FORUMS: list search recent posts

Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Greg Andonian
Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 6:06:16 am

I was thinking the other day, Adobe's big push to have people subscribe to Premiere Pro rather than buy it could make it harder for an "ecosystem" of third-party plugins to develop around it. It seems to me people aren't going to want to spend a lot of money on plugins for software that they're only renting. That's like doing major renovations on an apartment, if you think about it...

______________________________________________
"Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 1:54:33 pm

that's an interesting point. If there's one thing X has, its a billion plug-in dudes churning stuff out for half nothing. Although there was a poster here - might even have been seeman, saying that certain X developers are a bit dis-enchanted because the customer base doesn't appear willing to fork out very much money. that the price ceiling is quite low. I think the baselight dudes might have referenced that in explaining why they weren't mad keen to develop an X baselight.

I guess maybe it depends on what kind of things get made for premiere, and who the customer base turns out to be. If its largely the FCP7 base, then you would feel they are going to fork over for certain things they want that they had in 7. Creative Cloud or no.

As in, the premiere base could possibly turn out to be more lucrative to a certain class of plug-in developer than X. possibly.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Craig Shields
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 4:11:30 pm

Why aren't there more plugins for Premiere? I asked that question last year at NAB without satisfaction. Was there more plugins released at this years NAB? Some of the transitions that worked easily in FCPX had crazy work-a-rounds in Premiere.



Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 4:42:43 pm

because we were all over in FCP7 land, and all the developers were over there with us. Then a lot of them plunked down for X based on the assumption that the FCPX market was going to be huge, but, that said, quite a lot of developers have announced PPro compatibility recently. Also x has some pretty serious architectural shortcomings in how plug-in GUIs can operate onscreen and in the inspector.

some interesting stuff has started to appear for PPRo - I've posted it before but, this dude for instance.


http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 6:06:55 pm

I'd like to hear about the shortcomings. What are they? The same plugins that exist for 7, X, and Premiere seem to be much better in their X implementation in my experience.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 6:24:46 pm

[Bret Williams] "The same plugins that exist for 7, X, and Premiere seem to be much better in their X implementation in my experience."

This has not been may experience with FxFactory Pro, Sapphire Edge, Magic Bullet Looks, BCC, Tiffen Dfx, Filmstocks, etc.

There is no plug-in API for FCP X, so effects cannot be properly optimized for X the way they can be for other hosts. They all have to be built to FxPlug in Motion and then "published" as Motion templates. This adds a layer of overhead that is not otherwise there in other plug-ins. There cannot be sophisticated UIs without venturing into on-screen controls in the viewer.

Specifics that I run into are the poor response of screen updates when sliders are adjusted, slow renders, etc. Complex filters that do multiple tasks, like DV Shade, perform noticeably worse than filters with only one task, like a blur. As a contrast, I can apply a Sapphire effect in Premiere Pro and it runs in real-time at 1/2 res. The same filter, using Sapphire Edge chokes in X set to "better performance".

I have not had a single developer tell me that they have an easier time developing for X than the others. In fact, exactly the opposite. They are only in it, hoping for the numbers.

There is an argument to be made that the nature of Motion templates is better - assuming you stick to Motion's native effects - than the older methods. To some extent this is true. Many of X's effects create very unique and high-quality looks. Some of the transitions would be nearly impossible in other NLEs. But that gets us back to the core argument. Namely, have the business models of Apple and Adobe both, killed incentive to do new, high-quality custom effects?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 8:49:01 pm

[Oliver Peters] "But that gets us back to the core argument. Namely, have the business models of Apple and Adobe both, killed incentive to do new, high-quality custom effects?"

Looking at the examples listed, what I see are largely high-end, expensive plugins (which I happen to rather like and have come to rely on) faring poorly in mid-tier and low-end markets which are probably significantly more price sensitive.

Effects sets like BCC and Sapphire may be staples on big finishing systems like Smoke or DS, or may be commonly used via OFX on other big-ticket systems like Nuke, Fusion, SCRATCH, or Mistika. Even given some moderate success with finishing-oriented FCP/Ae solutions, why should we assume that will translate to huge successes on even smaller/cheaper systems?

With Resolve Lite 10 being free, the number of seats of OFX-capable software will skyrocket, but how many of those new users are really potential customers for BorisFX or GenArts?

I'm not convinced this is a case where a rising tide lifts all boats. I think that some of the effects we're discussing are simply niche products, and that niche is not growing nearly as fast as the market as a whole.

Maybe they're just being disrupted by more broadly-targeted, broadly-priced tools? There seem to be no shortage of new effects from other developers.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 9:17:46 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Effects sets like BCC and Sapphire may be staples on big finishing systems like Smoke or DS"

Actually not. These are used extensively by Media Composer editors among other. I would consider that mid-tier. But your basic point is still correct.

[Walter Soyka] "With Resolve Lite 10 being free, the number of seats of OFX-capable software will skyrocket, but how many of those new users are really potential customers for BorisFX or GenArts?"

Lots of potential with probably zero buyers. I don't hold a lot of stock in vast numbers of Resolve users. The only editors I know (not counting DITs) who have touched Resolve are those who already understood grading apps like Color. That's a small subset of all working editors.

[Walter Soyka] "I'm not convinced this is a case where a rising tide lifts all boats. I think that some of the effects we're discussing are simply niche products, and that niche is not growing nearly as fast as the market as a whole."

Completely agree. For better or worse the market has been devalued. If anything the high-end niche is struggling even more. I think a prime example is Smoke 2013. The Sparks (Autodesk plug-ins) developers had to make a strategic decision to reduce the cost of the plug-ins in order to play in that arena. These plug-ins have historically been tiered to the cost of the host. Sapphire was more for Flame or Pablo than Media Composer or After Effects. Now you've got a much lower priced host and those owners won't pay the Sparks prices that Flame owners had.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 17, 2013 at 1:12:35 am

[Oliver Peters] "Actually not. These are used extensively by Media Composer editors among other."

When I was evaluating DS, everyone I talked to mentioned Boris -- but maybe that was just because they were finishing Media Composer shows. Smoke seems to have a strong historical reliance on Sapphire sparks, but Autodesk added a lot of first-party capability by integrating Flame FX to Smoke 2012.


[Oliver Peters] "Lots of potential with probably zero buyers. I don't hold a lot of stock in vast numbers of Resolve users. The only editors I know (not counting DITs) who have touched Resolve are those who already understood grading apps like Color. That's a small subset of all working editors."

Sidebar: how do you see most folks handling color? Built-in effects? "Traditional" grading plugins like Colorista or Baselight? Looks plugins? Ignoring color completely and hoping for the best?



[Oliver Peters] "These plug-ins have historically been tiered to the cost of the host. Sapphire was more for Flame or Pablo than Media Composer or After Effects. Now you've got a much lower priced host and those owners won't pay the Sparks prices that Flame owners had."

I think this is the problem. We've been thinking about the price of plugins as related to the price of the host app; in strict economic terms, I think the price of plugins is related to the cost of development and the sales potential on a given host.

These always used to line up. Flame is a small and demanding market, with a need for a package like Sapphire and the ability and willingness to pay for it. Now I don't think they line up anymore. FCPX may be a very large market in terms of seats, but with only a tiny proportion of users interested in something like Sapphire, maybe dropping the price won't actually increase sales?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 17, 2013 at 1:26:21 am

[Walter Soyka] "When I was evaluating DS, everyone I talked to mentioned Boris -- but maybe that was just because they were finishing Media Composer shows. "

A lot of folks finishing Avid-offlined shows need to have compatible BCC filters. That's because BCC has been bundled with MC for years, so the offline editors use these filters. Especially in reality shows. Currently MC is no longer bundled with BCC - only Symphony is. However, both are bundled with AvidFX (OEM version of Boris RED), which includes many of the BCC and FEC filters.

[Walter Soyka] "Sidebar: how do you see most folks handling color? Built-in effects? "Traditional" grading plugins like Colorista or Baselight? Looks plugins? Ignoring color completely and hoping for the best?"

Plug-ins. Most editors I see are uncomfortable dealing with most of the available color correction tools. 3-way and eyedroppers is about the most that many editors will tackle. Why do you think MB Looks became so popular ;-)

[Walter Soyka] "We've been thinking about the price of plugins as related to the price of the host app; in strict economic terms, I think the price of plugins is related to the cost of development and the sales potential on a given host. "

The truth is one has nothing to do with the other. In fact, if you paid less for the host, you have MORE left over to buy really good plug-ins. Unfortunately most don't think of it this way.

[Walter Soyka] "but with only a tiny proportion of users interested in something like Sapphire, maybe dropping the price won't actually increase sales?"

I think they are trying to approach this dilemma through Sapphire Edge. Low cost of entry and then a subscription for the monthly collections (updated presets libraries).

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 6:28:20 pm

**edit** this was totally better answered above*

well the fact that magic bullet looks was dead in the water for four or five months, along with many other plug-ins with no response or acknowledgement from Apple springs to mind.

there's this bit i'd just paste in from below conversation:

[Walter Soyka] "FCPX users may have needs for FxF/BCC/Sapphire, but may find those needs better-filled in another host like Ae anyway."

[Oliver Peters] Agreed. Their performance is terrible in FCP X versus AE. I really don't consider X to be a very good host for effects, though it has an edge with transitions. The various stylized "look" effects do function reasonably well within X as long as they are Apple's.


Also - there is an issue considering what kind of GUIs the plugins can represent - sometimes it leaves only really clumsy looking implementations - say where MB LOOKS controller/booter to the full interface can only exist as a burn in drop over on the video itself, that you have to turn on and off in the inspector.

that stuff is just stupid. the inspector is extremely limited in the kind of controls you can put in there. forget about putting an S curve tone controller in there.
Or a colorista wheel. Both of those are good to go in Premiere for instance.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 17, 2013 at 1:07:52 am

Hi guys,

There are a bunch of plugins for Adobe Premiere Pro. Taking a look at Toolfarm.com you see there are several: http://www.toolfarm.com/products/category/11/all/

There is also the Adobe page: Premiere Pro plugins

The list of plugins should be growing and has grown a lot recently with Noise Industries addition of Premiere Pro CS6 as a host: http://www.noiseindustries.com/fxfactory/

We have some work to do but we've also got some work done that will be forthcoming.

Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index


Craig Shields
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 17, 2013 at 1:17:35 am

You mentioned Noise Industries. Will they have that AE-like work around for transitions with the new version of Premiere?



Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 17, 2013 at 12:19:22 pm

[Craig Shields] "You mentioned Noise Industries. Will they have that AE-like work around for transitions with the new version of Premiere?"

You bring up an issue that I knew I was going to respond to. Or at least, I'm answering what I think you're getting at - let me know!

Essentially, this is where the plugin vendors have to step up and I would appreciate the community helping out by contacting their vendors and letting them know they want this.

In order to have an instance of an effect manifest itself as a 'transition' inside of Premiere Pro, the plugin vendors have to do a little extra work. Up until now, they have been content to do the work for After Effects and then say 'it's Premiere Pro compatible' which is true. We make our architecture such that if you do the work for AE, it will likely work in Premiere Pro as well. However, as more and more people switch to Premiere Pro, users want the effects (or some of them) as transitions. In order for them to do that, they need to do a little extra work. This functionality has existed in the Premiere Pro SDK for some time and we have resources to help plugin manufacturers get answers to any questions they may have.

More of them are doing it and new plugins have had no issues making this happen. Film Impact has been one example that I have pointed to in the past.

Cheers.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 3:21:57 pm

[Greg Andonian] "It seems to me people aren't going to want to spend a lot of money on plugins for software that they're only renting. That's like doing major renovations on an apartment, if you think about it..."

Personally, the plugin sets I use actually cost multiples of the price of the host apps. I spend money on plugins to save myself time, the benefit of which I can pass on to my clients as lower prices (spend less time on the job) or higher quality (use the saved time to iterate and improve elsewhere).

See a recent post of mine on the Ae forum [link] where I described three ways to accomplish a specific effect.

Option 1: use the expensive plugin that does exactly what you want out of the box, no muss, no fuss.

Option 2: use a cheaper plugin that doesn't do exactly what you want out of the box, but can be made to do exactly what you want with a little time and effort.

Option 3: use standard effects that don't do exactly what you want out of the box, but can be made to do exactly what you want with a lot of time and effort.


I don't think that a low cost barrier to entry means you can't sell expensive plugins on a platform. I do think that anyone who bought into a platform solely because it was inexpensive is simply not a candidate for a high-end, high-cost plugin.

In other words, while a low-cost host app may itself sell more copies, that doesn't automatically mean an increased market for advanced plugins for that host app.

Also, and again speaking only for myself, I think of Creative Cloud as a different way to pay for the upgrades I'd be buying anyway. I envision continuing to use Adobe applications after the end of the month or the end of the year, and I'd plan on continuing to subscribe just as I'd plan on buying Creative Suite upgrades.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 5:05:42 pm

This argument has at least been a problem for the plug-in developers of FCP X. Lots of folks buying $10-$50 plug-ins for X. Not that many buying full versions of FxF Pro, BCC or Sapphire for X. Filmlight specifically told me X users have baulked at paying $1K when the host was only $300.

The AE and ProTools user is different. They live and die by their plug-ins. I don't think it's an issue of price with them. OTOH, if the CC subscription is the only option, then why buy plug-ins if you run the chance of not renewing the subscription. This will tend to drive plug-in purchases according to the needs of specific jobs, rather than as an investment in your company.

Editors tend to approach plug-ins differently, so what drives an AE users is different than what drives a PPro editor. I think the editors will tend to be less likely to spend anything on plug-ins in general, beyond what comes with the program.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 5:12:04 pm

[Oliver Peters] " if the CC subscription is the only option, "

are we mad to think they could actually do that? I can't decide if I'm barmy to be concerned about it - simply because adobe can't say anything about upcoming licensing terms.

I mean - 80% of the user base is currently on perpetual license? As in someone posted that adobe announced 20% of the customer base were on the cloud?
It's inconceivable they could try and literally force three quarters of their customers onto bank direct debit hire purchase right?

that would be a PR Fubar of Olympic proportions wouldn't it?

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 5:52:40 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "are we mad to think they could actually do that? I can't decide if I'm barmy to be concerned about it - simply because adobe can't say anything about upcoming licensing terms."

I have had all indications that there will continue to be perpetual licenses. Nevertheless, Adobe had a lot more success getting people signed up for the Creative Cloud than they had expected. A client site where I freelance called yesterday and asked for the cost to upgrade their group perpetual license (5 seats). The Adobe rep told them the only option that they could offer at this time was a Creative Cloud Team subscription. They were also told this at NAB. I presume we will have a definitive answer by the time of the Adobe Max event, but for now, the waters are a bit cloudy.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 6:15:43 pm

[Oliver Peters] "the only option that they could offer at this time was a Creative Cloud Team subscription. "


aaarrrrrggg. if they actually try and do this the amount of volcanic FUD that will erupt out of the ground will make the mountains of madness look like disneyland.
The PR risk is insane.
the boardroom would want to be utterly hell bent to insanity to get at the bank account direct debits to even consider this.
It would fundamentally damage the narrative of the release. not to mention their actual brand.

because then its not the nice Adobe of Al Mooney and Monaghan and them that everyone was so tickled by at NAB -
its just an insane board and CEO frothing at the mouth trying to please the funds that own over 90% of the company, by financially breaking the arms of every customer to get into their bank accounts ongoing. It's a PR nightmare that narrative.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Richard Cardonna
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 17, 2013 at 2:01:24 am

I am of the opinion that those in the 20% are mostly new to the app and would rather spent 600. bucks then shell out a couple of grands just to test it. It remains to be seen if after the year is up they would choose the cloud or the perpetual license. I belive that many will have both but most will like it so much that they will prefer a perpetual license if available.

Richard


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 5:49:38 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The AE and ProTools user is different. They live and die by their plug-ins. I don't think it's an issue of price with them. OTOH, if the CC subscription is the only option, then why buy plug-ins if you run the chance of not renewing the subscription. This will tend to drive plug-in purchases according to the needs of specific jobs, rather than as an investment in your company."

Great point. As you know well, but as I often forget to disclaim, I'm a designer first and an editor second, and that colors my perspective.

Interestingly, GenArts Sapphire can be rented by the month -- but that still costs >3x as much as a Creative Cloud subscription's monthly fee.



[Oliver Peters] "This argument has at least been a problem for the plug-in developers of FCP X. Lots of folks buying $10-$50 plug-ins for X. Not that many buying full versions of FxF Pro, BCC or Sapphire for X. Filmlight specifically told me X users have baulked at paying $1K when the host was only $300."

But is this really just about price, or is this about needs and use cases?

In other words, are FCPX users not buying FxF/BCC/Sapphire/Baselight because they are too expensive relative to FCPX itself, or because they don't need what those plugins do and thus wouldn't benefit from having those tools?

There are so many variables here beyond price that may be coming into play, from the architecture of the app itself to the broader user base Apple is aiming for. Please consider the following to be sweeping generalizations, all with notable exceptions:

FCPX has the color board for free, and Resolve reads FCPXML and is free.

FCPX/M5 reduces the amount of rocket science necessary for developers to help editors create cool visuals, encouraging rapid development of relatively limited-scope plugins which can be sold profitably at a lower cost. A "little" plugin that does 80% of what one of the "big" plugins does but that sells for 20%, 10%, 5% or even 0% of its cost may not leave much room in the market.

FCPX/M5 lets regular users, not just developers, make effects which they can re-use or share.

FCPX is not (often/currently) used in interchange situations where having the same plugins in a different host would be beneficial.

FCPX users may prefer preset/template-driven effects rather than more flexible control-driven effects.

FCPX's architecture restricts developers from exposing the complexity of their advanced plugins.

FCPX users who have never used another app may have no idea what FxF/BCC/Sapphire can do or why they might be worth the price.

FCPX users may not be doing the sort of compositing or effects work where FxF/BCC/Sapphire really shine.

FCPX users may have needs for FxF/BCC/Sapphire, but may find those needs better-filled in another host like Ae anyway.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 6:04:21 pm

[Walter Soyka] "But is this really just about price, or is this about needs and use cases?
In other words, are FCPX users not buying FxF/BCC/Sapphire/Baselight because they are too expensive relative to FCPX itself, or because they don't need what those plugins do and thus wouldn't benefit from having those tools?"


Plug-ins are often an impulse buy. If you want a larger package it's generally based on need or to have one comprehensive set to cover all the bases. MB Looks probably falls more into need than impulse, whereas the various Motion template-based effects are probably almost all impulse. As a general rule, editors aren't big plug-in users the way designers are, unless they are just looking for something unique or special to set their work apart from others.

[Walter Soyka] "FCPX users may have needs for FxF/BCC/Sapphire, but may find those needs better-filled in another host like Ae anyway."

Agreed. Their performance is terrible in FCP X versus AE. I really don't consider X to be a very good host for effects, though it has an edge with transitions. The various stylized "look" effects do function reasonably well within X as long as they are Apple's.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 6:29:22 pm

Wouldn't that depend on what computer and GPU you have? If a plugin is tapping into cuda, great on a particular card on a Mac Pro, or on a hacked 2012 imac, but a dog on a 2011 imac.

And maybe I don't hang out with enough designers, but I always thought plug-ins were the cheat, and real designers used plug ins sparingly.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 6:53:24 pm

[Bret Williams] "And maybe I don't hang out with enough designers, but I always thought plug-ins were the cheat, and real designers used plug ins sparingly."

For me, plugins aren't about getting a specific look from footage. They're really about extending the feature set of the host application and bringing more creative options in reach.

Any designer worth his beret (I kid, I kid) wouldn't just slap a single instance of MB Looks on a clip, load up the first preset in the list, call it finished and ship it -- unless of course that actually best solved the design problem at hand.

Single-effect processing with presets usually isn't design. Creating new elements or combining elements in different ways can serve design needs, and that's where plugins come in.

