Andy Patterson
Forum Replies Created
-
[Andrew Kimery] “You also seem to be relying on a common fallacy that dropping prices would inherently lead to an inversely proportional increase in customers and revenue (ex. if Adobe cuts the price by half then twice as many people will sign up) even though there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to support that.”
I never said that. I am saying competition is out there. Many people have left Adobe and some have even posted here in the Cow about it. They stated they did not like renting the software.
[Andrew Kimery] “What if the biggest roadblock to potential subscribers isn’t price at all but the concept of renting software in general? In my experience that’s the more common complaint than cost.”
I agree 100%. I never said other wise.
[Andrew Kimery] “Similarly, I’d say price isn’t the problem for many/most people not adopting FCP X. Apple could make it $99 and they people that are saying “screw you and your magnetic timeline” will still be saying ‘screw you and your magnetic timeline’.”
Once again I agree but there are people who can use FCPX and Premiere Pro but ditch Premiere Pro because of the CC paradigm.
[Andrew Kimery] “I agree that DR has been getting a lot of great updates, but many of them have been features to provide parity with the competition as BMD continues to improve DR’s NLE functionality. As with Premiere, MC and X, the ‘wow’ upgrades will be fewer and farther between as DR matures.”
I agree.
[Andrew Kimery] ” Will being a ‘super app’ (top level NLE, grading and audio mixing all in one piece of software) be enough of a differentiator that people will leave Avid, Adobe, or Apple in large numbers? Only time will tell”
I agree. I am not ditching Premiere Pro just yet but where will money be at NAB 2018? It depends one who offers the best bang for the buck.
[Andrew Kimery] “With regards to the price cut, I didn’t expected it but given BMD’s MO I wasn’t shocked by it. They’ve always given away a free version that had nearly 100% feature parity of the paid version, and even give away copies of the paid version for free if you buy a BM camera.”
I am not shocked by DR but I am impressed.
[Andrew Kimery] ” It’s not like the price drop will suddenly make DR more accessible to a wider audience than it had been in the past.”
There are some Youtbuers and bloggers who are getting hip to DR. Adobe may or may not care that much about the bloggers.
[Andrew Kimery] “Tell me BMD is going to cut their camera prices by 2/3 and I’ll say yer on crack. ;)”
You are talking about hardware that is manufactured. For some people Google Docs works OK but fore others they still need MS Office. I don’t doubt MS would like to get as many users as possible but the only way that will happen is by beating the completion. Will Google Doc surpass MS Office in 2019? Who knows?
-
There are two different ways. One method is to use the good old titling system in Premiere Pro and make your rectangle with the titling tools. Make it extra wide to crop the left and right. Then use the feather effect of the crop tool. Another way is to use two gradient rectangles and butt them up to one another.
Try using CPU mode as opposed to GPU mode. I have let Adobe know GPU mode does not work 100% correct.
-
I mimicked what you wanted 100% if you look at my other response for you. I had asked you to mimic what I created in FCPX.
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “[andy patterson] “or did you simply use a canned title effect that was created by someone else using Motion”
You still haven’t grasped that every single title in FCP X is a Motion project, have you? There is no such thing as a title that wasn’t created in Motion, period. Unless maybe it’s 3rd party, but even then…”
I have grasped that but my point is how can FCPX users claim the titling tools of Premiere Pro needed an overhaul when Premiere Pro has more titling options than FCPX? That is what you are not grasping. It is the pot calling the kettle black. With FCPX you are relying on Motion to create custom Motion Graphics. You are now using two programs. Would you say FCPX has an old outdated titling system if a CC users opted to use Illustrator along with Premiere Pro? FCPX users always want to say Motion is part of FCPX. Then we CC users can say AE is part of Premiere Pro’s titling system. Heck we can even say Illustrator is part of Premiere Pro’s titling system. Do Illustrator, AE and Photoshop need an overhaul for creating graphics? For the record I do create logos in Illustrator and Photoshop and animate them in Premiere Pro. The only difference is my logos can be used for printing production. How well does Motion handle the bleed and slug area for printing? Does Motion need an Overhaul?
-
[Brian Seegmiller] “Yes it was a canned title, those titles are created in Motion for FCP X so they are apart of the eco system of FCP X.”
I am hip and that is my point. You didn’t create it with FCPX. Having said that I can mimic what you have done with Premiere Pro.
[Brian Seegmiller] ” I did not have to go out to Motion to use it because it is a part of FCP X. I guess you are right, I had to use a title that was created in Motion, but you don’t have to have motion installed to use them.”
Yes but you are limited to canned effects without Motion. Premiere Pro is not limited to canned effects.
[Brian Seegmiller] “The integration is pretty slick. Looks like PP decided they needed a better title tool so they copied FCP X with it Essential Graphics Panel. However, I have read it needs a lot of work.”
It needs a lot of work compared to what? Are you saying you can do more with FCPX’s titling tools than with Premiere’s titling tools? The Essential Graphics Panel does not have all the drawing tools of Premiere’s old titling system but FCPX does not have all the tools of PP’s old titling system either. Keep in mind we still have the old titling tools. Having said that I imagine you can create some really cool motion graphics in AE and those parameters can be released into the Essential Graphics Panel of PP. Prior to the Essentials Graphics Panel Premiere Pro and AE had great integration. The only reason we have the Essential Graphics Panel is because people like you want canned effects. That is what the Essential Graphics Panel is design for. FCPX users always want to say Motion is part of FCPX. Then we CC users can say AE is part of Premiere Pro. Are you saying AE is lacking? If so how?
I mimicked your gradient using only Premiere Pro as you can see from the screen shots.
Can you mimic the logo below using only FCPX?
-
[Brian Seegmiller] “I tried making a title the other day in PP and was not successful. I wanted to make a lower third bar for a title with a gradient that gradually went transparent on both ends and was solid in the middle. Could not do it. I spent a lot of time with the gradient option trying to figure it out. This title comes with FCP X.”
Did you figure out how to do it in FCPX super easy or did you simply use a canned title effect that was created by someone else using Motion as opposed to creating it yourself from scratch using FCPX? Having said that can you post a short video or screen shot of the lower third?
-
Got to the markers tab. You can show clip markers or timeline markers. You will also get a thumb nail for the markers. You might want to start watching the video at 1:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNi224djHbQ
-
[Andrew Kimery] ” For example, is $299 a more attractive price point than what I pay to Adobe and Avid? Yes, but for my needs Adobe and Avid represent a significantly better value so eschewing them for FCP X or Resolve based solely on price would be penny wise and pound foolish.”
For your needs? No is arguing about your needs. I am saying many YouTubers will opt for FCPX or DR because of the costly rental paradigm when compared to Premiere Pro. No one is saying that for a post production house $50.00 a month is to expensive. In fact I said just the opposite. I just remember the day when Adobe wanted to compete with the competition by offering a good product at an inexpensive price. Premiere Pro is not inexpensive when compared to DR.
[Andrew Kimery] “By what metric is Adobe failing and in dire need of a change of course? Their revenue continues to grow. Their subscriber numbers continue to grow. Their stock price continues to hit record highs. Go back to the beginning of the Adobe CC Debate forum and you’ll see a bunch of people saying Adobe is doomed and they’ll never come close to hitting their subscriber and revenue goals… Obviously things turned out differently and that’s a big reason why the Adobe CC Debate forum has been a ghost town for months. When Adobe’s numbers start to level off they will have to take corrective action, but expecting them to drop their price by more than half when they having this much success is wishful thinking.”
Please read my posts. I have said time and time and time again $49.99 a month is not bad but no one really knows what the future holds. CS used to get great upgrades. CC not so much. With BMD adding Fairlight into DR and dropping the price that is a huge game changer. Premiere has gotten some of the audio capabilities of Audition but I like what BMD has done with Resolve. I am not saying all the post production houses are going to start using DR. I am saying some of them might make the switch. Bottom line is where will DR be in two years from now and where will Premiere Pro be in two years from now and what will the price of both programs be? Like I said DR has been getting great upgrades for the past two years and the price dropped. If I had said last year at NAB 2016 BMD is going to lower the price of DR in 2017 I imagine you and many others would have said ” you are on crack dude” but it happened. Didn’t it?
[Andrew Kimery] “[andy patterson] ” If it was not for the CC subscription I imagine some of the people would have stuck with Premiere Pro although FCPX and DR are both good NLE.”
If it wasn’t for the subscription model they probably wouldn’t have been able to afford going with Adobe at all. $400 for FCP X, Motion and Compressor vs $1900 for the CS6 Production Premium bundle.”
Apple is make an awesome set of tools for less than the competition. We may see Adobe change the CC paradigm slightly. I think BMD really wants to get the CC subscribers and the FCPX users.
-
[Oliver Peters] “[andy patterson] “There are a lot of Youtubers that use Macs that have ditched Premiere Pro in favor of FCPX. I don’t blame them. Cost is the only real factor for most the YouTubers since most of them could just use iMovie. ”
I’d be surprised if that actually panned out in hard numbers. FWIW – my casual observation in the NAB press office this year of people cutting video reports for websites and blogs was 100% Premiere. As far as users who aren’t professional editors, my guess is that Resolve will win this battle. It’s super-easy to learn (outside of the color page) and free.”
You are proving my point because there are people on YouTube who have switched form Premiere Pro to DR (not a lot). If it was not for the CC subscription I imagine some of the people would have stuck with Premiere Pro although FCPX and DR are both good NLE.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “For example, say I’m a publicly traded company and in January I sold you an NLE for $200, and then in May I released a free update adding multicam functionality. In the eyes of SOX I sold you an incomplete product in January and later delivered the ‘missing piece’ in May. So I’m not allowed to record a $200 sale in January, I can only record some of the revenue and I must defer the rest until the update comes out in May. And I can’t just defer an arbitrary amount until May, I have to figure out what a reasonable and customary amount for multicam functionality would be if it was sold as a standalone product on the open market.”
I know they are legality’s but that is not the issue. If you purchased CS 4.0 they would make minor updates with bugs fixes and a few new features. Same with CS 5.5 and CS 6.0.
[Andrew Kimery] “With how frequently software is updated these days I’m sure you can see impossible it would be to figure out the monetary value of each and every update for each and every piece of software. A way to avoid this is to charge for each and every update but consumers don’t really like that (I don’t know if you remember when Apple charged users for things like Facetime updates and iOS updates for iPod users).”
As I stated if you purchased CS 4.0 they would make minor updates with bugs fixes and a few new features. Same with CS 5.5 and CS 6.0.
Adobe could change the CC paradigm by stating if you subscribe to the CC for at least 3 years you can stop your monthly payment and still have access to the software but you will not get any more updates until you start paying again. As some have suggested Adobe could change the CC paradigm by offering any 5 programs for $19.99 or any 10 programs for $29.99. Competition will determine the fate of the CC. As I stated the CC is not super expensive but for video editing the competition is getting tougher and tougher and less expensive. For example BMD lowered the price for DR. I imagine BMD are still making money form DR. BMD and Adobe can make millions or billions depending on what they want to charge. Stating BMD sells hardware is a moot point because DR is competition for Premiere Pro. DR is getting better and better and also getting less expensive. The same cannot be said of the CC. Do you finally see my point about competition? $49.99 for the CC in another two years may seem expensive depending on where the competition is at.