I've put in not more than 10 requests for this myself ... involving both PrPro & Prelude. Sigh ...
Bridge is Adobe's intended solution for disk-based searching. I know it's far from perfect, but if your files have good metadata (keywords, titles, etc) then the search tool will find them, even if someone else moved or updated stuff. Bridge is also good for putting that metadata in, if you're working with files that don't pass through Lightroom or Prelude, and for re-tagging stuff after final export (e.g. applying your corporate IPTC package to everything in a folder).
At this time Bridge cannot filter by location (using GPS coordinates) nor can it search inside a Lightroom catalog - but if you configure Lr to save the metadata back to the original files or sidecar XMPs, then Bridge can see it. The major advantage of Bridge over Lr is that it will look at all types of file - a PDF version of a client logo or a call sheet in an InDesign file will pop up just as easily as a video clip shot on the same day.
Bridge is not a DAM and never will be - because Adobe already HAS a DAM platform. - but while a true DAM can be great for front-end delivery, for production pipelines it's a nightmare. DAMs can only implement access and version control by disconnecting you from the regular OS disk pipes, which means read/write speeds drop through the floor. Having to 'sign out' every file might make sense for a global corporation paranoid about security and auditing, but if you're a small production team trying to edit video it's ridiculous to have to download GBs of data from the server when you're never going to modify it.
I've used a couple different DAM's and not one of them required me to "sign out" a file for use. They did keep track of things so you could search for ... say, x, b, and c but NOT if J is involved. And then show you the results and tell you where they were, even if off-line ... which Bridge cannot POSSIBLY do as it's just a glorified version of File Manager with a couple photo capabilities added. Bridge only gives you results when you already point it in the right direction AND ... again ... if everything you might want in the search is CURRENTLY on-line on that computer. I've used it for years. Compared to any actual DAM program, it ... isn't. There are so many things that are a basic part of DAM that it can't do. Obviously ... it doesn't have a database, it cannot STORE info, it can only search for it.
I'd also never heard of this Adobe Marketing DAM ... and it's clearly designed for a Corporate Environment. When you need to fill out a form so they can call you for a personal demonstration ... it ain't designed for the small business to use.
Firstly Thanks for the input Neil and Dave
Dave the one thing that I have noticed with bridge is those imperfections make it rather difficult and flawed tool
unless you know exactly what you are searching for and its location. And even then, I have found the keywords don't working reliably
in a way that I might wish. Having used a larger document management systems in previous jobs or
even something as simple as Google.
Imagine if you could take the metadata from adobe products save that in a local database
that way regardless of whether all of you usb drives where online/connected that you could still find the file
I asked a very simple question why can't the metadata information created by
Lightroom, Bridge & Prelude be stored in a local database as some form of adobe pluggin?
Adobe Experience Manager / Digital asset management us not even close to whats required
- the database It only needs need two things to be useful
* A search bar
* A Re-Index button
If you wanted to get fancy a second table of standard keywords
PS As a bonus we all know that stock photos/footage is expensive why not add one more
field "Share with Creative Cloud" creating a stock photos/footage in the adobe cloud?.I thank you both for your time
I'm giving this a BUMP as I can't belive that in the whole Adobe universe
their is only 4-5 people that have issues finding the right shot/footage six months later
I'd agree. To me, it's completely senseless that there is NO equivalent of Lightroom even (as far as database capabilities) on the video side of things.
When I'm out shooting, say at an event, I'll also make clips that are of possible use for "detail" shots for that even AND for other things down the line. I've got gigs of this. But ... what, am I supposed to make a ton of folders for every possible type of shot and then copy clips into them? Turning gigs into terrabytes?
And what about if say I've got 4 drives "online" and other things stored on another few drives sitting on a shelf? Sorry, those don't exist at all as far as Bridge, Prelude, or even Lightroom!
This is ridiculous.
Thank you Neil,
Not wishing to throw stones I love my Adobe programes
BUT It seems like everthing is aimed at either Hollywood or single project
which ignores where social media is going currently.
You don't film a completly new set of cutaway shot for every video
if you are constanty working for the same 20-30 clients,
Please help me catalouge and then find the right shot.
It's almost like nobody that's working at Adobe has ever had more than one client
I spent a few hours over a few days at NAB last year talking with people in the Adobe booth, from supervisors and program team heads down to several of the engineers on a couple different programs. It was a fascinating and informative time. Due to their lack of public comments on a lot of things, "people" around these forums oft comment that nobody cares or has any experience actually working this stuff. Both of which were clearly ... wrong.
As to caring, everyone I talked with was incredibly passionate about their work and the programs. And within "live" discussions with two or three Adobe staff, it was clear they were used to disagreeing quite ... firmly? ... with each other. And yet always treated other viewpoints & personalities with gentle respect. Uncommonly so, in my 60 years of living. I was impressed. And especially as I'd been a bit of a burr under the saddle ... or worse ... both here and a couple other forums on changes I wanted. Some of which the 2014 first version had, such as completely new scopes in SpeedGrade. Dennis Weinmann was thrilled to demo them for me ... even though I'd rather been on his case about them! Ahem.
