APPLE FINAL CUT PRO: Apple Final Cut Pro X FCPX Debates FCP Legacy FCP Tutorials

Resolve XII...

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Charlie Austin
Resolve XII...
on Jul 24, 2015 at 7:14:27 pm

A small bird told me to get your public beta tester hats on. If you like tracks, you have another nice alternative. If, like me, you prefer FCP X and think tracks suck, (because they do!) the bird says that X and 12 play very well together for all your advanced coloring and finishing needs.

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

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


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 25, 2015 at 2:46:27 am

This eager beaver wants to get his paws on it. That with Fusion.


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 25, 2015 at 9:21:26 am

Ha, or you could be like me and think tracks are awesome
but subscriptions suck even worse than not having tracks
so you use a little FCP X, a little Premiere CS 6 and a little
FCP 7, depending on the project. And you think Resolve XII
looks just like throwing those 3 NLE's in a pot and mixing....
so it should be perfect for me......lol.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 25, 2015 at 10:00:49 am

[Charlie Austin] "A small bird told me to get your public beta tester hats on. If you like tracks, you have another nice alternative. If, like me, you prefer FCP X and think tracks suck, (because they do!) the bird says that X and 12 play very well together for all your advanced coloring and finishing needs."

Did that small bird also tell you whether it was actually useable for editing in this version?


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 25, 2015 at 1:10:35 pm
Last Edited By David Mathis on Jul 25, 2015 at 1:13:26 pm

I just been reading some comments on the BMD website, and so far the indication is that XII is a huge improvement over the current version. Perhaps we will get realtime performance in the edit page. It looks like there is serious competition about!


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 25, 2015 at 3:35:24 pm

[Steve Connor] "Did that small bird also tell you whether it was actually useable for editing in this version?"

The bird...oh screw it, it's me, and BMD has said it's OK to talk about it now. lol.

It is useable. As everyone knows, there were some, uh.. performance issues with 11 that made it pretty useless as an NLE, and these have been addressed. My main focus has been messing with the fcpxml integration, and seeing how it works for short form cuts/revisions. it's good now, still "young", but you can actually work in it.

I can't speak to the color page and other improvements, but there have been quite a few things improved there as well. There should be a public beta soon, and everyone can see for themselves. :-)

Depending on what they do with Fusion, I could totally see finishing houses adopting it as an all-in-one solution. As an FCP X user, I think that would be a very nice development, as the 2 play very well together. :-)

Compared to X, well... FCP X is in a league of it's own. There's nothing in Resolve, or anything else I've used, that changes that. Compared to other NLE's, Resolve is close to nipping at their heels. I'll be interested to hear what others think.

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

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


Return to posts index


David Mathis
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 25, 2015 at 3:54:00 pm
Last Edited By David Mathis on Jul 25, 2015 at 3:59:04 pm

Admit it, you are starting to like tracks! ;-)

Joking aside, I am in complete agreement with X being in a league of its own. The timeline and organizing tools are just the tip of the iceberg. My only reel beef is with keyframing, something that Resolve is much better at. Trimming is nice there as well. Where our friend X shines is custom transitions, generators and other such icing filled with flavor on the cake, done in Motion is just sheer super duper awesome.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 25, 2015 at 4:01:11 pm

[David Mathis] "Admit it, you are starting to like tracks! ;-)"

lol... Actually, if anything, I am liking them less. I'd tell you about the horrorshow I've been having with Pr lately, but I'll defer to the lessons my mom taught me, and just not say anything. ;-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 25, 2015 at 5:16:05 pm

The beauty of tracks for most of us is that we started with it.
If its there we know how to deal with it.
If its not there...well some of us took the plunge and learned a really fast NLE at a very low price :)


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 25, 2015 at 7:22:06 pm

If you can adapt to riding a bike without training wheels, you can use an NLE without tracks. It's about the same level of mental leap.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 25, 2015 at 8:13:05 pm

I've found that I can take or leave tracks. I never was much of a patcher, just drag to the timeline so that point is moot, but what I still dislike 3 years later is the the constant ripple mode. I would rarely need ripple mode in legacy. Why would I want it to be the default? But I deal with it because of the motion integration. If be just as happy with AE integration, but they lost me with the subscription thing.

Resolves non default ripple mode is insanely more powerful than X. We'll see if the performance is there. But it's still lacking motion graphics integration. Maybe R13 with fusion. But Xs timeline performance is pretty abysmal lately. Everything is always leggy. Maybe I have too many motion templates. But if my favorite part of X makes it laggy then what's the point?

Resolve now has smart bins and multicam that doesn't also slice up the audio. Real trimming, live audio mixing and so on. Tracks or not, they're stepping up the game. But we all said this a year ago and the software was pretty useless.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 12:07:45 am

Apple seem a bit distracted about iPhone sales right now but another maturing cross platform NLE with the goodies that many want plus it having better potential as a complete finishing tool for free might just concern some at Apple and Adobe.

The increase of third party support for OFX including Hit Film now making their plugins Resolve & Pr compatible (and X ) makes it easier to contemplate using Resolve with plugins, Fusion and or Hit Film as a really potent combo of edit, title, compositing, finishing without needing Apple or Adobe software apart from perhaps Photoshop.

But for me the most exciting thing is the sheer pace of improvements with Resolve. In another 4 years I suspect Resolve could open up a substantial gap and many might find X in the same position as FCP7 being underdeveloped and languishing. I hope it doesn't. Adobe will probably chase but I have less confidence in AVID or Apple wanting to. Don't be surprised to see Resolve throw in an option to edit track or trackless or hybrid. They have less ideological baggage and I am sure they are hearing both sides of the argument.

But by far the most significant thing for me is the bulk of my clients who are holding onto FCP Legend will now move to Resolve and as it is my finishing tool of choice, it becomes a single system with little need for xml standards that change at the whim of Apple.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 12:37:02 am

If Resolve gets that much headway Im guessing Apple could care less. As far as they're concerned, as long as they have a suitable functioning product that fits nicely into their ecosystem, they're happy.

The OFX stuff, last time I checked was expensive or subscription plugs. Honestly I'm more into templates or compositing footage like dust, light leaks, etc. But I do of course have a pretty good investment in mFlare and mObject. I'm also enjoying things like mBehaviour. Stuff that lets you create your own stuff, but speeds it along.

I really would like to see fusion integrated in the same way as motion. The rigging and publishing is totally unique to FCPX. Being able to edit your text from an AE project in Premiere doesn't even begin to touch it. If they could do that with Fusion and resolve, plus have "send to fusion," functionality then just wow.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 5:23:54 am

[Bret Williams] "But Xs timeline performance is pretty abysmal lately. Everything is always leggy. Maybe I have too many motion templates. But if my favorite part of X makes it laggy then what's the point?"

What hardware? Other than the occasional restart if it's chewing up RAM (and that happens way less these days) It's been quite good for me lately. Which is obviously unhelpful to you. :-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 2:07:08 pm

Late 2012 iMac 27" i7 3.4ghz, completely maxed with 2gig GPU, 32gigs ram, Pegasus raid, BMD Monitoring, 1TB fusion. Latest OS and FCP. Yep. It eats up RAM. Computer launches with 26-28gugs free. After launching X it quickly goes to 18-20free then after working in a large project with templates and compounds the ram drops to 4-8gigs free. Even less over time. Apple has changed the way the system reports free RAM. I used to see it get into the hundreds of megs.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 9:09:19 pm

[Bret Williams] "Late 2012 iMac 27" i7 3.4ghz, completely maxed with 2gig GPU, 32gigs ram, Pegasus raid, BMD Monitoring, 1TB fusion. Latest OS and FCP. "

Same exact setup here. I actually see a similar RAM gobbling issue with Pr 2015, but it's the cached files that run away on that, and it doesn't appear to affect performance. As I said, it's really not bad with X either, so maybe it is the Motion stuff, or project length?

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

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


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 9:19:50 pm

Yeah I dunno. Most stuff is short form 3-6 min. But often I'll have 5 related videos (projects) in the job (library). Each of those might have 5-10 versions as snapshots and each of those is usually a good bit of color correction (every shot) titles, motion templates and compounds with templates and titles/generators. Still, nothing earth shattering. Same stuff I did with FCP 7 which didn't lag and only accessed 4gigs of Ram and no GPU.

Not sure how anyone could be using FCP7 anymore though. It'd have to be a unique environment where nobody shoots h264 variants or uses a still image over 4000 pixels.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 9:57:11 pm

[Bret Williams] "But often I'll have 5 related videos (projects) in the job (library). Each of those might have 5-10 versions as snapshots"

Again, same here, more projects and snapshots actually...

[Bret Williams] "usually a good bit of color correction (every shot) titles, motion templates and compounds with templates and titles/generators."

There's the difference, I don't do much, if any correction, and while I do use lots of compounds, I don't use many templates, and my titles are usually built separately and then imported as movies (so more that 1 editor can access 'em) I'd suspect the titles actually, especially if they're built in comps.

[Bret Williams] "Not sure how anyone could be using FCP7 anymore though."

Yeah, I occasionally have to pop into it and, much as I love it, it's really hard to work in now. I'd pick Pr over 7 if it was my only choice, but there are some close to show-stopping audio issues in 2015 that make that option kinda painful too. R12 is much better than 11, but has it's own quirks too. Oh well....

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

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Resolve 12
on Jul 26, 2015 at 12:14:02 am

[Bill Davis] "If you can adapt to riding a bike without training wheels, you can use an NLE without tracks. It's about the same level of mental leap."

The self affirmation mantras are getting really old Bill. Maybe you never got the training wheels off with Legend and dealing with tracks. Maybe we don't care as long as the job gets done the way we prefer.

But spare us the close minded vehicular analogies.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Resolve 12
on Jul 26, 2015 at 3:19:11 am

[Michael Gissing] "[Bill Davis] "If you can adapt to riding a bike without training wheels, you can use an NLE without tracks. It's about the same level of mental leap."

The self affirmation mantras are getting really old Bill. Maybe you never got the training wheels off with Legend and dealing with tracks. Maybe we don't care as long as the job gets done the way we prefer.

But spare us the close minded vehicular analogies"


Here, let me try language that you can comprehend...

X is really very simple to understand. When you dig into it, It all makes simple sense. The only people who have trouble with it are those who've become so hidebound invested in thinking ONE way, that the very idea that there might be any other way to think about editing puts them into total brain freeze. Those folks are STILL on the boards four plus years on - discussing X through the lens of little to no actual experience with how it operates in a cohesive daily production system - largely because they'd rather spend 4 years dissing it than 6 months learning it.

It's just not that hard to adapt comfortably to the X system unless you're either A) exceptionally dim, or B) you WILL yourself NOT to do it because it scares you too much.

(Thought I'd join you in making everything PERSONAL, since obviously you can't handle someone saying something about PROGRAM LEARNABILITY (is that a word?) - without transmuting that into a personal attack.)

Hope you feel better now that you have another post to point at to denounce me.

Always happy to help.

Carry on.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 1:06:23 am

Funny because I see the FCPX timeline as the one 'with training wheels'.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 3:21:33 am

[Gabe Strong] "Funny because I see the FCPX timeline as the one 'with training wheels'.
"


Really? I never met anyone that can go significantly FASTER on a bike with training wheels...
Somebody should tell all those guys on the Tour de France.
This could be transformative!
: )

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 7:47:04 am
Last Edited By Gabe Strong on Jul 26, 2015 at 8:36:26 am

[Bill Davis] "Really? I never met anyone that can go significantly FASTER on a bike with training wheels...
Somebody should tell all those guys on the Tour de France.
This could be transformative!"


Well, that's your experience. Mine is different. Now FCP 7 doesn't handle
some of the newer codecs or use all the available RAM so of course it is slower.
But that has nothing to do with tracks. A track based 'modern' editor ( being
that it handles newer codecs and uses available RAM and GPU) is a different story.
So, for example, despite spending the last two years learning to use FCP X, I still go
significantly FASTER in CS6. Yup, you read that right. Faster on the track based editor.
Maybe, just maybe....both track and trackless NLE's are bikes, neither have training
wheels, and the speed they go depends very much on their 'riders'. That's something
you could tell all those guys on the Tour de France. And you'd get a big fat 'DUH' from
them. :)

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 4:39:35 pm

Dude, comprehension 101.

My analogy was addressing the topic of the DIFFICULTY of adaption. It was NOT suggesting that tracks are EQUAL to training wheels.

Stay focused on what people are actually saying, not what you wrongly INTERPRET them to be saying.

: )

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 6:12:06 pm

Speaking of comprehension......
I was not addressing your 'original' comment about training wheels.
I was addressing the comment you made 'after' that
where you implied that FCP X was somehow 'faster'
than a track based editor.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 8:09:03 pm

I think you need to re-read your own posts - your condescension and kindergarten level fanboyism was plain as day and your training wheel analogy is just ignorant. Why any FCPX fanboy such you and Charlie would feel so threatened is just silly. We're not talking about some questionable start-up, we're talking about a product with a legacy that is second to none and has been a top of choice of post pro's since the time of the first Macintosh 1984 commercial! People are going to use it, deal with it.

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 8:54:32 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "I think you need to re-read your own posts - your condescension and kindergarten level fanboyism was plain as day and your training wheel analogy is just ignorant. Why any FCPX fanboy such you and Charlie would feel so threatened is just silly. We're not talking about some questionable start-up, we're talking about a product with a legacy that is second to none and has been a top of choice of post pro's since the time of the first Macintosh 1984 commercial! People are going to use it, deal with it."

Happy to see you making it about the arguments instead of about the personalities, Lance. (snort)

"talking about a product with a legacy that is second to none???" Huh, X? Or are you STILL trying to litigate some hurt about the EOL of Legacy? If so, good god man, it's going on 5 years. Move on. Please.

The problem is that I've been pushing back against indefensible inacuracies spread about FCP X for four years now - including the periods where YOU trashed it - left it - returned to it - and have relentlessly tried to sit on both sides of the debate fence.

And I have no problem with that.

Clearly, you struggle to figure out whether it makes sense for you or not.

That's OK.

But what's NOT OK is coming back not to address the factual underpinnings of the software, but to attach the personalities of the people making the arguments.

You may not understand that you're doing that, but you are. Please stop.

Factually, most of the X "haters" have been proved significantly shortsighted if not directly WRONG. They kept arguing about incidentals rather than opening their minds to all the useful and extremely powerful thinking that went into it that was there FROM VERSION 1.

As to kindergarten level fanboyism - yep. I'm a kindergarten level fan of lots of stuff. Science, digital math, the healthy benefits of clean water - and YEP, the design ideas behind FCP X. The difference is that I have 40 years of direct producing, directing and shooting and editing experience in the trenches that support said fanboyism. I've DONE the work at a professional level. Heck, I've fed my family for those same 30 yeas as a working video producer and editor - just like you, probably.

Which means that while we have different views - NEITHER of them are de-facto wrong.

But YOU use the fanboy pejorative, I don't. Which in my personal experience is a SURE sign of a piss-poor argument.

My debate point here was that THE LEARNING CURVE OF X was LIKE riding a bike, there is a reset necessary to ones sense of balance in order to succeed. That was TRUE with X on day one. And I believe it to be very much as true today.

Theres's no way you'll convince me to stop thinking that. So deal with it.

Hopefully by reining in your personal animosity and getting back to the FACTS.

That way maybe people reading this can learn something beyond that this week, for some reason, you're a bit pissy about pushback.

Hope you feel better soon.

Take care.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 8:57:14 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "Why any FCPX fanboy such you and Charlie would feel so threatened is just silly."

All due respect Lance, leave me outta this. My "cancel the the thread" comment wasn't because I feel threatened.

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

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 27, 2015 at 2:00:57 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jul 27, 2015 at 2:01:46 am

Coincidentally, I wrote a little post a while ago that seems http://fcpxpert.net/2015/06/22/n-l-evangelism/">appropriate to link here.

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

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


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 6:57:26 am

I do not see a trackless timeline as a bike with training wheels nor do I see a timeline with tracks has training wheels either. Going back to tracks will not require my brain going crazy. Sure there will be a couple of extra steps but not that complicated. I actually like the style that X uses, gets out of your way allowing for more efficient editing with less time concetrating on track assignments. Not saying tracks are bad, just a different approach. Just my two cents, carry on!


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 7:50:52 am

[David Mathis] "I do not see a trackless timeline as a bike with training wheels nor do I see a timeline with tracks has training wheels either. Going back to tracks will not require my brain going crazy. Sure there will be a couple of extra steps but not that complicated. I actually like the style that X uses, gets out of your way allowing for more efficient editing with less time concetrating on track assignments. Not saying tracks are bad, just a different approach. Just my two cents, carry on!
"


I'd be a lot happier with FCP X if they'd let me connect 'secondary storylines' to other 'secondary storylines'
instead of forcing me to connect to the primary storyline every time! Well, if I'm getting into feature
requests, I want 'send to Motion' back as well. Those two features sure would make me a lot happier!

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 27, 2015 at 3:33:13 am

I so concur! Been working all weekend on a show and it the magnetic timeline is a double-edged sword for sure. Has nothing to do with training wheels or not knowing how to use it - just the fact that it can get in the way sometimes and actually be quite maddening. For instance some sync audio attaching to slug instead of a clip and having move it out of sync to break it away from the slug. Or deleting a clip and not realizing some sound fx and a 3 minute music track were attached to the 36 frame piece of nothing.

That said, I love FCPX and just finished my first Red Dragon feature film cutting .r3d's in real-time - NO PROXY'S! I actually start color timing the entire show in FXPX at 4K rez tomorrow! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4486728/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Still, I'm looking forward to testing out Resolve 12 and will make the switch if it meets my needs - just like I switched to FCPX 10.2 when I felt it met my current needs.

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 27, 2015 at 4:31:43 am
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jul 27, 2015 at 4:32:22 am

[Lance Bachelder] "For instance some sync audio attaching to slug instead of a clip and having move it out of sync to break it away from the slug. Or deleting a clip and not realizing some sound fx and a 3 minute music track were attached to the 36 frame piece of nothing."

That sort of thing used to drive me batsh*t as well, until I figured out this little "pan handling" trick...

[Lance Bachelder] "I actually start color timing the entire show in FXPX at 4K rez tomorrow!"

Cool! :-)

[Lance Bachelder] "Still, I'm looking forward to testing out Resolve 12"

It's much better than 11. Is it ready to be the "main axe", so to speak... I dunno. I'm not sure that's the intent, but who knows...

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

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


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 28, 2015 at 4:58:03 am

So far this thing is s crash fest of epic proportions. Plus it wants we to "allow" DP connection about 8 times upon launch. Then I try to import a folder of media, crash. Import XML and it shows all the thumbs, then they disappear and it can't find any media. Search, crash. Okay, ignore missing media, click multicam window, crash.

