FORUMS: list search recent posts

Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost

COW Forums : Adobe Creative Cloud Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Morten Ranmar
Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 26, 2014 at 2:56:15 pm

Maybe there is benefit of Adobe not having to deliver a classic "suite update" - (even though it was almost marketed as such)

The video apps do not feature many flashy new features - and Adobes engineers have certainly taken a break to get the responsiveness of the new video applications improved A LOT. We see substantial speed gains in Premiere Pro, Speedgrade and After Effects on the Mac.

THANK YOU Adobe : )

- No Parking Production -

Adobe CC, 3 x MacPro, 3 x MbP, Ethernet File Server w. Areca ThunderRaid 8.... and FCPX on trial


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 26, 2014 at 4:14:03 pm

[Morten Ranmar] "We see substantial speed gains in Premiere Pro, Speedgrade and After Effects on the Mac."

I have yet to install the 2014 Video Apps, but your post alone has now made me very curious to get started.

And, yes, this is what they meant all along. There was nothing really "trigger pulling" about the updates to the video apps, but knowing that they are updated under-the-hood for better performance on the OSX platform is something that pleases me greatly as well.


Return to posts index

Todd Kopriva
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 26, 2014 at 5:47:37 pm

Thanks for the feedback.

On the After Effects side, we fixed quite a few bugs here and there in the current version that affect performance, but---at the risk of sounding like a tease---you ain't seen nothin' yet. ;-)

We're doing a lot of work on interactive performance now that we think that you'll be very happy with. Stay tuned.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Kopriva, Adobe Systems Incorporated
After Effects quality engineering
After Effects team blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Return to posts index


Andy Field
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:13:10 pm

Todd - quick side question - working with rotobrush on a tough to fix interview.....sometimes it just gets into a mode where it appears to be rendering the same frame over and over again and can't be stopped in AE.....very sluggish - any ideas?

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

JP Pelc
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 26, 2014 at 8:40:53 pm

Glad it's working for you. I am having quite a few glitches with PPro and AE


Return to posts index

David Smith
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 26, 2014 at 11:16:52 pm

Every time I hear about the updates and bug fixes to Adobe's software these days I think to myself, "What a waste." All these resources being poured into something that's not even being offered for sale anymore, making it worthless. That's a shame.


Return to posts index


Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 27, 2014 at 2:30:47 am

Not worthless at all to the tens of thousands who seem to be perfectly happy with the current structure. While I'm still on CS6, and it's doing the job for me just fine, I find it rather puzzling that you'd jump on here with such a sweeping statement. Worthless to you maybe...I think the others can make up their own minds.

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


Return to posts index

David Smith
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 27, 2014 at 3:41:17 am
Last Edited By David Smith on Jun 27, 2014 at 4:00:08 am

Why are you puzzled, Joseph? The unacceptable situation of Adobe's forced subscription annoys me and I'm speaking my mind about it. It's frustrating to see them spending so much time on their product when they're not dealing with its core problem. Others can make up their own minds but I can also continue to speak mine. With rental-only Creative Crud, one can pour thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars into the software and not have anything to show for it when their subscription ends. I'd say the deadweight deactivated software they're left with on their hard-drive would be pretty worthless.


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 27, 2014 at 6:54:24 pm

@ David Smith -

What I'm puzzled about, David, is the approach you take via the over-the-top negatives, "Creative Crud", and "worthless". Such vitriol filled hyperbole only undermines what might have been an intelligent sounding position statement which might allow for discussion. It's another case of a forum member not understanding the meaning of Debate, planting his feet, and spewing the anti-CC party line. I'm neither for nor against CC (I have yet to jump from CS6 Master Collection), but my current business model puts me in the position of being better served not subscribing at this point in time. Some forums have rules against a confrontational style of debate - it contributes nothing to the discussion, adds noise to the forum, and is just a step away from trolling.

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


Return to posts index


Morten Ranmar
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost - stop hijackin'
on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:08:54 pm
Last Edited By Morten Ranmar on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:10:16 pm

Hey guys

Can we please get back to the original subject of this thread, and talk about performance gains and issues?

