'New Thinking' from Avid unveiled

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

It's going to depend on your intended use I guess... But as far as 'offline' and just good old editing is concerned, I've never seen anyone come close to being a fast, free and efficient in FCP as in Avid.

You'd have to show me a pretty blazing editor to make me think that some one couldn't be just as fast and free on FCP cause I've seen someone cut like lightning and I'm not so slow either (I suppose).

 

[Dylan Reeve]

And around and around we go...

Of course there are fast and efficient FCP editors, and there are slow and inefficient Avid editors.

Regardless Avid has very real benefits for many editors and producers, it's not going to fade away any time soon, and FCP hasn't in any way rendered it obsolete.

 

[mdo]

It's hard to explain the Avid Media Management I guess, without you already having some idea of it.

Avid users have no need to name files in anyway, because the media is managed based on reel and timecode (as you'd manage it in a linear system, or as in reel/edgecode as you would for film), the filename is entirely irrelevant. What's more it can be moved to any place Avid indexes and still remain online.

In practice this is hugely beneficial on long-form work. And for things like commercials where a few versions may share alot of common media.

I onlined a feature documentary in Avid a couple of years ago that had three distinct versions (a broadcast, a cinema release, and a festival version). All three versions were largely the same, but the story was told differently in them, and they were cut a little differently. I was able to digitise the media necessary to build the largest of the versions, and then relink the other sequences to the media I captured for that one. In doing so, about 90% of the media required for each other version was linked and online. Only minimal digitising had to be done to bring the other two online fully.

This is impossible in FCP as it has no means by which to link to media by anything other than filename/frame count.

For example, if you have a clip in a sequence from Reel 'AF002' that starts at 14:23:14:21 and ends at 14:23:16:23 you are unable, in FCP to simply have it automatically link to a clip that already exists from that reel and runs from 14:20:21:11 to 14:25:12:09. Despite the fact that the required footage is already in the system, FCP has no way to associate that existing footage, with the segment that is required for the sequence.

FCP can do this if all of the clips have names that match the names that are used for the clips in the three cuts (which can be simply the reel identifier, if desired) and are in the same folder. If the frame count is different, it will prompt for OK to proceed and then will batch link all of the clips in that folder regardless of frame count. It's not as elegant as the Avid solution appears to be (I haven't used Avid), but it will work. If they're in different folders, you have to go through the process again for each folder, which puts a premium on large numbers of clips in a few folders.

I've moved files to different folders and as long as they were within the search paths defined in System Preferences --> Search Paths, they remained linked. (Edit: As long as the project was not open at the time. If the project is open when the file is moved, it complains.)

Maybe I'm not fully tracking with the process you're describing. If there's something major missing in FCP with respect to media management, I definitely want to understand it so it won't trip me up later.

 

[Dylan Reeve]

FCP can do this if all of the clips have names that match the names that are used for the clips in the three cuts (which can be simply the reel identifier, if desired) and are in the same folder. If the frame count is different, it will prompt for OK to proceed and then will batch link all of the clips in that folder regardless of frame count. It's not as elegant as the Avid solution appears to be (I haven't used Avid), but it will work. If they're in different folders, you have to go through the process again for each folder, which puts a premium on large numbers of clips in a few folders.

It doesn't really work in FCP. In most cases for online editing the sequence has been edited elsewhere (on another machine or outside the building) and arrives as an EDL or AAF or something. When recapturing, you create new clips from the EDL that only cover the media required to build that sequence.

Imagine the opening shot is a big pan of the city was called "Opening Shot" in the original project. Then clip that gets broken down and digitised may be called something like "Opening Shot.new.01" (if it were decomposed in Avid, or something different but along the same lines in FCP).

It's from Reel 'AF003' and runs 01:23:13:01 to 01:23:26:13. In the later version (or recut of that sequence) the shot has been shortened and another shot inserted in the middle. There's now two clips ("Opening Shot.new.01" and "Opening Shot.new.02") - First from 01:23:14:06 to 01:23:17:11 and the second from 01:23:19:07 to 01:23:24:14

In FCP you could only relink those two clips to two separate files, and they have to had started at the same point (for example relinking the new first clip to the earlier file would result in the wrong footage, because it would simply start however many frames into the file, regardless of the timecode).

In Avid, both those files could be relinked to the media from the earlier clip.

Maybe I'm not fully tracking with the process you're describing. If there's something major missing in FCP with respect to media management, I definitely want to understand it so it won't trip me up later.

It seems quite alien when you first come to it (my experience was FCP and Premiere before I learned Avid properly). But once you get used to it (especially in online editing and long form work) it is absolutely brilliant.

 

[Anthony Gratl]

Bruce has got upset because he is employed in a company that use AVID

and till today he did not realize that he just think and behave like a corporate

even if he "camouflaged" himself in sort of smart and also "quazy" punk or rebel youngsters attitude.

There is not much creativity left in a corporate environment today.

Guys like a Joel and Ethan Coen wanted to have a simple and effective cutting option

that is close to "feeling" of film cutting and they found out that FCP covers their creative needs.

And after 3 or 4 films cut on FCP they just have got Oscar for Best Picture tis year.

Tribeca Film Festival 2007 - Download podcast>>>

Also not to mention that PJ's "Crossing The Line " was cut on FCP a year ago and

that was the first 4K movie shot on RED by a famous award winning director.

HD4Indies archiveed link:

Details, samples, commentary on the Red One shot, Peter Jackson made 4K short "Crossing The Line"

Discussion FCP vs. AVID is not making sense in a way how it is exposed here on this tread by the "specialists".

I am more for a creative use of editing that I can perform EASY and SIMPLE in my hotel room

on the road in the case that I have got some new creative idea.

And I am not interested in any system corporate editing where main

editing decisions are made by producer or somebody else that

does not have anything to do with an artistic creativity.

That's a difference between FCP and AVID.

Corporate editing suites are not growing at the moment but

opposite that only individual and artistic editing suites/packages market is booming.

Sanjin, I generally like what you have to write, but that post was a total crock. I can edit with MC easily in my hotel room......creativity has nothing to do with using one of two comparable editing platforms. They both do the same thing. They edit. Corporate edit decisions by producer......you think that has ANYTHING to do with the kind of systems they're using. It's just rubbish what you've written. You're trying to attach artistic merit and integrity to tool selection. And that's total BS.
I think your argument is based on the idea that FCP let you in the door with a half decent editor for way less money than Avid used to cut, which is why you ended up on FCP to begin with, no?
Corporate culture? From apple? no..........

EDIT: and NLE doesn't 'feel' at all like film editing. The only thing that came close was lightworks. Try dragging a steenbeck through the hotel lobbies.....
EDIT2: And speaking of sounding like corporate culture, i gotta tell you, you're endless braying about the greatness of FCP and the virtue of Leica, both owned and operated by far larger corporations than Avid, is making me think that you work for one in some capacity, so don't be calling Bruce out when you're such a freakin' hypocrite.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I find it kind of funny how many people are attacking the Coen brothers quote as if it was sajin's own words.

 

[Andrew Kimery]

I find it kind of funny how many people are attacking the Coen brothers quote as if it was sajin's own words.

Almost as funny as people trotting out the Coen brothers in an attempt to "show up" the Avid guys.


-A

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

One day someone is going to have to sit down in front of an avid machine and a final cut machine and show me this "media management" BS cause I just don't buy into it.

My only understanding is that it allows Avid users to be extremely lazy and not name their files properly because in avid everything is dumped into a single folder where the program keeps track of it in some weird fashion that causes it to take forever to import anything cause it has to convert it into something it can read.

1) You don't understand the importance and and significance of a high end post production pipeline (probably because you don't even have a network and have always just worked on your home workstation.)

2) You don't understand how Avid works because you've never invested the time to sufficiently learn it.

But... Avid sucks and all of its advantages are BS because cutting your HVX footage has always been perfectly easy in FCP?

It's quite a leap to admit to not have any experience in an area. Not understand how something works... and then say those who do are talking out of their ass.

