Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

ADOBE SAYS "NO !" TO THE PEOPLE

A possible solution

A possible solution

When I first heard of CC, I was a bit on the fence, but after hearing adobe de-myth my concerns, it suddenly became a no-brainer for me--as someone who uses it on a daily baises, and I upgrade every year. I was shocked to learn that there was so much resistence to this idea. After reading other's concerns, they are genuine and are good points that I guess I never considered.. Just because I love Adobe products so much, and see that they listen to users and each version has given us so much of what we asked, I just gave them the benefit of the doubt that they won't screw us in the future.

With that, I propose a simple solution that I think will ease most of the anti CC group's concerns while keeping Adobe profits is business.

Offer a lease-to-own option. So, say a user subscribes to CC and after x many months has paid enough in value of a non-CC version of the product. Then if the user chooses to end his/her subscription, the software still works as is (you can create new projects and render old ones), you just don't get updates. Basically leasing the product until you have paid enough to own it.

But, say you decided about 9 months down the line that you can't do without the killer new updates that CC has added. In this case, if you want to re-start your subscription, you would have to pay the difference of the 9 months since you ended your subscription. This way Adobe doesn't lose out on those 9 months of profits and to them it's as if you never left. So this will keep Adobe in check, if they get too greedy or stop listening to customers, their customers can leave and stop paying monthly dues.
 
Mark Toia said:
and sadly soooooo sloooooooooooow....
Click to expand...

Slow? in which way? its way faster than any other off the shelf NLE/effects package. You just have to learn to hit the render button. Rendering is databased hence non destructive, you can always revert to the the original. Also you can work in Prores 4444, R3D, dpx what ever you wish. all you need are one blazing hard drives, which you would need anyway for video editing
 
shashbugu said:
Slow? in which way? its way faster than any other off the shelf NLE/effects package. You just have to learn to hit the render button. Rendering is databased hence non destructive, you can always revert to the the original. Also you can work in Prores 4444, R3D, dpx what ever you wish. all you need are one blazing hard drives, which you would need anyway for video editing
Click to expand...

Are you using Smoke 2013 and if so what is your setup? I am using an x79 Rampage Extreme 4 with 64gb ram and 10TB raid 0 plus a 680gtx card. Its quick for me
 
Gabriel Scindian said:
Are you using Smoke 2013 and if so what is your setup? I am using an x79 Rampage Extreme 4 with 64gb ram and 10TB raid 0 plus a 680gtx card. Its quick for me
Click to expand...

I use a Mac pro 12 core 2010, GTX 470 Osx mod hack card , with a Atto R380 SAS card 6TB Raid 5 (SO 12TB mirrored) to run Smoke, I use solid state 256 to run OSX a boot and application drive.

My Adobe setup is much beefier.
 
Mark Toia said:
and sadly soooooo sloooooooooooow....
Click to expand...

I'm using Flame and Smoke. Smoke on a decent MacPro with a fast raid it not slower than the bigger brother. It's a different kind of workflow. Everything has to be rendered, certain things can be accelerated with additional Burn render nodes. And yes, no RT Cuda but world-class tools, some of them second to none and no tedious application switching. Smoke/Flame in the hands of a master can very, very quick.

But this thread is about Adobe's new cloud strategy and I'm dead sure that all the other As will follow. Autodesk is currently building up their own cloud. Guess why?

I'm a happy Adobe renter and don't own any Adobe software anymore. I pay for the production suite the monthly fee and it works well, no hiccups so far.

Hans
 
who needs to buy cs5 production premium, i want out... PM me $500 obo... PS you can OWN it lol
 
shashbugu said:
Slow? in which way? its way faster than any other off the shelf NLE/effects package. You just have to learn to hit the render button. Rendering is databased hence non destructive, you can always revert to the the original. Also you can work in Prores 4444, R3D, dpx what ever you wish. all you need are one blazing hard drives, which you would need anyway for video editing
Click to expand...

When it gets to be able to do real time GPU rendering... I'm in. Ive been so use to real time rendering, it just kills me to have to render all the time in smoke. it is a superior product, I do love its tools...
But its such a day waster. So many shots I do in flame / smoke... I end up throwing into AE just to get them done quicker.

Its the only thing thats holding back any Autodesk product.
 
Mark Toia said:
When it gets to be able to do real time GPU rendering... I'm in. Ive been so use to real time rendering, it just kills me to have to render all the time in smoke. it is a superior product, I do love its tools...
But its such a day waster. So many shots I do in flame / smoke... I end up throwing into AE just to get them done quicker.

Its the only thing thats holding back any Autodesk product.
Click to expand...


Smoke does utilizes GPU somewhat, but not as much as many would like. I can see, that use of GPU to render in CFX or Action would be meaningless. You don't expect AE to do real time GPU render, as you must do a RAM render preview to play it back. In that respect, Smoke is not very different, except it does caching to the HD. On the other hand, it is a shame, that Smoke doesn't use more of GPU for the timeline editing background render, like FCPX. AD needs to address this pronto.
 
jake blackstone said:
On the other hand, it is a shame, that Smoke doesn't use more of GPU for the timeline editing background render, like FCPX. AD needs to address this pronto.
Click to expand...

