Brendan Coots
Forum Replies Created
-
I just did some work in 3D space on Leopard, and had no issues, especially not the ones mentioned above. It must be something specific to your setup. I am on a Macbook, are you using a Mac Pro? If so, which gfx card?
-
Consider this:
– Windows XP can only address 4GB RAM max. Each process can only access 2GB of that (unless you enable the 3GB switch in your boot.ini file). This means that After Effects CS3, which will only use multiple processors if there is 2GB RAM per core available, can ONLY use two of your cores on a quad-mac. Since the OS only “sees” 4GB of your RAM, only two cores will be used. note – You can get around this by allocating smaller amounts of RAM per core in the AE settings, but performance suffers so badly that it doesn’t matter more cores are being used.
– Windows XP 64-bit can address 128GB RAM, and would therefore be able to fully utilize all the RAM you stuff in your mac. Allocating 2GB per process, 8GB RAM would sufficiently allow After Effects CS3 to run all four cores. You may want 1GB extra to account for OS overhead, etc.
– OS X, being natively 64-bit, can also theoretically address 128GB RAM although the current Mac Pros can only physically handle 16GB RAM.
Given that using Boot Camp should give you identical performance from the CPU and other hardware, the RAM is the primary factor when considering performance. If you run out and buy a Mac Pro quad and install Windows XP on it, you are immediately denying yourself access to HALF of your CPU power when running After Effects. If you must run Windows on your mac, at least use XP 64-bit.
Also, note that many software vendors (Adobe included) have a cross-grade program where, for only the cost of shipping the disc, they will swap your PC software license for a Mac license. You have to fill out some paperwork that nullifies your existing license and a new one is issued, but at least that way you don’t have to go buy the software you already own all over again.
-
In the video link you provided, I can tell the animations were done in Flash, not AE. Notice the quality of the photos and other effects. If this were a video (say, FLV format) you would have to compress it pretty heavily given how long the presentation is, so your work would look a lot more pixelated and scrappy, and any fast movement would really get messy and blurry.
You can, in theory, export AE animations to SWF format that will result in a product very similar to what could be built in Flash (in terms of file size, quality etc.) but there are a few strict rules that you must adhere to. Primarily, no motion blur or other effects can be used. You should check the web for details on what can/cannot be done in AE to produce clean SWF files.
All in all, you may be better off having the Flash guy build your animations. If you bring him in-house making changes shouldn’t be terribly difficult, at least no more difficult than doing them in AE.
-
When you are working with them in Photoshop, what file settings are you using? Make sure that any PS work is RGB (not cmyk), 72dpi and uses a standard color profile like sRGB or your monitor’s preferred profile. The problems you are experiencing sounds like a color profile mismatch.
-
Great advice Walter. I would only add to the discussion by saying this:
– As you’ve seen here Eric, different people have different methods of working with sub-contractors. It’s purely up to your own discretion. Personally, my shop uses subcontractor agreements the first time we work with a new contractor, just to make sure we’re covered if they act the fool. This agreement includes a non-compete clause which is fairly loose, stating they cannot accept or pursue direct contact with the client outside of the bounds of doing their work. Basically it is worded to prevent them from pursuing contact with the client and soliciting their business WHILE they are working for us on the job. After that, we can’t control what they do. In this industry you cannot reasonably except someone to sign a non-compete that bars them from working for your client, given how frequently clients shop around for new vendors. I once had a rookie Producer hire my studio to work on a large corporation’s video. She insisted that we sign broad non-competes that barred us from working with or for the company in question for 5 (!!) years. When I informed her that, not only were we currently working on another project for the company but we had done about 3-5 projects in the past for them, she still insisted. We turned the work down. Six months later she is out of business and probably had a heck of a time getting anyone to work with her. I’m sure you get the point.
– It seems you are pretty concerned about ethics, which is definitely key to running a good business. But just remember, ethics, with regard to these topics, only come into play if you are ripping someone off. Using subcontractors and telling your clients you can do the work is NOT unethical unless you just end up doing work yourself that you are not qualified to do. In fact, you should probably find subcontractors to fill every void in the production chain that you personally cannot fulfill, and offer a wider array of services. Charge a modest markup on their services to cover your producing expenses and your business will be much better for it.
-
I agree with Rick in the sense that many clients, especially large corporations, simply will not agree to pay on delivery because, like all dinosaurs, it takes at least 25 days for the brain’s message (cut a check) to get to the hand that actually writes the check. There is not much that you can do in those situations except agree or lose the work. My studio would have made about $100,000 less this year if we refused to accept Net 30 without exception.
But again, it’s all about using your discretion. If you have an airtight contract and they are a large, well known business, what are the chances that they will try to rip you off? If, on the other hand, they are some out of state “producer” who’s credit cards are already maxed out on their project, all MAJOR warning signs, you should be wary of extending any sort of credit. In this, Greg did the exact right thing in my opinion.
-
Ron,
I think you guys did the right thing by erring on the side of caution, for sure. I was just pointing out that my post showing frustration with Adobe was prompted by it and was therefore a bit misguided.
Anyway, the good news is CS3 seems to work fine with Leopard, at least on my Macbook. I have been reading reports that FCP Studio is fine as well, except for a few very minor hiccups.
-
I agree with Craig and Walter on this one 100%. In my experience Net 30 basically means “pay whenever you want” to many, many clients large and small.
We do give clients Net 30 fairly often, but only with established, reliable clients. Net 30 is basically credit, and credit is earned. Giving out of state clients the benefit of the doubt, and half of your money, is just asking for disaster eventually.
-
Copyright law is generally meant to prevent IP theft, and to prevent one entity from stealing another’s business by “tricking” consumers into thinking they are buying a different product, using trade names to imply endorsements etc..
My understanding as it applies to your situation is that public is public – that is to say that if you are shooting buildings, signs and neighborhoods that are publicly accessible and in plain view, there is no copyright impact.
The standard test is, would a reasonable person believe the product you are selling is actually the product of the entity in question? For example, if you sold an operating system and called it Window, Microsoft could sue because average consumers could be confused and believe the product is released by Microsoft, or vice versa. You are infringing on their business and copyright law kicks in. Likewise, placing the Microsoft logo on a package would confuse any reasonable consumer into believing Microsoft owns, endorses or is otherwise connected to the product in question. Clear cut copyright violation.
Another more related example – a documentary crew could shoot the headquarters of Wal-Mart to include in their scathing expose video on the practices of Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart would have no reasonable claim against them unless the filmmakers trespassed etc.. The reason is simple – the filmmakers are not using the Wal-Mart logo in a way that might confuse consumers into thinking the product (the video in this case) was endorsed by or a wholly owned property of Wal-Mart Inc. YOUR video is actually very similar to this in that it is educational in nature, which is another major test of copyright law.
To be safe you should definitely give legal disclaimers (at the head or end of video) alerting the viewer that none of the entities shown endorse or are otherwise affiliated with the production, and that all copyrights and trademarks are managed by the respective owners etc.. Essentially, you need to legally disclaim any ownership, affiliation or claim to, any copyrighted item shown in the video.
Showing people on screen is a different and unrelated matter, dealing more with performance law. Any person shown in your project should sign a release or they can sue you, as I’m sure you’re aware.
-
This warning has been pretty well debunked. CS3 apps DO WORK with Leopard, there are just certain limited workflows/features that may not perform as expected. According to Adobe, these are issues that would not affect the average video designer on a day to day basis at all.
In fact, Adobe says they are perfectly comfortable recommending that users install and use Creative Suite products until the updates are ready in December.