FORUMS: list search recent posts

Quantifiable evidence

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Walter Soyka
Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 15, 2014 at 9:48:17 pm

Here's some. Check out Warren Eagles's open survey of colorists, with 400 responses:

http://icolorist.com/what-are-you-grading-2014-results/

In response to the question, "What edit system was used to cut the show you are grading?," responses ran as follows:

Adobe Premiere Pro: 54%
Final Cut Pro 7: 51%
Avid: 47%
Final Cut Pro X: 17%
DaVinci Resolve: 6%
Autodesk Smoke: 3%

Note that the numbers total more than 100%. Because colorists could provide answers for multiple projects during the month of November, the numbers reflect the percentage of responding colorists who received a project originating from each NLE, not necessarily editorial marketshare (which I doubt is really zero-sum anyway).

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

Andrew Kimery
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 15, 2014 at 10:01:53 pm

I saw this the other day (all the results, not just this slide) and while I thought it was interesting I didn't post it because selection bias is going to taint the relevance of the numbers. The results tell us info about the people that responded to the poll (I believe 400 responded to the poll), but there is no way to know how accurately the results of the poll represent the industry in general.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 15, 2014 at 10:24:59 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "The results tell us info about the people that responded to the poll (I believe 400 responded to the poll), but there is no way to know how accurately the results of the poll represent the industry in general."

I do agree that the survey is not scientific, but I think there is no such thing as "the industry in general." Not in any meaningful sense, anyway.

I thought it was interesting nonetheless. Ostensibly since these are questions asked of colorists about the projects they are working on, they reflect at least some element of collaboration and at least a meager budget.

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


Andrew Kimery
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 15, 2014 at 10:37:19 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I do agree that the survey is not scientific, but I think there is no such thing as "the industry in general." Not in any meaningful sense, anyway. "

Agreed, and I thought the numbers were interesting too, there just shouldn't be too much read into them. Especially since we don't know anything about the methodology.

ACE (American Cinema Editors) used to do a member survey every year (I haven't seen one for a while though) about NLE usage. Even though it wasn't scientific either the pool was specific enough (only ACE members) that it gave a decent idea about which NLE was used most in the niche of Hollywood movies and big TV shows made in America. The results were also so dramatic that even if accuracy was off 10-20% it wouldn't change the results (the last one I saw something like 80% Avid, 18% FCP, 2% Other).


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 15, 2014 at 11:21:55 pm
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Dec 15, 2014 at 11:37:53 pm

beyond old hat on this, but pretty much everything you walk into that isn't broadcast is turning into PPro now - and viacom and disney locally are implementing PPro and CC across the board - disney is well in with AE for endboards and branding as you know there walter. and BBC WW going there too?

I'd say this - a lot of editors out there are very well disposed to ppro? there is a ton of good will. even hardcore senior avid heads inside broadcasters that are locked to avid for stability talk about ppro in surprising detail. odd side point: ppro has some serious facility level issues with lag and stability in terms of conflicting audio hardware settings. mad hornets nest.

but for corporate mixed design edit assets with animation there's nothing within a country mile of it.
the source native timeline performance on older inexpensive hardware is nuts really.
and the fact that there's full bezier masks for dodge and burn on promo shots now is crazy too. feels an embarrassment of riches.

*edit* embarrasment of riches to me at any rate - people may feel differently. I like the thing better than 7.

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


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 12:46:50 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I'd say this - a lot of editors out there are very well disposed to ppro? there is a ton of good will. "


[Aindreas Gallagher] "but for corporate mixed design edit assets with animation there's nothing within a country mile of it....feels an embarrassment of riches. "


I don't think either of these can be overstated. Apple upset a lot of people, and Avid is Avid, but in the facilities world, few companies have more fondness toward them than Adobe. A debate forum here notwithstanding, those kinds of customers have been all-in on support contracts from the beginning. Creative Cloud and the water bill will be the two smallest monthly bills for many of them, and the idea of stopping payment on the latter is no more conceivable than stopping payment on the former. A non-issue.

With such a low barrier to try it out -- $80? Why not? -- and an adoption that doesn't require rewiring one's mind or workflow, AND integration with After Effects, I think a lot of people are kicking themselves wondering why they didn't do this sooner. I also think more and more people are going to find it harder and harder to resist, even among those who've been hold-outs for strongly-held business philosophy objections. If it's a good fit for your work, chances are good that it's also the BEST fit, which historically may not have been the same thing. :-)


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 1:22:01 am

[Tim Wilson] "I don't think either of these can be overstated."

there's not a few trying to figure out the exact point a draft composite ppro selection gets sent to AE for pre-comp that works best going forward for final edit.

you'd also say if someone large is really all in right now, ppro at facility level is currently a rollercoaster to put it mildly.

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


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 5:18:21 am

[Tim Wilson] "
With such a low barrier to try it out -- $80? Why not? -- and an adoption that doesn't require rewiring one's mind or workflow, AND integration with After Effects, I think a lot of people are kicking themselves wondering why they didn't do this sooner. I also think more and more people are going to find it harder and harder to resist, even among those who've been hold-outs for strongly-held business philosophy objections. If it's a good fit for your work, chances are good that it's also the BEST fit, which historically may not have been the same thing. :-)"


Resistance is not futile! ;-) LOL

While in agreement with what you are saying here, I still feel subscription only a bit risky for a simple reason. Perhaps being a bit irrational but what if certain products or services are dropped, the price goes up or both? That and no off ramp is my main concern. I bloody well might give up one day and subscribe. I know at the end of the day, this is just a business model Adobe chose to adopt.

Side note here, debate as you so desire, just watching to see what BMD has planned for Fusion and Resolve going forward. This could be the solution some are looking for. Solid tools that you own, not rent. My two cents, whatever it is worth. At least price of gas is going down.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 12:12:29 am

So this is mostly a poll for the broadcast and film niche? Quantifiable for that group, perhaps, but certainly not a good, random population to say what NLE is most used. Kind of like polling an upper-class suburban neighborhood to see what is the most popular kind of car in the world.

Actually, for X to have 17% is pretty good in this group. Amazing that FCP7 is still holding on strong.

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


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 12:33:07 am

to say again but - even in PR shops that will debate client billing at a few hundred quid level in open office conversations - it's ppro. X doesn't win that end because it doesn't play with the standing AE assets or the available talent pool. given the cards adobe have there is almost no way for X plus the hobbled motion to mean anything. also X doesn't have near enough editors or shops employing it. off all that - seventeen percent is actually surprisingly strong in a way.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 12:34:15 am

[Scott Witthaus] "So this is mostly a poll for the broadcast and film niche? "

Nope. People that work on everything from corporate to music videos to web to TV to film responded to the poll (from all across the world). Walter has a link in his post to all the poll results.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 12:40:55 am

But it's a pool of colorists. I would hardly say that is representative.

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


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 12:52:27 am

[Scott Witthaus] "But it's a pool of colorists. I would hardly say that is representative."

Go through the slides and decide for yourself. I've already stated that I don't think the results can be extrapolated into the industry at large, but there is a pretty broad cross section of people that replied to the poll.

Warren also posted a quick video on vimeo where he talks about the results.

In my experience in LA, once Color got included for free with the FCP suite more small-time color shops started popping up and they basically started spawning like tribbles once Resolve Lite dropped. No/low budget things are getting colored in Reslove because why not?


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 12:54:24 am

[Scott Witthaus] "I would hardly say that is representative."

It's not, which is why I object to surveys.

But the best ANY survey can do is be specific. This is of course less than a survey. It's a poll, which require even MORE specificity to be useful. "Hey, what do you guys want on your pizza?" is a legit poll question. Extrapolate even one step from there about what MOST people want on pizza, and you're just making it up. Useless.

So to ask "this group of colorists" is entirely legit, and as you point, extrapolating out even one step further is useless.

The last ACE survey I can find is, ironically, 2010, the year before It Happened. My theory based strictly on anecdotes from a number of directions is that Avid use went UP, as a number of Avid to FCP folks went back to Avid. Not a matter of laziness or fear, but of productivity. Gotta get to work, man. We'll think about the rest when we get a break....which in those cycles, is pretty rare.

Which is why it's also useless to extrapolate even one step further from THEM.

The most we can hope for in any of these discussions is specificity. If done properly, none of these polls will relate to anyone except those answering.

Now then, a properly done SURVEY will be able to account for the opinions of people who don't answer, but there are no proper surveys being done like this. To the extent they ever will be, they won't be conducted on the web.

But as a specific answer from a specific group with specific needs, well, you have the answer. And outside those people, you're exactly right, Scott. Means nothing.

