Gustavo Bermudas
Forum Replies Created
-
I have been wondering a lot, why Autodesk did what they did with Smoke this year, and if I connect all the dots the only thing that starts making sense, is that Smoke may suffer the same luck as Softimage in the near future.
Here’s why, I have been visiting the Flame forums in the Autodesk area for a while, mostly because I wanted to get some insight on what was going on there, and the thing I noticed is that there was some anger or frustration by experienced Flame users with Smoke for Mac, specially the new changes happening in Flame that took the timeline approach from Smoke 2013, lots of people complaining that Flame is going to be Smoke and its users are going to be now Flame artist too, over saturate the market, and all that.
So with the new direction of separating Flame from Smoke, you can see that seems to be a response to that, and if Autodesk Flame has its user base, on maintenance subscription, that keeps R&D running and profitable, they create a symbiosis, they protect each other, there’s no need to expand the market, just protect it and keep it healthy.
Now if you remember that Smoke for Mac was introduced as an online editor with compositing capabilities targeting FCP7 users, and also later last year there was a subtle nod at an alternative to paying subscription to Adobe, why suddenly adopt subscription at 3X the price of Adobe’s annual subscription? It seems counter-intuitive, and I don’t think the Autodesk guys are that out of touch with what’s going on in today’s post production market, this move doesn’t seem interested in making Smoke succeed, it seems like a planned end of shelf life, or at least creating a cause.
There was a big silence from Smoke for a year and half, and the people that paid their subscription fee didn’t get the update for last year, that’s obviously the reason they’re providing 2015 as a perpetual license to all of those who own a subscription, they’re fulfilling their contract obligation.
I hope I’m wrong with this, and I hope that Autodesk offer permanent licensing options along with subscription ones, and they can continue to develop Smoke further for many years, but what I saw at NAB 2014 with Autodesk Smoke , and Autodesk history of discontinuing software, like recently they did with Softimage, raised more questions than answers.
-
I’m sure Blackmagic not only hurts developers, but it also hurt a lot of post houses that use Resolve as well (and paid for it), prices has gone down incredibly low for post services, and I remember a few years ago we were eager to buy new stuff that came out, now we’re like “do I really need this?”
I really love Resolve to death, but I despise Blackmagic for what they’re doing, and right now we’re tied to it because there are no other options, why should I invest in a 6 figure system when clients want to pay a figure less? -
[TImothy Auld] “I have not noticed any bullying here. I have noticed diverging opinions and people trying to understand how other people think and why. But I have not seen bullying.”
You’re probably right, although the major condescending by some makes it look like it
-
[Steve Connor] “Perhaps if you stopped first everyone else would follow?”
Or maybe you should stop bullying those who disagree with X and want to express their opinions. Go to the X Techniques forum instead if you’re set with it.
-
Avid is in a very interesting but fragile place right now, because in a way they remain competitive by not changing too much in a landscape of NLE chaos, with companies priding themselves in being “disruptive” (I guess they think it sounds cool) at their customer’s expense.
On one hand Avid has a talent pool of users which are loyal and stayed with Avid for a long time, and it’s reassuring to see Avid stayed loyal to them as well, can’t say the same thing for Apple. And I think it’s great they want to listen to costumers, but they also seem incredibly slow at implementing those changes.
I attended a meeting once right when FCPX was announced, announcing MC6, and the commitment to users and adding functionality without removing features, they even talked about 4K, and so far most upgrade versions are hardly justifiable.
Hopefully things have changed at Avid, but charging for events like this in a way it tells me they’re still in the 90’s -
That smells like a subscription attempt without calling it a subscription.
I know these events costs money, but lots of companies pay for events to promote their services and new products, I don’t understand why not wanting to pay for this reflects bad upon myself.
NEWS FLASH! If you want to promote your product or attract more customers, spend some money on marketing!
-
I got an Avid MCColor instead of an Elements mainly because Avid and Smoke supported it and not the Elements, specially the Baselight plugin, now I hear that Baselight plugin supports Elements, if Smoke start supporting it I may switch to an Element. But while I did have many connectivity problems such as the pannel getting randomly disconnected or by switching to another app, the new Euphonix update is nearly perfect.
Also, it seemed to me coming from a Waves that the MCColor has more functions mapped to it than the Waves, but it’s also harder to remember, too many modifiers. -
LOL!!!
-
No, it’s the same aggregate as TB1, that graph can be misleading.
ATTO released a document detailing the differences
https://www.jigsaw24.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/TechBriefThunderboltComparison1.pdf
Also another view on the topic:
It seems that TB2 is designed with the only purpose of supporting 4K Displays
-
[Erik Lindahl] “I think Thunderbolt is bi-directional so a total of 40 gbit/s.”
For what I understand TB2 is the same as TB1, with the only difference that TB1 has two 10 gig channels, one for each direction, and TB2 combines those 2 channels into one stream if it’s unidirectional.
This is from wikipedia:
At the physical level, the bandwidth of Thunderbolt 1 and Thunderbolt 2 are identical, and Thunderbolt 1 cabling is thus compatible with Thunderbolt 2 interfaces. At the logical level, Thunderbolt 2 enables channel aggregation, whereby the two previously separate 10 Gbit/s channels can be combined into a single logical 20 Gbit/s channel.