to get new video chops

If we didn’t spill the beans in the first frames, I’d ask what app you thought created this clip:

So, why do work like this in Photoshop and not, say, Premiere Pro? Photoshop PM Bryan O’Neil Hughes shares some thoughts here.

16 thoughts on “ to get new video chops

  1. We did several waves of research and regularly heard, “I want Photoshop for video”; “I need a workflow I understand”
    I’m looking forward to what Adobe puts out when people write in that they want software their dogs can operate with their paws.
    (But, more seriously, video in photoshop? At some point, is there any thought that some photoshop users won’t want to be associated with a program that’s used by people who find Premier Pro too hard to understand?)

  2. Let it be noted that Lightroom 4 also now permits adjustment of videos, though doing it for more than the simplest adjustments requires a bit of a workaround (adjusting one frame, saving the adjustments as a preset and applying it to the entire video clip).

  3. Not sure why but this makes me very nervous about the future of Photoshop. This may change when I know more but I feel the “Photoshop” brand / meaning diluting.

  4. It would be great if more of AE came over to PS. AE-style adjustment layers/Effects Controls and totally non-destructive effects would be most welcome.
    Then again, PS getting video chops and a proper timeline seems to make it more like AE too…
    A little bit confusing, imho.

  5. Hi John
    But I ve been done this since CS3 (even with sound despite we can not hear in that version)
    If you open a MP3 file as quicktime
    you can put sound
    and the other things
    just transform as smart object…
    I am ADOBE certified expert but you only give name to americans….
    see my youtube channel
    my site
    I’am a brazilian guy
    watch the other countries
    sorry my english…

  6. There is beginning to be too much functional cross between Adobe products. I have said before and I’ll say again that Adobe should build a single “IDE” and then have modules to load into that IDE for various functionality.
    For example, a “pixel” module (Photoshop), a “vector” module (Illustrator) and “video module” (Premiere), a sound module, an animation module, etc.
    Again just my $0.02.

  7. Without talking about things we haven’t yet released, I do want to clarify a few things:
    -video in Photoshop isn’t new; we’ve had it since CS3 Extended. Richard Harrington (the most prolific author and speaker on the subject) has seen a marked increase in the attendance of his Photoshop sessions around video (which supports our research) and the pick-up of his book(s)
    -if you’re using AE or Premiere now, you’re ahead of the curve and likely very, very happy (we wouldn’t have it any other way)
    -there are a LOT of people who have untouched video content; there are a LOT of those people in Photoshop…and there is a LOT of interest from those people in delivering a solution, in context alongside familiar controls
    -there isn’t a soul on the planet that uses all of Photoshop; some people love 3D, others paint…some type, photography…retouching – you name it. Just because its there…doesn’t mean you need to use 😉
    Our mission is to offer creative solutions wherever images are and in whatever form they appear,
    -Bryan O’Neil Hughes
    Senior Product Manager, Photoshop

    1. J & Bryan– Thanks for that interesting update. I don’t know if you want a reply, but here goes.
      Just because its there…doesn’t mean you need to use — True, but every user pays for it. Endless bloat that, as you acknowledge, most users will never touch. And bugs seep into bloat. And dev resources that should go to core work goes to bloat.
      But I see a bigger issue here, and then I’ll shut up.
      In today’s WSJ (3/13) page D7 has an almost full-page story with a headline comparing a hockey game to the Kennedy Assassination. [!] The headline is, “Is This the NHL’s Zapruder Film?” Now, obviously the people at the WSJ aren’t idiots. They’re educated, skilled professionals. But it’s the 21st century and “educated skilled professionals” get themselves into strange troubles.
      Adobe seems to be in some kind of trouble even though everyone there is an educated skilled professional. I (used to) love Adobe and I wish you guys luck. But from your comments I see more of the same ahead.

  8. It just creates another version of Photoshop. So we have Photoshop in one of several versions, including a swiss-army-knife version or a suite of apps each specializing. Sounds like a collision of 2 marketing approaches.

  9. Even though we don’t know what these features will be I still wonder why Lightroom is not the one getting these features?
    It has an easier interface, already works with video, simple for begginers to pro’s.

  10. For the love of God, why? There aren’t already enough bugs in Photoshop that you have to import more from After Effects and Premiere?
    I have a suggestion: if, as this video would seem to suggest, you have more development man-hours than you know what to do with, then get some of those guys working on fixing the embarassment of an application that you call Illustrator – it sorely needs the attention!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *