Simon Ubsdell
6
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ” The Event side of the program is awesome.”
OK, so here’s the bit I don’t get. How is the Event organization in FCPX anything other than a tiny, trivial, non-significant advance on the Event organization in iMovie – which has been around for years (i.e since ’09)?
And that’s a serious question.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[David Lawrence] “I don’t think it’s about resources, I think it’s about priorities. Testing doesn’t seem to be very high on the list these days.”
It could be so, but I wonder.
The whole “beta broadcast monitoring” thing really smacks of hysterical desperation – although to be honest they should probably have called a whole lot of the other junk “beta” while they were at it.
Everything suggest they are waaaaaaaaaay behind whatever schedule they set themselves – and in all probability without a gameplan as to how to get abreast of any of it.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Craig Seeman] “I’m sure it’s a managerial decision that they need to show feature progress. I’m sure there’s some serious internal “battles” on feature vs stability. They’re getting hit publicly from both sides so I’m sympathetic with the juggle.”
I’m sure you’re right about the diagnosis but, look, it’s Apple we’re talking about here – an absolute corporate giant – and they can’ get their act together. It’s altogether rather pitiful … or actually quite funny, depending on how you look at it.
[Craig Seeman] “In fact one could say this is what happens WHEN THEY DO LISTEN”
I really don’t think the “amazing” 10.0.3 features were in any way a response to a listening process – they clearly aren’t moving at the sort of pace that would mean they could have taken on board any of the post-release commentary. This is surely stuff planned form way back – and they still can’t get it right.
[Craig Seeman] “they are showing “feature intent””
Feature intent is all well and good – but how much longer do we have to keep watching and hoping they can put on a plausible show? I think time is starting to run out on this one …
[Craig Seeman] “[Simon Ubsdell] “Their pants are down around their ankles and it’s not a pretty sight.”
It depends on how you look at that. I’d argue it’s nice that they’re showing us their stuff at least.”
That was definitely good for a laugh – thanks!!!! 🙂
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Herb Sevush] “It looks like an excellent multi-cam tool as long as you have simplistic audio needs, it was reviewed positively when it came out, and I still can’t use it”
Rushed out to give the appearance that Apple were on top of the game but ultimately deeply flawed – why can’t they just take a deep breath and get this stuff right? Everything about FCPX has been released prematurely. It’s really not remotely encouraging.
Need to try harder, guys. Need to try a whole lot harder.
Another update where stuff just doesn’t work properly will be a sign that they just can’t get it together.
I think the big problem is they just don’t have the resources …
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Craig Seeman] ” I think this is part of the “hurry up” schedule they’re on which seems to be at around 12 weeks for each release give or take.”
Why can’t they now just get the wretched thing right instead of rushing out ill-considered and inadequately QC’d updates? They’re just looking more and more incompetent each time they do this.
PSD support, multicam, and broadcast support are clearly a mess that they thought they had to get out there in order to stem the flow of criticism. It’s become increasingly apparent that they’re panicking …
I so wish that weren’t the case and they were actually on top of this thing, but that’s a position it’s very, very hard to support.
Their pants are down around their ankles and it’s not a pretty sight.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Frank Gonzales] “Think of Henry Ford, The users wanted a faster Horse.”
Brilliant!!!!! Why did no-one think to mention this comparison before?
😉
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Shawn Miller] “Or… if you don’t have access to a node based compositor, but do have After Effects, you can use the Channel Combiner to convert from RGB to YUV, then use two instances of Channel Blur (one for blue one for green) and then use another instance of Channel Combiner to convert back to RGB from YUV. :-)”
Good point – should have thought of that. It’s just that I’d rather poke my eye out with a sharp stick than do this stuff in AE 😉
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Neil Patience] “Surely you mean “Great to see they’re worth their money” :-)”
Oh dear!!!! That backfired a bit, didn’t it!? 🙁
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Gary Slickman] “Not to mention the lack of proof reading.”
Lawyers, huh? Great to see their worth their money.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “It surely isn’t a functioning nodal compositor, and I know enough smoke guys (like dan!) who would simply state that a functioning compositor is a nodal compositor – by definition.”
(As Dan would probably agree!), just as “if you think you understand quantum physics, you don’t understand quantum physics”, so if you think you can composite in AE then you don’t know compositing.
Compositing isn’t about how many third party processes you can lay your hands on, it’s about how many processes you can quickly and easily build yourself.
Again, it’s like the difference between people who think keying is all about finding the ideal third party solution, whereas people who really know about keying understand it’s about building processes of which a third party keyer might only be a small part (or no part at all!).
I’d say that the biggest issue with AE is how clunky its design is in terms of building those compositing processes. Yes, you can build some amazing mograph processes as Andrew Kramer shows so brilliantly, but that’s something distinctly different.
I’d even go so far as to say that the much-maligned Motion has a much better architecture for compositing than AE – the “group” concept of layers gives you power that’s very cumbersome to replicate in AE.
Without a doubt, AE is untouchable as the king of mograph – it’s just not a real compositing tool. Yes, you can use it for compositing but then I can composite pretty well in iMovie (I mean the real one) if necessary 😉
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com