This is pretty exciting. I tend to get the out-of-memory errors alot, even with 12-16 gigs. With this i’m hoping it will make better use of that RAM. Pity they are dropping 32 bit support of the software already though. I doubt it will hurt studios much, but seeing as After Effects is also a popular hobbyists compositor, I can see there being some pushback.
Feels like a just bought CS4 though, I hope the upgrade isn’t too expensive.
Oh boy… while I applaud the fact that AE is finally growing up to be a 64-bit app, I sure hope Adobe has a sure-fire way to run 32-bit plug-ins.
The backlash will be really bad when users find out the expensive plug-ins they rely on will not be ported to the new version…
I just read on their blog that apparently Adobe doesn’t intend to make it possible to run 32-bit plug-ins in AE CS5 at all.
Wow. :rolleyes:
On the Mac side the users may be used to getting shafted by platform transitions every other year, but Windows users have come to love the luxury of being able to run obscure plug-ins that are more than 10 years old in some cases. I know many people that rely on them for their daily work.
It is not technically impossible to run 32-bit plug-ins in a 64-bit environment: Just look at pro audio software (Sonar, Reaper, etc.), they all pull it off and it’s totally transparent to the user to boot.
For many people a great part of AE’s appeal is the vast amount of plug-ins on offer - free and commercial. If that is changed over night, one of the main reasons to choose AE over Nuke/Fusion disappears over night as well.
I think this is something Adobe needs to reconsider. If upgrading to CS5 means losing valuable plug-ins/waiting ages for updates that may or may not arrive one day, many users are stripped of a significant investment and will just say “Oh well, might as well just go with Nuke then”… I know I’ll consider it, and I’ll take my home-grown plug-ins with me.
Yikes! That’s scary indeed. The cost of buying a new creative suite is bad enough, but having to repurchase plugins as 64 bit versions are slowly released? (If they get released)
I guess you don’t understand how many more AFX customers there are than Fusion. People will be running a 32bit AFX for probably 2+ more years even after AFX 64bit gets released due to plugins or not upgrading their systems or software. There’s still people running Pshop 7! Adobe is fully aware of how important a 64bit release would be. I’m glad they’re not jumping the gun and pushing crap out to the masses just to appease people. Get it right the first time and allow plugin developers time to recompile, if they even chose to do so.
Really there are more after effects users than Fusion, I would have never guessed! I see though that you don’t get my point. A small developer such as eyeon had a 64-bit compositor out two years before e major developer. Point being, a company with such resources so certainly be able to keep up with the curve, if not lead the pack.
I wish I could find this articele I read a few years back written by one of adobes finest. He had stated “Why in the world would anybody need a 64-bit video editor” he was referring to Premiere at the time. So who is close minded?
BTW I have been using AE since 4.1 and I have always enjoyed using it, out of memory errors and all, I was bummed it hadn’t happend at CS2, I was really shocked nothing at CS3 and well CS4 was no surprise.
As for plugins well had they come out with a 64-bit CS2 all of your plugins would have been recompiled by now.
Na, sorry Stefan, that’s a very weak argument. There are tons of users who use AE plug-ins inside Fusion as well. Beyond that, simply trust user’s brains to make conscious decisions pro or contra a program. I know Fusion. I know Nuke. I use neither, because they simply don’t fit my workflow needs more than anything else. Yes, re-using mattes is a pain in AE, but so is doing anything related to text and generating graphical elements in Fu or Nuke. Riding on 64bit vs. 32bit, nodes vs. layers, availability of third-party tools, what feature program X has over program Y and whatever explanation one could pull out of one’s nose is utterly beside the point in that regard. There won’t be a mass move towards Fusion or Nuke, just because Trapcode Shine may not be immediately available as a 64bit plug-in. :surprised Yes, it’s an extra dose of work for any plug-in developer, but nobody should overstate the case. Those who are unwilling or unable to support their customers simply won’t do it, most others already support not only AE but also other apps and they know the regime of having to adjust and compile 10 different versions. What’s one more then?
I think you overestimate the patience of Windows users who are not used to this type of platform switch - historically, any old plug-in is expected to work for them in new versions.
Obsoleting the entire existing plug-in base at once just might be a bit too much, especially seeing as people paid good money for these. They are an investment in After Effects, an investment that practically becomes worthless over night.
