FORUMS: list search recent posts

Some numbers...

COW Forums : Adobe Creative Cloud Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
David Miller
Some numbers...
on Aug 10, 2015 at 10:35:53 pm

Just found this article discussing various figures pertaining to Adobe:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/08/10/revising-adobe-pri...

An indication that the low hanging fruit customers may have been exhausted: "Though the company continues to roll out new products and enhancements for its existing portfolio, the pace of consumer adoption, especially in Creative Cloud division, has slowed down. "

The rest of the article will likely be discerned as generally positive by the others in here who like the current setup.

- David


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 11, 2015 at 1:04:11 pm

[David Miller] "The rest of the article will likely be discerned as generally positive by the others in here who like the current setup."

Actually the quote you pulled is about the only negative thing in the article. If you read the full article and the linked reference posts, their forecast is extremely good and they rate the Creative Cloud model as a big asset for Adobe.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Some more current numbers...
on Aug 11, 2015 at 2:25:54 pm
Last Edited By Mads Nybo Jørgensen on Aug 11, 2015 at 2:26:11 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Actually the quote you pulled is about the only negative thing in the article. If you read the full article and the linked reference posts, their forecast is extremely good and they rate the Creative Cloud model as a big asset for Adobe."

I agree + I think that we can do better than that.

Let's look at the stock over the last three months in a comparison between: Adobe (Top line), Nasdaq (Red line) and Apple (Green line).

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ADBE#symbol=ADBE;range=1d



Please note that Nasdaq in general has been in a depressed state with their tech-stocks, and Apple seems to have followed that trend. Where as "someone" forgot to tell that to people buying into Adobe.

Will be interesting to see the quarterly announcement, which should hopefully happen in September.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index


Rainer Schubert
Re: Some more current numbers...
on Aug 11, 2015 at 3:05:08 pm

Would have bet that you can´t wait till next business report… ;)
(PS.: Make the Window a bit more open and compare over the last year - everything is relative - espec. at Stock Markets)


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Some more current numbers...
on Aug 11, 2015 at 3:23:39 pm
Last Edited By Mads Nybo Jørgensen on Aug 11, 2015 at 3:24:03 pm

Hey Rainer,

[Rainer Schubert] "Would have bet that you can´t wait till next business report… ;)
(PS.: Make the Window a bit more open and compare over the last year - everything is relative - espec. at Stock Markets)"


No, not really as there are every chance that "what goes up, must come down". But when financial reports are being used on this forum, I like to provide a current update ;-)

Here is the (out of date) comparison in stock growth from day one of Adobe trading up against Nasdaq and Apple, which I offered you on the 5th of May of this year:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/378/10493

Adobe stock was then down (which was also at the time up) at $75.85, as opposed to the current $84.22 at the time of writing this post today.

To spare you the pain of reading that whole post, here is the graph:


enjoy

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Some more current numbers...
on Aug 11, 2015 at 3:33:37 pm

Hey Rainer,

Sorry - I just had a look at it, and can't help myself not to share the two life-time graphs of three months ago and today

This is the growth graph from May:


And this is the one for today:


I think that it is very clear that Apple is either on the way down or stagnating, where as Adobe, seems to be working towards 40,000% growth.
(In all fairness to Apple, they have "slightly" more revenue than Adobe, so they are not necessarily in a bad way)

Enjoy :-)

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index


Rainer Schubert
Re: Some more current numbers...
on Aug 12, 2015 at 10:59:40 am

Hi Mads
Can your absence been explained by your activities in Stock Markets ;?
Already a rich guy?
Enough for a lifetime subscription?
All the best ; )


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Some more current numbers...
on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:32:53 pm

Hey Rainer,

[Rainer Schubert] "Can your absence been explained by your activities in Stock Markets ;?
Already a rich guy?
Enough for a lifetime subscription?"


Nope, I own no shares in any listed company. However, I have been busy working + I didn't feel that I could add anything new to the discussion in this forum ;-)

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Some more current numbers...
on Aug 14, 2015 at 1:04:43 am

Apple has slightly more revenue and a boatload of cash in the bank. And a lot more profit. That is an understatement. BTW, I bought the perpetual version of Lightroom, so I guess I am still a customer on the balance sheet. Are we no longer customers in Adobe's eyes if we don't contribute annually? I used to, but never with the rental model. If they come out with more perpetual products, perhaps, but I really don't trust them much anymore. Also I find Lightroom to be at best "meh". Very poor organizational capabilities.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Some more current numbers...
on Aug 14, 2015 at 6:16:39 am

Hey Jim,

[Jim Wiseman] "Apple has slightly more revenue and a boatload of cash in the bank. And a lot more profit. That is an understatement. BTW, I bought the perpetual version of Lightroom, so I guess I am still a customer on the balance sheet. Are we no longer customers in Adobe's eyes if we don't contribute annually?"

Yes, a "tiny bit" of an understatement ;-) Would it not also be fair to say that a smaller company can easily grow 40,000% in size, than of that of a much bigger company...

If I was Adobe, I would look at anyone who have spend money recently as a customer - and that the use of the product often last longer than a financial year or past the next full version. What the company needs to do is to find new ways of encouraging users such as yourself and Rainer to purchase their products - some could argue that word "new", should have been "old" as in subscription v perpetual, or both...

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Some more current numbers...
on Aug 12, 2015 at 1:20:58 am

[Rainer Schubert] "Make the Window a bit more open and compare over the last year - everything is relative - espec. at Stock Markets"

At this point, I would be embarrassed.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 12, 2015 at 2:37:00 am

Noting that the article appears to be from a contributing blogger rather than Forbes itself...and that I'll leave arguments about the numbers themselves to others...what with me mostly being a words guy....



[Oliver Peters] "Actually the quote you pulled is about the only negative thing in the article. "

I was especially struck by the first sentence in the article:

Adobe has successfully transformed its business from perpetual licensing to a cloud-based subscription model.


Any questions? :-)

No disrespect intended to those of you who don't agree with that assessment, but the article is unambiguous in its endorsement of Adobe's course.

  • "The rise in stock price has been meteoric"
  • "[subscriber] growth rate of 140% over 2013′s 1.43 million"
  • "We estimate that the subscriber base will continue to grow at a robust 74% in 2015 and add over 2.55 million subscribers during the year."
  • "...the company has significantly improved its Creative Cloud offering by extending functionality to mobile developers and strengthened its digital marketing portfolio through timely launches."


Okay, that last point could bear the name, "The Argument That Has Launched a Thousand Threads" of course, but the point in this context is that the writers are saying that they believe Adobe is moving in the right direction.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 12, 2015 at 5:26:29 am
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Aug 12, 2015 at 5:40:06 am

Frankly, the graph of their stock price looks like a classic "Bubble" to me. Where are the profits to justify the stock climb? Isn't that what businesses exist for? Their profit picture is hardly pretty as is their P/E. Some of the stockholders may notice soon. CC got traction on the street as one of the next shiny objects for speculators, but I would rather have my money in Apple or elsewhere in the long run. The jump in the stock price is not based on profitability. Adobe's Stock price is 116 times it's earnings (P/E). Apple's P/E is 13.3. Which stock looks like a speculative bubble?

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 12, 2015 at 8:47:27 am

Hey Jim,

[Jim Wiseman] "Frankly, the graph of their stock price looks like a classic "Bubble" to me. Where are the profits to justify the stock climb? Isn't that what businesses exist for? Their profit picture is hardly pretty as is their P/E. Some of the stockholders may notice soon. CC got traction on the street as one of the next shiny objects for speculators, but I would rather have my money in Apple or elsewhere in the long run. The jump in the stock price is not based on profitability. Adobe's Stock price is 116 times it's earnings (P/E). Apple's P/E is 13.3. Which stock looks like a speculative bubble?"

