OS X Smoke technically addresses many of those issues.
Autodesk has a great reputation for protecting image quality and processing
effects with exceptional results. I trust them when it comes to the health and
well being of pictures. Even operations on 8 bit footage produce robust
clarity.
Smoke is very precise with image manipulation and effects parameters. Seems to
do a better job with pulling keys or making secondary type color based
selections. Adjustments can be pushed farther. Finished visual quality of work
is awesome.
With some notable additions, the feature list reads mostly like Symphony's
including Color Correction, Keying, 3D DVE, CG, Tracking, Mask/Matte Tools,
Paint. The difference is the control you have working with them and the caliber
of results.
OS X Smoke functionally DOES NOT address many of our needs.
We only use it in limited situations, mostly in the hands of experienced
freelancers. Workflow is challenging in a world where the base edit is never
over. Not my choice when it comes to cut-n-trim editing. Managing large
libraries of Smoke media frightens me. Not sure how smooth an all Smoke
workgroup passing around collaborative projects would sail along.
It very much lives in a box, communicating with media drives and networks in a
limited way. Seems more like a virtual machine running IRIX with a few pipes out
to the real world. Smoke and its supporting management apps in no way feel like
OS X. Which may be ok for the editing and effects interface but painful when
managing media, importing material or linking to files.
My Smoke opinions are based on limited exposure. A steep learning curve slows
gaining expertise. The interface is cryptic and non intuitive. Licensing is a
pain. It has not adopted many of the common conventions standardized by other
motion graphics or video software. Hard to gain confidence.
BUT! What I have seen done on Smoke and the finished visual quality impresses
me. It makes me want to learn it. It has a pot of gold at the end of the
rainbow...a speedy rainbow. The direct integration of so many usable tools in a
single environment seems much faster than bouncing footage around different
applications for simple needs.
However, my opinion is that Smoke is a Promo or Spot Box. In some cases just a
finisher. And that may be an ignorant opinion.
I think it can compliment a FCP or Avid workflow, not replace it. Our work is
too varied to say it would be the right one box solution for us. If there is
such a thing.
That's why I focus on quality and flexibility rather than a quiver of new
features for Symphony. It must do simple things well and with great visual
results. We wouldn't have to exit the Composer environment so early to use other
applications to solve basic problems.
There is an opportunity here.
From a solid foundation much can be built.
C.A. Magid
RTVF
________________________________
From: Oliver Peters <oliverpeters@oliverpeters.com>
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, May 18, 2011 7:16:13 AM
Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: Hopeful news for Symphony
> Posted by: chris magid
> My desires for Symphony seem reasonable.
Chris,
Yes, a reasonable list. Ironically, many of these issues were addressed in the
SD world by Media 100's 844x. The good news is that a few of those folks now
work at Avid.
However, when you look at differentiation, many of these same features should
also apply to Media Composer. I think that's were the rub is. Seems to me that
hardware should be the defining difference between the two products.
But, does Smoke-Mac adequately solve these issues for you?
- Oliver
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If you want to donate to Red Cross quake relief, you can do so through your cell phone. Text redcross to 90999 to make a $10 donation. It will be on your next cell bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment