Avid already owns the code of many of these features in Avid DS.
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, chris magid <chris_rtvf@...> wrote:
>
> Think I better say something before speculation ramps up.
>
> This is my opinion gleaned from combining information from a lot of different
> comments and sources. Nothing explicit or very specific.
>
> What I consider important may not matter or bother other users. Some of the
> things on my hit list don't look like they are in line to be addressed in the
> next big 6.0 release. This is just based on reading in between the lines from
> various Avid information on other issues.
>
> What others consider important may in fact be addressed.
>
> You are correct. It is a huge task to re-code an application from the ground up.
> My out-dated experience with creating software suggests that it is not necessary
> to completely re-write every part of a program to address 64bit or new operating
> systems. You certainly could benefit from completely starting from scratch but
> you could also save a lot of grief by maintaining some architecture and routines
> or at least the logic behind them. An application like Composer isn't a
> monolithic set of code, it is really a collection of compartments.
>
> Apple chose to bite the bullet and do a massive re-tooling. I have no idea if
> Avid is doing the same. Although I think they need to. A lot of the application
> is messy, dated and functionally restricted due to legacy processes. Fit and
> finish is very very poor.
>
> However, I think all Composer users would like Avid to stop short of
> re-inventing the entire editing experience. Though personally I would like to
> see some sort of fresh thinking and innovation rolled in beyond the licensing of
> technology from other companies. A truly focused dedication to image quality,
> improved flexible processes across the current spectrum of features and high
> performance with new formats would also be nice.
>
> Additionally there are new problems to solve as we dive deeper into data driven
> distribution. Better hooks to encoding via NATIVE tools to assist file based
> delivery would be welcome and will soon be as critical as "digital cut".
>
> Hello? Anyone listening? Step away from your rotary phones!!!
>
> All of the above is a very tall order. Not easy. But Avid has had more time to
> do it as they will be the last major manufacturer to attempt such a feat. Dead
> last, which I hear is where the best likes to debut. Lot of pressure being the
> closer.
>
> My comment is more cautionary to those so heavy with criticism for FCPX.
>
> I share the view that Apple missed the mark on many items. FCPX doesn't seem
> like a piece of software I could use. However, they have big balls for being
> bold. There are some very interesting things in FCPX. Apple's response to the
> initial version of FCPX is that "it is only version 1 and the software will
> continue to grow quickly".
>
> While I would be shocked if Avid pulled out key parts of Composer the broadcast
> trades rely on, I would not be surprised to hear a similar refrain from the
> company regarding their version 1.0 64bit effort. Something to the effect that
> "it was a major effort to re-tool, there is a lot we wanted to get to but
> couldn't and more improvements are to come as we march into the future on this
> new foundation."
>
> Which is a valid position for both Apple and Avid. So those screaming about
> Apple's situation may need to save some air for later.
>
> It may be 6 months, it may be a year, but whenever we start to pull back the
> curtain on 6.x I wonder if we will be able to non-modally adjust audio levels or
> perform other simple tasks as the timeline plays? I wonder if will we suffer
> with the same limited track to track video behavior. I wonder if working with
> and exchanging 10bit or greater media will still be like threading a needle? I
> wonder if the effects interface and plug in architecture remain a barrier to 3rd
> party developers. I wonder if the color corrector will grow up and have the
> range to get the most from log-c, s-log, arri raw or other raw material? Will
> finished visual quality of effected or processed material be better or more
> controllable? Will there be a host of new bugs or issues greater than the mere
> irritants of the initial 5.X release? Etc.
>
> Any takers on wagers?
>
> Heck XML import of FCP sequences would be a pretty amazing advantage to have
> NOW! Premiere does it natively and well! Avid and FCPX don't. Maybe Avid can
> just license it from Automatic Duck and bundle it.
>
> In my opinion marketing solutions to drive sales pale in contrast to real
> invention. It takes more than a good deal, cross-grades and blog posts to be a
> good solution.
>
> And that is where my opinion on Premiere started. It is more like FCP than
> Composer.
>
> If you are an Avid editor who switched to FCP and is now returning to Composer,
> welcome back. You will be happy here.
>
> If you are a life long FCP editor (OMG, what!!!) comfortable with its methods
> and ways you will be much happier with the latest version of Premiere. More so
> if you are a single seat project studio operator or don't have a lot of project
> sharing going on.
>
> Premiere is only something I use occasionally, it isn't my cup of tea but anyone
> who hasn't seen it lately needs to find a friend running it on proper CUDA
> hardware to give you a demo of it screaming through multiple streams of various
> heavy lift formats and footage (including h264 from DSLRS and R3D. Pretty damn
> impressive, very fresh and very 64bit.
>
> Adobe develops real technology that solves new problems like CMOS rolling
> shutter skew, warp stabilizer, DPX sequence linking with LUT like control, etc.
> The have an uninterrupted committed tradition of developing world class image
> handling tools with precise, flexible controls. Their production suite is really
> starting to pool these advantages. Adobe is not Apple. This software is their
> business, maybe more so than Composer is to an increasingly fragmented Avid with
> a mile long product roster.