Where the hell is the zoom tool? I need my freakin zoom tool.

Playing back. Click earlier in timeline. Nope, it continues playing where it was or maybe it stops, but where it was, not where I clicked.

Highlight clip. F match frame. Matches to some other clip. ???

I need my zoom tool.

Try to adjust clip audio in timeline on fly. Nope. And can only adjust on fly if recording audio Keyframes. I don't want Keyframes. Just want to adjust the volume of the clip during playback.

Pretty useless so far but I'll keep crashing it and see if anything improves.

I still need my zoom tool.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 28, 2015 at 11:28:40 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Is it ready to be the "main axe", so to speak... I dunno. I'm not sure that's the intent, but who knows...
"


sometimes I wonder what blackmagic are in it for, bar being in everything. They feel almost like google leveraging a core cash stream to spray themselves all over the place.

Premiere lately has gotten stick for bugginess (that said why you wouldn't just sit on CC14 like a hen until things shake out is beyond me) but -
at least premiere is an existentially pertinent issue for adobe in terms of driving the digital cloud suite forward.

Blackmagic with their editing interpretation of resolve feels like Blackmagic with most iterations of their cameras. those cameras change and some drop away and blackmagic barrels on. But at least with the cameras people have universally laid down cash. Editing in resolve feels like a wheeze they don't need to rely on anytime soon for anything in terms of reputation or income.
How are you supposed to go with that? Who's to say they won't start trying to wedge fusion nodes into the davinci node scheme because they had an engineer's tequila party weekend? What's actually at stake for blackmagic noodling for three or four years with an editing resolve bolt on? That maybe doesn't go anywhere?

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 29, 2015 at 12:16:33 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Who's to say they won't start trying to wedge fusion nodes into the davinci node scheme because they had an engineer's tequila party weekend?"

That sounds awesome. I think editorial, color and compositing belong together.

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 29, 2015 at 2:15:29 am
Last Edited By Aindreas Gallagher on Jul 29, 2015 at 2:33:58 am

[Walter Soyka] "I think editorial, color and compositing belong together."

granted you're a mad scientist Walter - but try pitching the total craft collapse of a century worth of editing, colour timing, and optical compositing into a single frankenstein node based application with a vaguely reliable editor released on a freemium model.

At some point the respective crafts have to call time. Then you have total french style supply stoppage. That has to be conceivable. It's super complicated but it looks a lot like exploitation. A lot of this looks like strike breaking without the trouble of strike breaking. given everyone has ipads.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 29, 2015 at 8:14:06 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "[Walter Soyka] "I think editorial, color and compositing belong together."

granted you're a mad scientist Walter - but try pitching the total craft collapse of a century worth of editing, colour timing, and optical compositing into a single frankenstein node based application with a vaguely reliable editor released on a freemium model.
"


Is it possible he was being sarcastic?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 29, 2015 at 2:00:48 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "granted you're a mad scientist Walter - but try pitching the total craft collapse of a century worth of editing, colour timing, and optical compositing into a single frankenstein node based application with a vaguely reliable editor released on a freemium model."

I've written at some length here about how BMD's business model makes me nervous: I'm sure it's good for BMD, and it may be good for users in the short term, but it's hard to compete with free and I think it's salting the fields of future development across our industry. So many people here are excited about have a great free (as in beer) option, but maybe without thinking about what that free product costs.

As for craft collapse, that's not quite how I see it. Look at color correction: there's plenty of light roto and keying, and the best tools for that are in compositing applications. Look at compositing: getting plates to match requires color adjustments, and the best tools for that are in grading applications. Look at editing: some shots just won't work without a little VFX love [link]. And everyone needs at least basic editorial capability.

Do you really see walled-off separate crafts? Look at your own sig: "promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics."

There are plenty of talented folks like yourself whose work spans traditional disciplines. Our tools have not kept up with this evolution.

Flame is 23 years old, and the idea is still ahead of its time.

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

Tim Wilson
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 29, 2015 at 5:18:11 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Do you really see walled-off separate crafts? Look at your own sig: "promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics." "

It's not walled-off crafts. It's walled-off applications.

The thinking goes, "Adobe could have integrated AE and Premiere, and "Avid could have integrated Pro Tools and Media Composer," "Apple could have integrated Final Cut Pro and Motion."

There are four reasons why it hasn't happened. In the case of Adobe and Avid, it hasn't happened after 20 years. With Apple, it's been 16. But those four reasons are...insurmountable is the wrong word, but it's close. See what I mean.


1) The essential codebases came from different places. Pro Tools After Effects, and Final Cut Pro Legacy were adopted by their current parents. None of these pairs was designed to work together at the root level, and to use Aindreas' wonderful phrase, you can't bolt this stuff on.


2) The applications work at cross purposes. To oversimplify, editing is horizontal and compositing is vertical. To put it another way, editing is Time, and motion graphics is Space.

No matter how many layers an NLE TIIIIIIIIMMMMMMMMMMMMELLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNE has, or whatever the F FCPX cares to call it, and no matter how nonlinear the creative process, the orientation of production is forward in time. The layers are more organizational than compositional.

Compositing sometimes wants to hide the layers, but the spatial nature of motion graphics more often wants to expose them.

That is, the 400 layer stack is INTENDED to show depth and complexity, even if the viewer can't describe what they're seeing as "lots of layers."

Pro Tools in that sense is spatially oriented BOTH to hide the layers AND expose them. You want to hear the birds and monkeys in the jungle, but you still want to hear the voices, and all of them are perceived to originate from different points IN SPACE. Hence, SPATIAL organization, rather than temporal.


3) The requirements of the two creative process require such incredibly different toolsets that, Flame, Pablo, Baselight notwithstanding, no single interface could contain the full range of each of them. The requirements for modal interfaces to support them is impossible to manage, because each of those applications have modal interfaces, disguised to one degree or another, but inescapably modal at the source.

The more of these you add, the harder it is for users to use them, and the harder it is to develop.


4) Which brings us to the kicker: so few people need the full richness of both feature sets that there's no way to monetize the superhuman efforts to overcome obstacles 1-3.

Even though most editors do graphics and graphics people do editing, most editors will never work with 3D cameras or need to support 25,000 pixel x 1125 pixel layers or whatever crazy aspect ratios a tradeshow video might require. (Right, Walter?) The graphics artist creates THAT, and the editor manages the HD or 4K or 8K visible window.

Or for Avid, every Media Composer editor needs audio features, even if Pro Tools guys don't need editing. The whole model is around picture lock, as indeed most VFX creation is. EDITING may be nonlinear, but not top-level audio or VFX.

There have been 2 *desktop* apps that have tried to have it both ways, and one more that tried to have it 5 ways.

The 5-way app was Liquid, but it was BEYOND modal. There was even a mode that let you choose between the "classic" interface and the new "modern" interface using a fundamentally different visual language and organizational scheme. In 2004!

It was EXACTLY like it would be for Apple to have a pref checkbox to select between a Legacy UI and media management scheme and X...in one app. It would have been a disaster, and it would have been foolhardy to even attempt.

You could in fact do some nifty stuff to extend DVD authoring far beyond markers in the timeline for example, but it was ultimately too dear a price to pay.

***Sidebar begins***
I'm sorry that this is getting so complicated, but I'll add one more twist for Liquid. I wasn't in charge of development in any way, but once it came to Avid, I was very much responsible for a meaningful part of its marketing and industry support.

So I had to cultivate reviewers who could understand five feature sets MULTIPLIED BY TWO, because we wanted to continue to sell to editors more comfortable with the old ways, AND comfortable with the new ones.

A forehead-slapping moment was when the reviewer who best understood both the modern and legacy interfaces used each of them to illustrate how the other was a failure.

D'oh!

***Sidebar ends***


A more analagous example is Sony Vegas, which grew out of Sonic Foundry. Mr. Rofrano is the expert here (and perhaps the single most expert expert in the known galaxy -- he probably knew that Pluto was a planet all along), but speaking as an observer and former plug-in development guy, it appears that you can in fact do terrific audio work in Vegas.

Now that I think about it, you can also do some terrific effects work and DVD set-up in Vegas, so they may be trying to have it FOUR ways, to varying degrees of success.

(Modal, modal, pants on fire.)

But there still comes a time when you need to go into a specialized application for greater depth, whether in audio (spatial) or DVD authoring (spatial menus plus temporal timelines) so, unlike Pinnacle, Sony does in fact sell specialized apps for each of those.

The MOST analagous example is actually FCP. It arguably did the best non-Sony Vegas job of any application to integrate compositing and editing. In some ways, I think even better than Vegas.

But who actually used the full range of effects in FCP? NOBODY. And neither FCP nor Vegas has much to offer in the way of motion graphics. Neither application does entirely what it needs to do for title animation. Neither actually comes close.

So both users turn to After Effects, and the Apple guys add Motion to the mix.

And, to wave the flag for the former applications for which I WAS the product manager, many users ALSO had some combination of products from Boris FX in the mix.

Which means that any effort to enrich the entire toolsets by merging them will never pay off, for either developers or users.

From the user's perspective, it's better for developers to focus on better links between horizontally and vertically oriented environments, and to make each of them, independently, be the best they can be for the customers who need each of to BE the best.

Walter, you may be the only person on earth who needs both sets of editing and motion graphics to the extremes that you do...so you can imagine the nightmare of that degree of modality, the drain on development, the drain on performance, and the cost of merging 100% of them.

