FORUMS: list search recent posts

A negative about CC frequent updates

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Herb Sevush
A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 12:21:59 am

Much has been made of the fact that Adobe can now update and upgrade as frequently as they like, thanks to the subscription nature of CC. Yearly upgrades, from this point of view, were merely a burden necessitated by various stock reporting rules and regulations. Having now taken the jump to CC I would like to suggest that this advantage does not come without cost - and in this case the cost is documentation and order.

The yearly regimen of software upgrades allowed for a regularly scheduled upgrade to manuals and documentation. I was once married to a technical writer and I know the time pressure they used to be under to update documentation for those yearly upgrades. Now with CC this is gone, at least at Adobe, as there is NO real documentation to update. FCP 6 came with 2200 pages of documentation spread over 5 volumes. Currently PPro comes with a PDF that's 500 pages long with an additional 50 pages of update notes. The PDF is filled with links to video tutorials that may or may not be helpful, but nowhere is there an index to all features so now if you want to understand what every option in a given menu box does you are left to trial and error. Every new upgrade compounds the problems for a new user who doesn't know if a feature is to be found in the main document or in one of the update appendices.

I tried Premiere back when it first became Pro and at that point it seemed like a streamlined version of FCP, without the multiplicity of menus and crazy disorganization that was one of Final Cut's bigger problems for novice users. However at this point PPro has truly become FCP's successor; menu's everywhere, organization nowhere.

Yes, it's nice to add new features whenever they are developed, but unless some discipline is added in, what you get is chaos. There is something to be said for a slower but more orderly development cycle.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 12:31:00 am

Is lack of documentation really an update frequency problem or just an Adobe lack of documentation problem? Traditionally Apple's documentation was always very good and talked about technical aspects of the process (pull down, DF vs NDF, broadcast safe, etc.,) as opposed to just telling you want buttons/features did what. I say "traditionally" because I don't know what the documentation for FCPX is like.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 12:39:20 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Is lack of documentation really an update frequency problem or just an Adobe lack of documentation problem? "

When you have no development schedule it's hard to have a documentation schedule. Tech writers are normally working with developers so that both on-line and print documentation is part of the cycle. With CC there is no cycle. I guess they could arbitrarily come up with a cut-off for documentation and then release it, but that assures you of having your documentation be out of date by the time it's published.

As is often the case, when you set out to revolutionize things, you often re-learn why things were set up the way they were in the first place. I'm not saying the speed of release is not worth the confusion, I'm just saying there's a price for everything.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 1:04:23 am

Adobe has a development schedule, they just don't have a unified schedule like they used to. Though I'm sure for big changes they coordinate so, for example, the PPro team doesn't do anything that breaks Dynamic Link with AE or SpeedGrade.

The fact that PPro 7's PDF manual is 1/4th the size of FCP 7's just makes me think that Adobe is lax in general in the documentation department. Most of the upgrades so far have been improvements to existing features so it doesn't seem to me that updating the PDF (and having it as part of the download when you update the software) should take too much time. It just appears that Adobe choose not to keep up as opposed to not being able to keep up.

In the end, for the user, it's a meaningless difference though as either way we are stuck with subpar documentation. When I first started really using PPro late last year it was maddening going between different web pages and tutorial videos when, like you, all I really need was a well put together and thorough PDF manual.

For example, when using the autosyncing feature to make multicam clips I like having options so I can tailor things to my needs but damned if I could find a single, clear piece of documentation from Adobe explaining the different options and examples of why I might want to use A versus B.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 2:11:00 am

The FCPX 10.1 PDF doc is 474 pages including Glossary. It's updated with each feature update.
Some of the tutorial makers (Ripple Training) have access to the betas so they have their material updated at release or very shortly thereafter.



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 2:33:52 am

[Craig Seeman] "The FCPX 10.1 PDF doc is 474 pages including Glossary."

Do you find it satisfactory?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 2:39:18 am

Craig -

Let me amend my question - Does the FCPX PDF explain every option of every menu and tool within FCPX?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 2:58:28 am

All the functions are explained. What's not in there are workflows. That's why there's a heavy reliance on outside tutorials.

Example of some of the terse information. This is from Conforming Frame Rates

• Floor: The default setting. Final Cut Pro truncates down to the nearest integer during its calculation to match the clip’s frame rate to the project’s frame rate.

• Nearest Neighbor: Final Cut Pro rounds to the nearest integer during its calculation to match the clip’s frame rate to the project’s frame rate. The Nearest Neighbor option reduces artifacts at the expense of visual stuttering. Rendering is required.


There's no example and only the briefest explanation of what Nearest Neighbor does. Everything is in there though.



Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 3:41:59 am
Last Edited By Gary Huff on May 28, 2014 at 3:42:46 am

I never consult the documentation, haven't in years. Much faster to google search what you are looking for. Like Craig mentioned, if often just gives a blurb with not much depth, but this was a problem with documentation for a long time before I stopped using it...one of the reasons I started turning more and more to google.


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 5:02:18 am

Apple's old documentation was almost encyclopedic, it was great. Alex Van Hurkman's manuals for Color were required reading for the workflow best practices alone.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 12:11:11 pm

Herb, Adobe doesn't have the same synchronized and fixed release schedule that they did with Creative Suite, but obviously they still have a development process in place. There is no reason that documentation couldn't happen along with development.

Correlation isn't causation. I don't think that rapid updates are responsible for bad documentation. I think that undervaluing written documentation and overvaluing video tutorials is.

For what it's worth, I've found the quality of the Adobe documentation for any particular product to vary considerably depending on who is responsible for it.

I'd suggest filing bug reports against the documentation when it's bad.

Disorganization is a harder and separate problem. I think a lot of choices about where to put things in the UI are meant to be consistent with the way it has been done before. Preserving some legacy organization is a good thing because it means that current users will already understand how to find the features (making them highly discoverable), but it becomes a bad thing when the original organization no longer makes sense. A certain degree of complexity is necessary for controlling a large amount of functionality, but this shouldn't be the same as outright disorganization.

Of course, the way to to fix disorganization is to re-organize -- but as this forum can attest, users don't always like change.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 2:24:53 pm

[Walter Soyka] "obviously they still have a development process in place. There is no reason that documentation couldn't happen along with development."

I know there is a development process, what I was talking about was the value of an established, reliable development cycle, that allows for the comprehensive scheduling that good print documentation requires. Once you throw printed documentation out the window, then the cycle can be sped up, but if your on-line PDF starts out with 45 pages of release notes, then I suggest that someone is not minding the store. Short irregular release schedules can lead to disorganization -- the lure of "hey lets get this new feature out quick" has it's downsides.

PPro case in point -- in one of the later releases PPro introduced a very good feature that allows the editor to rearrange the layout of sources in the multicam window, i.e., switching camera 1 from upper right to lower left in a 4 screen window. Excellent feature, well implemented. However the feature is located only in the preview window menu and is called "edit cameras." No indication whatsoever that this is a "multicam" feature. I knew this feature existed, but I didn't know the name of it so I spent way too long trying to find it. This is the kind of chaos you get when software designers add new features without review.

Can a company keep order while speeding up release cycles? Possibly, but I think it's much harder.

[Walter Soyka] "Preserving some legacy organization is a good thing because it means that current users will already understand how to find the features (making them highly discoverable), but it becomes a bad thing when the original organization no longer makes sense. A certain degree of complexity is necessary for controlling a large amount of functionality, but this shouldn't be the same as outright disorganization."

Yes, this is an issue for all organized data, whether composed of computer code or national tax codes. This is the OSX vs Windows paradigm. The longer the legacy, the greater the complexity of structure. Blowing things up and starting over allows the FCPX PDF to come in complete at under 500 pages. However I believe a middle road is achievable, but not without effort (=dollars.)

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 3:22:23 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I know there is a development process, what I was talking about was the value of an established, reliable development cycle, that allows for the comprehensive scheduling that good print documentation requires. Once you throw printed documentation out the window, then the cycle can be sped up, but if your on-line PDF starts out with 45 pages of release notes, then I suggest that someone is not minding the store. Short irregular release schedules can lead to disorganization -- the lure of "hey lets get this new feature out quick" has it's downsides."

I guess I don't see the connection between the change in release schedule and documentation. I agree with you that the documentation should be improved, but I don't see that documentation problems are caused by CC's frequent updates.

The change in release schedule is putting development closer to the user, not really accelerating development or rushing things out the door. Whether you are releasing 12 features once a year, or 3 features four times a year, you're developing, testing, and documenting the same number of features. This should be manageable.

The "sneak peek" community (who aren't even Adobe employees, and many of whom provide totally free tutorials) is able to release fully-produced new feature video tutorials on the day that new versions are publicly announced. Why couldn't Adobe better document these same features by the time they are released if they made a point to do so? I think there's an over-emphasis on third-party community resources. The first-party written documentation should be comprehensive, even if it's somewhat duplicative.

I agree that new features are mistakenly treated as release notes. New features should be immediately folded into the main documentation where they belong, and a separate release notes document should be prepared.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 3:48:46 pm
Last Edited By Herb Sevush on May 28, 2014 at 7:45:56 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Whether you are releasing 12 features once a year, or 3 features four times a year, you're developing, testing, and documenting the same number of features. This should be manageable."

The difficulty comes in integrating the new information into the old. it is not hard to document a new feature, Adobe does this now with their release notes. What's hard is integrating, let's say, a new timeline feature into the already existing chapter you have on timeline layouts. figuring out how to relate the new to the old and present it in a seamless way. Doing that once a year is hard enough, doing that 4 times a year is asking a lot. Again, it's not about documenting the feature in isolation, it's about figuring out how and where to integrate the new information into the existing structure, which is why creating a video about the new feature is so much easier than actually revising all your existing documentation to absorb it in a logical way for the user to find and understand.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 4:16:23 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The difficulty comes in integrating the new information into the old. it is not hard to document a new feature, Adobe does this now with their release notes. What's hard is integrating, let's say, a new timeline feature into the already existing chapter you have on timeline layouts. figuring out how to relate the new to the old and present it in a seamless way."

Ok, that makes sense -- but is this really harder than actually designing and implementing the feature? Why can't this work be done in parallel if necessary?

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 4:36:07 pm

[Walter Soyka] "but is this really harder than actually designing and implementing the feature? Why can't this work be done in parallel if necessary?"

$$$ - you don't sell subscriptions based on your documentation. Why do they outsource their help desk to India? Why spend to create your own manuals when many people are happy to watch zero cost self-made youtube tutorials. Garry Huff said he never looks at manuals -- I'm guessing he's in a large majority.

But the thing about good technical writing is that the tech writers add another layer of critical eyes before a product is released - I don't know of any tech writer who would have let the software designers call a multicam feature "edit cameras" - in a normal documentation workflow the tech writers serve as a crucial, and often annoying, feedback loop for the developers.

The theme of my original post is that there is a cost for everything, and I believe the true underlying cost for quicker release cycles will be disorganization. It doesn't have to be true, but it will cost more money to fight the additional chaos these quicker cycles bring and I don't see enough of a constituency for the dollars to be spent.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 8:47:20 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The theme of my original post is that there is a cost for everything, and I believe the true underlying cost for quicker release cycles will be disorganization. It doesn't have to be true, but it will cost more money to fight the additional chaos these quicker cycles bring and I don't see enough of a constituency for the dollars to be spent."

I have to agree, although I can't figure out if this is good, bad, or indifferent. This general theme was brought up, wrapped in a different set of issues over here: http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/69006

In short, at this time in history, software is constantly evolving, and versions are no longer, or at least they are not as obvious.

I also feel like there could be a price for going too fast. In that thread, the theme of a constant state of beta was discussed. That thread served as bit of foreshadowing as after we talked about it, Apple released an update that was supposed to add capability to 4k screens with OS 10.9.3 (and maybe it did, I don't know), and in that process, it broke some functions for people using 3 monitors. Someone on that thread brought up that with the current state of development, problems should get fixed in a matter of days. In the case of this issue, this fix still has not been released. Of course, this may be an isolated incident, but it simply may also be the state of the art.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 9:59:02 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I also feel like there could be a price for going too fast. In that thread, the theme of a constant state of beta was discussed. That thread served as bit of foreshadowing as after we talked about it, Apple released an update that was supposed to add capability to 4k screens with OS 10.9.3 (and maybe it did, I don't know), and in that process, it broke some functions for people using 3 monitors. Someone on that thread brought up that with the current state of development, problems should get fixed in a matter of days. In the case of this issue, this fix still has not been released. Of course, this may be an isolated incident, but it simply may also be the state of the art."

Maybe I'm missing something but what's new about software updates accidentally breaking something? "Don't update/upgrade mid project" and "Always backup before up you update/upgrade" have been the better safe than sorry mottos of computing ever since I got into computers (mid-90's).

I will agree that once home Internet connections became common place it seemed like more products were shipped at less that 100% because companies knew they could issue downloadable fixes but even this tactic is well worn though.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 10:09:55 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Maybe I'm missing something but what's new about software updates accidentally breaking something? "Don't update/upgrade mid project" and "Always backup before up you update/upgrade" have been the better safe than sorry mottos of computing ever since I got into computers (mid-90's)."

The argument was that if something does break, the fixes come more quickly since everything is supposed to.

You would have to read the thread, but I don't blame you if you don't.

Also, around the same time, Apple released a new version of iTunes that hid the User folder (11.2). The fix for that came out the next day (11.2.1), and then another release came out a few days after that which fixed a bug with podcasts (11.2.2). The thing is 11.2 was supposed to greatly enhance the podcast experience.

So, here's two updates that were supposed to deliver new and updated feature sets, but instead broke the things that were worked on.

If I need the features that are being released in these micro updates, but really, those microupates BREAK the related features they are supposed to fix and enhance, that would mean I would never update and accept a content state of broken.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 29, 2014 at 5:22:58 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You would have to read the thread, but I don't blame you if you don't."

I read the thread but I didn't participate.


[Jeremy Garchow] "If I need the features that are being released in these micro updates, but really, those microupates BREAK the related features they are supposed to fix and enhance, that would mean I would never update and accept a content state of broken."

I guess my base point of view is just different. IMO software is always going to be broken in some capacity (especially software that comes out on a regular basis) and the timeline of it getting fixed is full of variables (how complex is the fix, how wide spread is the bug, how does it compare to other bugs and features that need to addressed etc.). Micro updates will have bugs and macro updates will have bugs.

When a new OS or NLE version comes out my rule of thumb is not to upgrade until after the first point release because it is inevitable that big bugs will be present. Even for smaller updates (things like iTunes or Apple's ProApps updates) I will always wait a week or two before updating. In the past I felt like that was the norm (at least in the professional community) but now it seems like most people race to downloaded the latest update without a care in the world.

In a nut shell I guess I haven't noticed a decline in the quality of software in the past couple of years, but I have noticed an increasing carelessness by users when it comes to updating their software. On a related note, I think many times there is a 'ship it now, patch it later' attitude (that's to the ease of Internet updates) but I don't think that's anything new or unique.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 29, 2014 at 6:17:42 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I guess my base point of view is just different. IMO software is always going to be broken in some capacity (especially software that comes out on a regular basis) and the timeline of it getting fixed is full of variables (how complex is the fix, how wide spread is the bug, how does it compare to other bugs and features that need to addressed etc.). Micro updates will have bugs and macro updates will have bugs. "

[Andrew Kimery] " On a related note, I think many times there is a 'ship it now, patch it later' attitude (that's to the ease of Internet updates) but I don't think that's anything new or unique."

I think we are circling around the same issues.

I was not arguing that things were less broken, but the constant update cycle seems like more things are broken more often because there is simply more of it. Features and bug fix releases are now one in the same.

To Herb's point, there seems to be a bit of disorganization. Companies are saying the rush to the update frenzy will help customers because development can now happen more quickly due to the reorganization of development cycles. Features can get reprioritized and released when they are ready instead of being released because they had to meet a package deadline or comply with trade laws, or whatever.

I updated iTunes because I use the podcast app but it was kinda buggy. The very things that were annoying about the podcast app were supposed to be fixed with the new update, which then broke something completely unrelated, it then took another update to fix that bug, and also fix other bugs that were supposed to be features. Did you get all that?

A feature of 11.2.1 was podcasts would delete when you are finished with them (after 24 hours). 11.2.2 fixed a bug where the podcast would redownload after you manually deleted it. This is a bug fix to fix the bug of a podcast redownloading itself after it was deleted, when the feature of 11.2.1 was to delete podcasts.

In short, they restored true functionality of the very feature they worked on a version ago. It doesn't make any sense. If deleting the podcasts where a feature, and then they redownloaded themselves after deleting them, what does that say about the QA of the development, how does this help me a consumer, and how does this help Apple?


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 12:17:39 pm

All of the documentation went online several versions ago. There was a decreasing need for manuals and customer feedback supported the idea that more people were looking online and other means for finding answers to your questions. Granted, a small portion of customers still really like this method. For them, I encourage printing a hard copy of the PDF materials.

Our answer these days is primarily this:


Essentially, all menu items and the manual and extra content and curated third party content are to be found here.

Here's the link: Premiere Pro Help

Here is the reference PDF: http://helpx.adobe.com/pdf/premiere_pro_reference.pdf

At almost 600 pages, I hope it is enough for most people. ;-)

Dennis


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 1:17:21 pm

What about stability and varying systems? I know there was some discussion on the Avid forums about being wary of point-releases coming out willy-nilly and what that might do to various system set-ups for various clients. How does Adobe address that, or do you do little releases that probably won't cause a problem and major releases with system requirements?

Also, how does a subscription set-up push Adobe to keep pace with development and releases? Seems to me that there would be no rush as the annual fees have already been paid.

Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 3:30:34 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "What about stability and varying systems? I know there was some discussion on the Avid forums about being wary of point-releases coming out willy-nilly and what that might do to various system set-ups for various clients. How does Adobe address that, or do you do little releases that probably won't cause a problem and major releases with system requirements?"

Just like any other update, wait a few weeks to see if people start reporting issues.


[Scott Witthaus] "Also, how does a subscription set-up push Adobe to keep pace with development and releases? Seems to me that there would be no rush as the annual fees have already been paid."

At least from an NLE stand point FCP X, Avid MC, Lightworks and even Resolve are all competitors to PPro. If Adobe coasts editors will jump ship. Around a decade ago Avid started coasting (even w/the a subscription plan) and users starting moving to FCP (and they had sunk way more money into Avid than CC users will sink into Adobe).


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 29, 2014 at 10:31:20 am

[Scott Witthaus] "What about stability and varying systems?"

Well, we obviously put a strong emphasis on stability with every single feature and release we do with any product. Also, with our agile development model, it encourages stability through its method.

[Scott Witthaus] "Also, how does a subscription set-up push Adobe to keep pace with development and releases? Seems to me that there would be no rush as the annual fees have already been paid."

Exactly the opposite! If we are providing valuable features that are important to users (like each of you) on a regular basis (average 2-3x per year) then you hopefully are happy with the subscription model that we provide. It's the classic buyer/seller contract - if we are giving you a good service, then you are a satisfied customer. With the subscription model, we have an ongoing requirement to maintain your satisfaction. If we don't, you have no reason to maintain your subscription.

Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 30, 2014 at 5:17:32 pm

It would seem the customer has a requirement to maintain their subscription because they are locked into a rental model with no real way out. No or little backward compatibility. That would sort of ratchet down the pressure on Adobe over time, one would think. One of the reasons this is being discussed on a FCP X forum. People are evaluating other options.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.1.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.5, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1 TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 1:57:39 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "At almost 600 pages, I hope it is enough for most people. ;-)"

It well might be enough for most people but that doesn't make it enough. There are any number of menu choices that come up that are not explained or even mentioned in the PDF, which itself is confusing because of the 45 pages of "release notes" which serve as a pre-amble.

For instance, it appears that multicam source sequences have to be on track 1 of the target timeline or they won't function. I haven't found this important bit of info mentioned in the PDF, and I have looked.

PPro has become a very deep and complex program and while documentation is expensive and print is old fashioned there needs to be some organized way to find out the properties of a given function that does not require a user to wade threw a host of youtube videos that may or may not give the information you are looking for.

Knowing that the PDF covers 90% of the features doesn't help you when you are drowning for lack of knowledge about the other 10%.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 2:43:38 pm

[Herb Sevush] "For instance, it appears that multicam source sequences have to be on track 1 of the target timeline or they won't function. I haven't found this important bit of info mentioned in the PDF, and I have looked."

True and sorta not true. To see the cameras/angles in the preview/multicam window the clip needs to be in track 1. If the clip is in any other track you can still toggle through the cameras/angles using your number keys.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 2:54:02 pm

[Paul Neumann] "To see the cameras/angles in the preview/multicam window the clip needs to be in track 1. If the clip is in any other track you can still toggle through the cameras/angles using your number keys."

Thank you for that, and yet another bit of info NOT in the PDF.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Paul Neumann
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 3:10:03 pm

Yeah I use that all the time with multicam green screen stuff.


Return to posts index

Kevin Monahan
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 28, 2014 at 7:01:10 pm

Hi Herb,
You've got some good points here. As the docs lead for CS5.5 and CS6, I can appreciate what you have to say.

Unfortunately, I don't think the docs system will have another indexing system, and as Dennis said, search is the best way to find details about an issue.

I will forward this thread to the current docs leads for DV and will see what I can do to help improve the Help experience going forward.

Thanks,
Kevin

Kevin Monahan
Support Product Manager—DVA
Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere Pro
Adobe
Follow Me on Twitter!


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 31, 2014 at 12:42:37 am

this feels a greatly real representation of the adobe support scenario for the millions plus of adobe customers at play now.

It is in no way a false representation of likely support outcomes due to its high visibility.

these interactions are in no way a non-representative show. It is likely an even handed representation of likely outcomes.

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


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 29, 2014 at 10:20:22 am

Good points as always Herb. Ultimately, we try as best we can and as you said, it is good for many people. Can we do better? Always! Within the support pages there is feedback and contacting support - both of which could be vehicles to improve a specific topic. I'll ask to see if there are other ways to have users provide specific details on improving the support/help pages.

Thanks


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: A negative about CC frequent updates
on May 30, 2014 at 9:46:44 pm

[Herb Sevush] "However at this point PPro has truly become FCP's successor"

Ran into a big problem today.

In FCP > STP, you can make picture edits and then conform the audio.

That cannot be done in PP > AU. (I use CS6.)

Now, I'm having to rebuild 25 tracks of audio, because a 5 second sound bite needed to be removed.

I have googled everything. Searched the Creative Cow. Searched Adobe. Nothing.

I figured, bummer, but I can conform it using an EDL. Nope. Then I figured, I could conform it using a hand listed time code. Nope, because in Audition the file timecode is rewritten based on where it is in the sequence. Restating for clarity, Audio1 In(1:24:32:15) Out(1:24:37:13) and it is in the time line at 7:49:16. When I opened the Audio file in Audition the timecode then started at 7:49:16. Surely, I thought, there is a way to change the timecode read-out, but (and again to your excellent point), there is nothing in the manual, there is no video, there is nothing on the Cow.

So I'm rebuilding 3 days of audio work, because the Director wants 5 seconds of audio clipped from the middle.

If anyone has a better solution, I'm all ears.


Return to posts index

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