FINAL CUT PRO vs. MEDIA COMPOSER

[Mike McCall]

We made the switch to FCP a few years ago after being an all Avid house. I still had them keep one Avid just in case, and that has been a life saver. We do mostly commercials, TV shows and some long documentaries at our place. For commercials the main selling point for me is the speed tool, Avid is great, FCP is horrible. I have finally got a quick method down, but the quality and ease is nothing like Avid.

For TV shows I don't see how people cut the show together on a tight time frame, compared to Avid, the shortcuts and layout are so much better on the Avid than FCP. Don't get me wrong FCP has a couple of things I like, but still to me is not a "Pro Grade" program.

 

[Stefan Christou]

I think there was a time, maybe three or more years ago when FC was a better product – especially for beginners. But right now Avid wipes the floor with FC in every possible way.

From easy access to files, to keeping your media organised, to editing in a much faster way, to better timeline tools in MC5 than FCP (smart tool is too good, way to go with taking that from Pro Tools), to the way effects are implemented, to the way you can step in to timeline tracks, to the use of RTAS audio plugins, to script sync (a lifesaver and a timesaver on every project), to an amazing collaborative workflow, to the codec to AMA to RED support, it's stable, it has a great professional community around it, you get paid more when you use it over other editors, etc etc etc.

Everything you can think of Avid MC kicks FCPs ass at it.

I promise I do not work for Avid (I'm a masters degree student at Ravensbourne) but I enjoy using it so much and I really have started to HATE using FCP. (why would you map the insert key to, like, f4? I know you can change it but... And the razor blade tool? Why? WHY? WHYYYYYY??? Just give us a make edit button! I don't want to edit on the timeline and if I do I don't want to get carpal tunnel syndrome.)

Don't even get me started on AMA. If I'm on a tight turnaround I want to jam in an SD card or an XDCAM EX card and just edit. Now.

/rant

Also check out http://avidscreencast.com/ The Unofficial Avid Tutorials Podcast and all the links on Christian's site for other Avid focused blogs. Plus check http://www.avid.com/US/avid-tv/MC5_Overview for an overview of the new features in MC5. And get the trial, it doesn't work in the same way as FCP (that's actually a good thing) but once you get into it you won't ever regret it.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Stefan,

I use Avid, but in all honesty, you are going way over the top, IMHO.

FCP implementation of effects is much better than Avid's. I will say that Avid comes w/ a complete set of BCC effects, which is awesome. The vast majority of Avid users don't use ScriptSync and it's now a $1K plugin for new buyers (not upgrades). AMA is only useful for short projects when using Red material; you need to transcode .R3D for longform. And MC5 has a known memory leak problem that with long complicated projects forces you to reboot the computer.

I still think Avid rules the roost and a similar list of complaints could be made for any program if their users are being %100 honest.

So I recommend Avid, but it's not perfect... by a long shot.

 

[Uli Plank]

Have a look at Premiere CS5…

I used Avid until around 2001, then FCP, now switching again – in particular because of R3D support!

 

[Christoffer Glans]

My experience with Media Composer is that while I always hear people complain about it here in FCP based Sweden, I always manage to finish projects no matter how big they are while the people on FCP machines seem to have random unresolved crashes that they shove under the carpet. My experience is that FCP is unstable, Media Composer has never failed me, only when I failed it first.

Also, I've done some pretty simple things in offline that people in the postprod houses couldn't pull off, but that's not FCP's fault right? There have been times when I had to take the online cut and do things with that material and give it back to the online editor.

To set an example of experiences: A person that used Avid switched to FCP and is now saying that it was the best choice ever. That person did it when Avid was version 3.0. A person who gives up FCP for Avid version 5 says it's the best thing ever. A person, like me, who used Avid for a long time, thinks about switching to FCP but when Avid Media Composer 5 came out I rethought it and now when apple seems to discontinue alot of pro apps I believe it's the right choice to keep with Avid.

Many who complain about Avid seem to think it's stuck at version 2.5/3.0 or something. I never heard anyone with a few project-experiences of version 5.0 complain in the same way. Peoples experiences are way too low when comparing these. I cannot complain about FCP, I think it has some great features. I think I'm gonna like both when I learn FCP more, but things I read is always like above. People complaining on Avid doesn't take into consideration what it is today and people complaining about FCP haven't tried it alot.

But what seems to always be a norm is that Media Composer is good for longer projects and has a superior media management. Shorter projects that need a fast workflow, direct, fcp is better... come to think of it, isn't Premiere Pro even better at handling alot of formats? Wouldn't that be better for shorter projects? Especially since it has dynamic link to After Effects?

 

[Marc Wielage]

A couple of important observations:

1) for many years, Avid was more expensive than Final Cut -- a lot more expensive. It's not anymore: about $3000 vs. $1295. (More for Avid if you get their dedicated accelerators.)

2) Avid used to be much faster than FCP, but the speed differences diminish if you throw tons of RAM and fast hardware at it.

3) Final Cut is overdue for an update, but it's expected that they'll do this in April 2011 at NAB.

What's great to me is that both are still neck and neck, and they give people good alternatives. If money is no object, no question to me, Avid is hands-down a better choice, and I also think it's a faster choice. And Avid is moving faster with their updates (and I think has an educational version under $500). Avid is far more widespread in the high-end feature business, and yet FCP has a very firm hold on the indie crowd. There's room for both.