I gave the example of pro audio software: Those developers clearly understand the value plug-ins have to their customers and have made the effort to ensure 32-bit plug-ins will work seamlessly in their 64-bit environments.
Would that be too much to ask? Technically, there is no reason it wouldn’t work in the same way for graphics software.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not complaining as a plug-in developer. I’m complaining as a user and customer of After Effects.
Frankly, I couldn’t care less about the extra work it would take to upgrade my own plug-ins because I have no vested interest in AE development in the first place - I don’t make any money doing it and if I don’t feel like updating them to AE 64-bit, I won’t. Simple as that.
Nothing lost for me personally… whether not having my plug-ins available in CS5 is a problem for anyone else out there I don’t know. But what I do know is that without the vast selection of plug-ins, AE would not be my compositing software of choice at this point.
To illustrate my point: Only yesterday I was recording live guitar input into a session of the 64-bit host Cockos Reaper while at the same time having it process several 64-bit and 32-bit plug-ins over the sound in real-time.
This is audio software, so the acceptable latency is generally lower than 6 milliseconds… just a note to those who say it would be unacceptably slow to bridge plug-ins in this manner.
If a 60$ shareware application can pull off x86/x64 plug-in bridging efficiently and 100% transparently, I don’t see how it’s ridiculous to suggest Adobe offer the same for a software that costs more than an order of magnitude more, at least as a temporary solution.
Toolfarm’s survey clearly shows that I am not the only one concerned about leaving 32-bit plug-ins behind…
I don’t think comparing audio software to After Effects has any relevance. What might work for audio does not necessarily have to translate to video.
I think this was a long time coming and it’s good news. Teething problems are inevitable when moving to a new system, but they too shall pass.
When Vista moved to a more secure model of requiring confirmation for administrative tasks (something all badly programmed software took for granted), it created enough ruckus to make it the worst-perceived OS in history.
With Windows 7 (which is really Vista 2) developers have caught up and create better code.
I’m not saying 32-bit plugins are badly coded. They’re just past their technology expiry date even though they have had years to catch up. Now they have to. And they will.
Both are compiled C++ libraries that receive data from a host via an API, process it internally by whatever means necessary and return data to the host. The comparison is valid.
If you can point out how the processes differ please do.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Adobe as of today has not released a public SDK to build plug-ins for a 64-bit host, much less for CS5. How was any plug-in developer supposed to “catch up”?
And what if a 32bit AE had introduced a new, incompatible render pipeline that had the same result of plug-ins needing to be updated? I’m sorry, I can’t follow your argument in either direction. And I don’t really think its trying anyone’s patience. Yes, there are lame-ass users, who attempt to run Photoshop 5, Illustrator 9 or AE 5.5 along with a load of 10 year old plug-ins on Windows 7, but let me blunt: Those are users nobody cares about when it comes to program or plug-in compatibility. Why should anyone let get them in the way of doing the necessary in terms of re-engineering applications? That aside, many AE plug-ins already require CS3 or CS4 these days because they use SmartFX or have more controls than older versions would handle, so to me, the move to 64bit really is no different. And I would also remind you, that forced plug-in updates (including overhead such as issuing new serials) is common practice in many 3D programs. People have gotten used to that, and so they just might for Adobe apps. I don’t think they will have to, though - once the platform is “stable”, the same scheme of keeping plug-ins usable in a number of versions should just establish itself again, barring other major changes.
You are throwing things together. Many plug-ins have sophisticated code under the hood that far beats AE in some areas. They are just hampered by the data transfer and overall lack of stability, which currently is certainly currently often pretty hairy, of course also combined with certain features simply not being there in AE…
Not to split hairs, but you’re taking things too far apart (my quotes, specifically). I think it was fairly obvious I was referring to the plugins not being 64-bit and as such ‘past the (32-bit) technology expiry date’. I never commented on the actual plugin technology. How could I?
Anyhow, as Stefan pointed out, I was talking through my hat about 64-bit plugins, so comments retracted with apologies.
For those interested in this discussion I’d like to point out that Michael Coleman (product manager for Adobe After Effects and author of the article linked by the OP) has taken the time to address my concerns directly at my website: Link to the comment.
It’s an informative and insightful read and while I don’t necessarily agree with his position, I can appreciate Adobe’s motives and long-term thinking.
Feels like a just bought CS4 though, I hope the upgrade isn’t too expensive.