Yep, if any other argument fails, then it can only be a bubble - no doubt about it. Although if you compare the graph for Adobe and Apple, then they look very similar, except Adobe is adding more value to their stock than Apple is - and the latter has recently had a couple of hick-ups.

Some analysts have predicted that the Adobe stock will hit $100/share, once we pass that, unless growth in subscriber numbers, then I would be concerned.

On the notion of P/E: Correct me if I am wrong, but has there not been a long spell where Apple did not want to pay any dividends due to the tax-cost of bringing back home...

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 12, 2015 at 6:41:51 pm
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Aug 12, 2015 at 8:05:06 pm

That was under Steve Jobs. He believed in investing in R&D as opposed to paying dividends. Must have worked on some level. They are now the most valuable company in the world. Cook changed that policy. They now pay a good dividend and had to do a multiple split 7 ways to make their stock more affordable.

BTW, what does P/E have to do with dividends other than the fact that you can't pay much of one unless you are profitable with cash in the bank? You must admit that a stock with a price to earnings ratio of 116 times is a bit more overvalued than one with a P/E of 13.3. Just what is supporting the Adobe stock price with a number like that?

Most of all, how much does all this Wall Street speculation ginned up by analysts who barely know our business help us, the customer. I think Adobe should start paying a bit more attention to us and less to Wall Street.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 13, 2015 at 9:57:01 am

Hey Jim,

[Jim Wiseman] "Most of all, how much does all this Wall Street speculation ginned up by analysts who barely know our business help us, the customer. I think Adobe should start paying a bit more attention to us and less to Wall Street."

With all due respect, this is the most sensible thing that you have provided in the discussion about Adobe's finances.

No customers = No money = unhappy investors.

However, as someone else pointed out, customers are entities (people or businesses): who have recently made a purchase or entered into a subscription plan. If the last purchase from Adobe is more than 2-3 years old, then one cannot expect to be called a customer, as one is not featured on the balance sheet.

Although you may be using one of their legacy products, unless you are willing to invest into the new model, Adobe may very well have decided that you are not part of their strategy - unless you in the future choose to subscribe (or buy) anyone of their offerings. At this point, with all the other product launches, and with the competition having issues, it would be silly of Adobe to change what is currently a very successful strategy.

P/S: The size profit is not an indicator for success, as in the case of Adobe, the company are making some clever investments, whilst also buying back its own stock - this in the short term will reduce profits. But in the long term increase the value of the company - as evidently from the graphs in my previous post. Apple, because of Steve Jobs strategy, will have a hard time increasing the value of their stock, unless they start discounting product(s) or move into new markets...

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 12, 2015 at 10:54:08 am

[Tim Wilson] "Adobe has successfully transformed its business from perpetual licensing to a cloud-based subscription model."
LOL chi chi chi
Says all about the authors knowledge about "Cloud-based" Models.
All Investors Bushwah.
What´s "Cloud-based" here beside the name?
Think one can tell investors everything...


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 12, 2015 at 5:08:17 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "All Investors Bushwah."

So it's all about the investors when you're trying to make a point with no actual data to back you up, and now the investors don't mean a thing when the data shows that you're actually wrong.

Got it.


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 12, 2015 at 8:35:21 pm
Last Edited By Rainer Schubert on Aug 12, 2015 at 8:41:03 pm

No the comment was related to that one sentence I replied to.
Adobes actual numbers are better than good.
But the article referenced was praising Adobe for things, they haven´t done (like cloud-business, for ex).


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 13, 2015 at 10:07:44 am

Hey Rainer,

[Rainer Schubert] "But the article referenced was praising Adobe for things, they haven´t done (like cloud-business, for ex)."

You know that I like you. But it is outrageous for you to state that Adobe have not build a cloud-business. For starters, you have never tried it and can't therefore make such as misleading statement.

Although it is only the beginning, Adobe has build a whole eco-system for creators including mobile apps where you can take pictures (& color palettes), create layouts etc on your tablet before sending to your work station, where you can browse straight to it within your main app such as Photoshop or PPro. When working, you can use the Adobe manager to browse for fonts, designs or stock footage, and you can save your projects up to the cloud server so those are protected from hard-ware failures etc.

Adobe has only scratched the surface of what they will be able to provide their customers. But you have no idea, and therefor no right to make the claim that they haven't provided this service.

Before making any more wrong claims about Adobe CC, I say again: try it! It is free for 30 days for you to have a play with. And once you have tried it, at least you can enter the debate from an informed point of view ;-)

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 13, 2015 at 1:37:33 pm

Mads

You know, that I also respect you and your sight on Adobes CC.
But:
(Nearby) all of the main applications, which are included in the CC subscription are running LOCAL.
Are installed local and are using the power of your computer.
Cloud-Computing (OK - in my eyes) is something totally different.
That means, that the applications are running on providers side, using the power of his servers/rederfarms/whatever.
No need to install local Software-Packages (or only the client side).
OK - There is no official definition of Cloud-Computing.
And so one can say:
You can sell the same old local installed Software components.
Add a bit Online-Storage, a few synchronization Jokes, Mix them, shake them and than sell them as Cloud Cocktail.
But thats nothing what I would call Cloud-Computing.
It´s nothing than a good marketing strategy. Dot behind. In my eyes.
PS.: Also the Mobil Apps are mostly running local (on your tablet/phone and not on providers CPUs).
Maybe Adobe has an idea of Cloud-Computing and what it should look like in a couple of years.
(And in their Marketing Cloud Package there are already beginnings)
But for the moment?
Anywhere is something I would say - That´s the direction… BUt we are talking about CC here.
So I would say:
If you are of the opinion, Adobe is already saddled in Cloud-Business - OK, I have to accept it (Because of the missing definition of Cloud-Business).
In my eyes already the Name "Creative Cloud" is simply misleading.
I can´t see, that there is a horizon (in a foreseeable timeline), that Cloud-Computing will become reality for image-/video-editing.
Simply a question of infrastructure.
No. Tell me what ever.
Adobe step into this "Cloud" named distribution Channel was simply money driven.
Not because they had a clear vision of a better Cloud-Computing World.
They know, they have a bunch of old, matured software products.
And many of their users are not willing to pay for features (that are not worth the price in their eyes).
So they found a way to force them to pay for updates.
That simple.
Mads: You said so many times, that the fact, that I don´t want to install a test-version of CC makes me to a person who can´t discuss about…
(BtW: I have heard of lots of hazzles that can occur if you install a CC test-version beside an existing CS solution. Espec. if you want to remove it completely after testing. And also: I´m not willing to give Adobe any further access to my data, hardware or anything. Had to renew (Adobe told me to do so!) 2 Credit Cards after my last shopping of CS Licenses.)
Believe me. I can have a look on CC at so many colleagues. I can read about. I have the knowlede. Believe me (or not).
And if I were Adobe: Before I dream of Cloud Business, I would…
Make my software Package looking much more familiar (pathes/layers/color choosers/...)
I would rewrite many of my mature software products from the ground to make them faster
I would hear to some users request and implement some features, that are really needed, before I overpimp my professional products.
I would devide into fun and consumer jokes (most of Mobile) and Professional aera
I wouldn´t be that arrogant to remove any choice (Especially when I create Version steps like CC2014 / CC 2015)
I wouldn´t tell my customers that Sarban Oxley is the Deal-Killer.
I would remove long known bugs (like the "Second Window" in Illustrator, which exists for 5 Versions now).
And so on.
Mads, due to all respect: No, Adobe isn´t doing Cloud Business in MY eyes. Absolutely not (or even the first step in this direction).
And: I will no disagree when you say, that Adobe has a toolset of fantastic Apps. And I miss them still sometimes.


