Rocked
Today Apple released Shake 4.1, the new universal version they previewed at NAB. While the update was not a secret, the new price has come as a big surprise. Shake used to retail for approximately CDN$3500, the new price is, CDN$579*, which is astonishing, especially given the power of the application and its profile within the industry.
Mike Curtis has posted on what the change could mean. The focus of of his comments are directed towards what this means for Shake, but reading Apple’s press release, their emphasis is more on what Shake will add to Final Cut Studio—“Shake 4.1 complements Final Cut Studio by providing a full range of operations from simple re-touching to complex 3D compositing” (Apple Releases Shake 4.1). While I agree with Mike’s assertion that Shake is a complex tool that needs an appropriately talented and skilled operator to realise its full potential, I actually think that’s true of most creative applications, including all of the FCS apps. Shake may currently employ a fundamentally different paradigm to the other Pro Applications, but I’ve seen people come to terms with the interface and workflow relatively quickly.
I also wonder if the change in price might alter the way studios approach effects, in a similar manner to the way FCP has transformed the editing room for Walter Murch. He has spoken often of how, with FCP, he has been able to introduce more edit bays and how, with new technologies, he has been able to keep projects in a digital space longer:
“But on Cold Mountain, we are able to have four Final Cut Pro stations, fully-equipped, for less than we would have had to spend for one Avid station. And to have four stations working on a feature film is a significant improvement over what you usually have, which is two. It’s good to have four burners on a stove when you’re cooking dinner. You can put all of them to use. You can cook a big dinner on two burners, but you have to juggle the pots and pans a lot more.” (The Weight of Images)
On a personal note, I’m very excited to see this shift and look forward to seeing whether it affects enrolment in the Shake Certified Training course Emily Carr intends to offer in the fall.
UPDATE 21 June 2006: Also contained in the press release is the announcement that the Apple Maintenance Program for Shake has been discontinued. Current customers should contact Apple for further information.** The Shake 4.1 SDK (Software Development Kit) is supposed to be available for download from the Apple Developer site (Membership required for download), but I don’t see it listed yet (I’ll update as soon as I see it)—previously, the SDK was available by email request only.
*As with other universal apps, there is a “crossgrade” available for Shake 4 users at a cost of CDN$57.
**There’s a discussion in the comments for the HD4NDs post about Shake being classified as EOL (End of Life). I’m not sure that’s what I read in the text that’s been posted. I know that from a training perspective Apple are still keen to move forward with Shake—for whatever reason, Emily Carr cannot schedule classes fast enough for Apple! There are also training DVDs (mentioned on the Apple site, but I cannot find a direct link) and a new book in development.
5 Comments
I have to say that’s quite the disappointment to hear. Having worked with Shake a lot in the past I have a tone of respect for those that are Shake professionals. Learning what’s in the Apple Pro Training series book doesn’t make you truly Shake qualified at all. The interface may not be a steep learning curve, but being a decent compositor sure as hell is. And now so many people who really shouldn’t get this software will and will end up making subpar materials instead of hiring proper professionals :-(.
Also I wonder if this will continue the anti-Apple push within Adobe. They have clearly shown a lack of motivation (or perhaps discontent) in ensuring Apple versions of their software are at the same level of their PC versions. I don’t have the publications infront of me, but the list of PC only features is getting noticable across a few of their key applications.
I can’t blame Apple though. Its good business on their end. Its actually kind of very Microsoft of them. It adds to the difficulty for an outside software developer to real make inroads against their own inhouse brand. As long as they keep the application quality up, then kudos to them for borrowing from the business model of one of the best.
I think that I understand where you’re coming from, but I’m afraid I can’t see how we can blame the app for the quality of work produced with it. I think anyone with any sense will continue to understand the importance of the person in the driving seat. As I mentioned in the main post, I could make the same argument about a range of software—The apps are designed to make more sense and will be more useful to people who understand the craft. Increased access to the tools might mean we see more work, and some of it may well be dire, but I firmly believe that knowledgeable filmmakers will continue to see the value in working with skilled and talented people in every production role.
On a similar note, I also think that you’re missing the point of the Apple Certified courses. They’re skill-based, I see that very clearly from position teaching both students who want to learn the software and those who want to understand the craft. The lines are not clearly demarked, and of course there’s some crossover, but ultimately the 3- or 5-day software courses are very clear in their emphasis.
Its not a matter of blaming the application for the poor quality of work. Its a matter of respecting the title of compositor. By price pointing one of the industries best compositing tools at really a consumer level cost, you allow any joe to call themself a compositor. Whereas previously folks would have had to really work hard to earn their stripes. The same knock can be applied to FCP though frankly. Especially in the indie or low-budget world where there is an over abundance of the director/editor now.
I’d just rather keep price points higher and keep greater exclusivity with the elite, powerful applications. Creating less powerful consumer equivalents I have no problem with, as there is a need for such. But I don’t feel undercutting the professional grade applications is helpful to the industry, even if perhaps it is to Apple. Its often said that quality talent will overshadow anything else, but why is that seems to only ever get said by those who have already made it, not those still fighting to work through the jungle? Sure there are a lot of benefits that can be taken from all of this, but it is not a single sided sword is essentially all I’m saying.
My comment on the Apple Pro Training series wasn’t directed at the books themselves, and it was even further from being directed at courses based on them. I meant more of a, “buy the software and the book for a consumer price and call yourself a whatever position,” type of situation. You certainly don’t need any course or certificate to do that. And yes you could do that with any software, but it would tend to happen less with a $3,500 one than a $600 one.
My experience is that people rarely hire folks off the street, or at least, the smarter ones tend not to do that!
I still think that you’re giving too much weight to the tool and that’s a dangerous slope to be on. It may well be your experience, but I would rail against it! We all know it takes more to make a good movie than an HVX200 and FCP!
I wonder what you think about Walter Murch’s experience working with FCP, specifically the quote I posted above? I know the big studios hire many compositors during crunch time… I wonder how this change might affect their workflow?
In regards to Murch’s quote, yah I’m aware of his opinion on that. He mentioned that to a bunch of us at the wine and cheese when he was in town. That is certainly one of the bright side of things. The only problem is that’s Hollywood and huge budgets, which is where I think it can be cool. My issues stem moreso with domestic and smaller budgets productions. Perhaps that’s where the bigguest frustration lies is that they do it up right down south and we’re just not big enough to do so here. You know it can be done, you know it is done, but just not in your neck of the woods.
As for affecting the big studios not sure. Where it might help them though is perhaps they can sort of do like Walter did and create more stations. They may not need more compositors persay, but I would imagine could do with more rotoscopers or render wranglers, especially in a crunch period. Though if you’re big enough and busy enough I wonder if perhaps you don’t already have those stations anyway but just hire the labor on a need to basis?