I completely agree. I was one of the first Symphony "owners" (though at the time I was just the editor and the owners of my post house actually owned it) and I definitely wanted Symphony "protected" from MediaComposer - that they be distinct.
But that was more than a decade ago. Now it seems like if you want to distinguish Symphony from Media Composer, the software should be identical and they find a way to make the hardware the distinguishing factor. I just did a color correction/on-line session in Symphony supervised by an off-line editor who was used to taking her sessions into a Da Vinci and she was continually frustrated by the lack of things that I could do in Symphony in color correction compared to what she was used to.
When you compare the barely adequate color correction tools in Symphony to Apple Color or Da Vinci Resolve or Speedgrade, it is just pathetic.
Add the lame secondaries of Symphony into Media Composer and then do something that turns Symphony into a REAL finishing tool. As has been mentioned in countless posts since the initial happiness about Symphony, this would mean: Real color correction, real titling and real effects. Marquee isn't a bad start for titling. But effects and cc in Symphony needs to get more like... well, DS... Sorry Terry! Or Smoke...
Steve Hullfish
contributor: www.provideocoalition.com
author: "The Art and Technique of Digital Color Correction"
On Apr 7, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Agustin Goya wrote:
> Yes, I agree with you. If you spend enough time with any tool you'll get used to it, but is also true that the user base for MC is bigger than DS, so it makes more sense to move features from DS to Symph than the opposite, I know DS users won't be happy. I use both and prefer MC interface for editing and DS for compositing, time will tell.
> Regards
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
No comments:
Post a Comment