APPLE FINAL CUT PRO: Apple Final Cut Pro X Creative Community Conversations FCP Legacy FCP Tutorials

Re: Resolve XII...

COW Forums : Creative Community Conversations (was FCPX Debates)

Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index   •   Read entire thread

Tim Wilson
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 29, 2015 at 9:34:48 pm

[Shawn Miller] "I think the circle may be widening. :-)"

Not at all. In agreeing with Aindreas' point that integregating Resolve and Fusion is neither helpful nor practical, I'm addressing Walter's response about no walls between craft.

In a way, my reply got off track by bringing in applications from other vendors. I'm also answering Walter's observation that Aindreas DOES multiple tasks, but he USES multiple applications.

I then addressed 4 reasons why, even if Aindreas (or Walter or anyone else) would want fully integrated FCPX/Motion, PP/AE, MC/PT, it can't happen in the real world.

In the real world, I can't imagine someon saying, "Dadgummit, I need you to put 100% of the features of After Effects inside Premiere." Or, "I'm taking my torches and pitchforks to the gates of Avid, and demanding that they put 100% of Pro Tools inside Media Composer."

Because they would need BOTH torches AND pitchforks, because, outside of a theoretical use case, it would be useless.

So that's the thing to stay focused on. Aindreas's original observation that putting them in the same application makes NO SENSE.

My additional point is that, even if it makes sense, there are specific obstacles.

[Walter Soyka] "But if you're reconsidering the architecture of your product anyway, you can get there over time."

You're getting theoretical on me, Walter. In practice, no.

Otherwise, Adobe and Avid would have done it at some time in the 20 years since they acquired After Effects and Pro Tools respectively. DS came a couple of years later, but still, no merging.

Apple had 12 years to merge FCP and Motion, but no. Not the first step toward it.

AND when Apple DID have the opportunity to merge them via a reconsidered code base, they did NOT.

At most, this addresses the first obstacle, incompatible codebases. But it would do nothing to address the other 3. Incompatible models, incompatible toolsets, and too few customers to monetize it.

OR you would have to say that neither Adobe nor Avid nor Apple is smart enough to do it.

Here's an additional observation. You know who talks about merging 100% of the feature sets of motion graphics and audio into editing? Editors who do a little of that stuff, and would like to do more of it, more easily.

Like the people in this forum.

You know who DOESN'T say that? Audio people and motion graphics people.

Audio people work with locked pictures because it's the way that has been shown to work best -- and maybe the only way it can realistically work at all. Motion graphics artists don't need a timeline or node cluster that enables real-time playback of 4 streams of different formats to cut multicam.

They just don't care.

To summarize this part of the argument, the majority of people using AE alongside an NLE are using NLEs other than Premiere. (Not that any one of them has a bigger market share, but as a total.)

And most motion graphics artists don't need the full feature set of Premiere.

Likewise, Avid wants to sell Pro Tools to people who would die before they'd use Media Composer.

So in a theoretical world where money, human resources, and customers with the interest and ability to take advantage of an infinite number of tools IN ONE APPLICATION, maybe.

But in practice, no.

With a reminder that I am ONLY answering Walter's reply to Aindreas about the difference between walls between CRAFTS (not necessarily the case) with the walls between APPLICATIONS (which is NECESSARILY the case), I'll note that I've not seen a single person here asking for FCPX to integrate all of Motion. Rather, they're asking for Send To.

It's a tacit understanding that different applications are designed to do different tasks in different ways -- even by the same person.

[Walter Soyka] "When people stop "finishing" in After Effects or begging for "Send to Motion" in FCPX, I'll believe this statement is true. It's not about the full richness of multiple feature sets: it's about the features you need, when you need them. "

But we're only talking about WHERE you need them. I actually USED the example of Send to Motion to make my point, but obviously buried it in way too many words.

People DO want Send to Motion.

They're NOT asking for 100% of Motion in FCPX,

They're NOT asking for 100% of Pro Tools in MC, or MC in Pro Tools, or Premiere in AE or AE inside Premiere.

They DO want reliable, robust roundtripping.

[Walter Soyka] "Check this out: in Flame, a clip is a timeline is a flow graph"

I used this as an example to support my argument too. I conceded that Flame does this.

I added that it's possible because Autodesk has managed virtually the entire toolset the entire time, and because Autodesk charges enough to subsidize the development for such a small customer base.

But they've also not dramatically extended the scope of their market, not because of the cost, but because so few people need that breadth of tools.

Quite the contrary, the growth of Pablo and Baselight have shown that there IS a market for big iron....for a small set of tasks.

And that's really the issue for Apple, Adobe, and Avid. They have wide toolsets spread across multiple applications, and they specifically want to reach out to an audience that mixes and matches these things across vendors. They limit that potential by over-integrating.

[Walter Soyka] "[Tim Wilson] "Walter, you may be the only person on earth who needs both sets of editing and motion graphics to the extremes that you do...."


Okay maybe, but I'm still addressing the original dichotomy: does one artist doing multiple tasks need them all in one application?

For merging applications, I'm describing 4 actual obstacles that have been established over and over, with the exception of Autodesk, which I conceded TWICE.

With now, an additional observation that, if this is what heavy iron people wanted, Autodesk would dominate, rather than having its market share nibbled away by specialty applications like Pablo and Baselight.

THIS is what killed DS, an otherwise fine example of integrating entire feature sets.

The editing was cannibalized by Media Composer, Final Cut, and Premiere.

The performance benefit of purpose-built hardware was eclipsed by the speed of desktop systems and commodity GPUs.

(The big, showstopping feature of DS in my first demos at Avid? Realtime 2K DPX. People literally jumped up and said it was impossible. They demanded that we prove that this wasn't a trick by crawling under tables to establish that there were no decks.

Within a couple of years, EVERYONE could do realtime 2K.)

The color grading eclipsed by Resolve.

You know what REALLY kicked its ass? After Effects, because integrated toolset notwithstanding, nodes notwithstanding, people kept asking, Can it do what I can do in After Effects, and the answer is no.

(The other problem: it cost too LITTLE, but that's a story for another day.)

You might say that this isn't true, that I don't understand, but I'm tellin' ya, I sat next to the DS product manager, and I went to more demos than he did (because he was busy managing THE ACTUAL PRODUCT), and I heard this over and over.

My point being that, by 2007-ish, DS no longer had a single best-in-class feature. Not because Avid didn't care, but because they couldn't fight every application on every front.

Autodesk CAN because they were designed to do from the beginning. But their primary audience has always been Autodesk customers!

And while there's surely a Soyka-sized subset of Autodesk customers who want both Flame and Maya in one feature set, it ain't happening.

[Walter Soyka] "Graphic design is space. Motion graphics is space-time. "

Yeah, you're right. I said I was oversimplifying, but I missed that nuance for sure.

It still supports my contention that there are separate vectors for all three of them. Even the bivectoral nature (you like that? LOL) of motion graphics has nothing to do with 16 camera real time mixed format multicam, and editing has nothing to do with irregularly sized media that might be 25,000 pixels in one dimension and 1000 in the other -- stuff you do all the After Effects, and wouldn't be improved by living in a single interface in a single product within Premiere.

Otherwise you really do wind up with a bolted-together modal interface that's only paying lip service to integration.

This is starting to get long enough that you won't even see me agreeing with you anymore LOL but IN PRACTICE, there are precious few AE editors who are demanding real time multicam with as many cameras as their systems can support. That single feature has more needs in nuanced practice that there's no realistic way for those features to be visualized in After Effects.

If a third-party developer could have done it, don't you think they would have? And if they theoretically COULD have, they HAVEN'T, because there's not enough demand to justify the cost.

Which brings me back around to Aindreas' point: there's no reason for Resolve and Fusion to be any more integrated than any two non-Flame applications, and that, even if it could happen, a freemium model couldn't subsidize it...

...but I think his first point is the key one: in practice, among the people who are the customer base for BMD-era Resolve and Fusion, one artist doing many tasks requires more than one application.

Posts IndexRead Thread 

Current Message Thread:

© 2020 All Rights Reserved