Hello Bob,
I have been a regular reader of the magazine for a number of years and enjoy it very much. However, I have found that as I become a little more knowledgeable, your reviews of the editing software seem to contain less really useful information.
My own experience with editing software started with EditDV (now Cinestream). This was fine for a while, but when it's development fell behind I looked for something else and have tried Media Studio Pro 6.5 for the last year. Your review of MSP6.5 was glowing with praise but I find that although it can do many things, it really feels "clunky". The source monitor window controls are awful - much too small and imprecise. The interface for compositing is also ridiculous - no feedback from the timeline about your effects whatsoever. They should throw the enclosed audio program in the bin. The titling and paint programs are powerful, but I suspect that for the vast majority of users, these modules will rarely be touched. Titlers really should be integrated directly with the editing timeline - separate modules should go the way of the DoDo (except for highly specialised work). Even the more recent additions, such as scene detection capture, are badly flawed. The timecode for each clip in the bins starts at zero, so there is no way to reference the original source tapes. My original editDV was for MAC but I recently bought a new copy of Cinestream for my home Windows system for $99 which I have resorted to because I just don't like MSP6.5. Your reviews of EditDV and Cinestream have always been very good, but never quite managed to convey the fact that many of the competing softwares were incredibly clunky when it came to previewing things. MSP6.5 has 3 preview modes, but on my 1Ghz Athlon system 2 of them take time to initialise before each preview, the same with previewing out through firewire. I didn't realise how spoiled I was with EditDV's instant responses until I had something else to compare it with.
For a more recent example, the review of Vegas Video 3 (which I haven't used):- On other discussion sites, the one point that seems to be raised is it's poor media management. People who do long projects with lots of clips have suggested it's inadequate. They mostly praise it in other respects - it seems to be capable of doing reasonable compositing, but I would be interested to know how good the interface is for accurate compositing. The EditDV interface seemed pretty good for compositing (I have some experience of After Effects) but was let down by the fact that shapes other than rectangles and ovals have to be imported from elsewhere.
The scores out of 5 for features , performance, ease of use, and value for money no longer say anything meaningful - most editing software seems to end up scoring 85 - 90%. I think you need to re-vamp the summary to give separate scores for media management, efficiency for basic editing, compositing, audio, responsiveness and maybe even something like integration/advanced workflow. Don't be too generous with your scores - I understand that Final Cut Pro has quite good media management, but Avid ExpressDV's is even better. Give the best on the market a 7 so there's scope for improvement (maybe give VV3's audio an 8). Cinestream might get a 5 for media management.
You may be tempted to suggest that I'm now in a position where I should be downloading demos of all the software in order to evaluate them for myself, but as you have pointed out yourself in the VV3 article, the learning curve for users of other software may not be worthwhile, and I don't think it's possible to evaluate software properly without really learning to use it efficiently - it took me months to fully realise that MSP6.5 is like a Swiss Army knife with blades that are all a bit blunt. I do of courese realise that there's a limit to how much you can put in each review, but I don't think it would take too much space to give readers a more specific idea of the strengths and weaknesses in specific areas, particularly the general workflow for each software
I think it may be worth transferring this to the main forum if you want other people's comments on this - I hardly ever visit this particular forum, and most other users probably don't check in here too often either, as the magazine does such an excellent job in general.
If feel forced to add my twopenney worth here.
I too feel the software reviews are becoming a bit lame. I really was looking forward to the DVD burning special in the previous months mag. as I wanted to go and spend some serious dosh on a state of the art piece of DVD authoring software.
Having read all the reviews I was considerably more confused that when I started. As good as Mr.Wells is (in fact I think he’s very very good) at presenting a balanced review, to often he compares one product against another in terms of usability or feature, BUT often comes to no concrete conclusion at which (in his opinion obviously) is the better piece of software. I find it a bit of a cop out.
Of course understand that he doesn’t want to bite the hand that feeds him, but surely in the star rating section at the end the conclusions he could be a little more pertinent. I have to admit that I now buy the mag. less often and only then purely for hardware reviews as they seem at least a bit more to the point i.e. it works or it doesn’t.