In FCPX, SliceX makes new things doable in FCPX.

In Ae, generative effects like Trapcode Particular, Trapcode Form or Video Copilot Element 3D open up all kinds of new visual possibilities that would be impractical or impossible to achieve otherwise.

Even standard processing/filtering effects can be used very creatively in support of design, given enough control and layering. I don't think there's any honor in building your own visual from built-in effects if you could have done the same thing in a quarter of the time with a third-party plugin.

I use plugins extensively, because they extend creative options or speed up my workflow -- but I use the defaults settings and/or published presets sparingly, because they rarely fit a project's specific design needs.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 7:47:06 pm

[Bret Williams] "Wouldn't that depend on what computer and GPU you have? If a plugin is tapping into cuda, great on a particular card on a Mac Pro, or on a hacked 2012 imac, but a dog on a 2011 imac."

Yes and no. I am comparing the same plug-ins on the same machine without any CUDA. Obviously anything CUDA-enabled would benefit that app, but not FCP X. Nothing that works with FCP X uses CUDA, AFAIK. Anything optimized for FCP X uses OpenCL, while most plug-ins are optimized for OpenGL or some for CUDA. Generally iMacs have been better, but at NAB a number of demos I saw were running on iMacs and they actually performed worse than on Mac Pros. Enough so that the developers had to apologize.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 17, 2013 at 5:35:37 pm

[Oliver Peters] "As a general rule, editors aren't big plug-in users the way designers are, unless they are just looking for something unique or special to set their work apart from others."

Promo folk being the exception, I expect. We're pretty plugin driven. Especially transitions.


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 5:53:03 pm

[Oliver Peters] "his argument has at least been a problem for the plug-in developers of FCP X. Lots of folks buying $10-$50 plug-ins for X. Not that many buying full versions of FxF Pro, BCC or Sapphire for X. Filmlight specifically told me X users have baulked at paying $1K when the host was only $300."

The thing is - it all builds up, all these small bespoke plugins to do specific little jobs and I think that without buying any huge packages that I probably spent between $2K to $2.5K on plugins for FCPX.

One of the more expensive is Magic Bullet Looks which I used to use painfully in FCP7 because of its secondary correction capability but I've hardly used it at all since purchasing for FCPX, firstly because initially it was really buggy and secondly because it only deal with a setting for one frame for each clip, no key frames which is pretty limiting.

A lot of these also have versions for Premiere, but these NLEs are pretty self contained nowadays enabling basic FX to be done in App.

The time to have got Premiere was when FCPX came out - they were offering some excellent transition deals from FCP7. I'm not about to sign up for the cloud. I just researched getting the new photoshop and whilst initially attractive to pay $20 a month ( roughly ) at the end of 3 years I could lease purchased the product but am still committed to paying Ad infinitum, which is nice business model for adobe and not so great for it's customers however they spin it.

I suppose, probably naively, anyone who bought plugins for Premiere would be able to transfer the licence over to FCPX should they want to jump ship.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 6:43:12 pm

Usually the plugins work for whatever apps you have don't they? My few do.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 16, 2013 at 9:22:19 pm

[Mark Dobson] "I suppose, probably naively, anyone who bought plugins for Premiere would be able to transfer the licence over to FCPX should they want to jump ship."

No. Probably not. Plus not all are available on both platforms. Some plug-ins work or are licensed for any/all apps (like MB Looks) and others are specific to the host or API (FxPlug versus AE or AVX). Different companies have different policies for cross grades. They also have different versions in the 32-bit to 64-bit transition.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Scott Thomas
Re: Could Creative Cloud discourage plugin developers from embracing Premiere?
on Apr 17, 2013 at 6:42:14 am

There was a thread on Twitter recently where someone asked Graeme Nattress about his plugin set and when it might be available for Premiere Pro. Graeme has a couple of interesting comments:

"I would love to provide a solution with them in PPro, but it's just not easy."

"working on it, but it's slow going with Premiere."


On the question if it was a personal issue or a technical one, he responded:

"both I'm afraid."


Return to posts index

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