Specifics, though, those are the only things worth anything. The more specific, the more minute, the less broadly applicable: the better.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 2:17:55 am

Am I the only one that reads this poll numbers as "damn Apple NLEs are dominating the market by a huge margin. They acct for 68% while Avid or Adobe can't even break past 55%" :)


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 2:31:52 am

[Bret Williams] "Am I the only one that reads this poll numbers as "damn Apple NLEs are dominating the market by a huge margin. They acct for 68% while Avid or Adobe can't even break past 55%" :)
"


It's called FCP Legend for a reason. ;)

It was EOL'd over 3 years ago (the last major update was over 7 years ago!) and it's still a very widely used NLE (51% in this poll).


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 4:17:40 am

Much as I hate polls of one and being a colorist and sound post person, the numbers match my experience except Pr is lower as is FCPX. FCP Legend is still the boss in docos for me and Avid is second.

So I would put it as FCP7 70%, Avid 15%, Pr 10%, X 3% and Resolve 2%. Resolve snuck in because I used it to edit two small jobs but I usually don't edit. The Avid percentage is about to rise on the next few months work booked in. Legend just sticks and the small numbers who have left have gone to Pr & Avid.

Again that is in my tiny part of the world of broadcast & cinema docos + short films at the bottom of the planet.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 4:29:08 pm

[Michael Gissing] " I would put it as FCP7 70%"


Wow, I'm surprised at that. I have not seen anybody working on Legend in quite a while in my town.

I used to think of the midwest as behind the coast. I guess not.

A brand new studio just got built here that somebody sunk a lot of cash into. They have Prp in there.


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 17, 2014 at 2:15:08 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "It was EOL'd over 3 years ago (the last major update was over 7 years ago!) and it's still a very widely used NLE "

Same feeling back in the day (in my parts) when Meridien Avid was holding its own.

With the cheaper FCP then FCP Studio released, a ton of shops in my parts hung on to the stable un-updated Avid MC w/Meridien.

Took awhile for them to finally move on into Nitris.


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 11:13:10 am

[Tim Wilson] " It Happened."
That is hilarious.

As a side note, for some reason I am in the process of finishing another degree and a chunk of it has to do with research, statistics and the ability to generalize. It would be a helluva challenge to get a true, random population of NLE users, or even "professional" NLE users. I think another interesting question would be "what NLE would you like to use" in your work rather than "use" or "have to use" because that's what my employer put in front of me. I got a feeling PPro would do rather well there, as there seem to be a lot of "Adobe Curiosity" out there!

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 2:19:07 pm

I am interested in these results because they suggest the Highlander Theory of NLEs ("There can be only one!") is not correct.

I'm also interested in these results because they come from a different group of people, and as such, they run counter to some conventional wisdom here ("Avid is dead" and "Who uses Premiere?" and "FCPX is for quick-turnaround work, not collaboration").

Note that none of the words in quotation marks are actually direct quotations from anyone.


[Scott Witthaus] "It would be a helluva challenge to get a true, random population of NLE users, or even "professional" NLE users."

Even if you had one, to whom would polling or survey results be useful? What questions could they really answer? Is a random population of NLE users really any more meaningful to you or to me than any of these non-random polls?

That said... while I don't think someone should rely on popularity contests to decide what software to use, I have myself used them to decide what not to use. The fact that I could only locate a handful of people who were actively using Avid DS is one of two reasons I declined to buy one a few years ago. Although I consider DS and FCP X to be in vastly different situations, maybe that's just a long way of coming back to Tim's point from a couple of threads ago?

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

Andy Field
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 6:38:51 pm

FCP 7 has been EOL for several years and it's still BBC Washington's primary edit tool (not sure about London end) with no sign of change soon. VOA is virtually an entire FCP 7 shop with hundreds of seats..and just a handful of finishing AVID's... they've spend the last several years testing various systems (think they may be leading toward PP CC because the ease of use and virtually no learning curve for current FCP 7 editors)

All of this is to say that big institutions - once they have something that works - are glacially slow to change.

And a comment earlier about PP CC not playing well in networked operations....I know this has been an issue with some networked ops...specifically Dallet....and it's not really and Adobe problem.....more the network server provider not providing the right hooks for the interface.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Joseph Owens
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 8:30:15 pm
Last Edited By Joseph Owens on Dec 16, 2014 at 8:31:32 pm

[Andy Field] "FCP 7 has been EOL for several years and it's still BBC Washington's primary edit tool (not sure about London end) with no sign of change soon."

For me, as a facility owner, if it still does what I need it to do, my first impulse is please god, if I don't have to spend any more money and still deliver product, I really, really, really need to turn a net in-the-black number sometime. Sooner would be better than later.

That would be the "quantifiable" thing that would attract my interest. What the number is on the bottom line.

jPo

"I always pass on free advice -- its never of any use to me" Oscar Wilde.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 8:58:38 pm

[Joseph Owens] "please god, if I don't have to spend any more money and still deliver product, I really, really, really need to turn a net in-the-black number sometime. "

Should be embroidered on every editor's chair headrest

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Bob Woodhead
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 10:37:17 pm

Posts about how prevalent Legacy still is, and how slow to change large facilities can be, has got me saying... "thank god I don't have to bend to anyone's will on which NLE to use". Seriously, if someone told me I'd have to switch from X to Legacy because "the numbers tell the story", I'd tell them to take a hike, and return to billing vigorously using X. To be stuck using 7 year old software? Ugh.

I edited with non-magnetic tracks for as long as anyone here who was on tape before that, and after a couple years of X, I'd rather not go back to tracks. The X timeline and it's metadata strengths have done more for my productivity than anything since non-linear started.

That said, there's plenty in X that needs improvement. I used to have a number of feature/workflow/etc update priorities, but lately believe the best changes that could be made in X lie in further increasing it's minute-to-minute productivity. Eliminate those things that slow me down from creating content.
The beachball when I navigate plugins.... yes, I'm a plugin glutton, and have many, but why do I have to sit for several seconds watching a beachball as it draws up the list? And does it every time I do a search, or clear a search. And why do I have to look at thumbnails of effects? Why not a FAST text list? One that I can make favorites out of?
The interface - no good reason not to have savable layouts. Thin out that center bar... even on my dual 2K monitors it's wasted space.
Stop telling me about what happens when I trash clips.... I KNOW ALREADY.
A keystroke command to replace clip/add to audition/etc. Don't force me to use the mouse.... ever! The keyboard rules. (That comes from my old Avid days.)

Basically, as long as X keeps improving for professional use, I really don't care (thank god) what the other kids are using.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 11:03:17 pm

barely off 7 - I get that, but adobe have loaded near a Tutankhamun's tomb for editors at this point. It's crazily effective.
How and when you editorially interact an ongoing ppro edit with AE is, in itself, super interesting relative to 7.

that's leaving aside the native operations and edit stuff. it's a wicked timeline.

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


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 11:13:14 pm
Last Edited By Andy Field on Dec 16, 2014 at 11:14:04 pm

If you're an FCP X fan - good for you! If you can't wrap your head around leaving FCP 7 - give Premiere Pro CC a 30 day free trial - it is what you wanted FCP 8 to be and never was.

throw everything in timeline - no render - no restrictions no trans-code

export to multiple formats in background - keep editing full speed - no beach-balls

Adobe Audition to clean and fix audio - perfect

There's so much i like about FCP X (the third party plug ins are useful and some unmatched anywhere) But I'm an old dog who doesn't want to let go of my tracks and automated mixing bone....pen tool, rubber banding, range selecting feel clunky compared to an easy real time in the timeline record-able key frame mix

Best yet - it has a choice to use all the FCP 7 keyboard shortcuts you already no - virtually no learning curve.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 11:34:58 pm

How different is CC from CS6? I find PP in CS6 to be a pain. I use it only when I have to (clients shop).

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


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 16, 2014 at 11:45:19 pm

Massive updates. Too many to mention. Go here and read the many new features entries and videos at http://www.retooled.net


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 17, 2014 at 12:06:35 am

[Scott Witthaus] "How different is CC from CS6? I find PP in CS6 to be a pain. I use it only when I have to (clients shop)"

Way different. CC/CC2014 are much more usable and feature-filled than CS6.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 17, 2014 at 12:19:37 am
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Dec 17, 2014 at 12:22:04 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Scott Witthaus] "How different is CC from CS6? I find PP in CS6 to be a pain. I use it only when I have to (clients shop)""

honest to god but come on. who doesn't know where ppro has gone?

why do people think (local shortform) disney, and viacom, and bbc worldwide, and ITV studios (actually for ITV the whole barn) nominated Adobe Premiere Pro going forward.

it is the proposed future editing system. ITV just flushed avid down the toilet. ppro will eat into long form over the next half decade.

that is what that is. X is a foreign exchange student, as it ever was.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 17, 2014 at 8:01:57 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "honest to god but come on. who doesn't know where ppro has gone?

why do people think (local shortform) disney, and viacom, and bbc worldwide, and ITV studios (actually for ITV the whole barn) nominated Adobe Premiere Pro going forward.

it is the proposed future editing system. ITV just flushed avid down the toilet. ppro will eat into long form over the next half decade.

that is what that is. X is a foreign exchange student, as it ever was.
"


So you've come to terms with your decision to become an Adobe renter then?


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 17, 2014 at 3:12:53 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "honest to god but come on. who doesn't know where ppro has gone?"

Gee Aindreas, I guess I am the last to know. PP in CS6 is not a good editor (imho). Slow, clunky compared to X. Bins? Tracks? Slows the process way down in comparison. I use X on a daily basis and when I have to hop over to PP, I feel like I am stuck in mud. I have no incentive to move forward with PP unless CC is MUCH better and there was a demand for me to be using it. My clients allow me to use what I feel is best for them.

I don't use Photoshop or AE enough to subscribe and take on PP as an afterthought part of the package. CS6 is adequate for the light use I give them. Therefore my question. Maybe there is a free trial of CC I can try, but there seems to be no pressing need to do it.

I also have no real interest in what ITV and other large scale broadcast chop-shops use. That niche means nothing to my niche as that workflow means nothing to mine.

;-)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 17, 2014 at 4:51:02 pm
Last Edited By Jeremy Garchow on Dec 17, 2014 at 11:13:42 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "honest to god but come on. who doesn't know where ppro has gone? "

Apparently, the goal is to minimize the look of tracks as much as possible (by default).

This from an actual working Pr CC 2014 timeline:



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 17, 2014 at 12:15:43 am

[Scott Witthaus] "How different is CC from CS6? I find PP in CS6 to be a pain. I use it only when I have to (clients shop).
"


A lot. It's a great NLE. That said... I'm with Bob... Tracks/bins etc. drive me batty now. And I say this as someone who will often be working in X, 7 and PrCC in the course of any given day. I can can cut faster, and focus more on the creative stuff in X. It's not perfect, (nor is Pr etc.) but even with it's "foibles" I prefer working with it.

Not that that's news to anyone here... ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 17, 2014 at 2:37:28 pm

[Scott Witthaus] "How different is CC from CS6?"

How different was FCP 3 to FCP 5? I couldn't do my work properly with CS6, I could with CC (7) and CC 2014 is a huge improvement again. They are really actively hunting out bugs and bad workflow issues, it's getting to the point where I'm not missing the FCP7 timeline anymore, + the additional tools (integration with AE and Audition) are superb.

And I must mention the scaling in Ppro - in FCP I was reluctant to go above 105%.I would go to 105-110% if I had to and beyond that - forget it. With Ppro I feel comfortable scaling up to 120% - even 125% with the addition of the sharpening filter - this ability to reframe even without 4K material is fantastic. We shoot multicam and often (thanks to 16x9 aspect ratio) I get a nose from one chef peaking into the cu of another chef. Now with Ppro I think nothing of scaling up the shot to get rid of the offending proboscis. The sharpening filter has saved me from a camera with a slightly off back-focus, bringing the foreground object into enough apparent sharpness to save the shot.

There are still a number of small things I miss from Legend, but I'm very happy with the move to Adobe. I still don't like subscription, but as the song says, "you can't always..."

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


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 17, 2014 at 3:18:27 pm

"offending proboscis". Great name for a punk rock band!


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Quantifiable evidence
on Dec 17, 2014 at 11:11:59 pm
Last Edited By TImothy Auld on Dec 17, 2014 at 11:15:15 pm

17% is a hefty number, unscientific or not. The foundation is unquestionably there. And while it doesn't work for me in most situations I have to deal with at present, FCPX would work for nicely for many documentarians I know. I used to wonder whether Apple could get FCPX up to working in high end situations. But the high end is a very small space that they clearly (and probably rightly) don't care about. If Apple weren't so intransigent about not being able to turn off the magnetic timeline they would most likely own all markets at this point. PP CC would not even exist.

Tim


Return to posts index

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