Could it not be an idea to get a larger group of reviewers to perhaps use software that they do not normally encounter. In that way they may well extol a virtue of something that is the (new) software that their present set up doesn’t do, or vice versa
On the whole most software is a love it or hate it situation and personal tastes and expectations are only to be expected, but lets see it in print, Dont say something is difficult to use in the text and then give it a 7 or 8 in the conclusions. It just confuses the hell out of the readers. Does me anyway
DaveW
[This message has been edited by VideoDave (edited 26 July 2002).]
[This message has been edited by VideoDave (edited 26 July 2002).]
VideoDave
You said:
============
I really was looking forward to the DVD burning special in the previous months mag. as I wanted to go and spend some serious dosh on a state of the art piece of DVD authoring software.
Having read all the reviews I was considerably more confused that when I started. As good as Mr.Wells is (in fact I think he’s very very good) at presenting a balanced review, to often he compares one product against another in terms of usability or feature, BUT often comes to no concrete conclusion at which (in his opinion obviously) is the better piece of software. I find it a bit of a cop out.
====================
My comment - specific to the DVD supplement is quite simple, Peter has told it like it is, and, how it is, is that there are lots of shortcomings on all the DVD authoring programs.
Even so, I do not accept that if you have money burning a hole in your pocket that you could not have used the DVD supplement to help you choose the most appropriate program.
If it is high-end Windows - then it was clear that Pinnacle's program was the one to go for, despite its shortcomings. If it was mid-range, it was clear that it was Ulead DVD Workshop. If it was low end, then it was clear that you'd opt for Ulead DVD Movie Factory unless you were already using Pinnacle's Studio hardware and software.
If a Mac user, then it was also clear that there were only two programs to consider and which you'd choose would depend on the hardware you had or intended to buy, and the purpose for which the authoring software was to be used.
The point was also made that some high-end Windows user would like have to opt for Apple's high-end software, even if it meant buying a Mac, because Apple's program (which it was pointed out can be a pig to use) can do certain things (detailed in the article) that Pinnacle's contender can't do.
This was re-inforced in the full reviews of the two programs which were carried in the July issue.
The point was also made in the supplement and in the July issue, that some Mac users would have to buy Windows PCs if they wanted the best quality of encoding.
Make buying decisions from this sort of information may be harder work than you want, but it is going to stay that way until new and better products are developed.
You also said,
========================
Of course understand that he doesn’t want to bite the hand that feeds him,
=====================
That sort of snide comment is unwarranted and totally inaccurate.
What we do best is bite the hand that feeds us.
This would be clear if you were a more regular reader of the mag - you say you only read it from time to time - but, frankly, that remark is so unworthy that I have no intention of bothering to quote you chapter and verse to disprove it.
You also ask,
======================
Could it not be an idea to get a larger group of reviewers to perhaps use software that they do not normally encounter. In that way they may well extol a virtue of something that is the (new) software that their present set up doesn’t do, or vice versa
===================
My response to this is simply that it is not practical (because a sufficient number of suitable reviewers is not available, and no company would supply us with enough software to go around) and not affordable, in that the cost to us of the review would escalate to ridiculous proportions.
Anyway, that sort of information is available, though, and it is available here on these boards - even if it is not available at the point when a product is launched.
Whatever the case, yours is not a practical expectation for a review published in a magazine.
You end by saying,
=========================
Dont say something is difficult to use in the text and then give it a 7 or 8 in the conclusions. It just confuses the hell out of the readers. Does me anyway
==========================
Ignoring the fact that we don't use the scoring system you mention, it is not the case that we give high scores to products that are severely criticised - and that would be apparent to you if you read the mag on a regular basis, cos you'd not find any time we had done so.
==============
Bob C
Whoa Bob. With my limited knowledge I could see the fallacy of the remarks. If I can so do, you have no reason to take the time to explain - just refer the gentleman to quotes from others that have already been shown......
Ron.
Maybe try and get a 2nd hand copy of DVD Maestro, the NT version is still available new apparently,costs VERY serious dosh however.
Search the web some more, seem to think there was plenty left out of the DVD supplement, for obvious reasons no doubt (no fence PW).