All of which, incidentally, is why Pablo, Baselight, and Flame keep selling, even though they cost a fortune: the cost it takes to develop them, and the uniquely-tuned hardware requirements to enable that kind of performance.

And the difference between them and Adobe, Avid, and Apple is that the different environments they're trying to merge all came from the same place. But the scope of the work costs THAT MUCH to develop.

To extend the example one more time, Flame and Maya are ultimately two different applications for allllll of the reasons above.

So IN PRACTICE, it doesn't work. It CAN'T work on any of the four vectors: merging incompatible code bases, merging two otherwise incompatible orientations (time and space), merging incompatible feature sets, and the potential to monetize this superhuman effort, because the effort to create all this is humongous, and the number of customers to pay for it is miniscule.

All of which is why the merging of Resolve and Fusion will never happen. The freemium model would bear an unimaginable weight.

Raised a quantum level of difficulty because NEITHER codebase comes from BMD.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

This forum is replete with examples of my confident assertions that have been proven wrong, but I don't think I am this time. I think anyone who has spent much time in either will understand in an instant what a bad idea this is.

And as I've noted, the existence of somebody who needs the full range of feature sets and NOT named Walter Soyka is only theoretical, and otherwise easily disproved.

And Walter, I'm not sure that even YOU need the full range of features in both Resolve and Fusion so badly that it would be worth BMD's effort to merge them.

Avid and Adobe have had 20 years to do it, Apple has had 16, and it hasn't happened yet, and those are the four biggest reasons why. There are of course others, but I have to end this post eventually.

And that time is now. LOL


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 29, 2015 at 6:27:03 pm

Wowsers, Tim, epic post! Let me start with your list of four, and I'll try to come back to the rest.


[Tim Wilson] "1) The essential codebases came from different places. Pro Tools After Effects, and Final Cut Pro Legacy were adopted by their current parents. None of these pairs was designed to work together at the root level, and to use Aindreas' wonderful phrase, you can't bolt this stuff on."

No, you can't bolt it on. But if you're reconsidering the architecture of your product anyway, you can get there over time. Each of the products you listed evolved considerably from their original capabilities.


[Tim Wilson] "2) The applications work at cross purposes. To oversimplify, editing is horizontal and compositing is vertical. To put it another way, editing is Time, and motion graphics is Space."

Graphic design is space. Motion graphics is space-time. Neil deGrasse Tyson will back me up on this. The poor editorial control in our toolsets today is holding mograph back right now. Your answer is very "no but" and I think it could be "yes and."


[Tim Wilson] "3) The requirements of the two creative process require such incredibly different toolsets that, Flame, Pablo, Baselight notwithstanding, no single interface could contain the full range of each of them. The requirements for modal interfaces to support them is impossible to manage, because each of those applications have modal interfaces, disguised to one degree or another, but inescapably modal at the source. "

So? Check this out: in Flame, a clip is a timeline is a flow graph:






DS, which I can assume is at least a little bit near and dear to your heart, was like somewhat this. NUKE STUDIO is somewhat like this, too, today. Heck, MC with Eyeon Connection or whatever it's called today is like this with Fusion right now:
https://library.creativecow.net/kaufman_debra/Editor_Hunger-Games-Alan-E-Be...
(just in case you missed my link before)


[Tim Wilson] "4) Which brings us to the kicker: so few people need the full richness of both feature sets that there's no way to monetize the superhuman efforts to overcome obstacles 1-3."

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.



[Tim Wilson] "It's not walled-off crafts. It's walled-off applications."

Mr. Wilson, tear down this wall!

https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/1538#1565

https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/16706#16768



[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...so you can imagine the nightmare of that degree of modality, the drain on development, the drain on performance, and the cost of merging 100% of them."

HitFilm?


[Tim Wilson] "And as I've noted, the existence of somebody who needs the full range of feature sets and NOT named Walter Soyka is only theoretical, and otherwise easily disproved."

Ok, I giggled when I read this. You win, and I'll assume this is some kind of compliment and wear it as a badge of honor.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 29, 2015 at 11:34:50 pm

[Walter Soyka] "it's about the features you need, when you need them. "

But isn't a major sticking point that different people need different features at different times?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 10:09:27 am

[Andrew Kimery] "But isn't a major sticking point that different people need different features at different times?"

My point was not that you didn't have to develop or integrate all the features. My point was that the audience is larger than people who think they need all the features. It's people who need just a few more features than they have now.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 3:55:13 pm

[Walter Soyka] "It's people who need just a few more features than they have now.
"


Where I was going with it is that between feature creep and different users wanting different things (one person needs X but not Y and another needs Y and Z but not X, etc.,) where do you draw the line between, say, PPro getting some of AE's tools and PPro trying to swallow all of AE? Because I'm sure no matter how many tools PPro borrows from AE there will be users that want more and more and more. And there will also be users that scream about adding useless features while ignoring core functionality.

I feel like this is how Photoshop has become, depending on how you look at it, a massive boatload of extraneous feature creep or a very powerful tool with broad functionality.

I know next to nothing about Smoke but it seems to be an example of an app that's too much of a hybrid so it's stuck out in no man's land. Do you think FCP Legend a good balance between NLE and compositor?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 4:45:30 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "where do you draw the line between, say, PPro getting some of AE's tools and PPro trying to swallow all of AE? Because I'm sure no matter how many tools PPro borrows from AE there will be users that want more and more and more."

For me, looking at the Adobe tools, I don't think it would help anyone to merge Ae and Pr into one single UX. I agree with Tim that they do different things, and they do them differently. It's completely appropriate to have separate UXes.

Our workflows now are suboptimal. Picture lock does not exist because we're all awesome at making decisions. Picture lock is a necessary evil enforced by the way our current tools are designed. The lack of interplay among apps forces linear workflows. Non-linear workflow should be a design goal for the next generation of creative tools.

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

Shawn Miller
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 29, 2015 at 7:46:23 pm

[Tim Wilson] "And as I've noted, the existence of somebody who needs the full range of feature sets and NOT named Walter Soyka is only theoretical, and otherwise easily disproved."

//Shawn butting in

Neill Blomkamp (before he got famous), Andrew Kramer, Gareth Edwards (before he got famous), Freddy Wong and Ryan Connolly... I think the circle may be widening. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

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...."

HitFilm?"


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 time...in 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.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 12:59:06 am

Touché, Tim. All good points. I'm inclined to agree with you that "no one" needs 100% of the features in an NLE and 100% of the features of a composting and animation package (all the time). Though, I'm also willing to bet that many of us would like a decent, hybrid compositing/NLE/animation/color grading tool at least 50% of the time. Further, I suspect that's a completely different conversation. :-) Lastly, I agree that there is absolutely no danger of BMD smooshing Fusion and Resolve into a single application... or Adobe "fusing" Premiere Pro and AE together.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 2:09:31 am

[Shawn Miller] "hough, I'm also willing to bet that many of us would like a decent, hybrid compositing/NLE/animation/color grading tool at least 50% of the time. "

Isn't that what FCP Legacy was? There was some very slick stuff there that I think most people never tapped into. Once you added a tiny handful of plug-ins, the compositing/animation capabilities were off the chain.

Maybe I just got more excited by them than was appropriate...but I felt that it (and Sony Vegas) towered above other options.

I haven't used X so I've avoided any opinions on it other than the business side -- perhaps the first time I've avoiding opining on things I know nothing about. LOL

But I haven't seen anyone talk about how great the effects tools in X are relative to, say, Lumetri in Premiere. People have talked about its shortcomings too, but people were excited by the possibilities it opened.

Is it that X has taken a step back from the compositing environment Legacy offered? Or that it pales in comparison to the renamed reorganization? LOL

I'm genuinely curious about that.

Anyway, I think that Smoke on Mac offered exactly the environment you're talking about, but I only know what I saw in demos. I'll defer to astrophysicist, editor, and motion graphics researcher Professor Soyka to tell it like it is.

(And yes, Walter, this counts as my highest compliment to you as one of the true Renaissance men in these conversations.)


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 3:51:39 am

[Tim Wilson] "Isn't that what FCP Legacy was? There was some very slick stuff there that I think most people never tapped into. Once you added a tiny handful of plug-ins, the compositing/animation capabilities were off the chain.
"


Unfortunately, I missed the FCP boat. Just as I was seriously considering the Mac platform (because of Shake), Apple eol'd it. I found comfort in Vegas for compositing, mograph and audio mixing for a while, but quickly reached its limits, so I jumped over to Adobe fulltime. :-) Now, PPro has some decent compositing tools, and the Lumetri Color panel is nice... just a bit less than I wanted for grading. Resolve would be perfect if it had a better playback engine and design tools (IMO). So, overall, Tim I think your right... there probably aren't enough editor/animator/compositor/mograph folks out there to make the effort of building a Smoke like tool worth it (for established software companies). I think there's even less insentive for smaller players to try, because companies like BMD are giving premium software away for little or nothing.



[Tim Wilson] "Anyway, I think that Smoke on Mac offered exactly the environment you're talking about, but I only know what I saw in demos. I'll defer to astrophysicist, editor, and motion graphics researcher Professor Soyka to tell it like it is."

Smoke was on my list for a while as well, but it never seemed to keep my attention long enough to consider picking up, so I would also be curious to hear Professor Soyka's thoughts on the matter. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 2:34:29 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Anyway, I think that Smoke on Mac offered exactly the environment you're talking about, but I only know what I saw in demos. I'll defer to astrophysicist, editor, and motion graphics researcher Professor Soyka to tell it like it is."