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 13, 2015 at 4:06:53 pm

Hey Rainer,

That last post reads well, but you are missing the all important point!

The name is "Creative Cloud" - essentially it is all the creative stuff that is in the cloud.

Why? Because it offers much more and better collaboration, not only between your various devices, but also in the situations where you have a team effort going on.

Following your suggested description, not only should Adobe have named the product the "software cloud" or the "apps cloud". Let's face it, most of the Adobe apps are now so heavy in code, that unless you were sitting next to the server, you would never get anything done - let alone playback 4K video files with surround sound.

Creative Cloud is exactly what Adobe is offering. Not forgetting that they have another product called DC (Document Cloud) - guess what, this product allows you to store, safely share documents and getting digital signatures without having to make the journey to the post-office. With that updated knowledge, what do you think the "Adobe Marketing Cloud" can offer you...?

Adobe are not the only ones of providing the model of installing software locally, but using the cloud as a method for sharing content creation and storing files - just look at Microsoft 365. Another great product.

When all that is said, I think that you make a much better argument with the list of things that you would like to see implemented, as this is something that we all can relate to and understand.

What is quite clear is that Adobe under the new structure is working to a long term plan, rather than just to create enough to make the next point release interesting enough for someone to purchase. After Effects is in my opinion a really good case in point, where the Adobe team have been reworking the code completely, and we can only have great expectations from that. Notwithstanding that Adobe just this morning automatically offered me an upgrade for InDesign CC (2015), which happily installed in the background.

There have just been a discussion on another forum where one of the support people from Adobe gave good advice on removing unwanted versions and settings from your system - so should you want to give the trial a spin, you won't be locked in for life - unless you end up loving the product... :-)

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 13, 2015 at 5:26:40 pm

Mads
Again: If you are of the opinion, that a few synchronization gimmicks are worth to call the bundle "Cloud Based" - then OK, I accept it as your opinion.
No question.
But nearby nothing what can´t be done with a simple File-Server located in your own company.
BtW: I would never use any companies cloud to share documents between my team.
I would trust in my own server and infrastructure and would avoid the lack of performance that comes with the use of web.
And in case of a worldwide working team I wouldn´t choose Adobe to hold my files. Really not.
Maybe, that Adobe has some "Cloudy" Solutions like DC, but to come on earth: The CC Subscription is mainly taken for the main-Applications like PS, AI, AE, PREM, and so on. Or?
And these are not Cloud-based Application. They are running local. As they ever did. And will do for many, many years.
When I think of cloud computing, then I think on heavy, computationally intensive duties which can´t be done on your own infrastructure.
Like scientific simulation/calculation, 3D Renderfarms etc. The Client has a simply small frontend & the work is done on Monster Machines. The result is given back.
Maybe you have a different vision, of what´s Cloud-Computing (Not Cloud File Sharing) - But that´s mine.
Think it´s a point, where we don´t come to a gentleman agreement.

Other way: It´s hopeless to animate me, trying CC. Believe me - I´m that often at offices and agencies which are running CC. I´m in contact with many CC users. I know what´s behind.
And: Even if it´s possible to install and (harder) uninstall completely: I have heard (not only once) that it creates conflicts with already existing CS installations. (Missing components, corrupted preferences, additional "Update Managers" and so on…)
No way. And I´m also simply not interested in rented Software.
I want the secure feeling, I have the tools to open my archived files without any extra costs or hazzles.
Mads. Adobe will not earn any cent of mine any longer. No fair license - no customer. That simple.
(PS: Not 100% true, because I own the perpetual licenses of new Acrobat & the newest perpetual Version of LifeCyle, but they will not get money for subscriptions, as long as there are buyable perpetual competitors products.)


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 13, 2015 at 6:04:43 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "When I think of cloud computing, then I think on heavy, computationally intensive duties which can´t be done on your own infrastructure.
Like scientific simulation/calculation, 3D Renderfarms etc. The Client has a simply small frontend & the work is done on Monster Machines. The result is given back."


That's correct, but Adobe aren't marketing this as Cloud Computing


[Rainer Schubert] "(PS: Not 100% true, because I own the perpetual licenses of new Acrobat & the newest perpetual Version of LifeCyle, but they will not get money for subscriptions, as long as there are buyable perpetual competitors products.)"

The joy of the free market!


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 13, 2015 at 6:24:49 pm

[Steve Connor] "but Adobe aren't marketing this as Cloud Computing
"


As I said: The Name "Cloud" is simply misleading and more a marketing Item/Gag than anything else.
The Starting point of this thread was a referenced WallStreet Article (not Adobe itself) where Adobe was described as a player in Cloud Computing ("cloud based") Markets or one could get the idea they are.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 14, 2015 at 9:56:34 am

[Rainer Schubert] "As I said: The Name "Cloud" is simply misleading and more a marketing Item/Gag than anything else."

You probably could have said the same about the word "suite" for early releases of Creative Suite.

When discussing the word "Cloud," I think it's helpful to understand Adobe's vision. They published an open letter when CC first re-launched a few years ago. Here are a few paragraphs I excerpted elsewhere on the COW:

"We believe that the creative process is going through dramatic changes. As our world becomes more connected and mobile, we have grander aspirations for how we create and interact with others.

Today’s tools and services are not living up to the creative community’s expectations. Assets are difficult to track across computers. Mobile devices aren’t integrated tightly enough into creative activities. There is a continuous struggle to find effective ways to collaborate. And creative processes do not fully embrace the benefits of the broader creative community.

As the world changes, so must the tools and services we use to create. This presents a unique opportunity to re-imagine the creative process..."

"Our plans for Creative Cloud are much greater than the applications themselves. Our vision is to remove friction from the creative process and make it more productive and connected.

Today at Adobe MAX we unveiled the next step of this vision. We announced the next generation of our creative applications — with hundreds of new features — and demonstrated how the applications are deeply integrated with a host of new services within Creative Cloud."


I get dinged on this forums a bit for having too much faith in what Adobe will do in the future, but I'd point out here that Adobe has begun delivering on that vision, with their mobile apps Shape and Hue, with Libraries integrated into the creative apps, with TypeKit and Stock as add-on services.

To say that the benefit and value of "cloud computing" is that someone else's hardware runs your software or stores your data misses the why for the how. The benefit of cloud computing is that you can access your data from anywhere, and that multiple people can collaborate on the same data set more easily. CC offers a different how than generic cloud computing, but addresses the same why.

This idea of "product+services" is big. It's a platform for solving problems that cannot be addressed on the disconnected desktop alone.

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

Rainer Schubert
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 14, 2015 at 10:28:50 am
Last Edited By Rainer Schubert on Aug 14, 2015 at 10:29:26 am

It sounds like what it is: A big, big marketing idea.
Due to all respect, Walter: There is impact in their words.
But they praise a couple of additional features as they would be a groundbreaking new glorious must have.
Nice, that I can share documents via the web and have access to them from everywhere (where CC is available).
I could do that years before Adobe announced CC.
Nice, that I can share settings, colors, palettes between apps. But, to be true: Is THAT worth to do such a radical change?
Take choice, Change distribution, Displease Millions of customers…?
Couldn´t that be offered as a nice to have (Version.Step…) add on for those who want it?
Mobiles? Hm. I´m a professional for many years now, and I never used (or felt the need to use) mobile Apps for my professional work.
To my understanding, Adobe mixes Private Users Needs with professional Application.
At the best I would call them: Nice to have Playthings.
And also: That´s worth such a radical change? Not to be integrated as one nice new feature into CS?
I can´t imagine, doing professional image editing on my ipad. And if - I wouldn´t enjoy that work.
I even don´t like to write on any mobile advice.
It´s not bad, that Adobe has an eye on integrating the different kinds of devices into workflow.
But I think, the vision (you referenced) is more marketing bushwa and made to legitimate their (financial driven) move.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 14, 2015 at 11:19:13 am

[Rainer Schubert] "It sounds like what it is: A big, big marketing idea. "

[Rainer Schubert] "Couldn´t that be offered as a nice to have (Version.Step…) add on for those who want it?"

I don't think that would work as well as you do. Splitting focus comes at a cost.

Is this "big, big marketing idea" really just sales fluff? Development, marketing, sales -- it's all one big ball of yarn. I think it's hard to separate these. The new sales model has changed the kinds of features that product managers can focus on, going for what users actually need day-to-day instead of what Adobe needs to try to move a new big box release.


[Rainer Schubert] "It´s not bad, that Adobe has an eye on integrating the different kinds of devices into workflow. But I think, the vision (you referenced) is more marketing bushwa and made to legitimate their (financial driven) move."

I think Adobe stands to make more money by solving their customers' problems better. I have more problems right now around where and how I work, both by myself and with my team, than I do in actually doing the creative work itself. This vision is extremely appealing.

Dropbox, Google Docs, Slack, Trello -- these are some of the most important tools I run my business on. They are fundamentally different than anything that was available a decade ago, like a file server in the corner, Office 97, email and traditional project management software. What's the difference? The instant/mobile/social aspect.

I like that Adobe is thinking big here. Connectedness is not a software add-on; it's a fundamental development assumption. Desktop-only software that ignores our connectedness is not the future.

You are certainly right that I'm projecting forward. The progress Adobe has demonstrated aside, just like early versions of Creative Suite, there's still more suggested than delivered. But I think that integrating the individual products required the management and development structure that CS provided, and I see this as very similar. I also see the underlying assumptions in CC as very different than they were in CS, and very smart given the changing direction of computing overall.

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

Rainer Schubert
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 14, 2015 at 12:21:29 pm

Truly you have to be connected today more than ever. No question.
And I wouldn´t say, it´s a mistake to keep an eye on changing conditions.
But on the other hand, I don´t like it, how many software products and developers try to force us (the users) to their connection model.
Adobe, Apple, Google and all the others, try to establish their isle-solutions.
(And it´s often the question if it´s a pleasure for us or them - to hold our data, get our addresses, bind us to their solution)
Every photo-App want´s you to be the (one and only) connector to facebook, twitter and all the rest.
And all these new forms of communication are only the beginning of a aera, which will change the methods of how we will communicate tomorrow.
But: The tools, that are already implemented, are only a small part of the productivity aspects of the complete CC products.
They may spare time for the one or other - no question.
But it´s only the beginning (…and I wouldn´t say, that Adobe was one of the fastest in realizing, that workflows and communications are changing).
And the tools that are available - compared to the Vision Adobe sells - are at best a first step.
And I also think, that their efforts to bring (real working professional) functions to mobiles seems a bit helpless sometimes.
(But they are not alone with that, to be fair, a bit)
But you are right: It´s not a mistake to have a vision, of what our workflows can be tomorrow.
(an other thing to sell that today)


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 14, 2015 at 12:46:20 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "But on the other hand, I don´t like it, how many software products and developers try to force us (the users) to their connection model. Adobe, Apple, Google and all the others, try to establish their isle-solutions. (And it´s often the question if it´s a pleasure for us or them - to hold our data, get our addresses, bind us to their solution)"

This is a complicated issue. On the one hand, I don't want to have my own work locked away in someone else's app. On the other hand, if competing apps were always 100% compatible with each other, there would be no such thing as a unique feature and thus no differentiation or innovation.

This is ultimately one reason why I champion open data formats. I wish Adobe would be more open about their project file formats.


[Rainer Schubert] "But it´s only the beginning (…and I wouldn´t say, that Adobe was one of the fastest in realizing, that workflows and communications are changing). "

I'd love to discuss this in more depth, because I am always looking for better solutions. Who else in our space do you see working on these issues? What are their approaches, and what are their pros and cons?

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

Rainer Schubert
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 15, 2015 at 9:28:26 am

[Walter Soyka] "I'd love to discuss this in more depth, because I am always looking for better solutions. "

Hu! Walter you are opening a big box… (Theme for a new threat it seems…).
Not easy to answer in short. And also I have not the time for the moment to answer seriously.
I hope I will find it the next days…
I just wasn´t thinking about software producers only, when I wrote this sentence.
Apple for example (and it´s iTunes) - They were very fast and extremely uncompromising, when they build up their "i…" Universe.
They realized very early, how communication and distribution will change in future. A revolution in music market (if I like it or not).
Also Google - They realized very early how our digital life will change and they tried (and errored) many ways to get the position of a gobal player (remember: They were a simple search engine in the beginning).
But one can be sure: They didn´t act like they act, because they wanted to do us a favour. They know exactly how important and relevant it is, to have us in their universe.
Asked, which are the big players in the Creative Markets - Those, who try change workflows in innovative directions… Maybe I´m the wrong person to ask for.
I tried hard, not to be dependent on others. Build up inhouse team solutions.
I´m also "very conservative" if it comes to the use of social medias.
No need for me - As I´m not a worldwide operating company ;)
And my clients are mostly very specific in the industry branch. I know them for years & they know me and my work.
And for the moment I´m lucky with that.
I use a few Cloud Storage Providers for some specific File-Transfers & also Renderfarms. Rest can be done on my own infrastructure.
I can see the efforts of Adobe or Autodesk, to integrate modern devices into professional workflows.
But I can´t see a real benefit for the moment.
My post was more philosophic, because I realize how youngsters are using media today.
And how this will change the work and workflows of tomorrow.
But I think, we are only at the beginning of the digital-age.
Bandwith of Internet will grow over the years and with that, computing will change one day.
Also the way we communicate.
Don´t know if that was the answer you expected, but I tried to give one… ;)


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 14, 2015 at 2:21:14 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "As I said: The Name "Cloud" is simply misleading and more a marketing Item/Gag than anything else."

When I say I am "filming" something, am I being misleading to others because I'm not actually shooting on film stock?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 14, 2015 at 3:28:11 pm

[Gary Huff] "[Rainer Schubert] "As I said: The Name "Cloud" is simply misleading and more a marketing Item/Gag than anything else."
When I say I am "filming" something, am I being misleading to others because I'm not actually shooting on film stock?"


These issues are true for every company. After all, every "cloud" product is a remote connection to a physical server somewhere, whether you host it or it's a vendor who has subcontracted with Amazon.

Avid sells Media Composer | Cloud, which is really a version of MC that includes a plug-in to access an ISIS/Interplay set-up back at your shop. A-Frame, Frame.io, Wipster.io, etc. all sell web-based services that are tied to storage and servers that they've subcontracted.

In the case of Adobe, the software resides on your local computer(s), but authorization is remote back to Adobe, so "cloud-based", if you will. Apps are delivered remotely same as Apple software from the Mac App Store. With Adobe, there's also an active "cloud" component, like synced settings, libraries, files in the "cloud", Behance, etc. So it's just as much a "cloud" product as Apple's iCloud services.

While "cloud" might not really be the most accurate term, it's as accurate as when anyone else uses the exact same nomenclature.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 14, 2015 at 7:35:27 pm
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Aug 14, 2015 at 7:38:40 pm

I still dislike it when people say the are filming or have made a film actually shot on video. Perhaps we need a new name for the actual product. It started back in the mid '70s when we were the first company, One Pass Video in San Francisco, regularly shooting video on the first 1 inch portable and BVH 1000s in the country on features and commercials with the best film crews, lighting, dollies, cranes, etc. Before the networks had 1 inch. It was video in my mind and still is, although digital seems to be more acceptable to the film people who see video as something used for sitcoms or the news. Before One Pass I worked on the first feature shot on portable video using Hollywood location and studio crews. It was for TVTV, titled "Supervision", with Harold Ramis directing, John Belushi starring (amongst many others), and Michael Shamberg producing. That was on 3/4 inch video of all things, and we didn't call it film. Almost everyone on that show, long forgotten, other than by video historians, became famous. (Except me, LOL!) Just don't call it filming.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 15, 2015 at 12:57:04 am

[Jim Wiseman] "I still dislike it when people say the are filming or have made a film actually shot on video."

Here's another one: NBC News this morning said that they had new "videotape" of the explosion from China. All of the footage was from Cellphones and other digital devices. Thats starting to sound silly IMO, particularly coming from organizations that no longer shoot video on tape in the first place.


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 13, 2015 at 9:18:37 pm

Hey Rainer,

I've got nothing further to add - you've decided that the cloud is enemy number one, and that Adobe has joined an evil cult trying to sell you something that you either can't, or won't understand.

Your last statement contains a number of contradictions on its own:

[Rainer Schubert] "But nearby nothing what can´t be done with a simple File-Server located in your own company."

So you are using a local cloud, rather than a virtual one then? Some people calls it a NAS, others both - just search for "NAS" on Amazon or similar and you will find plenty of clouds as a buyout, but without the safety of a global data-center network.

[Rainer Schubert] "When I think of cloud computing, then I think on heavy, computationally intensive duties which can´t be done on your own infrastructure."

As someone else have already pointed out, rather than conceding loosing the point that you originally tried to make, you instead re-invented your position to be about "cloud computing" rather than just the "cloud". Moving the goal post for your argument, is not going to change the fact that you are on purpose being ignorant about a product which you like to criticize, without ever having used it.

[Rainer Schubert] " Adobe will not earn any cent of mine any longer. No fair license - no customer. That simple.
(PS: Not 100% true, because I own the perpetual licenses of new Acrobat & the newest perpetual Version of LifeCyle, but they will not get money for subscriptions, as long as there are buyable perpetual competitors products.)"


You know what; that is OK! You do not have to subscribe to anything that you don't want to have.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 14, 2015 at 2:10:02 am
Last Edited By Chris Pettit on Aug 14, 2015 at 2:12:23 am

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Hey Rainer,

I've got nothing further to add - you've decided that the cloud is enemy number one, and that Adobe has joined an evil cult trying to sell you something that you either can't, or won't understand."


This community can either engage in a civil and respectful dialog, or we can simply belittle each other. As an example, imagine this post directed at YOU Mads, instead of Ranier:

- you've decided that those who raise objections to Adobe policy are enemy number one, and that we have formed an evil cult trying to convince you of something that you either can't, or won't understand.

Just for a moment, think about it...


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 14, 2015 at 8:34:54 am
Last Edited By Rainer Schubert on Aug 14, 2015 at 8:36:53 am

Tx Chris ; )

"Can´t or won´t understand"

Mads: I think I understand. And it´s more that I sometimes can´t (and maybe will ; ) understand the Pro-CC arguments.
Maybe, that your sight on CC is based on your kind of work and necessities. And maybe it fits perfectly to your needs.
Or even does it at the moment.
But you have to accept, that there are others, who have different needs and conditions.
Have different requirements on security and so on.
So for me the access to my file-archive is existential.
The phrase "I can re-subscripe" to get this access is a joke in my eyes, because I would pay for years (wrote that often…)
Please try to accept instead of using phrases like that one above.
PS.: I don´t have to smoke, to know that its´dangerous.
I don´t have to drink, to know that it´s not very healthy.
And I don´t have to test subscriptions, to know that they don´t fit my needs.
(It´s not the Quality of the Apps - it´s the Distribution, Mads… Why don´t you unders….? ; )

BtW: I wasn´t talking about NAS in one of the last posts. I wrote FileServer (A NAS normaly is also a FileServer, but a FileServer don´t has to be a NAS).
And I also didn´t write that this has to be web-connected.
And I also don´t think that a well build local network is a greater risk than a Cloud Storage provider (Even the file transfer via web is a risk)


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 15, 2015 at 6:33:33 am

[Rainer Schubert] "So for me the access to my file-archive is existential. "

File archive? You mean the single project file that if you try to open after canceling your subscription that Premiere or After Effects will prompt you to re-engage your subscription from between one-month tp a year-long period? How is that specifically an "archive"?


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 15, 2015 at 9:20:28 am

You are only thinking of Video-Projects, it seems.
But I produce a few 10.000 files a year.
InDes, AI, PS, DW, Fl, AE, PREM and so on.
I would call that an archive, Gary.
Do you only produce one or two Project-Files a year?
Than - indeed - the access to your archive might not be that important.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 15, 2015 at 12:14:30 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "Do you only produce one or two Project-Files a year?"

But your list is misleading. Illustrator and Photoshop files can absolutely be opened by third-party programs. Dreamweaver? Shouldn't that be HTML? AE and Premiere project files are the only two on the entire list you presented that cannot be opened directly, but again, you could export XMLs (for AE using a third party utility) if you had some foresight, or stems for your video/audio if need be.


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 15, 2015 at 5:33:16 pm
Last Edited By Rainer Schubert on Aug 15, 2015 at 5:38:19 pm

Gary.
When I´m talking about access to my files, thaen I´m talking about FULL access to my files.
Not a limited solutions, which can destroy the one or other.
And: I don´t want to use a additional safety-solution beside safing files/projects (Saving as a project & extra converting of every project, because I may quit subscription one fine day)
And: Tell me the Application, which is able to open .PSD Files with FULL access to ALL features I used in PS.
Means: An Application, which does not only open that file and it looks like I closed it in PS. I mean: An Application, which will not render some Layers/Masks/3D-Objects/Groups into uneditable single-layers or so. Doesn´t destroy 3D Grids and so on. I don´t know any. Gimp can do a lot and also Affinitys Photo. But there is no App (I know) that will open all functionalities editable.
Nearby the same with Illustrator. Truly I can save out to formats other Apps can read - But I want the full access to all functions I used.
Clearly DW creates HTML. But ever had a look to its code? Nearby every Web-Editor creates hidden parts of code that are used by the editor to customize it later.This code is Application specific. But DW isn´t really the App I would have a problem with.
InDesign can be opened with Quark (and in nearby 98% it works - But missing these 2%).
And after all: Compared to CS I have to invest in all these 3rd Party products after subscription - only to get access to my work.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 16, 2015 at 1:57:45 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "Tell me the Application, which is able to open .PSD Files with FULL access to ALL features I used in PS. "

This is what is known as "moving the goalposts". So now that other software cannot duplicate the complete functionality of Photoshop, even if it can open your files and they look just like they last did, you have still lost your files? Please.

[Rainer Schubert] "InDesign can be opened with Quark (and in nearby 98% it works - But missing these 2%). "

Well, considering you pulled that 2% number out of thin air, how about [i]explicitly[/i] what you mean? What are some of those "2%" incompatibilities?


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 16, 2015 at 10:27:04 pm

[Gary Huff] "even if it can open your files and they look just like they last did, you have still lost your files?"
Well, Gary…
IT IS IMPORTANT for me, that I can open the files with full functionality.
Think of a 3D Geometry, which was imported/placed in Photoshop. Was lightened & Textured.
Now I want to edit the 3D Geometry a little bit and (maybe turn it around / change Texture / etc…)
It doesn´t help me, that I can open that file - But can´t make these 3D-Changes.
The file gets useless for me.
Have some catalogues where exactly this is a problem.
And these catalogues often are used for years (means: There are only made changes / nothing fundamental new)
Only a file, that (only) looks like when it was saved isn´t the solution.
I want to be able to make changes to adjustment Layers, etc.
Elsewise I can safeout to a non editable Format (but than the access to my work is gone).
I don´t know, if you are making extensive use of PS, but it´s horrible, when you have to do corrections to a very complex file with hundreds of layers, but some parts are rendered / not longer editable.

