their satisfaction.
Some of us suggested that any brand new product requires time to mature and stabilize.
That was my assessment about X when it was released, and in my opinion it’s every bit as fair an assessment about Premier Pro 6 now that it’s been released.
If Adobe doesn’t address what might appear to be early stage flaws in a few months – fine. But at least give their dev team time to get the feedback from the real world and let users have enough time to do more than walk around and kick the most obvious tires.
That’s my opinion.”
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Clear as mud, right?”
nope. that’s a completely excellent, and highly informative public post.
CS6, says the prole, feels like an utterly massive release, I mean even the way they just threw speedgrade in there?
I mean good god right? that is right in its infancy in the suite. I am genuinely near mad to get the suite working in my gaff.
It feels like the software equivalent of a childhood boxed millenium falcon.As you say: adobe are looking to drive through with disparate, native, highly compressed capture codecs that demand CPU at every stage.
Part of me, in my heart of hearts, cannot get rid of the catholic guilt that says that looking to perform with non-optimised camera codecs in the timeline is somehow wrong. That said, all the codecs are advancing at lightspeed? and coming from the cobwebbed world of 7, the idea of simply plopping red on the timeline kind of beggars my mind.FCPX has highly intelligent adaptive workflows to manage this dichotomy, and you could argue, these are workflows more in tune with the inclinations of post inclined editors who like to feel brick pavement under their feet in codec terms.
On the other hand, FCPX has the most ridiculous timeline and audio handling I’m ever likely to see, so there’s that.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Jim Giberti] “this dynamic tension.”https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
I share this too – but, you know, sometimes (a little too much even) you self deprecate with ‘I’m dumb’ stuff, Jeremy, I however really am genuinely stupid on the vast majority of this stuff.
the thing I feel is that with what I would have termed vanilla HD, which in my terms is prores, as in a properly optimised workflow codec, the application should not be asking to go to half res, particularly when it performs the action globally ala AE.
I take Dennis’s point on offering the user control, but surely the point was that 7 did it dynamically on a per clip basis?
this is all moot because I have no idea what I’m talking about when it comes to CS6, as ever, and peeps seem to be saying that mercury or no mercury, the open timeline can perform with multiple codecs on recent hardware at up to 1080p resolution.
that’s my primary concern though: I feel that, with adobe having not gone the route of a timeline playback DI codec, opting instead for a timeline built to handle natively, that for people looking at this application, they would have a reasonable expectation, (nvidia or no nvidia, and for many of us its no nvidia) that Premiere Pro 6 should be able to handle up to 1080p footage with dissolves and basic colour correction at 1080p output resolution, without having to cut the entire sequence resolution in half.
However, unlike my carping on FCPX, where I can at least stand over reasonable work through and awareness, I know the damn near of the utter nothing on this baby yet. And won’t until an employer sticks it on, or the voucher email for the free 5.5 to 6 pops in my inbox… presuming at that point I’ve bought the imac creation to ride it on.
An iMac that will very likely have a (*currently*) unsupported GPU.
I just need to know that mercury is for fun and effect thrills, and that the actual software coding of the timeline, and its ability to throw all these native avchd formats sans a DI codec can be entrusted to a 12 month old CPU at up to 1080P. that is my genuine curiosity.
I do nearly all of my serious malarky in AE, I just need to know that premiere can stand as a multi-format timeline without Nvidia or the two mac laptops currently sanctioned.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
I’ve been using asterixes and zeds to adhoc bump bins and sequence folders to the top or bottom of the list. I can’t believe I didn’t think to just number them until I saw that video.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
Nice one fair play – you’re well set with the nvidias there!
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics