1 person found this helpful
the same question you could ask camera vendors like Canon/Nikon why do they put video recording to their cameras... The answer is easy, to gain money you need to bring inovations. Imagine that you are Canon producing some camera and you will find out that your competition has the same functionalities etc, so you introduce video recording to sell 10k more cameras than without video recording... Adobe behaves the same way...
Of course we can do a neverending discussion whether a true photographer needs video or not... My opinion is that video in Lightroom has some meaning, but as I do not use the videoediting features I do not care about them... maybe the software could be 10$ cheaper and 5% faster, but who really cares about such small difference?
1 person found this helpful
Unfortunately, video capabilities for modern DSLR cameras is here to stay. Many users are embracing the fact they can include video to enhance their still captures. The inclusion of video capabilities offers many of us the ability to create a true multimedia product.
The ability to catalog and maintain those digital files along with our still images is a true asset for apps like Lightroom. I seriously do not think that the rudimentary editing features in Lr are stifling performance. In fact, as with all the modules in Lr, if you don't invoke them, they aren't in play. So if you do not "edit" video clips ... You can't be experiencing a hit on your computer's resources from that code. The new process version 2012 is much more resource intensive than the video capabilities in Lr 4 ... And users would not see a performance enhancement if the video capabilities were not included.
hello boris and butch
while the software in the DSLR cameras is nearly static (except irregular firmware updates) lightroom isn't static - with every import the sqlite database changes with every single operation, also it gets updated and patched during it's whole product life-cycle so that noone can tell me that functions (wich i don't need) would not drag it down ...
i'm afraid that future lightroom versions just blow up with functions that the typically photographer really does not need one day,i also believe that there are lot of other functions that are much more important than the video stuff
personally, i would also say drop that crappy blurp module in LR4 - better make an open interface where ALL photobook vendors can hook in (no not PDF)
As smebody who gets paid to shoot photos, I'm increasingly being asked to shoot videos. In fact that started over a year ago, I now get paid to shoot both. That's just how it is.
I wont ever use Lightroom to catalogue video though. However, I agree that features = bloat. That happens with every piece of software from every developer however, in the end amnother product is released without the bloat and the advertising people go on about how fast it is and the lifecycle starts over again
I wouldn't use it for tonal corrections (Vegas all the way!), but the LR4 video playback makes LR an extremely efficient tool for weeding out video clips. Just as you would with photos you can quickly thumb through your clips and use flags for rejects, and playback for 5d2 1080 clips is silky smooth.
If more of the develop and local adjustment tools were made available for video it could be quite a powerful tool for editing.
The question is, would/could Lightroom speed up if the video-stuff would be removed?
Video support in LR is pretty basic. I can't imagine it would improve performance appreciably (in terms of the program being leaner and running faster) if it was removed.