[Gary Huff] "What are some of those "2%" incompatibilities?"
This is a very long list and 2% may be to less (and there are still sometimes documents which will not open at all):
Max. Page With f ex. in Quark is smaller than in InDesign
Some Colors that InDesigns allows ("Virtual Colors" like the Metalics) are converted
Some Picture Formats will not be recognized (PCX f Ex.)
The Adobe Fonts (that may be used) are not longer available after Subscription
Text Atributes can be replaced/edited or will not lead to same appearance. Text runs longer or shorter. Will not run around pictures like it did in InDesign.
Tables sometimes will lead to a complete different apperance..
And so on… And so on...
I can write many Sides here if you like or need to know.
Hard work, believe me. Because you have to control every document very well, if and where the differences are.

I don´t know, but I think, you are more in Video/Film-Business and your usage of photoshop or InDes / AI isn´t a main part of your business.
But please accept, that there are some, for whom it´s existential that they have access to a intact file/project archive.
(And you don´t buy only Video-Tools with your Cloud Membership - You buy them all. IF you use it or not. Adobe decided to do so.)
No Fun to have a archive, where it´s russian roulette if your files can be opened correctly or not.
But the Adobe Files we have to open are getting more and more seldom.


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 5:35:43 pm

Rainer -

While I hear many voices complain about the negative side of getting "everything" from Adobe for the fee, I view it from the opposite, more positive side.

When you go to an all you can eat buffet, do you complain about the fact that there's so much variety? I go in for the Lo Mein, General Gao's Chicken, salads, and I walk right past the mountains of crab legs and the steamship round of roast beef! But you'll never catch me complaining about the stuff I don't want! There are others who pay for the full buffet who wouldn't be caught dead eating the stuff I go there for...more power to them! But if I asked at the cashier if I could just pay for the lo mein, etc., they'd show me the door.

Try thinking about it in a positive sense for a while. For the price, you get a ton of capability and functionality, and while you may get way more options than you might need, or want, the price keeps you coming back for more. Granted, I'm still on CS6 (and have worked at facilities with the CC), but it doesn't bug me in the least that I never use Dreamweaver, Encore, Fireworks, Prelude, and a few others. For the price, I'm still way ahead of the game!

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 8:04:09 pm

[Joseph W. Bourke] "For the price, I'm still way ahead of the game!"

Ditto.

Plus, I never use Illustrator, but I have a lot of clients who send me AI files that contain their logo. Without Illustrator, we'd end up having that fun back-and-forth where you try to communicate with them what format you want it in.

I just open the .AI, make it what I want, and go.


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 9:06:34 pm

Gary, it´s perfect if CC fits your needs.
But also accept, that different people have different needs.
Enjoy it & have fun.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 18, 2015 at 7:48:25 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "Gary, it´s perfect if CC fits your needs.
But also accept, that different people have different needs.
Enjoy it & have fun.
"


Close the forum down now - I think we've finally nailed it :)


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 8:24:04 pm
Last Edited By Rainer Schubert on Aug 17, 2015 at 8:26:58 pm

Walter

You will not hear me complaining about the price of CC.
I also wasn´t complainig about the price of CS.
But I can understand those former Suite Users, who where not able/willing to pay the price of a MasterCollection.
Because they simply don´t need Video-Tools because they are Print-Designers.
Compared to the fair perpetual licenses the CC is much more expensive over the years than CS was. It´s Master Collection level.
You can´t decide any longer if you want the buffet or ala carte.
But, thats not my main problem with CC. Nop. Price isn´t. Would have payed much more than they actually take, but I will never rent my archive.
After all, I still find it fine to look at the things from the positive Side.
But at CC I still have the feeling the try to sell me Negs for Pros.
I simply can´t.


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 15, 2015 at 6:35:47 pm

Maybe I missed it, but I'm surprised the thread has gone on this long w/o anyone pointing out that the pricing information in the article isn't accurate. $9.99 is for the Photography Bundle (not standalone PS) which is only available for an annual subscription and $74.99 for all of CC is only if you go month-to-month but there is no mention of annual subscription price.

And people wonder why I'm quick to point out the misinformation/assumptions about CC that go round and round the Internet echo chamber until they become well known 'facts'.

As if we needed any more mud in the waters about what The Cloud is/does I present to Spotify. A subscription music streaming service that works in the browser, has a downloadable app to run locally on a computer/mobile device, and has an 'offline mode' where you can download songs and play them from your local device for times when you can't connect to the Internet (it just has to check-in once a month to verify my account). So what do we call this, Cloudy with a chance of Local?

Anyway, I feel confident that no matter what definition of The Cloud ends up being agreed upon there will be those that still say Adobe isn't doing it right. ;)


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 15, 2015 at 7:10:56 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Maybe I missed it, but I'm surprised the thread has gone on this long w/o anyone pointing out that the pricing information in the article isn't accurate"

I think the writer disclaimed that by saying the number was at the highest price option.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 15, 2015 at 7:15:35 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[Andrew Kimery] "Maybe I missed it, but I'm surprised the thread has gone on this long w/o anyone pointing out that the pricing information in the article isn't accurate"

I think the writer disclaimed that by saying the number was at the highest price option."


Nope, you are right. I reread it and don't see it there either. Language is a bit vague as written.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 15, 2015 at 7:11:35 pm
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Aug 15, 2015 at 7:19:02 pm

I find the definition of Cloud to be irrelevant. For Adobe, it is 90% a marketing term. Although I'm glad you clarified that and what they charge for it Andrew, it still doesn't alter the real problem. That Adobe only allows one way to get to their software, which is essentially rental via your credit card, and with validation of your software via internet checks. That is pretty much the extent of the cloud other than some online storage and marketing, neither of which I have need for.

The money Adobe has gotten from me since they sprung CC on us is for a DVD of Lightroom 5 which I bought as insurance while it was still available as a perpetual license which I have upgraded via download to the latest 6.1.1. It is adequate but not great software with poor organizational capabilities. Otherwise I'm staying on CS6, and haven't even been using that too much except for some trips to PS while I learn Affinity Photo. If I need any of the features of CS6, I know they will still be there without further expense. As essentially a one man band except for some stills work sent out to printers to deliver to my gallery in London, I don't need to interact with anyone else other than to post standard formats to YouTube, Vimeo, and occasional broadcast/cable cast, or posting of my photos to websites. All standard formats.

In short, the cost or the origin of the software is not the issue that interests/irks me. It is the temporary and ephemeral nature of CC and lack of access to projects and a lot of work if you quit paying. I could care less if the software was delivered by mental telepathy. It is still a matter of extortion, that may work for short timers, or those who are fooled into thinking it seems cheap, which over a lifetime, it certainly isn't. This is both in cash outlay and access to work which many consider their art, not just one off projects. One offs pay the bills but they usually don't satisfy the soul.

Example: Would you go through the hassle of resubscribing to your guitar if you were struck with the desire to play a song that suddenly jumped into your head one evening but you had cancelled your access to the guitar makers subscription plan? Or had an inspiration to begin a painting but were locked out of brush, paint, and canvas from the art supply store? Or you wished to rework that canvas a couple of months later and had to resubscribe again? That is the part I really object to, all commercial arguments aside. Inspiration is a fleeting thing and it doesn't go by Adobe's or any other companies rental schedule.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 15, 2015 at 10:24:55 pm

[Jim Wiseman] " It is still a matter of extortion, that may work for short timers, or those who are fooled into thinking it seems cheap, which over a lifetime, it certainly isn't.