[Shawn Miller] "Smoke was on my list for a while as well, but it never seemed to keep my attention long enough to consider picking up, so I would also be curious to hear Professor Soyka's thoughts on the matter. :-) "

Tim, I'm not sure anyone would care to read it, but if you opened a Smoke or Not forum, I could fill it arguing with myself. My relationship status with Smoke would be "complicated."

I've been in and out of it for a few years. I'm currently on the upswing, catching up on what's new in 2016. Here's the short version (ha) of my thoughts:

Smoke can be rightfully accused of being "jack of all trades, master of none," but it also fills out the second, lesser-used half of the expression: "often better than master of one."

One the one hand, it's a fantastic tool. I love compositing in editorial context. Once you get used to it, there's a lot to like in the workflow and interface. I like (most of) the Action 3D compositor.

On the other hand, it's a frustrating tool. I think that Smoke's heritage makes it a lot less accessible than FCPX/Pr. Even after you get used to it, there's a lot to dislike in the workflow and interface. The pool of freelancers is small. There are some important tools that are still very old-school, and the bulk of the design tools that I'd really like to have are missing from Smoke and reserved for Flame.

Smoke is too light on the animation side to be the tool Shawn describes. Ae, even without realtime performance or an NLE-style timeline, is closer.

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

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 4:24:38 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Is it that X has taken a step back from the compositing environment Legacy offered? Or that it pales in comparison to the renamed reorganization? LOL "

We can't talk about compositing/animation in FCPX without mentioning this:

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1571-old-school-magic-in-fcpx-a-br...

I'd cringe at the method, but I respect the result.

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

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 5:05:52 pm

[Walter Soyka] "[Tim Wilson] "Is it that X has taken a step back from the compositing environment Legacy offered? Or that it pales in comparison to the renamed reorganization? LOL "

We can't talk about compositing/animation in FCPX without mentioning this:

http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1571-old-school-magic-in-fcpx-a-br.....

I'd cringe at the method, but I respect the result."


The compositing you can do in X makes Legacy (and Pr if you don't have AE) look like a toy. You may need some plugins to do more complex stuff, but the built in tools on their own are really nice. Fun even. :-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 5:28:52 pm

[Charlie Austin] "The compositing you can do in X makes Legacy (and Pr if you don't have AE) look like a toy."

Really, how so? Premiere Pro has a number of blending modes, trackable masks, adjustment layers, fairly decent matte tools, a solid key framing system (for an NLE) and native support for lookup tables. What gives FCPX the edge for compositing? Honestly asking, I had never seen FCPX used for compositing before today (referring to the video that Walter shared earlier).

Shawn



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 6:39:25 pm
Last Edited By Charlie Austin on Jul 30, 2015 at 6:45:56 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Really, how so? Premiere Pro has a number of blending modes, trackable masks, adjustment layers, fairly decent matte tools, a solid key framing system (for an NLE) and native support for lookup tables. What gives FCPX the edge for compositing? Honestly asking, I had never seen FCPX used for compositing before today (referring to the video that Walter shared earlier).
"


X has that as well. Some maybe better than Pr, some perhaps not. Pr arguably has more refined key framing, (though X is much better these days) And you need plugins for tracking and LUT's in X. But things like clip skimming (huge timesaver with lots of layers), the ability to adjust relative or absolute transform and effects parameters on groups of clips, Compound clips vs nesting (similar, but different in implementation) etc.

It's not specific feature set vs feature set thing. Pr may win that one. But the X timeline is really well suited to working vertically. In Tim's earlier reply describing compositing vs editing he was specifically not talking about X, but he could have been.

I'm doing some pretty basic compositing in Pr this week and it's maddening. Not because of the feature set, that's fine, but because of the way you need to work, if that makes any sense.

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

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 7:05:55 pm

[Charlie Austin] "But things like clip skimming (huge timesaver with lots of layers),"

I guess I don't see the advantage in the context of compositing. Truthfully, I don't even do much timeline scrubbing when trying to match the elements in a composite. I'm usually concerned with color, luminance, edges, etc at that point.

[Charlie Austin] " ability adjust transform parameters on groups of clips"

That is nice - AE has this feature, but its (sadly) missing in PPro.

[Charlie Austin] "Compound clips vs nesting (similar, but different in implementation) etc."

I confess that I don't really understand compound clips... what makes them better (in your opinion) than nested sequences or comps for compositing?

[Charlie Austin] " But the X timeline is really well suited to working vertically."

Are you saying that the FCPX timeline is more vertical than other timelines when compositing? :-) Kidding aside, I don't understand what you mean here... aren't FCPX, PPro, AE, Motion and Photoshop more alike than not in this regard? I mean, compared to something like Blender or Smoke.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 7:26:24 pm
Last Edited By Walter Soyka on Jul 30, 2015 at 7:29:31 pm

[Shawn Miller] "aren't FCPX, PPro, AE, Motion and Photoshop more alike than not in this regard? I mean, compared to something like Blender or Smoke."

Actually, Smoke has a vertical timeline compositing system in addition to its full 2D compositing environment (ConnectFX/Batch) and full 3D compositing environment (Action).

You can use timeline compositing for 2D or 3D compositing.

http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/kenl/smoke-2015-tutorial-3d-compositing-in-t...

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

Shawn Miller
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 7:40:58 pm

[Walter Soyka] "[Shawn Miller] "aren't FCPX, PPro, AE, Motion and Photoshop more alike than not in this regard? I mean, compared to something like Blender or Smoke."

Actually, Smoke has a vertical timeline compositing system in addition to its full 2D compositing environment (ConnectFX/Batch) and full 3D compositing environment (Action).

You can use timeline compositing for 2D or 3D compositing.

http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/kenl/smoke-2015-tutorial-3d-compositing-in-t....."


That is just slick.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 7:50:41 pm

[Shawn Miller] "[Charlie Austin] "But things like clip skimming (huge timesaver with lots of layers),"

I guess I don't see the advantage in the context of compositing. Truthfully, I don't even do much timeline scrubbing when trying to match the elements in a composite. I'm usually concerned with color, luminance, edges, etc at that point. "


Well, for me, if I've got a dozen layers or something, it's a real quick way to see a particular layer without enabling/disabling the clips above it. just shaves a little time off when working, but it adds up.

[Shawn Miller] "[Charlie Austin] "Compound clips vs nesting (similar, but different in implementation) etc."

I confess that I don't really understand compound clips... what makes them better (in your opinion) than nested sequences or comps for compositing?"


They're not terribly different really, compound clips just seem easier to work with. less convoluted to decompose/recompose. Could just be me...



[Shawn Miller] "Are you saying that the FCPX timeline is more vertical than other timelines when compositing? :-) Kidding aside, I don't understand what you mean here... aren't FCPX, PPro, AE, Motion and Photoshop more alike than not in this regard? I mean, compared to something like Blender or Smoke. "

Oh, absolutely. I bounce back and forth between Pr and X a lot and when doing the same things in both, it's a much more pleasant experience in X. In Pr, there are way less built in effects/looks etc snd I feel like I need AE often (which I don't rent) when working. But In X I rarely feel I need to go to Motion or something. I'm not doing super complex stuff though, so YMMV...

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

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 8:09:20 pm

[Charlie Austin] "[Shawn Miller] "[Charlie Austin] "But things like clip skimming (huge timesaver with lots of layers),"

I guess I don't see the advantage in the context of compositing. Truthfully, I don't even do much timeline scrubbing when trying to match the elements in a composite. I'm usually concerned with color, luminance, edges, etc at that point. "

Well, for me, if I've got a dozen layers or something, it's a real quick way to see a particular layer without enabling/disabling the clips above it. just shaves a little time off when working, but it adds up.

[Shawn Miller] "[Charlie Austin] "Compound clips vs nesting (similar, but different in implementation) etc."

I confess that I don't really understand compound clips... what makes them better (in your opinion) than nested sequences or comps for compositing?"

They're not terribly different really, compound clips just seem easier to work with. less convoluted to decompose/recompose. Could just be me...

[Shawn Miller] "Are you saying that the FCPX timeline is more vertical than other timelines when compositing? :-) Kidding aside, I don't understand what you mean here... aren't FCPX, PPro, AE, Motion and Photoshop more alike than not in this regard? I mean, compared to something like Blender or Smoke. "

Oh, absolutely. I bounce back and forth between Pr and X a lot and when doing the same things in both, it's a much more pleasant experience in X. In Pr, there are way less built in effects/looks etc snd I feel like I need AE often (which I don't rent) when working. But In X I rarely feel I need to go to Motion or something. I'm not doing super complex stuff though, so YMMV..."


So, it sounds like it's more a matter of having tools that are more available and intuitive to you. Fair enough, it makes me wish I could jump into FCPX and try it for myself... just to know what you're talking about. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 5:07:02 am
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Jul 31, 2015 at 5:08:24 am

Not directly on point but of perhaps a tiny bit of interest...

Since Apple introduced the new 3D text system to FCP X, a very interesting side effect has been cropping up.

First, Mark Spencer (the Motion guru) noted that the system in X does 3d transforms not just on on fonts, but on anything in the form of a glyph.

Then somebody figured out that Glyphter, the free, easy utility - can efficiently turn SVG stuff like say, a corporate logo into a glyph - which can then be extruded and rotated and have multiple surface texture mapping with multiple bevels - and multiple cameras and lighting - applied directly in FCP X's new 3d Type system.