Jake, Extension1 won't do much in this direction. Currently AD is more focusing on the editing side. But I'm dead sure that we will see in Smoke 2014 many RT capabilities. BTW, with a Quadro 4000 I play back Colour Warper grades that don't use keys in RT. Action's relighting capabilities are all GPU based. Also much of the rendering is done with the GPU. AD hast the technology, it's coming. Meanwhile I enjoy the excellent cappuccino that I get from my new La Cimbali Junior when Smoke needs a rest and renders.

Hans
 
Brian Anderson said:
Did anyone sign up for adobe creative cloud from NAB under the NAB_REVEAL or NAB_PROMO link??
I'm having trouble trying to figure this problem out with their customer service from India.
Click to expand...

Ahhh the joys of the cloud already making its presence felt. Good luck with the call centre in India.
 
Last edited:
Hans von Sonntag said:
Jake, Extension1 won't do much in this direction. Currently AD is more focusing on the editing side. But I'm dead sure that we will see in Smoke 2014 many RT capabilities. BTW, with a Quadro 4000 I play back Colour Warper grades that don't use keys in RT. Action's relighting capabilities are all GPU based. Also much of the rendering is done with the GPU. AD hast the technology, it's coming. Meanwhile I enjoy the excellent cappuccino that I get from my new La Cimbali Junior when Smoke needs a rest and renders.

Hans
Click to expand...


I'm running 2013 SP2. Yes, whenever I use CFX or Action I can see an immediate increase in speed, when I switch to GTX570 from GT120. I don't expect real time GPU render in those compositing environment. I don't think anyone expects NUKE to be real time software without the need to render first. It's just nor a reasonable expectation. Yes, AD used the GPU assist technology for many years now, going as far back as Lustre 2008, which had many GPU accelerated effects.
Now I can run FCPX and have it to do background caching and play back the timeline without need for any render, while on the same hardware with Smoke I must render everything, before playing. Obviously, it's not a hardware issue. I hope, once new Smoke had been settled down, AD will start optimizing GPU playback assist it.
 
shashbugu said:
I use a Mac pro 12 core 2010, GTX 470 Osx mod hack card , with a Atto R380 SAS card 6TB Raid 5 (SO 12TB mirrored) to run Smoke, I use solid state 256 to run OSX a boot and application drive.

My Adobe setup is much beefier.
Click to expand...

same here. I use a 2009 mac pro, 8 cores, 16gb ram, quadro 4000 and ssd for caching/rendering. I realise this is quite a sad setup but that's just how it is. smoke's really slow compared to every other application (FCP, PP, AE, Nuke).
 
Scott Crawley said:
FWIW:

http://blogs.adobe.com/creativecloud/our-move-to-creative-cloud-an-update/
Click to expand...

Mmm. My takeaway on that is 'We're listening... but we're still right. However, we'll keep CS6 going to appease everyone in the Pro community that still wants to own it.'

CS6 as a continued 'Pro' app would be the way to go... but Adobe really need to update it (ie Dragon support when it comes etc). I think then, everyone will just carry on. Even if CS6 is behind a lot of the 'flash/bang/wow' features Adobe want to use to attract new consumers, I'm sure most would be happy.

Essentially I see this as a similar thing Apple did with FCP (not that I use Apple) - but the logic seems to be the same.
 
This is from the above linked article "With regards to file access, Adobe completely agrees that customers should have access to their files if they choose to stop their Creative Cloud membership. Our job is to delight our customers with innovation, but there are a number of options open to us here and we expect to have news around this issue shortly."

Having news around this issue shortly just makes it look like Adobe didn't think this through very well. Thousands of people have questions, concerns, want answers, and "we expect to have news around this issue shortly" is Adobe's reply. These answers should've been ready when Adobe forced the switch on people. If the priority here was really to the customers then Adobe would've had answers ready to appease people, because they would've thought about all the repercussions and taken into consideration the concerns that people would have before forcing the creative cloud pill down their throat.
 
I wonder if there is any sort of legal precedent that states that there has to be some way to export a file to an open source format? Similar to CSV and TXT files for spreadsheets and documents.
 
Moved on from Apple due to Final Cut X, time to take a new look. CS 6 is working just fine also. AE also. I can do a lot for a long time w this. Not being able to open the files again if not subscribed to CC, not a option here. Apple lost a lot of editors with FCX, Adobe is stupid to think they won't lose customers from this move. Good luck. It was nice doing business w you. I don't Have to have your software, there are others who will do just fine.

I bet they'd back track if they started losing customers but some will do the cloud regardless. Have fun paying for a lifetime and then one day stopping your sub and then losing your ability to open any of your work. You think it won't happen? Good, keep paying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top