#Animator Studio Reviews
5 messages in this thread
>>knowing how to write is indeed rare, but I fear that creative fiction is
hardly the vehicle for software evaluation… <<
I didn't see anything in the review that could be considered creative fiction
so I'm not sure what you're basing your comment on. The rating is questionable
but then its a generic rating based on criteria that is subjective at best IMO.
What do you expect from a periodical? His article is certainly as fair as any
I've seen and given that most of them show products in their best light, I
think the review covered what needed to be covered in a very insightful way…
Now the real question is, do you think people would buy a periodical if it
pointed out the flaws in a product? And from a legal standpoint isn't there a
question of libel even if the product is flawed? Course it has to be proven
that there's an "intent of malice" but it does have a chilling effect on full
disclosure… Ethical journalism 101
John
<<do you think people would buy a periodical if it pointed out the
flaws in a product?>> I think most reviewers take pleasure in sharing
their findings regarding excellent software. Certainly, if I were a
reviewer, that is where I would concentrate most of my efforts.
However, if a reviewer finds serious flaws in a software, or even
finds a software unworthy of the market place, that is not only a
resposibility to report, but would not negatively impact the
distribution of a periodical. Back to the issue of the AAS review.
Running in anything other than very low resolution, this software
demonstrates a host of problems. After loading and experiencing
difficulties that made using this product prohibitive, I contacted
several other animation shops, certain that the secret lay in
configuration and it *MUST* be my fault. Well, turns out there are a
whole slew of other bewildered users out there with the same
problems. Software was deleted and I'll just keep my eye on the
upgrade path, hoping the functionality is revamped and the bugs
squished. I now understand that my history with this software has
been shared by many. That's just the way it goes, and my best wishes
go out to the developers hoping they can deliver a lean clean machine
–we really need it–. But when you mention ethical journalism 101,
I really did not expect to read a glowing review with a 9 rating.
Perhaps an optimistic review, with a let's wait and see rating. I
don't want to ramble on and on here, but do feel rather strongly on
this one. Jeffrey
Jeffrey,
>> Back to the issue of the AAS review. Running in anything other than very low
resolution, this software demonstrates a host of problems… <<
Is it the software or the hardware?
The author states;
"realistic expectations are that Video for Windows scale animations of 320×240
with stereo sound can be created."
The problem with your whole argument is that you're trying to argue
two points at the same time… one is your frustration with the
product, and from that you launch into a perception that the review
is a work of creative fiction… that is a totally false
presumption… then you go on to use the review as a pitch to make
your frustrations known. Thats total B.S. IMO. The article is well
done and outlines what someone would need to know if one was
considering the product… all your other comments with regard to the
product are your opinion or perception based on your experience which
is fine… but its really got nothing to do with the substance of the
review…. basically your claiming that the review isn't valid
because it doesn't coincide with your experiences… well excuse me,
but he doesn't recount his experiences… so you're argueing
something that isn't even discussed…
I was interested in the review, and how it was written and on what basis he
choose to make his points and so on… your argument is not based on the review
but on your own personal experiences, which is not a valid basis unless there
is something specifically you can refute, and I seriously doubt you can… you
have a problem with the rating, well that's not a valid basis on which to
degrade the content of the review… and I disdain your using the review to
voice your disatisfaction with the program. And I feel very strongly about
that.
John
<<Now the real question is, do you think people would buy a periodical if it
pointed out the flaws in a product? And from a legal standpoint isn't there a
question of libel even if the product is flawed?
I would be happy to buy a periodical that pointed out the flaws in products.
Thats one of the things thats so useful about this forum. I cant speak to the
merits or flaws in AS because I dont have it, but I would expect that an issue
like the need for 100mb swap files might be mentioned. The article in the new
CGW also failed to mention any of the drawbacks that are reported in this
forum. In the same issue drawbacks in Live Picture were mentioned so I conclude
that the writer was superficial rather than constrained by magazine policy. I
doubt that reviewers put products through the rigors of a production
enviornment.
I also realize that one must be careful about drawing conclusions from forum
traffic. If I wasnt already using the PAR with no problems forum complaints
might have made me nervous about buying it. Im nervous about AS and will
probably wait for an upgrade.
As to legal action 1) how could bad reviews of anything be published ? ( which
they are ) 2) Would any company really want to take a reviewer to court to
magnify the effects of the review 1000 times?
Ed
Ed,
Its a complex issue how to cover the flaws in a product, and you're right,
the PAR is a good example, because its not perfect but it does the job and for
most people quite well… I really don't know what to say other than that. The
legal issues are equally complex… but the tendency is to play it safe and
there are lots of rather involved reasons for that too.
I was pretty hard on the PAR when it came out because I felt it was being way
over glorified, actually I still do, but its found its own equilibrium, and if
it were to be released today, I'd still have the same dilemma about how it
should be handled. Frankly I think you could draw a fairly comparitive analogy
between the PAR and Ani Studio… Though the PAR on the outset delivered more
up front, Ani Studio has tremendous potential, the problem as I see it is that
a) it had to be ported to Windows because Win 95 was too much a gamble, and b)
it was an incredibly ambitious undertaking… personally I don't feel anything
short of NT is going to resolve it, and this is due to hardware and harddisk
realities… Its alot of program for the system to carry… and that's the
biggest problem… that and the fact it was ported to Windows in the first
place… with twenty twenty hindsight, I still don't know what would have made
a difference… what I'm trying to say here is, I think the took the most
prudent course, but in the end it was a compromise and not a comprise you or I
would have wanted to make, but in their case they had no choice… so you live
with it… in a year or so, it'll be one of the hotest programs out there IMO
as I don't see anything on the horizon that's going to compete, especailly at
it price level…
The kinds of applications you're talking about with a 100 mb swap file is
precisely the point I was trying to make… Tom mentioned the difficulties in
the article of running flc files in windows… only a year ago get 15 fps was a
pretty spectacular achievement… now it fairly common, in another year all of
this will be forgotten as well… timing and growing pains, and Tom provided
good insight on what could realistically be expected, without distorting the
truth or over glorifying the program but just spelling it out in a positive
fashion…
Next time I like an article someone has done… I'm going to do them a favor
and keep my pen in quill… <g>
John