I wish I could show some of the early work that's popping up, but sadly it's on a private board where we talk about techniques and the stuff shown is often not rights cleared, so it has to stay private.

I'll just say that some of the 3D Text (and now graphics like corporate logos) being created and processed directly inside of X has been a bit surprising in it's sophistication.

These are baby steps, of course, not serious compositing - but the 3D math is there and it's generating some pretty cool results for a $299 NLE.

Just an interesting side note.

Carry on.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 6:03:38 am

[Bill Davis] "Then somebody figured out that Glyphter, the free, easy utility - can efficiently turn SVG stuff like say, a corporate logo into a glyph - which can then be extruded and rotated and have multiple surface texture mapping with multiple bevels - and multiple cameras and lighting - applied directly in FCP X's new 3d Type system. "

I remember seeing someone take the Apple poop emjoi and make it 3D. Is this how they did it?


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 6:39:18 am

[Andrew Kimery] "I remember seeing someone take the Apple poop emjoi and make it 3D. Is this how they did it?"

That would have been me. And yes, that's how I did it. :-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 12:03:56 pm

[Bill Davis] "Since Apple introduced the new 3D text system to FCP X, a very interesting side effect has been cropping up."

Courtesy of the FCPX or Not Forum, on Motion 5.2 launch day?

https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/79619#79634

And credit where it's due, this was a Flame production technique that's probably old enough to drink.


[Bill Davis] "I'll just say that some of the 3D Text (and now graphics like corporate logos) being created and processed directly inside of X has been a bit surprising in it's sophistication. These are baby steps, of course, not serious compositing - but the 3D math is there and it's generating some pretty cool results for a $299 NLE."

Exactly! Wouldn't you agree that having this capability in editorial context is an advancement?

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

Bill Davis
Re: Resolve XII...
on Aug 1, 2015 at 2:22:23 am

[Walter Soyka] "Exactly! Wouldn't you agree that having this capability in editorial context is an advancement?
"


Yes. Often all we need is a subset of the capabilities of a full blown MoGraph, sound, or color correction suite. Enough to do things fast and to a standard that meets or hopefully exceeds the clients expectations - knowing that all clients are not working to 100% of the Hollywood standard, 100% of the time. I can easily understand that Flame guys might have had access to the Glyph trick - but very few folks had the budget for Flame time! Now $299 gets you the same deal. Sweet!

-

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 9:26:16 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Anyway, I think that Smoke on Mac offered exactly the environment you're talking about, but I only know what I saw in demos"

If I'm being honest - of anything out there, Premiere now has to be officially the closest - relative to X and Avid.
You have extremely robust keyframing with AE 5.5 level acceleration control, trackable fully feathered masks, adjustment layers, it's completely resolution independent to a degree avid definitely isn't, and X isn't quite, and it's a far smarter GUI to perform multiple CC/Edit/Audio scenarios than X or avid. I will go into the ring with anyone saying either X or avid can touch the kinds of CC/Edit/Audio setups including stacked timelines you can achieve in PPro.

In terms of getting into a 3D camera setup ala smoke, I think it can be argued pretty well that the near instantaneous transfer to AE on a clip or multi-clip level amounts to nearly the same thing in practise for 99% of the editors accessing it. I worked Flint for a fair few years, and the trade offs having to live in the kind of meta environment applications like Flame and Smoke provide don't outbid the clear PPro AE interplay. To my eye Smoke has real intelligibility issues with where you are at a given point, why you are there, and what is available to you in terms of nodes sparks etc when you are there. That might explain why the entire Smoke experiment is formally dying.

basically the idea of the super app kind of has to be - as Tim explained way way way better - a chimera. Outside of the super app - the only architecture that comes within a mile of touching it is the adobe suite. There's nothing on the field that comes close. Neither Avid nor Apple can touch the venn diagram Adobe present.

If adobe would simply offer me the CC production premium I am actually dealing with as opposed to the other 45 apps they're pumping me for I'd be happier.

As an annual cost relative to the updates I signed on for - buying into production premium CS - I'm still irritated by the 963 app icons that have nothing to do me. There is no intellectual argument forcing master suite prices where they have no natural home. Adobe are still wearing a bad cheap suit for doing that.

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 10:18:57 am

[Tim Wilson] "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."

Tim, did you read the links I posted to a couple old posts of mine?

I don't think the answer is necessarily single application. I think the answer is deeper, better integration between apps, with a goal of making the boundaries between apps matter a lot less. Right now, we're working the way our applications need us to. That's backwards!


[Prof. Soyka, circa May 2011] "I've made this comment in other threads as well, but I think that what we're all looking for is not necessarily a unified application, but a unified data model and media database...

FCP, Color, STP, Motion, etc. are all fundamentally applications that store and process information about creative decisions with media clips and effects over time. If they could all "understand" their own parts of the same timeline and refer to media based on a centrally-organized database -- instead of each application creating its own separate interpretation of the original editorial timeline -- we could have all the power and flexibility that the separate apps provide without all the pain of round-tripping. This would create entirely new workflows and offer new possibilities.

Bonus points if the database is multi-user. The necessity of picture lock before audio sweetening and color grading could disappear entirely. Editorial would be the hub, and the other departments could work on their shots or their scenes throughout the process."


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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 4:03:04 pm

[Walter Soyka] "FCP, Color, STP, Motion, etc. are all fundamentally applications that store and process information about creative decisions with media clips and effects over time. If they could all "understand" their own parts of the same timeline and refer to media based on a centrally-organized database -- instead of each application creating its own separate interpretation of the original editorial timeline -- we could have all the power and flexibility that the separate apps provide without all the pain of round-tripping. This would create entirely new workflows and offer new possibilities.

Would Adobe's DynamicLink and DirectLink be examples of what you are talking about? Or at least examples of things headed in the direction of what you are talking about?

Bonus points if the database is multi-user. The necessity of picture lock before audio sweetening and color grading could disappear entirely. Editorial would be the hub, and the other departments could work on their shots or their scenes throughout the process.""

To a degree but if editing is still going full throttle then audio and grading will be doing a lot of needless work since the edit will be in constant flux. Even if editing is really close to locked you'll still have to have a conform process of some sort so that the editing changes can be non-destructively passed along to audio and grading.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 5:10:01 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "Would Adobe's DynamicLink and DirectLink be examples of what you are talking about? Or at least examples of things headed in the direction of what you are talking about?"

Dynamic Link is a purely uni-directional bridge from one application to another. It reduces the friction in a multi-app workflow by eliminating intermediate renders, which is nice, but it still requires two apps to have their own native and separate representations of the underlying edit.

Direct Link is conceptually much closer to what I'm suggesting, in that SpeedGrade is using Pr's timeline and feeding back into Premiere.

Sidebar: Adobe is selectively picking up bits of their other apps and putting them into Pr. Look at masks and Lumetri. Which is better? Duplicating functionality across related apps, or connecting the apps more cohesively?


[Andrew Kimery] "To a degree but if editing is still going full throttle then audio and grading will be doing a lot of needless work since the edit will be in constant flux. Even if editing is really close to locked you'll still have to have a conform process of some sort so that the editing changes can be non-destructively passed along to audio and grading."

I want to eliminate conform as we know it. Conform means "to make similar in form, nature, or character; to bring into agreement, correspondence, or harmony."

This is necessary when two different applications have two different representations of the same edit.

"Conform" could be changed to "update" if there were only one timeline that many applications viewed. Because the editorial timeline could track changes from version to version, the audio app can highlight the areas impacted since the last audio pass.

This gives you the option of getting a head start, letting a team work in parallel. It would certainly require some thought about where time would be spent most prudently.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 30, 2015 at 7:53:08 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I want to eliminate conform as we know it. Conform means "to make similar in form, nature, or character; to bring into agreement, correspondence, or harmony."

This is necessary when two different applications have two different representations of the same edit."


To me it's not just when applications have two different representations of the same edit it's when two people (even if they are using the same application) have two different representations of the same edit.

To keep the example simple, let's just say an editor and a mixer are both working concurrently on the same edit. Having a truly shared timeline that updates in real time sounds horrible to me because the media in the timeline will be constantly changing. We will be constantly stepping on each other's toes.

If the editor and the mixer have two versions of the same timeline then we won't be stepping on each other's toes, but at the end of the day someone will have to take the changes made in each timeline and conform them into a single timeline. A computer can track the changes but it won't know which changes to apply when both the editor and the mixer have

Waiting until the end of an edit to start the finishing process isn't just done because we have incompatible tools, it's done so that time and money isn't wasted polishing media that won't make it into the final cut.

I agree that having more (or even seamless) compatibility between apps would be great, but I don't think that's ever going to happen. Apple, Adobe, Avid, etc., all have ideas about how best to skin the cat and I doubt they'll ever come together and agree on a 'unified' engine to power all their NLEs. Getting a single company to do it across all their apps is a more likely scenario, but you have to have a company that can make a suite of great apps. After you have a company that can make a suite of great apps that all seamlessly talk to each other you have to convince customers to use them all as opposed to using other apps. The cross compatibility is only a useful feature (and time/money well spent) if l if everyone uses the same family of apps (ex. the compositor uses AE, the editor use PPro and the colorist uses SpeedGrade).


[Walter Soyka] "Sidebar: Adobe is selectively picking up bits of their other apps and putting them into Pr. Look at masks and Lumetri. Which is better? Duplicating functionality across related apps, or connecting the apps more cohesively?"

