As a matter of fact I am saying just that: I do have extensive experience with NLE's: 15 years on AVID, regular Premiere user since 4.0, currently on PPro 2.0 and at least 3 (4? ) years of occasional FCP use.
While it is true that a small number of people prefer PPro over FCP, a similarly percentage also liked New Coke, and some people actually enjoy fruit cake.
I stand by my original comment: Why would any Mac User trade FCP for PPro?
What Windows user wouldn't RUN from PPro if FCP were available on Windows?
I've also done this for a while, and I think that quite a lot of them wouldn't run. There are areas in which it beats FCP.
Apple moved rapidly when FCP was newer, but has slowed down over the past two years. Adobe has sped up over the same time period. FCP no longer has the lead it once had.
This should be interesting. We'll only find out after a year or two has passed.
The most compelling argument for anything over AVID is cost. AVID is/was/will most likely always be expensive.
I don't know what the future match ups between FCP and PPro will look like. I do know that today, FCP is more stable, has a better track record of fixing bugs without charging for them in the next version, has vastly superior handling of HD media and HD output, easier and superior audio editing capabilities and allows layer based editing and compositing.
Some would also argue that FCP has a better interface and better media handling, but that may just be a matter of what you're comfortable with.
FCP;'s media handling is now good, but not superior.
People here sometimes don't want to give Adobe credit for much. Adobe is partly responsible for Apple still being here.
Yeah, I've read a couple of this guy's more controversial Posts (CS3 Icons and Soundbooth for Intel Only) posts and he's getting a lot of heat from Mac users for various reasons (From FrameMaker or was it Pagemaker? Can't remember which, to Adobe getting pissed off at Mac users, and until recently, Premiere being dropped from the face of the Mac) and most people seem to overlook one thing, if Adobe drops Apple entirely, Mac OS X will cease to be of any importance on the Internet, or anywhere really due to the lack of the Flash Player and the PDF document.
Yeah, I've read a couple of this guy's more controversial Posts (CS3 Icons and Soundbooth for Intel Only) posts and he's getting a lot of heat from Mac users for various reasons (From FrameMaker or was it Pagemaker? Can't remember which, to Adobe getting pissed off at Mac users, and until recently, Premiere being dropped from the face of the Mac) and most people seem to overlook one thing, if Adobe drops Apple entirely, Mac OS X will cease to be of any importance on the Internet, or anywhere really due to the lack of the Flash Player and the PDF document.
Sebastian
I think it's very interesting that people seem to think that if Adobe drops Apple support for the CS suite, Apple users will go to something else!
Like what?
What will happen is that pros and companies dependent on Adobe will simply switch to Windows. It's the software. It's always the software.
Adobe drops support for certain products for the same reason other companies do. Not enough people are buying them. They would never drop support for a product they make a profit on.
Adobe thinks they can sell enough copies of the Premiere Suite for the Mac to make a profit. I hope they are right.
I think it's very interesting that people seem to think that if Adobe drops Apple support for the CS suite, Apple users will go to something else!
Like what?
What will happen is that pros and companies dependent on Adobe will simply switch to Windows. It's the software. It's always the software.
Adobe drops support for certain products for the same reason other companies do. Not enough people are buying them. They would never drop support for a product that they make a profit on.
Some think Apple should make a Photoshop Killer. Maybe they can so there is some competition in that arena at least, but I don't think Apple is interested.
Some think Apple should make a Photoshop Killer. Maybe they can so there is some competition in that arena at least, but I don't think Apple is interested.
Sebastian
This would be very difficult to do. Those who think Apple can whip some sort of program don't understand just how embedded PS is.
It would have to be completely compatible with the file, layer, filter, and other features saved in the image file. It would also have to be able to be used in the publishing systems around the world that have PS as part of the workflow. It would have to be drop-in replaceable.
It would have to work just as seamlessly with Illustrator and InDesign.
If it were easy, it would have been done already.
There were, and are, some good programs out there, but none did, or have, been able to come close. When PS moved over to the PC years ago, it killed the programs there. One (Iforget the name offhand) used to get reviews in the Windows press as being better than PS. That was before PS moved over. Within a year of that happening, the other program dropped in price to a third of what it was. Within two years it was listing for $99. I don't even know if it's still around, but if it is, no one cares anymore. And that was an established program.
Adobe is far more embedded today. And they have a very good record of support.
Apple would be coming in from scratch. Even worse would be that Apple would HAVE to have this program on both the Mac AND the Windows side to even have a hope of succeeding. Would they really want to do that? I don't think so. I don't notice FCP on Windows—even though it would become the 600 pound gorrilla in the video editing market.
Apple won't endanger their OS and hardware sales.
