Andrew Kimery
Forum Replies Created
-
[Herb Sevush] “Walter it’s a lovely manifesto and it might even make sense for those heavily involved with Illustrator and a lot of their design applications, but for a video editor interested in PPro, AE and Audition non of this “style synchronicity” matters, it wouldn’t apply to me at all.”
If Adobe came out w/Pr leading the way I’m sure editors would be thrilled but then wouldn’t all the publishing and graphic artist peeps get bent out of shape and start lamenting how Adobe doesn’t care about them any more?
I think the proof is in the pudding and the changes made to Pr over the past few years (including the announced changes for the next version) make me think that Adobe is pretty serious about making Pr a, well, Premiere NLE. Will video/film editors ever be Adobe’s #1 concern? Probably not and I’m okay with that. I just want editors to be enough of a concern that Adobe puts out a solid NLE that can help drive competition between the other two A’s.
-
[Oliver Peters] “2. Does the structure of CC get them past all the goofy SOX restrictions? Since there’s never a “new, upcoming” product as an item for sale.”
This is one reason I think they didn’t have a prolonged co-existence of perpetual licenses and CC. Presumably it would lock them into the annual update cycle they are trying to get away from or risk headache-inducing versioning issues between CC users and perpetual license users.
-
[Shawn Miller] “I agree, this is somewhat of a surprise. But I’m not sure it will translate into a massive switch away from Adobe. “
I agree. I was meaning more the people that were still testing the waters and hadn’t committed yet. I guess I’m surprised that it wasn’t a change phased in over a few years. Maybe Adobe just wanted to bite the bullet and go for a clean break?
I’m sure CS6 will be a hot item on ebay now, lol. I switched to CC last year and have been enjoying it but I’m also glad I have a copy of CS5.5 to ‘fall back on’.
-
Wow, I’m really surprised Adobe did this right now. I think this will put the breaks on a lot of people that were transitioning, or planning to transition, over to Adobe.
-
Getting FCPX out the door and up to snuff is certainly ProApps priority number one so maybe we’ll see a totally new Compressor down the line. Apple is known for shifting team members around as needed instead of bringing on new employes so X might be taking up too many resources currently for the ‘supporting apps’ to get much attention.
Who knows.
I guess I’m saying given Apple’s history I wouldn’t be surprised if they left Compressor deficient in this respect even though it would appear to go against the grain of their tapeless world philosophy.
-
[Craig Seeman] “At the moment, FCPX biggest failing in the above regard is that, for a company that seems to be touting file based delivery, Compressor is very weak. It has a very poor H.264 codec and extremely limited access to codec tweaks whether .mov or .mp4. It can’t create a High Profile CABAC encode at all.
“Maybe they think ‘high level’ compression is a void best filled by third parties (same as tape layoff)? Apple’s history with post is certainly enigmatic with regards to how deep down the post production rabbit whole they want to go. Apple’s experiments, for lack of a better term, with Shake, Color and Final Cut Server all initially got people excited about how Apple could bring it’s ‘magic’ to those areas only to see Apple let the apps hither and die.
Time will tell.
-
[Oliver Peters] “This is true even at the local level. Many TV stations have very active and profitable websites that feature both repurposed and unique content. They also produce custom web-only content for some of their local clients. I’m freelancing at one station this month and guess what, the same folks produce the web content as do the on-air content. In this case, using Varicams, studio shoots, FCP 7, PPro and After Effects.”
Many (most?) stations and networks do have what I call ‘show support’ content online. I was thinking more along the lines of CC Studios, which is the online original content arm of Comedy Central, or Cracked.com. Comedy Central is owned by Viacom and Cracked.com is owned by Sony. While not a traditional media conglomerate, Microsoft hired away a CBS TV exec last fall and has studio space in Santa Monica as they gear up to offer original, 1st party content on XboxLIVE.
While there is certainly more room for startups and niche players in the streaming age than in the b’cast age I don’t expect the established players to roll over and die nor fade away. Also, judging by the success (and controversy) around hugely successful YT channels like Maker Studios and Machinima I expect many new media outlets to mirror the basic old media structure because it has benefits and it works.
-
[Chris Harlan] “You do know that before the Vimeo link all you had to do was just upload it to Vimeo, right? I haven’t sent out an approval DVD five or six years. Maybe longer.
“On the last two documentaries I’ve worked on we’ve sent out stacks of DVDs to film festivals, sales agents, distributors, potential investors, etc.,. Probably a difference between long form content, short form content and where people prefer to watch each. We used streaming services as well but I think some people just like getting packages in the mail. lol
-
Psy was on a label for a decade prior to going viral on YT and Justin Bieber got ‘discovered’ singing covers on YT and then got signed to a label. YT success stories like iJustine, FreddieW or Angry Orange (if you want to go old school) would be better examples of what you are looking for.
How much money do the people that up load the cat videos get paid? How much does YT earn on cat videos? How much does it cost YT to host and stream cat videos? Value in viewers? Sure. As long as you can turn that directly or indirectly into monetization. Assuming you are running a business of course and want to do things like pay your cast, crew, put gas in the car, etc.,. If you are working a day job and uploading cat videos as a hobby then it’s a different story. I’m going to work under the assumption that YT’s old business model wasn’t cutting it which is why they are switching to pushing premium channels, original content and are considering putting premium content behind a pay wall. Again, all the major streaming players are developing original premium content so there must be a reason for it.
What’s funny is along w/traditional media I’ve been involved in new media content creation and distribution for the better part of a decade and yer telling me I’m blind to what’s going on. I’ve sat in on more than one meeting where the gist was “okay, we have a healthy online community, our audience continues to grow but how do we monetize them so we can keep the lights on?” Again, being popular isn’t the same thing as running a successful business.
Digital Media? Traditional networks/studios/media corporations already have digital wings. If you don’t think that the old media players are involved (and will become more involved) in new media then you should take another look around. Let’s not forget that CBS, NBC and ABC started out as radio networks before they became TV networks. You know what most of my content creation friends in digital media want to do? Get a traditional media gig because they pay a whole hell of a lot more, lol. On a more serious note, many of them are fine with being paid less because they are working in content niches they enjoy and that don’t really exist in traditional media.
Are things changing? Of course they are and the change has been fast & furious since the DV revolution kicked off in the late 90’s/early 00’s. I’m not saying that things aren’t changing. I’m saying that we shouldn’t expect wholesale change to the big picture and that new media creates new opportunities as well as new problems.
Feel free to think I’m cynical, jaded, blind or whatever but I’ve grown up in the middle of all this change and I’m beyond the ‘wow it’s shiny and new’ honeymoon phase. I’m in the brass tacks, how do I make a living in new media phase (no, praying for viral success is not a sound business model) and the more I dig into that aspect of it, the more I dissect the success of others, the more similarities I see between old and new. Old and new players will co-exist for a long time and, IMO, most likely merge as opposed to one ‘killing’ the other.
-
[Bill Davis] “The competitive video world of the net is clearly a place of 1 to 5 minute “information and entertainment blocks” served up on demand. That’s what that market wants. And when I need to figure out quickly how to change a tail light on my car, or want to personally hear what a thought leader said yesterday, its a system that satisfies it’s audience far better than appointment viewing.
Competitive for what? How many views (and how much money) does a 2 minute tutorial video on replacing a car’s head lamp generate? There’s a company (can’t remember the name off hand) that’s one of the ‘how to’ video kings and they pay something like $100 for each finished video. Great for them, not so great for the people making the videos. The market may want to watch a video of goats laughing to kill a few minutes at work but the market will not pay for it. Charlie Bit my Finger? Hilarious… when its free. Put YT behind a paywall and watch it’s numbers crash instantly. Views without monetization is like a store with high foot traffic but barely any sales. Monetization, not popularity, pays the bills.
The bottom line is that I respect the production and post traditions we all grew up in. But the industry (and more, the market!) is evolving fast. And in a garden experiencing fast growth, weeding and re-planting can be as critical as initial plant selection.”
Many reports have pegged Netflix as the single largest bandwidth hog in North America at 30% of total internet traffic. YT is at 10%. YT completely dwarfs Hulu when it comes to viewers but Hulu became profitable w/in 2 or 3 years of launch. People watch YT for minutes and other services for hours. YT, Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc., are all starting to create original, premium content because viewers and/or advertisers will pay to support it. YT’s problem obviously isn’t a lack of traffic, it’s a lack of traffic that can be monetized and, unlike in b’cast where transmissions are basically a fixed cost, every viewer eats up resources and counts against the bottom line of a streaming service.
In 2005-ish I started working for an established website helping to produce their orignal content and while a some parts of the production pipeline were new I think most things were basically the same compared to the broadcast and cable work I’d done. In 2011 an indie doc I cut called Looking for Lenny (about the comedian Lenny Bruce) got domestic distribution on VOD and streaming and possibly in years past it would’ve just sat on a shelf gathering dust. I’m certainly aware of the changes taking place but in the end I don’t think the landscape will look nearly as different as the internet echo chamber (which I know I’m part of) thinks it will.
I remember back in ’99, at the height of Napster, people saying this would be the death of the major labels and artist’s would just directly sell to fans online. Well, it’s 2013 and the major labels are still around. Sure the field has opened up some but the majors are still the majors and artists are largely still struggling to get their fair share whether it’s from CD sales, iTunes downloads or Spotify royalties.
In old Hollywood stars rebelled against their studio contracts and a number of decades later there is similar insurrection in the digital age.
“YouTube Stars Fight Back: Machinima and Maker Studios, two of YouTube’s most high-profile networks, have come under fire from their own talent”
https://www.laweekly.com/2013-01-10/news/machinima-maker-studios-YouTube/full/
Even some people that were on the cutting edge of new media a couple of years ago aren’t as enamored with it as they once were. Trent Reznor, who had a famous and bloody fallout with his old label, even concedes that labels do some things right and has partnered with Columbia on his current project.
“Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and other digital pioneers sour on ‘pay what you want’ music”
The names of the gate keepers and money men might change but they won’t disappear because they provide services that both content creators and content consumers need.
Meet the new boss, pretty much the same as the old boss. 😉