I am tired of hearing the same old song of mischief about Adobe's decision to change its financial model to subscription only.
Yes it has and does give cause to evaluate your dedication to the software - but that is an individual choice for each end everyone.
If you don't like the smell in the bakery, find another route to follow, stick with CS6, or whatever you choose...

But at least do the discussion in a separate thread instead of demeaning any other opinion and thought on this forum!

- No Parking Production -

Adobe CC, 3 x MacPro, 3 x MbP, Ethernet File Server w. Areca ThunderRaid 8.... and FCPX on trial


Return to posts index

Gustavo Bermudas
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost - stop hijackin'
on Jun 27, 2014 at 7:55:07 pm
Last Edited By Gustavo Bermudas on Jun 27, 2014 at 8:09:58 pm

[Morten Ranmar] "I am tired of hearing the same old song of mischief about Adobe's decision to change its financial model to subscription only.
Yes it has and does give cause to evaluate your dedication to the software - but that is an individual choice for each end everyone.
If you don't like the smell in the bakery, find another route to follow, stick with CS6, or whatever you choose...

But at least do the discussion in a separate thread instead of demeaning any other opinion and thought on this forum!"


It think you may be in the wrong forum Morten, this is a debate, why don't you post in the Creative Could forum if you're not interested in hearing the negatives?
Were you vocally against the Creative Cloud model not too long ago as well?


Return to posts index

Morten Ranmar
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost - stop hijackin'
on Jun 27, 2014 at 9:50:24 pm

Why don't I post at the Creative Cloud forum? Because nobody reads it there, and I think Adobe's efforts into bringing better performance is important in regards to the previous discussions on this forum. It was one of their main arguments for the subscription model that it would free them from focusing on the feature galore, and instead put an effort into making the products better.

Sure I was not a great lover of the subscription model in the beginning, and I would personally have preferred a boxed product - but then again I am very happy that they now focus almost entirely on performance, and I also believe that they should have the freedom to choose how they run their company.

- No Parking Production -

Adobe CC, 3 x MacPro, 3 x MbP, Ethernet File Server w. Areca ThunderRaid 8.... and FCPX on trial


Return to posts index


David Smith
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost - stop hijackin'
on Jun 27, 2014 at 9:54:28 pm

Sorry chum, this is exactly the forum for speaking up against creative cloud if it suits me. I wanted to add my two cents that it's a shame all these updates are being added to a product that is no longer being sold. It's extremely unfortunate.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost - stop hijackin'
on Jun 30, 2014 at 10:56:30 pm

[David Smith] "this is exactly the forum for speaking up against creative cloud if it suits me."

That's the very definition of cynical. And it's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy to make such wild claims as "[David Smith] "making it worthless." when really the claim is "making it worthless for David."

Not that debate should be without a bit of pathos, but some attempts logos are welcome too.


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost - stop hijackin'
on Jun 27, 2014 at 11:05:35 pm

[Morten Ranmar] "I am tired of hearing the same old song of mischief about Adobe's decision to change its financial model to subscription only."

[Morten Ranmar] "If you don't like the smell in the bakery, find another route to follow, stick with CS6, or whatever you choose..."

When it comes to being "tired" of a particular point of view, nothing quite get close to the "if you don't like it don't use it" argument.

But apparently only you are entitled to express fatigue at a particular point of view.


Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost - stop hijackin'
on Jun 28, 2014 at 3:41:53 pm

[Chris Pettit] "When it comes to being "tired" of a particular point of view, nothing quite get close to the "if you don't like it don't use it" argument."

Still much better than some of the over-the-top hyperbole that makes those who use it sound like a bunch of nutters.


Return to posts index

David Smith
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 27, 2014 at 9:58:53 pm

If you really believe that my post was worthy enough of ridicule for you to reply as you have, I could say the same things about your posts. But I think that's what's really going off topic. I'm not here to debate what posts should or shouldn't be posted and why... I am here to vocalize how much I hate forced subscription and what Adobe has done with their business model.


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 27, 2014 at 3:45:12 am

[Joseph W. Bourke] "Not worthless at all to the tens of thousands who seem to be perfectly happy with the current structure."