So, I don't see them being interested in even trying.
This would be very difficult to do. Those who think Apple can whip some sort of program don't understand just how embedded PS is.
It would have to be completely compatible with the file, layer, filter, and other features saved in the image file. It would also have to be able to be used in the publishing systems around the world that have PS as part of the workflow. It would have to be drop-in replaceable.
It would have to work just as seamlessly with Illustrator and InDesign.
If it were easy, it would have been done already.
There were, and are, some good programs out there, but none did, or have, been able to come close. When PS moved over to the PC years ago, it killed the programs there. One (Iforget the name offhand) used to get reviews in the Windows press as being better than PS. That was before PS moved over. Within a year of that happening, the other program dropped in price to a third of what it was. Within two years it was listing for $99. I don't even know if it's still around, but if it is, no one cares anymore. And that was an established program.
Adobe is far more embedded today. And they have a very good record of support.
Apple would be coming in from scratch. Even worse would be that Apple would HAVE to have this program on both the Mac AND the Windows side to even have a hope of succeeding. Would they really want to do that? I don't think so. I don't notice FCP on Windows?even though it would become the 600 pound gorrilla in the video editing market.
Apple won't endanger their OS and hardware sales.
So, I don't see them being interested in even trying.
Hmmm, could you mean Corel? I had the trial on my PC, it wasn't bad, but with no Mac version (anymore) it certainly won't get my support.
The trouble with a Photoshop Killer is, as you said, it would have to be made for both platforms, in order to "kill" Photoshop. When people talk about a Photoshop Killer, they just assume anything Apple makes will kick everybody else around and out.
I do believe there may be some possible Gaps in the Graphics Software of the Mac. Photoshop is pretty much the only thing around, for that, and it's partner Illustrator. Then again I don't know much about Graphics Software, but surely those 2 couldn't possibly have covered everything?
Hmmm, could you mean Corel? I had the trial on my PC, it wasn't bad, but with no Mac version (anymore) it certainly won't get my support.
The trouble with a Photoshop Killer is, as you said, it would have to be made for both platforms, in order to "kill" Photoshop. When people talk about a Photoshop Killer, they just assume anything Apple makes will kick everybody else around and out.
I do believe there may be some possible Gaps in the Graphics Software of the Mac. Photoshop is pretty much the only thing around, for that, and it's partner Illustrator. Then again I don't know much about Graphics Software, but surely those 2 couldn't possibly have covered everything?
Sebastian
No, it wasn't from Corel. I believe the company name started with Micro, but I could be mistaken. Corel Paint is another almost failed competitor.
That's true. Is there a reason to buy just Motion? I suppose the best reason might be separation of work, buying the separate apps would make sense if you had two or three different people on different computers doing different things, you buy each station only the software the station needs vs. buying the bundle for every station, which could save half a grand per station. I wonder if the Studio bundle could even allow that.
A great deal of small-time video shops, like web devs that occasionally do a video for online distribution, or the tech guy at a small college/small office who gets stuck doingall the video work for whatever misc event or speach is going on, could get away with FCE and Motion for the graphics using iDVD for DVDs and save money in the process...but since it is bundled, they are forced to get the pro features that they may never touch like Cinema Tools and DVDSP
I wrote that down at first, but then deleted it, because in my search over Google, I couldn't find reference to that program, so I thought I might be wrong. I started to look through my old copies of BYTE, but didn't see an ad.
Now, I'm annoyed, and when I have time, I'm going to find it!
I wrote that down at first, but then deleted it, because in my search over Google, I couldn't find reference to that program, so I thought I might be wrong. I started to look through my old copies of BYTE, but didn't see an ad.
Now, I'm annoyed, and when I have time, I'm going to find it!
Well yeah. There was plenty of info on that. Problem is that the description of the current version of Picture Publisher is so very different from the original one I was refering to, that I'm still not sure if it is the same program.
But, I still keep thinking that it is the proper company.
Comments
As a matter of fact I am saying just that: I do have extensive experience with NLE's: 15 years on AVID, regular Premiere user since 4.0, currently on PPro 2.0 and at least 3 (4? ) years of occasional FCP use.
While it is true that a small number of people prefer PPro over FCP, a similarly percentage also liked New Coke, and some people actually enjoy fruit cake.
I stand by my original comment: Why would any Mac User trade FCP for PPro?
What Windows user wouldn't RUN from PPro if FCP were available on Windows?
I've also done this for a while, and I think that quite a lot of them wouldn't run. There are areas in which it beats FCP.
Apple moved rapidly when FCP was newer, but has slowed down over the past two years. Adobe has sped up over the same time period. FCP no longer has the lead it once had.