That's certainly your opinion but, IMO, if it works for someone it works for someone. It's not a matter of being foolish or a willingness to be extorted. It's a matter of being an adult, assessing your own situation and making the best choice for you/your situation. For example, a number of months ago I worked on a gig and the production company went the subscription route with Avid. They only needed it for a few months, and the documentaries are spaced years apart, so buying a perpetual license would've made no sense.

For you I know that CC doesn't meet your requirements but your requirements aren't necessarily everyone else's requirements.

[Jim Wiseman] This is both in cash outlay and access to work which many consider their art, not just one off projects. One offs pay the bills but they usually don't satisfy the soul. "

I don't understand the connection you are trying to make, that somehow the longer one spends on a single project the more of an artist one is (or the more important the work being done). I mean is Kenny Aronoff any less of an amazing musician because he's played with a variety of artists as opposed to only creating and playing with his own band?

Editing is my art/craft and my 'one offs' include documentaries about things like the Civil Rights Movement, Free Speech, the crumbling middle class in America, alternative medicine, Holocaust survivors, breast cancer, and raising a transgender child in modern day America. Certainly soul satisfying for me. Living with a project for decades w/no end in sight is not a perquisite for art or soul satisfying work. I know everyone likes Apple around here so here's a quote from Jobs, "Real artists ship." Let's also not forget that great artists of the past, such as Michelangelo, weren't sitting around just doing their own thing and then selling it. They were hired guns commissioned to make statues, paint murals, build memorials, etc., in order to make a living.

I have done multiple stints as a staff employee but I always go back to freelance so I can seek out the projects I want to work on instead of being limited to just the projects my employer wants me to work on. Being free to find great projects and great collaborators is my favorite part of being freelance since I'm not limited to just what I have the time, resources, money, connections, etc., to put together myself. I've learned so much more working with other people than I ever would have working alone or primarily alone.

[Jim Wiseman] "Example: Would you go through the hassle of resubscribing to your guitar if you were struck with the desire to play a song that suddenly jumped into your head one evening but you had cancelled your access to the guitar makers subscription plan? Or had an inspiration to begin a painting but were locked out of brush, paint, and canvas from the art supply store? Or you wished to rework that canvas a couple of months later and had to resubscribe again? That is the part I really object to, all commercial arguments aside. Inspiration is a fleeting thing and it doesn't go by Adobe's or any other companies rental schedule."

I don't always work from home so If I'm sitting on the couch at 9pm and have inspiration then I'm either writing it down or driving to the office (assuming it's a gig where I'm entrusted with the alarm code). Of course what one person sees as a pro another sees as a con (Orson Welles said, “The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.”). For times I am working from home I'm getting paid so I have no problem paying for CC. I typically use CC enough that I do the annual subscription (and a paid gig covers the cost pretty quick) so if I take on something pro bono it's no skin off my nose to use CC on that too.

For things that don't generate revenue and don't have a planned end date I won't use CC. For example, I use a perpetual license of Lightroom for my photography hobby because my hobby doesn't generate revenue and doesn't have a planned end date.

I 100% understand the reasons some people don't use CC, but those reasons aren't applicable to everyone in every situation.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 16, 2015 at 6:22:39 am
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Aug 16, 2015 at 6:51:24 am

I do have the luxury of working from a home studio and most of my work is art or documentary projects of my own choosing. I have a BFA and MFA in video art and video systems design (CalArts and Art Institute of Chicago) and it is my habit to get up at anytime of day and work on a project that might have been sitting for 6 months or a year. My needs are quite different from the average. For 20 years I supported myself doing one off projects at PBS Chicago, One Pass Video, and Chronicle Productions in SF, as well as freelance in LA. I know what those require, and respect them. But most would not qualify as fine art. They did pay the bills. In 95% or higher of all editing projects I do believe the description craft applies better than fine art.

There is a distinction, and I don't believe software rental is a very good way to achieve the latter (fine art) for reasons I have already stated. Would Jerry Garcia or Jimi Hendrix have rented his guitar? These tools are analogous to me. As I grow older that is even more plainly the truth. In video as a business rental certainly can work for many, but I can't believe it isn't better for most everyone not to actually have to make continual payments for access to all of the malleable work they have created. If they don't pay continually, changes to and evolution of that work disappears. If someone else is paying for it at a facility, go for it, you are off the hook. You probably don't care if you ever see the project again. As always, YMMV.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 16, 2015 at 3:03:02 pm

I know you need to own (and stockpile) all of your old NLEs, tape decks, computers, etc., to fully realize your Jimi Hendrix, fine art, video editing experience. That's what works for you and, like I keep saying, I 100% understand where you are coming from. I just don't agree that your opinion on what's best, or really anyone's opinion on what's best, is actually going to be the best advice for all people in all situations. I also don't agree with making value judgements on the work and/or work ethic of others based solely on what tools they choose to use. If you were a 'real' artist you'd do this... if you 'really' cared about your work you do that... I think it's pretentious and presumptuous.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 16, 2015 at 8:43:32 pm
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Aug 16, 2015 at 10:11:26 pm

Andrew, I think I clearly stated my situation was unique and that for many rental is acceptable if they can walk away from a project when it is done. That just isn't the way I and many others work. Some for commercial reasons like Rainer who is updating set pieces with new content, others like myself and David Lawrence who need access to old material to rework or repurpose it. I would never say my needs are or should be everyone else's . I just think the rental model is too inflexible for those who are doing fine art, in my case with the first video synthesizer developed by Nam June Paik, my mentor at CalAts, look him up, he is considered the George Washington of video art. I still have a working version of his synthesizer and a Sandin Image Processor from Chicago, analog systems still working. Also 3/4 inch tape from them. Old EIAJ 1/2 inch was lost in a storage incident. Dated from 1970. My work was shown in museums in the US, Europe and Japan.

Since moving to Hawaii I have been shooting cultural doc footage in the Pacific islands. Historically important, but none of this what you would call high paying. From 1974 until I became the Hawaii Avid & Media 100 dealer I've done production work in video on the highest levels. I know a lot about what others require to get their work done and respect what they do, certainly on a technical level and on the level artistically of montage and also story telling.

Just wanted to get it straight that everyone doesn't share my needs, and that's fine. But I think there are many, especially those of artistic temperament, that find it terribly constricting and anathema to our process. I actually have Media 100 projects almost 20 years old I can open on the latest Mac hardware and Yosemite compatable software. Paid for two sfw upgrades in 20 years. I can still jump on those anytime day or night, no cost. BTW I still have a good annual contract with a local non profit that pays my share of the bills and keeps my equipment current enough for my needs.

I still stand by everything I wrote above. Just didn't want to be characterized as "my way or the highway". Anyway, Adobe already beat me to that dubious distinction with forced Creative Cloud rental.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 16, 2015 at 10:50:28 pm

Thanks for the clarification, Jim.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 12:04:50 am

BTW, congratulations on those documentaries. There are many paths to cultural significance.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 12:19:49 am

[Jim Wiseman] "BTW, congratulations on those documentaries. There are many paths to cultural significance."

Just trying to give back and doing it via my work kills a few birds with one stone. ;) A number of years ago I asked myself, "Would I be satisfied with my life up to this point if I got hit by a bus tomorrow" and the answer was 'no' so I knew I had to make some changes. There are still times I have to do things for the bank account, but as best I can try and work on things that might leave the world a little better place than it was before. For the most part I've had the good fortune to find projects I love that also pay well enough to keep me going.