As to experience ... and current at that ... um ... I don't think I met anybody on any of the teams who wasn't doing some outside work in the video field on a professional basis, at least not that I recall. Everyone seemed to have their own projects going that used this stuff ... and were for paying clients. When I mentioned this to one, he just nodded and said that well, two things probably apply there ... first, their all in this because they love the stuff personally, so keeping them FROM doing it would be a futile effort; and second, it was clearly understood by the company that comparable current experience is a big plus.
That said, one of the things I discussed with them was the large market of people getting into low-level pro video work from the portrait/commercial stills crowd. Those of us who are primarily one-person shops, need to utilize the linking of programs, don't have vast years of experience in video/cine production background, but do need pro output. Fast. They were cognizant that "we" exist, but also clearly aren't necessarily sure how to best approach us, or serve us, something like that.
And there is a HUGE gulf between "teams" in different areas of the company. The DVA (digital video apps) folks don't seem to have a lot of time with or knowledge of what's going on in say Photoshop, nor the P-shop people with the video crowd. The P-shop people would have much more experience with the small one-person shop model, and the DVA folks have a lot more with people working in editing houses, TV/Cable "stations", and commercial advertising video houses. I felt at times like I was an interesting specimen to talk with ... valuable not for my particular knowledge or the amounts I might potentially spend with their firm, but that there are enough other specimens like me out there to give my presence a certain ... interest.
This came out especially in discussions about Prelude. That program was built at the request of a couple large news/sports organizations who needed some way for junior people ... trainees, really ... to ingest & sort vast amounts of video, cull the not so good, and sub-clip/transcode the potentially usable stuff to common codecs for further processing up the chain. Including adding meta to things so the people up the chain can sort for what they want. The idea of making it generally available sort of flowed from having created a usable product. But ... the "general public" interest in Prelude is from a completely different perspective and want-list view than the people they built it for. Adobe "corporate" of course is very aware of the giant paying companies using that product, and perhaps isn't as sure there's a large enough base to pay to modify it ... or even transmogrify to a new program ... to please the folks like you & me in our small shops needing to track what's becoming terabytes of video.
I think some of the team are aware of the emerging market ... and maybe I helped that along a bit. Hope so! But my constant point was that given the entire concept of the CC model DVA's, they are turning out a product no other company has anything to compete with. Equip the one-person/small shop with all the tools of the Big Boys & Galls Shop, and let us compete straight-up. Except ... we need that database program bad without spending more per month on that alone (as several of the 'serious' DAM programs cost) than we do on the CC DVA's.
So ... complete the DVA setup with a competent mini-DAM program for now ... and market the Hades out of it to us one-off's. There's a TON more of us than there are backsides sitting in suites in commercial editing/colorist houses. They listened ... it was ... intriguing ... but they need some prodding.
Prod away! They actually like being prodded!
Challenge Accepted, Neil
I shall prepare the chariot of my imagination for battle
Go for it!
I could really use a TOTAL Digital Asset Manager/Media Library as part of the Creative Cloud
That would be cool. You can make a feature request: http://www.adobe.com/go/wish
You can also check out third party products from CatDV and Cantemo, among others, which are working right now.
Thanks for the links Kevin, I really like the look of Cantemo Portal,
however I do worry that the cost of these products cost more than
I make in a month, as I can't see any prices listed.
I do feel that you are not understanding my point
It seems like everthing is aimed at network / Hollywood user
which ignores where the web and social media is currently going.
IdImager's "Photo Surpreme" would probably handle some of of what we do ... single user is $99.99 and server edition is $199 per license for the first four licenses. Might be a tad less than the programs Kevin mentioned, if not totally designed for video apps particularly. Although probably not say a long clip or continuous file on shot-by-shot ... ah well.
Thank's Neil, I had a look at IdImager's Photo Surpreme, close but as you said not designed for video,
I'll just keep looking ~ Peter
It is specifically designed to handle many of the video codecs, and in reality can work with nearly any file document, image, or video ... though for some codecs it doth have limitations. That said, it's not designed as directly for video use as it perhaps could be.
I once used it's predecessor, IdImager. For stills, of course, and communicated with the creator of it quite a bit. Then he got bought out and IdImager was deadi-fied by new owners, who wanted a more user-friendly consumer-grade app. Which got howls from the user-base of IdImager ... wow. Over time, he's brought back most of the functions of IdImager into PhotoSupreme, and some new wrinkles also. Maybe I'll do a trial run with it this spring ... see what it can do with video. I do believe it does off-line management also.
The off-line managementis important, I have 4 1~2tb drives that I leave off and unconnected
so that if anything goes wrong I don't lose the lot ~ Peter
Oh, so understood. I thought going to full-frame sensor DSLR's was bad for eating up drives with images ... video takes that to a somewhat more exponential level, doesn't it?