>
> Competition is good for us. FCP is the best thing to ever happen to Avid
> editors. If FCPX turns out to be a disaster which users flee from, it may hurt
> all professional editors. I hope Adobe Premiere becomes a very viable rival in
> its place.
>
> For Americans looking towards towards the Moon this 4th of July and thinking
> with pride of the Stars and Stripes planted there realize sadly if it had not
> been for the Russians it may not have ever happened.
>
> On a less dramatic note, anyone in love with a new Sony F3 or Panasonic AF100
> should be sending Cannon a thank you card.
> C.A.M.
> RTVF
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: blafarm <blafarm@...>
> To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, June 30, 2011 8:50:49 PM
> Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: The FCPX thread
>
>
> > > The upcoming 64bit version may not be much beyond a port AT FIRST as there
> >are hints that long standing core issues and criticisms will not be addressed in
> >the initial 6.x.
> >
>
> I forgot to ask -- are those "hints" somewhere documented on the 'net for others
> to read? I'd be very curious to see that.
>
> While I can readily imagine the effort a 64-bit port requires -- I would be
> completely and utterly depressed if Avid simply "cloned" all the existing
> problems and shortcomings -- onto a new software platform.
>
> With the longstanding and assumed excuse that the un-addressed problems and
> shortcomings were somehow related yo, or delayed by, an eventual migration to
> 64-bit -- there's going to be an awful lot of unhappy editors -- if they show up
> next year in v.6.
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "blafarm" <blafarm@> wrote:
> >
> > That was very well said.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, chris magid <chris_rtvf@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Adobe CS5.5 is a much better choice for folks that love FCP.
> > >
> > > A critical reason is plug in support and plug in architecture. There are many
> >
> > > useful plug-ins which simply cannot be used via AVX. A ton. Most of the Red
> > > Giant stuff is FCP and Adobe ONLY. If folks like the plug-ins they have under
> >
> > > FCP, they may disappointed with Avid.
> > >
> > > I sent a lot of emails to plug in developers begging for AVX versions of
> >things
> >
> > > like Red Giant Denoiser, which is absolutely stunning. But an AVX version
> >ain't
> >
> > > happening.
> > >
> > > There are also issues with open format support which Avid only tickles
> >through
> >
> > > AMA. Same goes for true and versatile 10bit, 4:4:4 or greater video support.
>
> > >
> > > Also, CS5.5 is more likely to support their existing video card and other
> > > hardware. In addition to the high likely hood that they can get video out
> >from
> >
> > > After Effects and Photoshop, much like they could with Motion. Which Avid
> >can't
> >
> > > do.
> > >
> > > Tight integration with After Effects is another plus. It is also complete
> >suite
> >
> > > with Photoshop and Encore.
> > >
> > > Honestly we have to assess peoples needs and workflows in good faith and make
> >
> > > sensible recommendations. We shouldn't just be homers for the tools we use.
>
> > >
> > > For those users that have criticisms of FCP items which Composer dose well,
> >then
> >
> > > Composer may be a good choice.
> > >
> > > But for those that lament the loss of the FCP they love, then Premiere
> >through
> >
> > > CS 5.5 is a better bet.
> > >
> > > FCPX's perceived failure has not made Composer better. Winning by attrition
> >is
> >
> > > not really winning. The goal is to advance the capabilities, quality and
> > > usefulness of our tools. Avid still has much work to do and should be very
> > > concerned about the first impression they make with any new customers.
> > >
> > > This isn't some simple contest to see how many folks we can friend on
> >Facebook.
> >
> > >
> > > Much of the behavior and ballyhooing I've seen online from industry notables
>
> > > bares a striking resemblance to their own criticism of kool-aid drinkers and
> >fan
> >
> > > boys of other trendy production products.
> > >
> > > Personally I think there is a foundation in FCPX which could grow to be
> > > something nice.
> > >
> > > Avid has yet to re-tool composer from the ground up as Apple just did with
> >FCPX.
> >
> > > It is something which has been needed for years. The upcoming 64bit version
> >may
> >
> > > not be much beyond a port AT FIRST as there are hints that long standing core
> >
> > > issues and criticisms will not be addressed in the initial 6.x.
> > >
> > > C.A.M
> > > RTVF
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Terence Curren <tcurren@>
> > > To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thu, June 30, 2011 11:50:50 AM
> > > Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: The FCPX thread
> > >
> > >
> > > You are talking to the wrong people here. You need to be convincing the FCP
> > > users out there. And the former Avid users who went to FCP. That is what
> >Adobe
> >
> > > is doing very effectively right this instant.
> > >
> > > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Rupert Watson" <rupert@> wrote:
> > >
> > > <<So far, I have not seen the same level of commitment from Adobe and I have
>
> > > heard NOTHING about their support dept. How does that work? Do they pay for
> > > people to take support calls about the software or have they followed the
> >Apple
> >
> > > model? >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> [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