Multimedia Authoring - Quicktime Dead?
revolutionary.dan at gmail.com
Thu Oct 19 17:15:44 EDT 2006
Sounds like a real opportunity for an Open Source project to compete,
Presumably you've talked to the MW guys about your drop-shadow problem? The
guy who founded the company and who, last I checked, was CEO, is someone I
know reasonably well. I can probably get his attention if that would help.
(I'm not sure you're right about the need to include the player, by the way.
I think you can export your titles to MP4, e.g., and then they'll play in
any QT/Real or presumably other MP4 player, no?
Flash stuff is way cool. The only problem I ever saw with it (other than
cost, as you say) was that it allowed the creation of real crap, but then
that's not the tool's fault, really. :-)
On 10/19/06, GregSmith <brucegregory at earthlink.net> wrote:
> I own MovieWorks, and, as far as developing anything purely QuickTime in
> nature, this is the best value with the best functionality I've found
> anywhere. I can't use it for the most insignificant reason: I cannot
> control the drop shadow on the text I create internally. I need it to be
> very dark, and MovieWorks defaults, with no options, to a medium
> gray. For
> the training I'm currently working on, I've got to have a darker shadow,
> the text is not readable on the already, unchangeable medium gray
> background. The only other drawback that I can see is the need to include
> their freely distributable, cross-platform player with every interactive
> movie you create. One more thing for the user to have trepidation about.
> The really good news is that the MovieWorks developers are working on a
> "Pro" version for release in the spring that includes an e-commerce,
> in-application, purchasing solution. I'll bite when that comes along.
> Flash offers stuff that no other environment offers: players already
> installed on 98% of newer machines, complete control over vector graphic
> animations, unparalleled bitmap animation support . . . and here's the big
> one for me . . . "assisted scripting". This is the greatest programming
> educational tool I've found because it literally lets you see, line by
> what each line of code does by visually demonstrating the results,
> graphically. It makes sure that you enter your code in the proper syntax,
> as well. For anyone, this kind of coding assistance is invaluable. The
> other benefit that helped me decide was a very large pool of tutorial
> information for specific application examples. But, all these positive
> things said, it's still way too expensive for what it does. I'm totally
> surprised that, as of this late date, no Mac killer multimedia application
> has been invented to pose a serious threat to this monopoly.
> Greg Smith
> Dan Shafer-2 wrote:
> > Greg,
> > What specific kinds of improvements or changes were you looking for in
> > that you didn't find but managed to locate in Flash? I'm curious because
> > I'm
> > going to go through this same process soon and want to be sure to pick
> > right tool as well.
> > More and more video content on the Web seems to be defaulting to Windows
> > Movie format which is problematic at best and useless at worst on my
> > But places like YouTube have video that plays just fine in all of the
> > browsers I ever try to run on Mac or that other platform.
> > Did you look at MovieWorks? That used to be a very powerful QT authoring
> > tool/environment but I don't know how/if they've kept up either. But
> > only $80 and seems to do a lot of what the multimedia authors I know
> > to
> > do. No scripting, though. :-(
> > Ironic that as we move toward more ubiquitous demand for video, QT
> > to
> > fade, if indeed it is.
> > Dan
> > On 10/19/06, GregSmith <brucegregory at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> In my quest for finding the ultimate multimedia authoring tool, I've
> >> to
> >> the tentative conclusion that QuickTime, (as far as an authoring
> >> is
> >> concerned), is falling so far behind that it could soon be considered
> >> "dead". Apple, the very folks who should be promoting solutions for
> >> interactive QuickTime haven't done anything, themselves, for
> years. The
> >> two
> >> applications that I find to be the most advanced QuickTime authoring
> >> solutions, (LiveStage and VideoClix), haven't done anything to make
> >> packages attractive to new authors, not in years, either. Visiting the
> >> LiveStage website reveals that they are now focusing on being content
> >> providers, themselves, rather than offering an authoring solution for
> >> others. When emailing the VideoClix people for some technical answers,
> >> get no response at all.
> >> So, it looks to me like Flash authoring, for the present, is the only
> >> viable, practical and timely solution for the kind of interactive
> >> authoring
> >> I need to perform. Also, for the Mac, there is only one thorough
> >> solution.
> >> And, though I hate supporting these corporate monsters, I went ahead
> >> purchased the Macromedia Authoring Studio, for the total lack of
> >> anything comparable elsewhere, at any price. Very sad.
> >> Greg Smith
> >> --
> >> --
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
> > http://www.shafermedia.com
> > Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
> >>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > use-revolution mailing list
> > use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> > subscription preferences:
> > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
More information about the Use-livecode