[Bernhard G.]

Thank You!

Seems I need to do some testing…

Best regards,
Bernhard

[Bernhard G.]

Hmmm…
Such a feature could be the usage of AJA’s, Matrox’s and now after the acquisition of Teranex, BMD’s
hardware scaler within the timeline; meaning file-based and not as usual only while capture or playback
in or out the computer. I would buy it only for that! 😉
M100’s scaling quality still is not acceptable as it is the same with EVERY other NLE on the market.

Another feature could be the native integration of absolutely ALL the Boris Filters and Effects
and transition tools directly within the M100 interface.
Many people are using the Boris plugins in their NLEs. Real native integration would be
a huge benefit.

Finally, to be a consequent finishing app, M100 needs to do transitions in every track. It doesn’t make sense so send a timeline to M100 if the project can’t be represented correctly
with all transitions.

But I fear most of such outstanding features would blew up M100’s interface and changing it’s
simplistic character that is so important to us.

Best regards,
Bernhard

[Bernhard G.]

Hello,

this is a really fascinating idea!

The benefit of Smoke and other Finishing apps is the smooth integration
of high-end compositing an color grading tools into a NLE.

But at the moment M100 is something at the opposite point of the spectrum
being a NLE that is really reduced to non linear editing.
(The Boris integration had never convinced me, but I know there are other opinions.)

In my personal opinion it was the biggest mistake in the history of M100
to drop 844/X and re-activate Media100i (way long before Artel overtook what was left then).
They should have had drop Media100i and port 844/X to OSX.

Best regards,
Bernhard

[Bernhard G.]

Hello,

I think it would be much better for BMD to aquire
Woodman Labs.

They manifacture the GoPro Cameras and most important:
they own Cineform !!!

In these times it would be an absolute deal-maker for BMD
to deliver a high-end intermediate codec with their hardware
that virtually runs on every host-NLE BMD hardware is working with.

Not to forget the HyperDeck product line.

Best wishes for 2012,
Bernhard

[Bernhard G.]

Hello Marcus,

form a consumer point of view I would also appreciate
a better marketing. Marketing not only is something
to gain new customers, but also a form of legitimation
for current ones.

So as You (I assume) I don’t like getting into situations of justification
when telling someone that we also have M100s.

In my posts I simply wanted to reconstruct what’s going on behind the scenes
to make something understandable (also for myself!),
classical consumer considerations cannot explain.

Best regards,
Bernhard

[Bernhard G.]

Very true,

but Your argument referred up on the
“[…] advantage of the renewed interest in M100 […]”
which points on the context of the new market situation.

Also, Your new argument is not in contradiction with my proposed third reason,
claiming that M100 depends to much on third-party infrastructure
(especially Apple and the old FCS) to be a major player and real competitor.

Best regards,
Bernhard

[Bernhard G.]

Hello,

I think Artel Software does make much more money with plugins for other NLEs,
than with M100. It’s the same reason why we couldn’t expect a killer-cam from Canon:
because it would indirectly cannibalize the business with high-end lenses in the $30.000.- range.

A second reason might be the insecure future. M100 is OSX only (now).
With Quicktime EOLd (the framework, not the media player application!) and the future of
the MacPro in question, it seems to be the wrong time for a big campaign.

Explanation:
As the old FCP, M100 relies on the Quicktime framework. Changing to the
AV-Foundation like FCP-X will M100 require to have a complete overhaul.

The critical question here is:
What in this context is more worth the effort: porting to AV-Foundation of a platform in question,
or building up a whole new and platform-independent media- framework.
I could imagine very well a revival of 844X – in my personal opinion not the worst scenario at all!

The third reason is tightly coupled to the second one. M100 too much relies on other
softwares (and codecs!). It complements well the old Final Cut Studio.
M100 will simply need to become independent to be a real competitor
instead of being a very nice complementation to a given infrastructure
(even if M100 is used as the primary NLE).

Interesting times we live in.

Best regards,
Bernhard

PS: @Artel-Software: if that all really leads into going back to Windows,
PLEASE DO NOT reactivate iFinish – re-activate 844X 😉

[Bernhard G.]

Hello,

I really do appreciate this step! It’s time for highend-conversion to become affordable!

What would also fit nicely into BMD’s portfolio would be Woodman Labs,
manufacturor of the GoPro camera and …

… owner of the CINEFORM Codec!

This codec alone would be a reason to buy a BMD I/O-Hardware
in times Adobe doesn’t have anything similar to offer and the
status of ProRes as accepted delivery codec is in question through FCP-X.

And the combination of BMD’s Hyperdeck series with Cineform – I only could say WOW!

Best regards,
Bernhard

[Bernhard G.]

Hello Job,

Thank You for the clarification!
Now I’m even more confused why there is still a differentiation between MC and Symphony.
And the information with the dongle makes the differentiation even more artificial
and less understandable to me.

Best regards,
Bernhard

[Bernhard G.]

Hello Scott,

as I understood is Universal Master a feature that only works with a NitrisDX box,
and is a realtime HW tool to convert framerates during output, say 1080i/29,97 to 1080i/25 ?

Now that Avid is open to 3rd party hardware, wouldn’nd a HW-only feature not be enough differentiation?
Compared to other hardware options a NitrisDX is more expensive. Nevertheless this conversion feature would be a reason to buy; thus a much more reasonable differentiation than reducing software capabilities.

Best regards,
Bernhard