This was part of my company's business for years. I know others. It's a general way of doing things. Don't knock it unless you're doing it. You can do it with one screen. But with so many screens going 16:9, there's no room for anything other than the video. Bigger screens won't help if they're also 16:9. You realize that, right? And no one is going to want to split the tools into two portions on either side of the screen.
And what about the timelines? Where do they go?
I don't think you read what I wrote, mel. Read it again.
1. "That's just how we do it" isn't a reason. It's exactly the opposite. It usually means whoever is saying it doesn't even KNOW why they do it that way.
2. I *DO* do it and said so. I don't know what you think I do for a living, but I think I'm as well qualified to present an informed opinion as anyone else.
3. A 4K screen has plenty of room for a 1920x1080 video window AND everything else.
4. If you don't want to split the tools, don't. Put tools on one side and palettes on the other, or shove everything wherever the hell you like. Specifically WHERE you place various elements isn't the point.
5. The random example I cited specifically said "timeline at the bottom" in black and white, but again, WHERE it goes isn't the point.
The point IS that there are enough pixels on a 4 or 5k display that I wouldn't HAVE to put the video on a separate screen. If you like it that way, fine, and I said that. It's hard to discuss it though when you respond without reading, claim an approach is better without saying WHY, pick at details while ignoring the point, and do it all with what comes across like an air of superiority.
So, probably best that I just say that I don't really care enough about the subject to comment further, and invite you to have the last word. Use whatever screen layout works best for you with my best wishes for success and enjoyment.
I don't think you read what I wrote, mel. Read it again.
1. "That's just how we do it" isn't a reason. It's exactly the opposite. It usually means whoever is saying it doesn't even KNOW why they do it that way.
2. I *DO* do it and said so. I don't know what you think I do for a living, but I think I'm as well qualified to present an informed opinion as anyone else.
3. A 4K screen has plenty of room for a 1920x1080 video window AND everything else.
4. If you don't want to split the tools, don't. Put tools on one side and palettes on the other, or shove everything wherever the hell you like. Specifically WHERE you place various elements isn't the point.
5. The random example I cited specifically said "timeline at the bottom" in black and white, but again, WHERE it goes isn't the point.
The point IS that there are enough pixels on a 4 or 5k display that I wouldn't HAVE to put the video on a separate screen. If you like it that way, fine, and I said that. It's hard to discuss it though when you respond without reading, claim an approach is better without saying WHY, pick at details while ignoring the point, and do it all with what comes across like an air of superiority.
So, probably best that I just say that I don't really care enough about the subject to comment further, and invite you to have the last word. Use whatever screen layout works best for you with my best wishes for success and enjoyment.
We're not really talking about 1080p editing, we're talking about 4k video editing. When you can do that on one of these screens, call me.
Comments
How hard would it be for Apple to do their own?
This was part of my company's business for years. I know others. It's a general way of doing things. Don't knock it unless you're doing it. You can do it with one screen. But with so many screens going 16:9, there's no room for anything other than the video. Bigger screens won't help if they're also 16:9. You realize that, right? And no one is going to want to split the tools into two portions on either side of the screen.
And what about the timelines? Where do they go?
I don't think you read what I wrote, mel. Read it again.
1. "That's just how we do it" isn't a reason. It's exactly the opposite. It usually means whoever is saying it doesn't even KNOW why they do it that way.
2. I *DO* do it and said so. I don't know what you think I do for a living, but I think I'm as well qualified to present an informed opinion as anyone else.
3. A 4K screen has plenty of room for a 1920x1080 video window AND everything else.
4. If you don't want to split the tools, don't. Put tools on one side and palettes on the other, or shove everything wherever the hell you like. Specifically WHERE you place various elements isn't the point.
5. The random example I cited specifically said "timeline at the bottom" in black and white, but again, WHERE it goes isn't the point.
The point IS that there are enough pixels on a 4 or 5k display that I wouldn't HAVE to put the video on a separate screen. If you like it that way, fine, and I said that. It's hard to discuss it though when you respond without reading, claim an approach is better without saying WHY, pick at details while ignoring the point, and do it all with what comes across like an air of superiority.
So, probably best that I just say that I don't really care enough about the subject to comment further, and invite you to have the last word. Use whatever screen layout works best for you with my best wishes for success and enjoyment.
It wouldn't pay. How many computers a year would they use it in? What would be the cost of R&D and manufacturing?
We're not really talking about 1080p editing, we're talking about 4k video editing. When you can do that on one of these screens, call me.