I don't endorse declarations of anything to be 'worthless', particularly when so many find it productive and useful, but the statement that 10's of thousands are "perfectly happy" is an absurd simplification.

I have a lot of friends and colleagues using CC, and "perfectly happy" is not how they would describe themselves I can assure you.

More accurate words (phrases) might be:

"Couldn't afford the full price anyway, subscribing is a great alternative so I can get my hands on the software."

"Subscriptions are a great option while I try and find a way to make a living with particular Adobe software. If it doesn't work out, I'll just stop subscribing"

"I hate subscribing, but it's the standard, I have to stay up to date. If I don't, I wont' be able to open the files I get from my clients."

"I'm not comfortable with the new model, but my agency pays for it, so why not? In the meantime, my trusty copy of CS6 will do for personal use"

These are all LITERAL descriptions that I've heard from trusted users of CC. I would NOT describe these good friends as "perfectly happy". Maybe "perfectly captivated" would be a better description.


Return to posts index


Steve Crook Jr
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 27, 2014 at 1:52:11 pm

[Chris Pettit] "[Joseph W. Bourke] "Not worthless at all to the tens of thousands who seem to be perfectly happy with the current structure."

I don't endorse declarations of anything to be 'worthless', particularly when so many find it productive and useful, but the statement that 10's of thousands are "perfectly happy" is an absurd simplification. "


I have to weigh in on Joseph (who has helped me quite a lot is these forums, btw; THANKS for sharing!) and Chris's statements.

1st: Since we are human and we are dealing with humans, nothing is perfect.

2nd: I am a freelancer who does graphic design and web pages in my spare time and I mainly use Illustrator, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Muse, the Edge products, etc. I could not afford ONE of the programs before, let alone ALL of them!

The equation for me is simple: {income from work} > {cost of use of programs} + {latest features & updates} + {additional programs to expand my business}

So, I am not perfectly happy, but I am as happy as humanly possible.

For those who think the subscription model is "wrong": don't use it. But please, stop trying to TELL me how "bad" it is and that I am MAKING A MISTAKE for using it.

The math is simple: if I make a profit, I'll pay the bill.

Good luck, God bless, and I pray for as much happiness as you let yourself have!

Steve Crook, Jr.
http://www.stevecrookjr.me

I am a simple creative professional that can get my Adobe suite and a few other creative tools to do what I want. Barely. :)


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 27, 2014 at 2:14:39 pm

I completely agree with you. My main reason for not subscribing is because for me it would be expensive over the long term. It is nothing personal, just a business decision. For some, the subscription model is great for others not so much. I have find alternatives that work for me and will continue to stay on that course until it no longer fits my needs.

Adobe does make great products but I still feel that they could at least offer something that Avid has. I would consider joining at that point. For me, rental only is great for me over the short term but long term I feel it to be too expensive. Just offering an honest opinion here, again just a business decision.

I do give kudos to Adobe for making improvements to their products.
My two cents, whatever it is worth.


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 27, 2014 at 3:13:20 pm

[Steve Crook Jr] "For those who think the subscription model is "wrong": don't use it. But please, stop trying to TELL me how "bad" it is and that I am MAKING A MISTAKE for using it."

Who's telling you that?


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 27, 2014 at 4:42:57 pm

[David Smith] "one can pour thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars into the software and not have anything to show for it when their subscription ends"

When my current CC subscription ends I'll have about 90 minutes of content and a much healthier bank account to show for it.

A couple of years ago I finally got rid of my copies of FCP 3 ($999) and Avid Xpress Pro ($1699). Besides some thick manuals and archaic software that won't run on any of my machines the only thing I have to show for those purchases is the content I made and the money I earned.


[Chris Pettit] "I don't endorse declarations of anything to be 'worthless', particularly when so many find it productive and useful, but the statement that 10's of thousands are "perfectly happy" is an absurd simplification. "

As opposed to fixating on the dissatisfied which is a completely acceptable simplification? ;)

If we are going to be literal then I've never been perfectly happy with any hardware/software as there's always room for improvement. If we are going to allow flowery language then I would say right now I'm as perfectly happy using PPro as I am with Avid and as I was with FCP 7 before it got so long in the tooth. Even when FCP was my preferred NLE I still wished for some super-NLE that would have the best parts of Avid and FCP rolled into one application.

The other three guys I'm working with on my current project are also happy with PPro (this project would be much more labor intensive on Avid or FCP 7) and a facility I used to work at will be making the leap to PPro (30-40 seats).


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 27, 2014 at 4:59:30 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "As opposed to fixating on the dissatisfied which is a completely acceptable simplification? ;)"

I know it may seem like I am, but I'm actually not. I've recommended CC to specific people who would benefit from it in their particular circumstances for example. I actually thought it was a great innovation and trend in software when it first came out, before Adobe decided to make it the only game in town.

There are a lot of reasons that why Adobe has 2.3 Million subscribers, including a lot of people who really do like doing business this way. But it is simply not the whole story. Pointing that out is not fixating on anything, it's simply reminding everyone of what we already know. A lot of people are subscribing because it's the only option. Doesn't mean everyone loves it.


Return to posts index

Gustavo Bermudas
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 27, 2014 at 8:01:22 pm

The only good thing about the Creative Cloud system is that it will keep Adobe on its toes when it comes to bringing new features, they have to remain extremely competitive since the minute there's a solution where you don't have to pay a monthly fee that's better or equal to what they offer people will switch. It's that simple.


Return to posts index

David Smith
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 27, 2014 at 10:10:04 pm

I guess we see things differently. When I pay for something, I actually like to keep it. Keeping the tool is as important to me as anything I might've made with it.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 27, 2014 at 11:58:51 pm

[David Smith] "I guess we see things differently. When I pay for something, I actually like to keep it. Keeping the tool is as important to me as anything I might've made with it."

So you never rent anything nor subscribe to any services (Dropbox, Vimeo, etc.,)?

If we were talking about tools that could stay functional and relevant for decades I'd probably agree with you. I bought a circular saw off craigslist a few years ago and I fully expect that saw to last for decades since it only sees light home use and cutting wood is cutting wood. My computers and software tools though? After just a few years things start getting a bit long in the tooth and after 15 years (which is nearly how old FCP 3 is) the 'best if used by' date has long since expired.

Currently, paying for CC is making me significantly more money than avoiding CC would make me so as long as they stays true I will keep paying for CC.

Maybe it's because a lot of my background is with TV shows and some live events but I'm used to gear being rented.


Return to posts index

David Smith
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 28, 2014 at 12:38:20 am

I'll rent a video that I'll watch once and never need to rent or use again. I will subscribe to services and/or expendables. Adobe's desktop software is neither of those. I never rent tools that I need to keep using. I always buy. And if it breaks or becomes outdated to the point I can't use it, I'll buy a new one. Long in the tooth is in the eye of the beholder. I might even be willing to pay for an upgrade sometimes because I like the new version. But, I never rent. It's unfortunate we live in a world of increasing planned obsolescence. I blame greedy corporations for that and things like Adobe's forced subscription just feed into it.

I'm happy for you that you're content with the current situation of Adobe's software as rental-only. I'm not, and that's why I'm continuing to be vocal against it. I'm sorry if that displeases people who use it or like it.


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 28, 2014 at 12:38:27 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Maybe it's because a lot of my background is with TV shows and some live events but I'm used to gear being rented."

Interesting perspective.

My original background was in ENG production for network news, mostly sound but everything else as well. And the rule then (and still is today): you must own what you use everyday. You rent what you need "every now and then".

So in the old days, you were an idiot if you rented a BetaCam just so you could shoot with it every day, ownership was what made you secure in the tools you use, and the comfort level your clients have with you and your gear (same with sound engineers- If you don't own your audio gear then you aren't taken seriously). If you showed up with rented gear, the client was always a little nervous, just as I am when I hire people for shoots now. If you haven't invested in the ownership of the tools, with the intimate knowledge of the tools that constitutes, then I don't trust you that much.

But we often rented specialty cameras, dollies, PAL equipment for overseas shoots, lipstick cameras, Steady Cam, extra cameras for reverse shots, 5K lights, grip trucks, etc. Renting is sensible for those circumstances, and the entire industry recognizes it.