This should be interesting. We'll only find out after a year or two has passed.
The most compelling argument for anything over AVID is cost. AVID is/was/will most likely always be expensive.
I don't know what the future match ups between FCP and PPro will look like. I do know that today, FCP is more stable, has a better track record of fixing bugs without charging for them in the next version, has vastly superior handling of HD media and HD output, easier and superior audio editing capabilities and allows layer based editing and compositing.
Some would also argue that FCP has a better interface and better media handling, but that may just be a matter of what you're comfortable with.
FCP;'s media handling is now good, but not superior.
This is a good article.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/01...ysis/index.php
- Flash/Flash Player and ActionScript
- PostScript and PDF, coming to a Red Planet near you (Mars)
- The Return of Premiere Pro on the Mac
- The development of OpenType (With Microsoft)
- Flash's core will be Open Source
I'd hate to be on the wrong side of Adobe's alleigence if I happened to be an OS makerSebastian
Adobe is a very intersting company to me, especially now. It has quite a few things going for it outside of the Creative Suite at least:
- Flash/Flash Player and ActionScript
- PostScript and PDF, coming to a Red Planet near you (Mars)
- The Return of Premiere Pro on the Mac
- The development of OpenType (With Microsoft)
- Flash's core will be Open Source
I'd hate to be on the wrong side of Adobe's alleigence if I happened to be an OS makerSebastian
People here sometimes don't want to give Adobe credit for much. Adobe is partly responsible for Apple still being here.
People here sometimes don't want to give Adobe credit for much. Adobe is partly responsible for Apple still being here.
This should be interesting. We'll only find out after a year or two has passed.
True & true! Be interesting to see who makes the most improvements to their NLE first.
People here sometimes don't want to give Adobe credit for much. Adobe is partly responsible for Apple still being here.
Yeah, I've read a couple of this guy's more controversial Posts (CS3 Icons and Soundbooth for Intel Only) posts and he's getting a lot of heat from Mac users for various reasons (From FrameMaker or was it Pagemaker? Can't remember which, to Adobe getting pissed off at Mac users, and until recently, Premiere being dropped from the face of the Mac) and most people seem to overlook one thing, if Adobe drops Apple entirely, Mac OS X will cease to be of any importance on the Internet, or anywhere really due to the lack of the Flash Player and the PDF document.
Sebastian
Yeah, I've read a couple of this guy's more controversial Posts (CS3 Icons and Soundbooth for Intel Only) posts and he's getting a lot of heat from Mac users for various reasons (From FrameMaker or was it Pagemaker? Can't remember which, to Adobe getting pissed off at Mac users, and until recently, Premiere being dropped from the face of the Mac) and most people seem to overlook one thing, if Adobe drops Apple entirely, Mac OS X will cease to be of any importance on the Internet, or anywhere really due to the lack of the Flash Player and the PDF document.
Sebastian
I think it's very interesting that people seem to think that if Adobe drops Apple support for the CS suite, Apple users will go to something else!
Like what?
What will happen is that pros and companies dependent on Adobe will simply switch to Windows. It's the software. It's always the software.
Adobe drops support for certain products for the same reason other companies do. Not enough people are buying them. They would never drop support for a product they make a profit on.
Adobe thinks they can sell enough copies of the Premiere Suite for the Mac to make a profit. I hope they are right.
If not, they will be wary of doing this again.
I think it's very interesting that people seem to think that if Adobe drops Apple support for the CS suite, Apple users will go to something else!
Like what?
What will happen is that pros and companies dependent on Adobe will simply switch to Windows. It's the software. It's always the software.
Adobe drops support for certain products for the same reason other companies do. Not enough people are buying them. They would never drop support for a product that they make a profit on.
Some think Apple should make a Photoshop Killer. Maybe they can so there is some competition in that arena at least, but I don't think Apple is interested.
Sebastian
Some think Apple should make a Photoshop Killer. Maybe they can so there is some competition in that arena at least, but I don't think Apple is interested.
Sebastian
This would be very difficult to do. Those who think Apple can whip some sort of program don't understand just how embedded PS is.
It would have to be completely compatible with the file, layer, filter, and other features saved in the image file. It would also have to be able to be used in the publishing systems around the world that have PS as part of the workflow. It would have to be drop-in replaceable.
It would have to work just as seamlessly with Illustrator and InDesign.
If it were easy, it would have been done already.
There were, and are, some good programs out there, but none did, or have, been able to come close. When PS moved over to the PC years ago, it killed the programs there. One (Iforget the name offhand) used to get reviews in the Windows press as being better than PS. That was before PS moved over. Within a year of that happening, the other program dropped in price to a third of what it was. Within two years it was listing for $99. I don't even know if it's still around, but if it is, no one cares anymore. And that was an established program.
Adobe is far more embedded today. And they have a very good record of support.
Apple would be coming in from scratch. Even worse would be that Apple would HAVE to have this program on both the Mac AND the Windows side to even have a hope of succeeding. Would they really want to do that? I don't think so. I don't notice FCP on Windows—even though it would become the 600 pound gorrilla in the video editing market.
Apple won't endanger their OS and hardware sales.
So, I don't see them being interested in even trying.
This would be very difficult to do. Those who think Apple can whip some sort of program don't understand just how embedded PS is.
It would have to be completely compatible with the file, layer, filter, and other features saved in the image file. It would also have to be able to be used in the publishing systems around the world that have PS as part of the workflow. It would have to be drop-in replaceable.
It would have to work just as seamlessly with Illustrator and InDesign.
If it were easy, it would have been done already.
There were, and are, some good programs out there, but none did, or have, been able to come close. When PS moved over to the PC years ago, it killed the programs there. One (Iforget the name offhand) used to get reviews in the Windows press as being better than PS. That was before PS moved over. Within a year of that happening, the other program dropped in price to a third of what it was. Within two years it was listing for $99. I don't even know if it's still around, but if it is, no one cares anymore. And that was an established program.
Adobe is far more embedded today. And they have a very good record of support.
Apple would be coming in from scratch. Even worse would be that Apple would HAVE to have this program on both the Mac AND the Windows side to even have a hope of succeeding. Would they really want to do that? I don't think so. I don't notice FCP on Windows?even though it would become the 600 pound gorrilla in the video editing market.
Apple won't endanger their OS and hardware sales.
So, I don't see them being interested in even trying.
Hmmm, could you mean Corel? I had the trial on my PC, it wasn't bad, but with no Mac version (anymore) it certainly won't get my support.
The trouble with a Photoshop Killer is, as you said, it would have to be made for both platforms, in order to "kill" Photoshop. When people talk about a Photoshop Killer, they just assume anything Apple makes will kick everybody else around and out.
I do believe there may be some possible Gaps in the Graphics Software of the Mac. Photoshop is pretty much the only thing around, for that, and it's partner Illustrator. Then again I don't know much about Graphics Software, but surely those 2 couldn't possibly have covered everything?
Sebastian
Hmmm, could you mean Corel? I had the trial on my PC, it wasn't bad, but with no Mac version (anymore) it certainly won't get my support.
The trouble with a Photoshop Killer is, as you said, it would have to be made for both platforms, in order to "kill" Photoshop. When people talk about a Photoshop Killer, they just assume anything Apple makes will kick everybody else around and out.
I do believe there may be some possible Gaps in the Graphics Software of the Mac. Photoshop is pretty much the only thing around, for that, and it's partner Illustrator. Then again I don't know much about Graphics Software, but surely those 2 couldn't possibly have covered everything?
Sebastian
No, it wasn't from Corel. I believe the company name started with Micro, but I could be mistaken. Corel Paint is another almost failed competitor.
No, it wasn't from Corel. I believe the company name started with Micro, but I could be mistaken. Corel Paint is another almost failed competitor.
Micrografx? They're owned by Corel now.
That's true. Is there a reason to buy just Motion? I suppose the best reason might be separation of work, buying the separate apps would make sense if you had two or three different people on different computers doing different things, you buy each station only the software the station needs vs. buying the bundle for every station, which could save half a grand per station. I wonder if the Studio bundle could even allow that.
A great deal of small-time video shops, like web devs that occasionally do a video for online distribution, or the tech guy at a small college/small office who gets stuck doingall the video work for whatever misc event or speach is going on, could get away with FCE and Motion for the graphics using iDVD for DVDs and save money in the process...but since it is bundled, they are forced to get the pro features that they may never touch like Cinema Tools and DVDSP
Micrografx? They're owned by Corel now.
I wrote that down at first, but then deleted it, because in my search over Google, I couldn't find reference to that program, so I thought I might be wrong. I started to look through my old copies of BYTE, but didn't see an ad.
Now, I'm annoyed, and when I have time, I'm going to find it!
I wrote that down at first, but then deleted it, because in my search over Google, I couldn't find reference to that program, so I thought I might be wrong. I started to look through my old copies of BYTE, but didn't see an ad.
Now, I'm annoyed, and when I have time, I'm going to find it!
Try this
Sebastian
Try this
Sebastian
Well yeah. There was plenty of info on that. Problem is that the description of the current version of Picture Publisher is so very different from the original one I was refering to, that I'm still not sure if it is the same program.
But, I still keep thinking that it is the proper company.