With regards to the footage you are shooting, is that going to end up in a sweeping project one day, do you license it out, are you keeping careful notes so that if you get hit by a bus tomorrow your work won't be shoved into storage unit and lost to time? ;)


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 12:44:38 am
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Aug 17, 2015 at 12:53:00 am

That is indeed a problem. Curation of all the work that has gone on in video and the other electronic/digital arts in the last almost 50 years. There isn't enough money or time to get it all in a situation where it can be appreciated by future generations. There are some online resources, many in NY state, where things are being preserved. But a lot of this is online, in the Cloud. Temporary? Perhaps.

If you want to see the instruments I have worked with go to Jim Wiseman on Facebook and check the profile picture in the corner. A Hollywood production in 1978 where you can see what the analog synthesizers I built and worked with looked like, Direct link if it works. If you can't see it, ask for friend. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1279545959989&set=a.1378008941502.2...

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 12:57:06 am

[Jim Wiseman] "If you want to see the instruments I have worked with go to Jim Wiseman on Facebook and check the profile picture in the corner."

That. is. insane. Preservation of 'non-traditional' visual media (things that aren't films, TV shows, commercials, etc.,) is certainly an entirely different ball of wax since the technology used is many times an integral part of the finished piece. Unlike, say, a film like "Citizen Kane" which can be enjoyed on DVD or streaming video w/o the need for the film gear that it was originally created with and designed to be displayed upon. On a kind of related note, old computer programs are suffering a similar fate and even some vintage computer games. For example, light gun games need CRTs in order to work so even if someone hooked up an original Nintendo to their LCD HDTV they still couldn't play the classic Duck Hunt game because the tech to make that work isn't compatible with modern TVs.

Writing things down on stone tablets wasn't very flexible, but it certainly lasted a long time. ;)


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 1:16:31 am
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Aug 17, 2015 at 1:20:04 am

Interesting you should mention that. There is a DVD medium written on a mineral substrate that looks promising. Can't remember off the tip of my tongue but limited to DVD capacity. At least the media won't degrade supposedly, but still requires a mechanical device to play it back. Honestly, after losing the early '70's 1/2 inch color tape from CalArts, I sort of reconciled myself to another view of the subject. It was always the most enveloping experience when it was live (synthesizers, audio and video) the tape records were just that, records. But nothing like seeing Miles Davis or Jimi live in front of a sweating audience, breathing the same air. So I accepted it, grudgingly. It isn't like all of our art of the last 20 years isn't going to go poof. Paper and canvas have their virtues. Guess I need to start writing on paper and editing video and photos, copy to a lot of hard drives and hope me or someone else cares enough to shepherd it to the next media substrate. BTW, would like to see your docs, are they available? Unfortunately, not much of mine is online yet. We are all still trying to earn a living, no matter ho high minded we profess to be!

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 18, 2015 at 10:57:06 pm

I remember reading about the M-Disc (aka stone DVD) and interesting you quip about using paper because the Library of Congress has a collection of old (like Thomas Edison old) films that were transferred to paper so they could be submitted to the Copyright Office back in the day.

https://library.creativecow.net/weissman_ken/library_of_congress/1



[Jim Wiseman] " BTW, would like to see your docs, are they available? Unfortunately, not much of mine is online yet. We are all still trying to earn a living, no matter ho high minded we profess to be!"

Kinda in the same boat with some projects not yet making their way online while others did but have already disappeared since the initial contracts ran out. Currently the only ones that I think are online are "American Winter" which looks at the crumbling middle class in America (I was the AE on this one) and "Looking for Lenny" (pw: lenny2012a) which looks at the late comedian Lenny Bruce's impact on Free Speech and standup comedy.

On a bit more light hearted I did a fun web series called "Good Company" which traveled the US finding unique (and often quirky) small businesses. We ran the gambit from a cattle ranching family in Texas to bird clothing designers in Virginia to a retired firefighter in Arizona that now does bronze, memorial sculptures for firefighters. One of my favorites is about a company called "



" which makes adaptive equipment for para and quadriplegics.


-Andrew


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 19, 2015 at 4:32:39 am

That was excellent, Andrew. Great example of how documentary work can be socially relevant and emotionally moving. And it doesn't matter one bit what software it was edited on! Thanks very much for posting this.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 19, 2015 at 6:12:30 am

Thanks, Jim. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I've been lucky enough to be able to work on projects like this more often than not over the past few years.

The production crew did a great job in the field (the audio guy was amazing) and the producers really knocked it out of the park with the people they found. Shame that the series appears to be one and done since they were unable to find partners to help cover production costs. Nothing ever truly dies on the Internet so I'm still keeping my fingers crossed.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 1:29:18 am
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Aug 17, 2015 at 1:30:26 am

Look up Nam June Paik Images on Google if you want to see how difficult it is to preserve work like this. You had to be there. But at least an image is an indicator of what happened.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 1:31:19 am

[Jim Wiseman] "If you want to see the instruments I have worked with go to Jim Wiseman on Facebook and check the profile picture in the corner. A Hollywood production in 1978 where you can see what the analog synthesizers I built and worked with looked like,"

Now THAT is seriously badass!

If you don't mind, I've taken the liberty of posting the photo here. (If you do, I'll take it down of course!)




Me with video synthesizers I constructed. On the set of "Secret Life of Plants" in Hollywood in 1978. Feature film with soundtrack album by Stevie Wonder, for which it is mostly known. Synthesizers are Paik/Abe 1970-72 and Sandin '74, and were connected by biofeedback sensors to plants and dancers on the set. With Richard Lowenberg and John Lifton. — with Cyclorama, Tree Fern, Sandin Image Processor, Paik/Abe synthesizer and Nam June Paik.


And dude, Secret Life of Plants? I LOVE that thing!


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 1:40:14 am

Thanks, Tim.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 18, 2015 at 9:32:58 pm

CLASS.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 2:39:11 am

[Tim Wilson] "
Now THAT is seriously badass!"


Tim, if I may add, more amazing coolness from Jim's career:

https://www.facebook.com/AltamontConcert?fref=photo


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 3:28:53 am

[Chris Pettit] "Tim, if I may add, more amazing coolness from Jim's career:"

Whoaaaa. Thanks, Chris. I will definitely be following up on both of these, Jim.

In this context, I should bring up a favorite recent story we ran here in the COW, by Frank Beacham, who set up the first Betacam edit suite, for his work on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous...which hated...but which led to him working on Orson Welles' final project, which Welles was committed to doing on videotape.

A fascinating read that has 100000% nothing to do with anything, except for it being a cool story from a comparatively recent slice of "back in the day" (1985, although Frank's career goes back to the early 60s). I think the geezers here will get a special kick from it.

Orson Welles' Brief, Passionate Love Affair with Betacam



Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 3:43:23 am

I worked on two "Lifestyles". Melvin Belli in SF and Charo here on Kauai as cameraperson. You haven't lived until you have crossed the Golden Gate Bridge sitting on the boot of a Rolls Royce convertible at 90mph with a 25 lb TK-76 on your shoulder. And the familial interactions that followed. If you want an education, get on the cutting edge of video production. Got me into some interesting places.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1, Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Pro X 10.2.1, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.6, Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K, Blackmagic Teranex, Avid MC, 2013 Mac Pro Hexacore, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 2-D500, Helios 2 w 2-960GB SSDs: 2012 Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz, 24Gb RAM, GTX-680, 960GB SSD: Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 16GB RAM 250GB SSD, Multiple OWC Thunderbay 4 TB2 and eSATA QX2 RAID 5 HD systems


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Some numbers...
on Aug 17, 2015 at 8:22:46 pm

[Tim Wilson] "If you don't mind, I've taken the liberty of posting the photo here. (If you do, I'll take it down of course!)"

Wow! Looks like a studio Batman and Robin would have created in the Bat Cave, thanks for posting! It also reminds me of a crazy node tree in Fusion, which me still waiting for.

The magnetic timeline, it's magnetic-o-matic!



Return to posts index

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