So frankly, my experience in Network level TV production simply re-enforces my objection to forced software subscriptions, not the opposite

A hammer is a hammer. Smart carpenters don't rent them.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 28, 2014 at 7:08:48 am

[David Smith] " Long in the tooth is in the eye of the beholder. "

It is, but what 15 year old NLE would you say is still relevant in a modern workflow?

[Chris Pettit] "My original background was in ENG production for network news, mostly sound but everything else as well. And the rule then (and still is today): you must own what you use everyday. You rent what you need "every now and then". "

Right, I should have been more specific. In situations like network news, working in-house or for a post facility that operates 365 days a year where you are using the same gear over and over again every day it makes sense to buy, not rent.

A portion of my experience is being a freelancer and working on unscripted seasonal TV shows that wink into, and out of, existence in a matter of months. On the post side everything is typically rented (from Avids to office furniture) and on the production side I'm sure some guys will rent their kits to the production if they can, but if it's a multi-camera show to be shot on Camera X and you own Camera Y your camera isn't going to get rented. I've even worked with some companies that are busy year round but will only own maybe 1/3 or 1/2 of the Avids they use and rent the rest.

Now that you got me thinking, a couple odd realizations popped into my head. First, in the past 12 months my gigs have gone Avid, Avid, FCP 7, PPro CC and once this PPro gig is done I don't know which NLE I'll use next (my guess would be Avid). Second, I've been assistant editing and editing in Los Angeles for about 10 years now and my NLE has always been supplied for me. I've used my own gear for side/personal projects, but for the main gigs it's always been on someone else's rig.


Bringing up BetaSP does make me long for the simpler days of NTSC (with PAL occasionally thrown in). lol. These days I would think owning a camera is much less straight forward as there are so many options and they depreciate so quickly. I mean, a BetaSP camera bought in the late 80's could've got a good 10 or 15 years of use but I wonder how many Sony Z1U's still see a lot of action?


[Chris Pettit] "A hammer is a hammer. Smart carpenters don't rent them."

I know this is the place where analogies come to die, but a hammer isn't a hammer. You want a framing hammer? Tack hammer? Sledge Hammer? Dead blow hammer? Mason's hammer? A rock lashed to a stick with a strap of leather? Smart carpenters choose the best tool for the job and pick the course that gives the best ROI. If a rented 'hammer' is the best tool for the job and it makes financial sense then I'm going to use a rented hammer. I'm not going to short change myself nor the people I'm working with because I prefer not to rent things.


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 28, 2014 at 2:47:39 pm

Good point, Andrew. How many carpenters own a jack hammer, I wonder? But when they're building a deck and need to break up an old concrete pad, the framing hammer isn't going to do much good. But that said, if you own a company which specializes in decks, it might be worth your while to own that jack hammer. So I guess the answer to any of these queries is "It depends on your situation.", and no one has the right answer - it's a personal choice.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 28, 2014 at 2:53:49 pm
Last Edited By Chris Pettit on Jun 28, 2014 at 2:59:18 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Right, I should have been more specific. In situations like network news, working in-house or for a post facility that operates 365 days a year where you are using the same gear over and over again every day it makes sense to buy, not rent."

A perfect description of how a great many people use Adobe products, myself included.

[Andrew Kimery] " I've even worked with some companies that are busy year round but will only own maybe 1/3 or 1/2 of the Avids they use and rent the rest."

Interesting, that's a side of the TV business I've never been involved with.

[Andrew Kimery] "in the past 12 months my gigs have gone Avid, Avid, FCP 7, PPro CC and once this PPro gig is done I don't know which NLE I'll use next (my guess would be Avid)."

Which seems to me to be a great example of why CC is such a good fit for you. In the circumstances you describe, I imaging that would my choice as well. The only caveat is that seems like am awfully unique work environment, doesn't apply very much to so many of us who don't switch tools in such rapid fashion. Which is why we are so dumbfounded as to why we have had the choice removed, and that decision is defended so much.

[Andrew Kimery] "These days I would think owning a camera is much less straight forward as there are so many options and they depreciate so quickly. I mean, a BetaSP camera bought in the late 80's could've got a good 10 or 15 years of use but I wonder how many Sony Z1U's still see a lot of action?"

I own a V1U, the Z1U sister. It sits on my shelf in a bag, having paid for itself years ago, in fact it paid for itself in about 5 projects. (And I'm not even a true photographer, I just used it for certain types of shoot where there were budget pressures that prevented me from hiring a photog.)

I still do work (occasionally) with the same photographers and production company owners that I did 20 years ago. They still own their Cameras, they always will. They just own more of them, and for shorter periods of time, which is generally not a problem because the ROI is much easier to accomplish because the prices have gone down. In the 90s it cost $60,000.00 for a Beta SP body only and another 20K for (1) decent lens, no lights, no monitor, just the damn camera. I have a collegue (and former BetaCam owner) that bought a C300 with a whole bag of lenses, for much less than that. The Camera has already paid for itself and is now a profit center, along with his other cameras, all of which have been paid off and owned for quite some time.

If you were to ask any photographer of the dozens I know and have worked with over the years what they would think of being forced to rent their cameras instead of the security, professionalism ,proficiency and intimate control over their work they get from owning their cameras, they would tell you to take a hike. Also, I know I'm not in LA, but most post houses here in Phoenix (generally) don't rent post production gear either, live events being a LARGE exception. The exception is of course CC, which as I've said before, is usually being subscribed to because they love the TOOLS not the way they pay for them.

[Andrew Kimery] "I know this is the place where analogies come to die, but a hammer isn't a hammer. You want a framing hammer? Tack hammer? Sledge Hammer? Dead blow hammer? Mason's hammer? A rock lashed to a stick with a strap of leather?"

I know, I've burned out that metaphor a little, I cringed a little when I wrote it (I promise to come up with something a little more original next time) :).

But the analogy is still the same. The answer is that a carpenter would most likely own all of those hammers (see previous example with cameras). And if a carpenter decided that renting a 20 dollar camera made sense to him, I find it very unlikely that he/she would spend much time telling all the other carpenters that they should rent theirs as well, whether they like it or not.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 30, 2014 at 12:13:13 am

[Chris Pettit] "The only caveat is that seems like am awfully unique work environment, doesn't apply very much to so many of us who don't switch tools in such rapid fashion."

This is the first time I've cycled through three NLEs in such a short time, but for freelancer editors I think it may be a sign of things to come. Avid and FCP Legend were easily the top two NLEs and I feel like a good chunk of freelancers knew both. Three years after the X bomb and the question of which NLE replaces FCP Legend (which I will now call FCP Z as in Zombie) has not been answered. Avid, X and PPro are all gunning for it (and all have their problems) plus the fact that FCP Z refuses to die just prolongs the process. Add Resolve and Lightworks and in a couple of years we could realistically have 5 NLEs fighting over the void Z's corpse left behind. Ugh.

I would say Avid and FCP Z are still the two most common NLEs I see in LA area job postings. PPro jobs are a very distant third and FCP X jobs are an even more distant fourth. Sure, there are still some niches that are pretty much exclusively Avid MC (and will be until MC is pulled from the market) but I don't work exclusively in those niches so I need to be more varied in my NLE knowledge.

Like many FCP-centric users I got caught flat footed by the X bomb and I'm not going to put myself in that position again. Knowing Avid as well was the only thing that allowed me to seamlessly jump to other gigs but many of my peers that only cut with FCP Z knew they were up a creek and had just lost their paddle.

For projects where I have input over the NLE is used, instead of worrying about which NLE will be around the longest I'm going to pick the best NLE for the job and do my best to make the archive of the project as platform agnostic as possible.


[Chris Pettit] "If you were to ask any photographer of the dozens I know and have worked with over the years what they would think of being forced to rent their cameras instead of the security, professionalism ,proficiency and intimate control over their work they get from owning their cameras, they would tell you to take a hike. "

Yet it's perfectly normal on movies and TV shows done out here for the DP to not own the camera(s). Hell, Panavision cameras are strictly rental only. I assume the amount of productions going on in places like LA and NY make it possible to have such a broad selection (for lack of a better term) in the rental market. It's to the point where it's common for no-budget short films to be shot on ARRI Alexas or on RED EPIC's in 4k.

