FORUMS: list search recent posts

SMOKE/FLAME COMMERCIAL BREAKDOWN big w

COW Forums : Autodesk Smoke

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Joel Osis
SMOKE/FLAME COMMERCIAL BREAKDOWN big w
on Jul 8, 2013 at 8:43:46 am

a breakdown/walkthrough of a commercial I did for Big W using flame premium

http://joelosis.com/commercial-breakdown-bigw/

enjoy


w: http://www.joelosis.com
e info@joelosis.com


Return to posts index

Ryan Holmes
Re: SMOKE/FLAME COMMERCIAL BREAKDOWN big w
on Jul 8, 2013 at 5:38:36 pm

Awesome work! Finished spot looks great.

Thanks for sharing.

Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost


Return to posts index

Joel Osis
Re: SMOKE/FLAME COMMERCIAL BREAKDOWN big w
on Jul 8, 2013 at 11:30:06 pm

cheers Ryan


w: http://www.joelosis.com
e info@joelosis.com


Return to posts index


Ryan Holmes
Re: SMOKE/FLAME COMMERCIAL BREAKDOWN big w
on Jul 9, 2013 at 2:10:11 am

Joel - I also enjoyed your critiques of Smoke on That Post Show back in June (though you probably recorded it much earlier than that!). You had some good stuff to contribute. Hopefully you'll be able to share that directly with Autodesk at some point.

While it's a great finishing app (as some of your breakdowns have shown) it does have some ground to make up if it wants to be a NLE like Avid, Adobe, or Apple that editors turn to. They've made some interesting changes since bringing it to the Mac 3 years ago. I'm still a bit confused about their price structures for everything - Smoke, Flame, Lustre, etc. As Smoke continues to incorporate more and more Flame-esque FX (ConnectFX) it seems like it'll be harder and harder to justify the price increase for a Flame. And what are they doing with Lustre? Seems like it's on the back burner development wise. Though, to be fair, they probably have invested (and continue to invest) considerable resources to port Smoke to Mac and then reinvent it.

Above all else though, they need to a seriously consider a web redesign because that site is terrible to navigate. Or is it just me? ;-D

Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost


Return to posts index

Joel Osis
Re: SMOKE/FLAME COMMERCIAL BREAKDOWN big w
on Jul 9, 2013 at 2:29:16 am

yeah that show was recorded a little while before NAB, and yes as an NLE it still has a bit of a way to go, i have no doubt Autodesk have a great roadmap for the product with great new features, dont get me started on the AD website :)


w: http://www.joelosis.com
e info@joelosis.com


Return to posts index

Craig RussillRoy
Re: SMOKE/FLAME COMMERCIAL BREAKDOWN big w
on Jul 9, 2013 at 5:50:15 am

As always Joel rocking tutorial !

This the question does beckon, the technology is there for the porting of Flame to MAC can/could be possible my concern is, would the industry implode on itself if you sold Flame for $99 ?

The argument is,

Get it to the masses and loads of 'interesting' creative work would surface and the craft would evolve, yes AD would sell a shed load of copies and I am not sure this would feed the bottom line, but lets face it the Creative side of AD is not the cow with the most milk coming from it ....

The other iss the Post houses that have the artists, yes true artists with the overheads would fail, I come from a post background and now in digital distribution of the commercials and the amount of rubbish that comes through the doors, technically that is - is astonishing, i would hate a world where a person with a 99 Flame (spin on the 99p Flake over her in England) feels that i have the best finishing tool so it can do the work, it really comes to that word again, talent.

Its an interesting road AD have gone down, Smoke on mac is a great idea and there is not competitors around in that price bracket which allows people to stay in the CC, AVID and Apple world, when Apple slash Shake from 5,000 to i think 100 bucks the artists all went running for cover especially ost houses that had site lic and numerous seats on upgrade.

Look back to Final Touch, 10s of thousands of bucks now EOL due to Apple, well kinda EOL there are some smancy dials in FCPX and yes i did it, but when I need to step it up i Smoke it, my choice and my investment, I just think our industry needs to be very careful where we are going or we could be unemployed hobbyists hanging out at Radioshake, Dick Smiths or Maplins looking at the olden days of AD, AVID and Apple they cant give away in the bargin bin.

Anyways sorry for the hijack Buddy, Awesome breakdown !

Fcpx
10.7
FCP 7.0.2
FCPX 1.0..4
3 x 4TB Thunderbolt R4
VC100
3 x ioXT
MicroHub
Ultrascope
SmartView

Check out the free iBook broadcast delivery 101 on itunes

http://Www.delivercommercials.com


Return to posts index


Ryan Holmes
Re: SMOKE/FLAME COMMERCIAL BREAKDOWN big w
on Jul 9, 2013 at 4:19:20 pm

[Craig RussillRoy] "This the question does beckon, the technology is there for the porting of Flame to MAC can/could be possible my concern is, would the industry implode on itself if you sold Flame for $99"

I don't think it would implode, but Autodesk would have some serious explaining to do to the groups that laid down 5 and 6 figures for Flame systems. I think Autodesk would have to create a different value proposition for its users. Even if they came out and said, Flame is now $4,999 and Smoke is $999 you still have a huge user interface (UI) curve to overcome for incoming users. If you used Smoke prior to 2013, as a new user, the interface is terribly intimidating and hard to understand. Even in the classes I took, instructors would say, "I don't why it's this way, it's just how Smoke does it!" And, to be fair, every app has a bit of that. Flame artists, such as Joel, are probably just used to the quirks and know how to get around them. For new users that can be a deal breaker. If it's too complicated most users just move to a different app. I think 2013 mitigates some of this by putting the editorial aspect front and center, but Smoke as an NLE is still a good bit different UI-wise from other NLE's.

Additionally, these apps don't exist in a vacuum. Adobe's Creative Cloud is a less intimidating suite of apps that cover as much (more?) territory than Smoke does, albeit using 5 different apps instead of 1. FCPX and Media Composer also have robust workflows and communities surrounding them so if the user gets stuck they can usually find help pretty easily. That's certainly not the case for Flame, but Autodesk has been intentional about trying to create community with Smoke. People like Joel, Grant Kay, and others have tried to be more vocal about teaching others. That's something Autodesk desperately needs.

As a small side note, I think Autodesk's public Beta of Smoke was a mistake (I think Joel talked about this on the aforementioned podcast). You never get a second chance to make a first impression. All the hype surrounding Smoke 2013 was lost on the first public beta release when you couldn't correctly import footage or when the export module wasn't fully working yet. If people dig into a project and then can't get it out of the app that's a big problem. Autodesk corrected all of the problems. But if it burns you once people aren't likely to return quickly. I think Autodesk wanted to get it out into the wild - possibly because they were excited about the product they made (rightly so), or maybe they needed a wider testing audience to report back bugs/problems. In either case, it made for a weak first impression, IMHO. I think that has hurt Smoke, and continues to hurt them.

[Craig RussillRoy] "when Apple slash Shake from 5,000 to i think 100 bucks the artists all went running for cover especially ost houses that had site lic and numerous seats on upgrade."

Post-houses went running because Apple EOLed Shake. So you can buy it for $500, but there's no support for it any longer. Nuke stepped in to fill the compositing void and now sits largely as the undisputed compositing app for the high-end post production industry. Apple has a luxury that other companies like Avid and Adobe don't: Apple's core revenue comes from hardware sales (computers, iPad, iPhone, etc.). If Apple dumped all "pro" software (Final Cut, iWork, Aperture, Logic Pro, etc.) it might impact their bottom line maybe 1%-2% overall. It's nearly inconsequential. That affords them the ability to EOL Shake, EOL Final Cut Server, EOL Final Cut Studio, EOL XSAN and not give a rip about the revenue impact to their company. They can take chances other companies can't (look at FCPX's radical UI overhaul as proof). Autodesk Entertainment division may be in a similar boat in that the entertainment arm of Autodesk also barely impacts the overall financials of the company so maybe they could attempt a crazy pricing structure on Smoke/Flame without much impact to the company?

[Craig RussillRoy] "my choice and my investment, I just think our industry needs to be very careful where we are going or we could be unemployed hobbyists hanging out at Radioshake, Dick Smiths or Maplins looking at the olden days of AD, AVID and Apple they cant give away in the bargin bin."

So is your point here that a bottom-bargain price would lead to an implosion of the "finishing" industry in post-production? So if Autodesk drops the price further for Smoke or Flame it will cause irrevocable harm? As you note earlier in your post, the most important aspect is the talent of the artist using the software. I think that will remain the case regardless of pricing drops in the coming years.

Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost


Return to posts index

Gustavo Bermudas
Re: SMOKE/FLAME COMMERCIAL BREAKDOWN big w
on Jul 10, 2013 at 1:23:09 am

The problem with Flame at its current price is that it hard to recoup that money at today's industry prices.

And even if you have the money to buy it, look at Smoke for Mac how it went from $15000 to $3400, it's even harder knowing that your asset could be devaluated anytime soon, I certainly don't want to take that risk.

The other problem is, new VFX artist are not even considering Flame, they're all going to Nuke, so while is great that AD is being loyal to a customer base that paid the big bucks for a Flame, they're alienating their product.

I would price it along NukeX, maybe a bit more, OTOH, maybe Smoke for Mac IS the new Flame, and it'll grow with the years to take it's place, for many it has already.


Return to posts index

Ryan Holmes
Re: SMOKE/FLAME COMMERCIAL BREAKDOWN big w
on Jul 10, 2013 at 12:34:26 pm

[Gustavo Bermudas] "maybe Smoke for Mac IS the new Flame, and it'll grow with the years to take it's place, for many it has already."

This may well be their long-term direction. Give SMAC a few more years for growth and development and possibly Flame will become reserved for only a very select ultra high-end market? Or completely replace Flame as you say.

Ryan Holmes
http://www.ryanholmes.me
@CutColorPost


Return to posts index


Joel Osis
Re: SMOKE/FLAME COMMERCIAL BREAKDOWN big w
on Jul 17, 2013 at 9:14:19 am

IMHO i feel like they need to separate smoke and flame from each other, get smoke up to scratch as an editor and continue to develop and get lots of r & d into flame.
If they made smoke a kick ass editor then flame would benefit and vice versa


w: http://www.joelosis.com
e info@joelosis.com


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]