User_26183
Loving YTtalk
Just a quick question - why do so many people on this forum recommend After Effects as being good editing software? Yes, it is very well made amd very powerful, but using it for editing is not what it is designed or optimised for. If anything, it makes the experience of editing painful. Premiere Pro is Adobe's NLE (My personal choice), but it is design for use as an editor. AE is designed as a tool for compositing visual effects and for motion graphics - neither of which apply to 90% of people on this forum.
Why then, do so many peolple suggest it for editing videos?
While I am at it, I would just like to establish a proper definition of "professional software". Any software can be "professional" because someone, somewhere is being paid to use it. This doesn't make it a good tool, and it certainly doesn't necessarily make it worth the price. I have noticed a lot of people refer to Sony Vegas and the like as "pro" software but I think everyone needs to realise that just because it cost more than £100, it isn't necessarily a "professional" tool. Avid Media Composer is a "professional" tool - how do I demonstrate this? It was used to edit the majority of Oscar-winning films last awards ceremony. Maya is "professional" software - it is used by the worlds biggest and most highly sought-after VFX houses and animation studios. Same with Nuke for VFX. Same with Final Cut Pro and again with Premiere Pro.
All of these products, while pricey are industry-proven "pro" tools - they are chosen by people who are incredibly talented and knowledgable and for the, cost isn't an issue.
I respect that some people might not be able to afford all of this high-end stuff, but that doesn't make the low-end software any better - it just makes it more available.
This brings me to my third and final point. Buying new software or a new camera will NOT automatically make your videos better. This is not a contentious point. Ask any knowledgable filmmaker and they will tell you this. It is possible to work wonders with the worst kit imaginable, if it is used in the right way and it is used by a creative amd talented individual. I recommend watching DigitalRevTV's "Pro Photographer, Cheap Camera" challenge series if you want to see talented peolple using rubbish kit very well. Furthermore, do not expect to learn overnight. It takes "professionals" years to truly master their craft and they are not trying to do everything. They will focus on one tiny area and learn that as deeply as they can. Going back to my point, let us take a camera for example. Buying a Canon 5D, while it is a lovely high-end body, does not guarantee good images. Many filmmakers and youtubers have demonstrated that it is perfectly possible to get nice images but this is not just down to the camera body. It is also down to the set, the lighting, the editing, the colour correction and grading, the shot composition and finally nice content (obviously not forgetting the importance of a good appropriate lens, correct settings e.g. exposure, white balance, aperture, shutter speed, ISO and every other setting within the camera). Buying yourself a nice Canon DSLR does not guarantee any of these things. So before you go out and buy a new camera - think to yourself; am I really using this camera to its potential? Am I the best I can be with this equipment? Is the body the problem or is it a lens or the lighting? When you can confirm all of these things, then it is time to think about a new body. But remember - glass is just as important (and 4K is overrated and pointless at this stage, especially since your PC/Mac probably can't handle editing or grading it properly in real time.
Anyway - I would love to hear all your opinions on these issues, and the other things that irritate you on this forum!
/END RANT/
Edit: apologies for typos - I am on my phone!
Why then, do so many peolple suggest it for editing videos?
While I am at it, I would just like to establish a proper definition of "professional software". Any software can be "professional" because someone, somewhere is being paid to use it. This doesn't make it a good tool, and it certainly doesn't necessarily make it worth the price. I have noticed a lot of people refer to Sony Vegas and the like as "pro" software but I think everyone needs to realise that just because it cost more than £100, it isn't necessarily a "professional" tool. Avid Media Composer is a "professional" tool - how do I demonstrate this? It was used to edit the majority of Oscar-winning films last awards ceremony. Maya is "professional" software - it is used by the worlds biggest and most highly sought-after VFX houses and animation studios. Same with Nuke for VFX. Same with Final Cut Pro and again with Premiere Pro.
All of these products, while pricey are industry-proven "pro" tools - they are chosen by people who are incredibly talented and knowledgable and for the, cost isn't an issue.
I respect that some people might not be able to afford all of this high-end stuff, but that doesn't make the low-end software any better - it just makes it more available.
This brings me to my third and final point. Buying new software or a new camera will NOT automatically make your videos better. This is not a contentious point. Ask any knowledgable filmmaker and they will tell you this. It is possible to work wonders with the worst kit imaginable, if it is used in the right way and it is used by a creative amd talented individual. I recommend watching DigitalRevTV's "Pro Photographer, Cheap Camera" challenge series if you want to see talented peolple using rubbish kit very well. Furthermore, do not expect to learn overnight. It takes "professionals" years to truly master their craft and they are not trying to do everything. They will focus on one tiny area and learn that as deeply as they can. Going back to my point, let us take a camera for example. Buying a Canon 5D, while it is a lovely high-end body, does not guarantee good images. Many filmmakers and youtubers have demonstrated that it is perfectly possible to get nice images but this is not just down to the camera body. It is also down to the set, the lighting, the editing, the colour correction and grading, the shot composition and finally nice content (obviously not forgetting the importance of a good appropriate lens, correct settings e.g. exposure, white balance, aperture, shutter speed, ISO and every other setting within the camera). Buying yourself a nice Canon DSLR does not guarantee any of these things. So before you go out and buy a new camera - think to yourself; am I really using this camera to its potential? Am I the best I can be with this equipment? Is the body the problem or is it a lens or the lighting? When you can confirm all of these things, then it is time to think about a new body. But remember - glass is just as important (and 4K is overrated and pointless at this stage, especially since your PC/Mac probably can't handle editing or grading it properly in real time.
Anyway - I would love to hear all your opinions on these issues, and the other things that irritate you on this forum!
/END RANT/
Edit: apologies for typos - I am on my phone!