I don't know if it's still true, but for a long time the market was so flooded with RED cameras that the ROI for people that bought the cameras was horrible.


[Chris Pettit] "And if a carpenter decided that renting a 20 dollar camera made sense to him, I find it very unlikely that he/she would spend much time telling all the other carpenters that they should rent theirs as well, whether they like it or not."

I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should do anything (hopefully I'm not coming off that way). Some people can't seem to see how using CC can be anything but horrible so I'm just chiming in with my specific, real world experiences with it. Everyone should use what fits their workflow best but honestly I'm surprised at how many people would seemingly turn down a well paying gig or choose to use a less appropriate NLE for a specific job just to avoid signing up for CC.


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 30, 2014 at 1:02:15 am

[Andrew Kimery] "I would say Avid and FCP Z are still the two most common NLEs I see in LA area job postings. PPro jobs are a very distant third and FCP X jobs are an even more distant fourth."

That's interesting. I guess I'm such a believer in PPro that I assumed it had made more headway in LA. But then technically I'm an animator not an editor, even though I do both.

[Andrew Kimery] "Yet it's perfectly normal on movies and TV shows done out here for the DP to not own the camera(s). Hell, Panavision cameras are strictly rental only."

I've heard that before, but always assumed that it was because if a camera costs 250K or more (Panavision), you have to rent. Hell, glass alone can be a rent-only situation, (I cant believe what good lenses cost). But does that apply to 10K cameras as well? Why rent if you can pay the equipment off in a reasonable amount of time, even with good lenses?

[Andrew Kimery] "I don't know if it's still true, but for a long time the market was so flooded with RED cameras that the ROI for people that bought the cameras was horrible."

Interesting.In my experience, it's all about the skill and capabilities of the DP or photographer. If the camera is affordable (Reds are aren't they? - again my reference to 80K BetaCams), then most everyon owns one, and they get paid to be out there with their camera, with their skill. But I have to concede that I'm way out of my comfort zone here. I don't work in LA, but I do know some Red shooters here. The ones that shoot all the time tend to own their cameras.

[Andrew Kimery] " I'm surprised at how many people would seemingly turn down a well paying gig or choose to use a less appropriate NLE for a specific job just to avoid signing up for CC."

Just guessing. But I think it has to do with turning over control of their editing, animation, art, workflow and business to a very large company that appears to have a problem listening to it's own customers.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 30, 2014 at 7:28:16 am

[Chris Pettit] "I've heard that before, but always assumed that it was because if a camera costs 250K or more (Panavision), you have to rent. Hell, glass alone can be a rent-only situation, (I cant believe what good lenses cost). But does that apply to 10K cameras as well? Why rent if you can pay the equipment off in a reasonable amount of time, even with good lenses?"
.
.
.
"Interesting.In my experience, it's all about the skill and capabilities of the DP or photographer. If the camera is affordable (Reds are aren't they? - again my reference to 80K BetaCams), then most everyon owns one, and they get paid to be out there with their camera, with their skill"


Skill and capabilities of the DP/shooter is of course very important but all cameras have pros and cons so while I can owning a camera that gets asked for a lot owning a wide variety of cameras just doesn't seem practical to me given how quickly gear becomes dated compared to the analog tv/film days. Again, my view might be skewed by being someplace with such a large production base so finding exactly what you want/need for rent is pretty doable. I've heard some people make the analogy that shooting with different digital cameras is akin to shooting with different film stocks since each digital camera processes the information from the imaging sensor differently thus creating unique visual characteristics to each system.

Like you, production isn't my bag, so these are just the impressions I get from chit-chat and the virtual water cooler that is the Internet.


As an aside, RED sells 'shoot read' kits for $45,000-$60,000 (depending on model) and that doesn't include lenses. I have no idea how good/complete the kits are, but I assume they are at least in the ballpark for a digital cinema type load out.


[Chris Pettit] "Just guessing. But I think it has to do with turning over control of their editing, animation, art, workflow and business to a very large company that appears to have a problem listening to it's own customers."