I think doing both is better than just doing one or the other. Speaking in generalities, you expand the the functionality of the NLE for generalist use (editors that need to do some audio mixing, compositing, grading, etc.,) and you improve the connections between apps to make it smoother for specialists to collaborate. I started out as an editor I got along fine with the built-in grading tools. To make a long story short, after Apple released Color I spent a few years primarily as a colorist and I quickly realized how awesome a dedicated app like Color was, and how limited the built-in correction tools in NLEs were. Today if I have a quick and dirty grading job I'll do it in the NLE using some Magic Bullet plugins but if I have a 'real' grading job I'll do it in Resolve. After putting in the miles to learn apps like Color and Resolve the thought of doing intensive color work in an NLE makes my skin crawl.

At some point though I think you have to curb how much non-NLE functionality you put in the NLE and say to the user, "Look, if you want to do some really advanced stuff you are just going to have to cowboy up and learn a dedicated mixing/grading/compositing, etc., app". If you try and too much other stuff in an NLE I think it can become bloated and too difficult to use by the majority of it's target audience.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 12:15:01 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "To keep the example simple, let's just say an editor and a mixer are both working concurrently on the same edit. Having a truly shared timeline that updates in real time sounds horrible to me because the media in the timeline will be constantly changing. We will be constantly stepping on each other's toes.

If the editor and the mixer have two versions of the same timeline then we won't be stepping on each other's toes, but at the end of the day someone will have to take the changes made in each timeline and conform them into a single timeline. A computer can track the changes but it won't know which changes to apply when both the editor and the mixer have

Waiting until the end of an edit to start the finishing process isn't just done because we have incompatible tools, it's done so that time and money isn't wasted polishing media that won't make it into the final cut."


There are tools and methodologies outside of our industry for dealing with exactly these issues. For example, software development happens across a team in parallel, with source control, check-in and check-out, and tests to find and resolve conflicts.

You do get diminishing marginal gain as the team size grows, because as you point out, coordination does take time.

If you think about the way we work now, it's a challenge. If you think about the way we would work if we had different disciplines working together at the same time, then you'd probably build a different workflow. Some tasks are clip-based; these can be done in parallel. Some tasks are sequence-based; it may be prudent to wait on these until the end of the process. For tight schedules, it may be worth the risk of having to do something twice to try to get it done earlier.


[Andrew Kimery] "At some point though I think you have to curb how much non-NLE functionality you put in the NLE and say to the user, "Look, if you want to do some really advanced stuff you are just going to have to cowboy up and learn a dedicated mixing/grading/compositing, etc., app". If you try and too much other stuff in an NLE I think it can become bloated and too difficult to use by the majority of it's target audience."

Let's talk about "bloat." What does that mean to you?

Apple has done a really good job of not showing you functionality you don't need. FCPX does a lot, but the UX is so smooth that a lot of people still underestimate its capabilities as iMovie Pro. Is FCPX bloated?

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 5:47:49 pm

[Walter Soyka] "There are tools and methodologies outside of our industry for dealing with exactly these issues. For example, software development happens across a team in parallel, with source control, check-in and check-out, and tests to find and resolve conflicts. "

But how many of those methodologies used outside our industry are applicable to our industry? With software development how many people are working on the exact same piece of code at the exact same time? I was thinking about the ease of which Google Docs works, but working collaboratively with text documents isn't really analogous to working collaboratively with audio/visual media in a post production environment.

I think it was in Resolve 11 that they introduced a feature where editing and grading could be done concurrently. I never heard anyone talk about so I have no idea how it works (or how well it works). If it's a check in/check out system then it would probably work okay because if there's a dedicated colorist on the project, and we are working in parallel, then I'm probably not going to waste time doing any rough grading during the edit. If it's a live updating system then, as an editor, it would drive me insane to see the footage I'm trying to cut getting graded right in front of me.

GFX/VFX can work in parallel too because, much like grading, the editor isn't going to be creating and iterating the final GFX. A rough temp or title card might dropped in as place holder but that's it.

Audio is a whole different kettle of fish though. Picture editing cannot be divorced from sound editing so there will always be a ton of conflicts to resolve if an editor and mixer are trying to work in parallel too early on. If parts of the process had to be accelerated due to a looming deadline I'd much rather start the picture finishing early and hold off on audio finishing until the latest possible moment.


[Walter Soyka] "Let's talk about "bloat." What does that mean to you?"

To me bloat can be different things that may or may not be related. Bloat can be used to describe a UI that looks out of control, a program that feels slow/sluggish (due to unoptimized/excessive code), and/or bloat can be used to describe feature creep. I think many times bloat starts with feature creep which then leads to UI and under-the-hood problems. Of course one man's bloated tool might be another man's all-in-one super app.

I think bloat, like porn, is easier to recognize than to define. I think the difference between adding functionality and adding bloat is the difference between keeping your target user in sight vs getting lost in the weeds. Mindfully adding useful functionality vs adding features might be another way to look at it. Good recent examples I think could be 3D text in X and Lumetri in PPro. A full time animator or colorist might find these tools too limiting, but for someone that wears multiple hats they could be a good balance of accessibility and functionality.

[Walter Soyka] "Apple has done a really good job of not showing you functionality you don't need. FCPX does a lot, but the UX is so smooth that a lot of people still underestimate its capabilities as iMovie Pro. Is FCPX bloated?"

I can't say because I've barely touched X, but my guess would be 'no'. I think bloat usually happens to a much more mature product, and part of it is probably tied to trying to increase perceived value so people will keep buying new versions of the software. Given Apple's current model of giving away software for free (or for a pretty low, one-time price) I don't think we have to worry about Apple over-adding features while enticing people to upgrade.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 6:22:46 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "f it's a live updating system then, as an editor, it would drive me insane to see the footage I'm trying to cut getting graded right in front of me."

Yeah, I think that'd be a disaster.

Think more about the old Final Cut Server ideal; imagine you, the editor, could push out shots to other departments. Have a great clip with bad audio? Want to see if it can be salvaged? Send it to audio. C-stand ruining your day? Push it to VFX.

Or, if you're the one man band type, do it all yourself, in any order you like, and keep the flexibility to make changes without having to back all the way up to the beginning of the linear workflow and push it through again. Computers can and should be doing that bit for us.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 7:05:16 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Think more about the old Final Cut Server ideal; imagine you, the editor, could push out shots to other departments. Have a great clip with bad audio? Want to see if it can be salvaged? Send it to audio. C-stand ruining your day? Push it to VFX."

I can certainly see the benefits of simplifying the I/O process between apps. When I mainly colored my dream was to be able to work in the same timeline that the editors cut in. Not necessary to work in parallel with them, but just to be able to avoid the FCP to Color back to FCP w/new media hassle. I was like, "Why can't what I do in Color just apply like a filter vs rendering out new media?" Now we have that relationship between PPro and SG and Resolve offering a parallel workflow (which as previously mentioned I know nothing about).


[Walter Soyka] "Or, if you're the one man band type, do it all yourself, in any order you like, and keep the flexibility to make changes without having to back all the way up to the beginning of the linear workflow and push it through again. Computers can and should be doing that bit for us."

If you are a one-man-band type then you are probably more inclined to keep it all in the NLE and just buy plugins to fill the specific holes you need filled. Many people just need some milk, not the whole cow. ;)

Somewhat recently I worked on a historical doc in Avid and it was a royal PITA because we had a lot (I mean a lot) of stills and Avid is horrible with stills. Just unbearably horrible. We used AE to do moves on the stills but it felt like using a sledge hammer to swat flies since in any other major NLE we could have just imported the stills at full res and done the moves inside the NLE.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 7:16:47 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I was like, "Why can't what I do in Color just apply like a filter vs rendering out new media?""

Yes, exactly, and if you tweak the edit after you color, maybe rearranging a section or two, extending some handles and adding a few new clips, your color session should see the differences between the timeline state you colored and the current timeline state, keep your existing work, and highlight new content/conflicts for you to work on.

Enabling bi-directional flow between apps without manual media management is core of what I'm so horribly floundering at conveying.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 7:27:00 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Enabling bi-directional flow between apps without manual media management is core of what I'm so horribly floundering at conveying."

That I'm 100% in agreement with.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 7:28:42 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "That I'm 100% in agreement with."

The floundering?

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 7:50:56 pm

[Walter Soyka] "The floundering?
"


And the bi-directional workflow thing. ;)

I think I got a bit hung up on your working in parallel idea because every time you mentioned it I would have a mild panic attack envisioning how it would play out on the projects I usually work on. ;)


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 8:07:47 pm

[Andrew Kimery] " I would have a mild panic attack envisioning how it would play out on the projects I usually work on. ;)"

Mild Panic Attack or Not: The Debate

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

Walter Soyka
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 4:11:04 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "To make a long story short, after Apple released Color I spent a few years primarily as a colorist and I quickly realized how awesome a dedicated app like Color was, and how limited the built-in correction tools in NLEs were. Today if I have a quick and dirty grading job I'll do it in the NLE using some Magic Bullet plugins but if I have a 'real' grading job I'll do it in Resolve. After putting in the miles to learn apps like Color and Resolve the thought of doing intensive color work in an NLE makes my skin crawl."

If there were a true non-linear workflow (read: no round-tripping), you could do quick and dirty grading in a proper color environment, too, if you wanted. There'd be no penalty for going "out of order."