There was a time when FCP EDLs were a nightmare in post, but that's been resolved pretty well since about 3 years ago. Great movies can and have been cut on both. The reality is that big films are cut and processed on multiple systems; I think Walter Murch used four or five FCP systems on Cold Mountain, each optimized for different stages (ingest, file organizing, editing, outputs, etc.).

I'm disappointed that Apple hasn't kept their pro apps updated faster, and sometimes I get the feeling they're turning into more of a consumer-oriented company (iPad, iPhone, etc.) and kind of ignoring the professional market. But I'm optimistic that FCP will bounce back.

 

[Stefan Christou]

Stefan,

I use Avid, but in all honesty, you are going way over the top, IMHO.

I probably am. But I do believe avid kicks FC butt in every respect. Perhaps my strong words are partly based on exasperation with the notion that FC is a better system.

I'm lucky I'm an upgrader BTW rather than a new buyer, because script sync is bloody great.

Avid all the way baby.

I also really like Avid's attitude towards developing it's software, which Apple doesn't seem to have for FCP. They really seem to be trying to push things forward at every step.

And another thing... Ask David Cameron, Michael Bay or Robert Rodriguez what they use for offline.

Stefan

 

[Christoffer Glans]

If you are going to edit a feature film you WILL transcode to the native language of the editing suite. The suicide of trying to edit a feature film using the original file is just... well, it's for the people who doesn't know what they are getting themselves into.

Question then is, what are the pros and cons between Avid, FCP and Premiere when we talk native work?

For myself, Avid's media management made it possible for my assistant editor to organize from a location far away from mine sending me updated bins over mail. It worked every time, nothing wrong. And after having edited for almost one and a half year on my laptop, making upgrades, changing the system, reinstalling windows and tons of things that could screw things up... the project still remains intact, nothing changed, it's all there and alive. I could very easy open it and do the directors cut any time.

I haven't edited a feature on FCP but from what I've heard the people who have done that had either ALOT of assistants that organized and did troubleshooting, easy for them to say there wasn't any problems. As for those who aren't lucky to be in the top list of Hollywood editors, they have all said "screw fcp". Why? Because of it's media management, project management etc.

I don't know how much is true, but for myself, Avid have been so robust that I wouldn't dare changing the workflow when facing a big feature again. In that case someone needs to really show me a rock solid workflow that work every time... at this moment, I haven't seen that for FCP and even though the mac-fanboys try to promote FCP to me I still look at them in doubt when their project shuts down without any warnings or anything. I don't call that robust.

You want a software that is solid, choose Avid... that is my experience. FCP is still a kind of wild card. It can accomplish many other things then Avid, but there isn't that much of a difference.

But if you are going to do Online, I think you should choose Premiere... what??
Yes, Premiere. I saw a post on the Avid forums where a guy looked at the gamma-shifts and other changes that occur when transcoding to either prores or DNxHD or importing through AMA or into FCP and they all shift. FCP's footage gets darker and Avids gets lighter. Premiere almost always stays the same. And Adobe Media Encoder is a really powerful encoder.

Also, I'm speaking of the latest versions right now, there's no reason to talk about Avid, FCP and Premiere drawbacks of the past, that is what quitters do

 

[Steven James Eaton]

I have to agree with Uli, I haven't used Avid since I was in college, but CS5 is pretty rock solid now. I used to use FCP a lot, and it has it's pluses, but when using multiple formats, CS5 has been great for me, very plug and play. Premiere really upped it's game with effects, even though I use AE for finishing work all the time. This is however just my 2 cents.

 

[Peter Moretti]

A couple of important observations:

1) for many years, Avid was more expensive than Final Cut -- a lot more expensive. It's not anymore: about $3000 vs. $1295.

I just want to add that Avid comes with a complete set of Boris Continuum Complete filters, which normally sells for $1K. These are very useful filters which I use quite often. It also comes with Boris Red which costs $1K and is used for motion graphics, 3D effects and compositing... similar to FCP's Motion. (Red isn't nearly as ubiquitous as AE, but it is a powerful program which is launched as plugin so you can access it right from the timeline.) Avid comes with Blu-Ray/DVD authoring software and Sorenson Squeeze, which normally cost $800 and I think most people would agree is better than Compressor.

Now FCP comes with Color, which was a $20K grading app, but it is worth noting that Avid's built-in CC tools are better than FCP's. Color, on the other hand, is much better... but you have to leave the editor to work with it. And FCP comes with Soundtrack, but MC has much improved audio capabilities built right inside.

The other important comparison is that Avid is platform agnostic; you can run it on a properly spec'd PC or a Mac. A PC platform potentially offers some savings as well, but Avid runs great on a Mac.

I guess what I'm saying is that depending on what you want, either one is a good buy. Personally, I could not live w/o BCC, so that knocks a grand off the price of Avid right there (or adds a grand to a competitor's offering).

A notable advantage that FCP has is ProRes 4:4:4:4. It's becoming a valid acquisition and finishing codec. DNxHD tops out at 10-bit 4:2:2.

Anyway, I could go on and on and... and let's not forget Sony Vegas and CS5.

Another advantage that Avid and Adobe have is a real presence on the internet, e.g. Michael Phillips, to answer ?'s and communicate with the developers and higher ups. I don't see Vegas and FCP developers around here, well if they are they haven't identified themselves, LOL!

Good luck.