For looking 10-15 years down the road I get the concern, but for short term work (a few weeks/months) it seems weird to turn down a paycheck just because it needs to be in done in something newer than CS6. For example, if you were looking for work and I wanted to hire you for a project that would go 3-4 weeks but would have to be done with CC apps you'd turn it down? I hate turning down work when I'm already booked so the idea of automatically rejecting work just because it would require CC is very strange to me. Maybe once I hit the independently wealthy mark like the rest of you I can afford to be so picky. ;)


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 28, 2014 at 3:43:59 pm

[David Smith] "When I pay for something, I actually like to keep it."

I hear that phrase all the time on those horder shows.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 28, 2014 at 3:42:40 pm

[Steve Crook Jr] "and that I am MAKING A MISTAKE for using it."

That's really the underlying insult that is in a lot of the anti-CC statements.


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 28, 2014 at 3:52:11 pm
Last Edited By Chris Pettit on Jun 28, 2014 at 4:05:29 pm

[Gary Huff] "[Steve Crook Jr] "and that I am MAKING A MISTAKE for using it."

That's really the underlying insult that is in a lot of the anti-CC statements."


If that were true there would have been a "Adobe CC - The debate" forum for the entire year that CC was NOT mandatory.

EDIT: Mea Culpa. Re-reading posts on this thread, I realized how my "Smart Carpenters" crack could be interpreted this way. Gary, you have a good point in that particular case. I did not intend to imply, nor do I believe, that people who subscribe for whatever reason are in any way wrong or making a mistake. I think my broader points stand however.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 28, 2014 at 6:53:17 pm
Last Edited By David Mathis on Jun 28, 2014 at 7:03:42 pm

I choose not to subscribe because I worry about the cost over the long term. There is always a chance of a price increase. I agree that CC for many users is of great benefit and is a good choice for them. I really don't feel anyone as being stupid for going the subscription route and certainly hope I never come across that way.

If, at a later point, a subscription model would be of benefit to me with the benefits outweighing the risks involved, I will consider joining. So far I have subscribed to Universe, low monthly fee with the chance to upgrade to lifetime and so far it is working out. I choose the old school way when it comes to my editing software. So far it has served me well without incurring any additional cost each month. Good for the wallet over the long term on both. I hope that what I have said makes sense and no one is offended in the process.

My two cents, whatever it is worth.



Return to posts index

JP Pelc
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 30, 2014 at 3:33:53 pm

Ok so if we're all done with this tired anti-CC/pro-CC/neutral-CC debate, can anybody tell me if they are also experiencing an increase of issues with CC 2014?


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 30, 2014 at 6:39:29 pm
Last Edited By Gary Huff on Jun 30, 2014 at 6:39:59 pm

[JP Pelc] "can anybody tell me if they are also experiencing an increase of issues with CC 2014?"

I just migrated over to CC 2014 on Saturday. So far been working on my reel for this year, and it's not exactly a heavy project, but everything is working fine, even plugins.

Premiere 2014 was crashing from the render files from Premiere CC 2013, but deleting them took care of that.


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jun 30, 2014 at 8:12:29 pm

getting a lot of Adobe QT32 server issues on Mac....look in activity monitor and it says it's taking 100 percent of CPU and it slows down or stalls AE and PP CC - you can force quit from activity monitor and seems to help a bit...but it's annoying and a time killer

anyone know what this ADOBE QT 32 server does and why it keeps grabbing all the cpu power?

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

walter biscardi
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Jul 2, 2014 at 1:10:51 pm

[Morten Ranmar] "Maybe there is benefit of Adobe not having to deliver a classic "suite update" - (even though it was almost marketed as such)"

It's been a nice update and in talking to the Adobe engineers at NAB 2014, the future is going to be even faster. :)

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

Craft and Career Advice & Training from real Working Creative Professionals

Blog Twitter Facebook


Return to posts index

David Howard
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Aug 1, 2014 at 8:20:27 am

Hey guys, would anyone recommend fcpx over premier pro ?

Redefined Media

Video Production Sydney


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Video apps 2014 - huge performance boost
on Aug 1, 2014 at 6:30:59 pm

[David Howard] "Hey guys, would anyone recommend fcpx over premier pro ?
"


I'd recommend using both!

Steve Connor

Hoping to become a pedant


Return to posts index

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