I shouldn't have accepted the premise of your question before, because a common data model across apps isn't just about collaboration with separate people. It's about removing the speedbumps in our workflows, letting artists use any tool at any time in the process.

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 4:56:06 pm

[Walter Soyka] "If there were a true non-linear workflow (read: no round-tripping), you could do quick and dirty grading in a proper color environment, too, if you wanted. There'd be no penalty for going "out of order.""

I was using CC2014 so I could've sent the timeline to SG if I wanted too but it was still much quicker/easier just to drop on Red Giant's Colorista II and/or Mojo filter, make a couple of small adjustments and move on. In this particular case just tweaking the plugins' presets got me to where I wanted to be and trying to build the same thing from scratch would've been more time consuming.

I had to grab something off the rack because the client didn't have the time/budget for me to make it from scratch. ;)


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 27, 2015 at 6:35:49 am

[Lance Bachelder] " For instance some sync audio attaching to slug instead of a clip and having move it out of sync to break it away from the slug"

Surely you simply change the connection point? Press CMD+Option then click on the new clip where you want it to connect to.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 27, 2015 at 7:33:54 am

[Steve Connor] "Surely you simply change the connection point? Press CMD+Option then click on the new clip where you want it to connect to."

Yes, unless a clip starts or ends before/after the clip you'd like it to connect to, not uncommon in my world. the technique in my reply above solves that...

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

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 27, 2015 at 8:40:23 pm

Then you just hold the tilda key to shift the connected clip until the connection point no longer presents a conflict. X mostly frustrates those who gave the learned it properly. That's not to say it's perfect. No NLE can claim that. But it's certainly easier to understand for the editor who actually knows how to operate it.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 27, 2015 at 9:24:47 pm

[Bill Davis] "Then you just hold the tilda key to shift the connected clip until the connection point no longer presents a conflict. "

That's not a solution to what lance describes. If the clip should be connected to a clip it does not extend under for connection, meaning it's audio that "belongs" to something it doesn't overlap - A rise leading up to a hit that connects to the first far of a shot for instance- the only quick way to connect it is what I described. Check it out.

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

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 28, 2015 at 12:33:49 am

Charlie,
Are you saying that there's an audio sync issue that can't be solved in X via a simple combination of tilda drag, combined with connection point re-positioning, combined with rolling the primary or secondary plus the judicious use, perhaps of gap clips for spacing something like the head of sequences when you want to essentially do something like a first frame j-cut? You are definitely cutting something pretty unusual if an easy to execute combination of those capabilities can't get you what you want. I'd like to see that project, cuz I'm having trouble visualizing the stopper here.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 28, 2015 at 4:16:12 am

[Bill Davis] "You are definitely cutting something pretty unusual if an easy to execute combination of those capabilities can't get you what you want. I'd like to see that project, cuz I'm having trouble visualizing the stopper here."

Did you watch the video in my post above? It's not unusual at all, it's very common when doing sound design/dialog cheating. Say I have a shot of an explosion. The "boom" sound is a component of the video. But I want a reverse suckback sound, and some fuse noise to come in, and stop a frame or more before the first frame of the shot. There is no tail to this sound.

I may have dozens of lanes of audio, and I need to use comps and secondaries judiciously. I do not want to adjust the picture to accommodate the sound, I don't want to make unnecessary comps, or create 2 secondaries, append gap, and connect them. Yet those 2 clips need to be connected to this shot if I want to move that bit and all its related audio.



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

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 28, 2015 at 5:20:03 pm

Well, if you're going to establish rules disallowing the use of features in the software that address the problem, then OF COURSE you're going to run into dead ends.

I understand the "I don't want to use compounds or secondaries or whatever.". But they were coded into the software in order to solve problems that other modes do not. So I have a hard time accepting the "It's not my preferred way to work, so it's the softwares fault." concept. That would be like someone arguing that X isn't an efficient editor, only to discover that person uses it exclusively in Position mode and NEVER uses the magnetic timeline. It's just not how things are supposed to work.

Again, I'm not saying that the X construct is always superior in every case. And there are unique challenges it's new thinking presents that have to be understood and worked around. AND the fact that Apple keeps improving it is a SURE sign it's not all there.

But if it's got the tools to do an operation, but an editor chooses not to use those tools. Then is that the software's fault? Worth asking.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 28, 2015 at 9:47:10 pm

[Bill Davis] "I understand the "I don't want to use compounds or secondaries or whatever.". But they were coded into the software in order to solve problems that other modes do not. So I have a hard time accepting the "It's not my preferred way to work, so it's the softwares fault." concept. That would be like someone arguing that X isn't an efficient editor, only to discover that person uses it exclusively in Position mode and NEVER uses the magnetic timeline. It's just not how things are supposed to work. "

Huh?! I'm not saying anything at all about something being "the softwares fault". I'm not talking about faults with the software. I'm simply pointing out that there's another very cool and very easy way - that the software allows - for one to accomplish what I was talking about. If anything, I was illustrating the flexibility of "the software".

I'm not sure how you read what I wrote as being critical of anything.

[Bill Davis] "But if it's got the tools to do an operation, but an editor chooses not to use those tools. Then is that the software's fault? Worth asking."

It would be worth asking if it had any relevance to what was actually in the conversation. ;-)

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

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


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 28, 2015 at 6:45:16 pm

Thanks - user(me) error for sure.

It was at a Vegas premiere that I resolved to become an avid FCPX user.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Downtown Long Beach, California
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680680/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1


Return to posts index

Brian Seegmiller
Re: Resolve XII...
on Sep 30, 2015 at 11:18:16 pm

Actually if you hold down the tilde key it will disable the connections. Also, if you hold down the tilde key and option key and release it will disable it as well without holding the tilde key. You can also connect any clip to another clip by holding down the option and command key and clicking with your mouse where you want to connect to the storyline.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 3:59:43 am

Oh FFS, can I kill this thread now? Sorry I brought it up.

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

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


Return to posts index

Claude Lyneis
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 5:10:31 am

Maybe this relates to teaching track editors to use FCPX.






Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 26, 2015 at 2:55:12 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Oh FFS, can I kill this thread now? Sorry I brought it up."

Said everyone who has started a thread at least once. ;)


Return to posts index

Scott Witthaus
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 1:58:47 am

What I find interesting is that people are so willing to be patient with Resolve. I mean, for 2 or 3 versions it pretty much has sucked as an editor (disclosure: I have not tried 12 but early reports are not encouraging), but the comments are "well it's getting there..". Seriously, there are plenty of products that are already "there". Why wait?

Just an observation. Let the flaming begin....

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 2:38:16 am

[Scott Witthaus] "What I find interesting is that people are so willing to be patient with Resolve. I mean, for 2 or 3 versions it pretty much has sucked as an editor (disclosure: I have not tried 12 but early reports are not encouraging), but the comments are "well it's getting there..". Seriously, there are plenty of products that are already "there". Why wait?"

It's free.
Many people already use Resolve for ingest and grading so having it become a solid NLE means fewer apps to go into/out of.
It's free.
Blackmagic has been very drama free compared to Apple, Adobe and Avid.
It's free.
Everyone loves Grant because he buys solid IP and release the products for 1/100th of their previous price.
Did I mention It's free. ;)


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 4:38:28 am
Last Edited By Jim Wiseman on Jul 31, 2015 at 4:40:14 am

Free, as in not requiring monthly rental to open your own projects. That is near the top of my list. And not exactly free. I have $3K plus in Blackmagic hardware to take advantage of "free". Rather pay for hardware, a hard asset, than rent software with minor improvements that goes "poof" if you quit paying the monthly credit card bills and also, unlike hardware or a perpetual software license, cannot be resold to recoup some of one's investment when it makes economic or lifestyle change sense.

All of this only is valid if Resolve 12 actually fulfills its promises. If it really doesn't function well as an editor with the added bonus of color grading, I will be using FCPX instead. If it does, probably a combination of the two plus Motion. My mo-graph needs are minor. And CS6 Premiere still works on all my systems if I get desperate.

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: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 4:47:51 am

[Jim Wiseman] "And not exactly free. I have $3K plus in Blackmagic hardware to take advantage of "free"."

Buying $3k in BM hardware isn't a requirement to download the free version of Resolve though and I'd bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of Resolve Lite installs don't have a lick of BM I/O hardware. They just grade off their computer monitor(s). My I/O needs are modest compared to yours so the $150 Ultra Studio Mini Monitor (or whatever it's called) is all that's in my Mac Pro. Even with the $150 'dongle' the free version of Resolve is a hell of a deal.

If there was only a $999 version I don't think people would have the same patient attitude that they currently do.


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 7:53:28 pm

Andrew, True, my major projects now involve using the Teranex to bump up SD analog Betacam and 3/4 and DV/DVCPro to 1920x1080 HD. Also do the color correction with the Ultrastudio 4K. Those units are for the 2013 nMP as they interface via Thunderbolt 2. Have the AJA LHi in the 2012 Tower. Like the flexibility there of using different versions of OSX. Could do the grading on a computer monitor, but I want it to be right for broadcast/cable, etc. if the need arises later. Hard to shake a broadcast background even if most of it will be seen on the web.

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: Resolve XII...
on Jul 31, 2015 at 8:40:34 pm

[Jim Wiseman] "Hard to shake a broadcast background even if most of it will be seen on the web."

I know what you mean. Do it right for b'cast and it will still be fine on the web. Do it just for the web an someone wants to b'cast it... probably have to do some things over again.


Return to posts index

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