---

I agree if FCP does a good job and you can replace ONE avid with 3 FCP seats. Then that seems like the thing to do. But that's like me saying. "I sold my corporate Lamborghini and bought 3 delivery vans. High performance cars suck... we could barely deliver a single package per trip.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin, I generally like what you have to write, but that post was a total crock. I can edit with MC easily in my hotel room......creativity has nothing to do with using one of two comparable editing platforms. They both do the same thing. They edit. Corporate edit decisions by producer......you think that has ANYTHING to do with the kind of systems they're using. It's just rubbish what you've written. You're trying to attach artistic merit and integrity to tool selection. And that's total BS.
I think your argument is based on the idea that FCP let you in the door with a half decent editor for way less money than Avid used to cut, which is why you ended up on FCP to begin with, no?
Corporate culture? From apple? no..........

EDIT: and NLE doesn't 'feel' at all like film editing. The only thing that came close was lightworks. Try dragging a steenbeck through the hotel lobbies.....
EDIT2: And speaking of sounding like corporate culture, i gotta tell you, you're endless braying about the greatness of FCP and the virtue of Leica, both owned and operated by far larger corporations than Avid, is making me think that you work for one in some capacity, so don't be calling Bruce out when you're such a freakin' hypocrite.

Evolve, AVID MC is very nice.

But I was pointing out that AVID network editing system installed for example in a huge broadcast studio reminds me a bit on sort of "Orwell's 1984 for movie editing society" where a producer (BOSS) or a producer (DICTATOR) could CONTROL every second of your "artistic" editing decisions and try to intervene.

With FCP this option doesn't exist.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Xcuz me, but I cannot see how using this editing app or that editing app could make you a better editor? They're just tools.

My 2c.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I try really, really hard to stay out of the Avid vs FCP conversations almost as much as the PC vs Mac ones, but I got to say, there is some serious misconceptions being presented here.

I'll sound like an old man if I tell you how far back I go with Avids, but let's just say it was a while ago and I started as an assistant, lots of media managing, project managing, troubleshooting, etc. I actually got to the point where I could sometimes troubleshoot the machines better than Avid, so the company I worked for dropped their support contract. Avid was pretty stable, but like everything, there are sometimes problems. But overall, they were great. The offline/online process works.

When I wanted to get a machine for my home studio, I looked at Avid but there was nothing I could touch that fit my budget. Express was always kind of limiting. So I discovered FCP (version 1.2). That became my home/studio platform moving forward. But I would still edit on Avid at other facilities throughout the years.

I feel there are now a lot of FCP editors who really don't know a lot about Avid. I think that has been the result of a new generation who feels a bit more at home with FCP's way of doing things. In my opinion FCP suits many projects just fine. But the points that Bruce Allen and Sycophant have raised are valid. FCP just doesn't do certain things as well. For those who know both systems really well, you know what those issues are. But I also feel FCP does some things better than Avid. In an ideal world we would be able to combine our favorite features from both apps and maybe we would have a dream of an editing system.

Sanjin, not sure where you were coming from on this. Are you saying you don't want producers in with you? Because in the real world of high end, deadline based post work, producers looking over your shoulder is common and your system and of course the editor has to be able to do the job in a timely fashion or they are fired. That is why when setting up an NLE, whichever one you choose, you have to go with whatever gets the job done the most reliably. And that can be a combination of system features, stability, operator comfort efficiency with that system, media sharing, etc.

There really is no us or them on this. It truly does come down to choosing the best tools for your company or your personal studio. The only way you know how to pick the right tools? Try as many as you can or at least learn all of the features they offer. It reuires some homework. Marketing can't get in the way of your livelyhood.

 

[Andrew Kimery]

Evolve, AVID MC is very nice.

But I was pointing out that AVID network editing system installed for example in a huge broadcast studio reminds me a bit on sort of "Orwell's 1984 for movie editing society" where a producer (BOSS) or a producer (DICTATOR) could CONTROL every second of your "artistic" editing decisions and try to intervene.

What's the difference if the producer or director is sitting in your bay watching a cut or sitting in their office watching a cut? It's not like using FCP will magically make the approvals process go away.

With FCP this option doesn't exist.

That all might change when Final Cut Server comes out.


-A

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

But I was pointing out that AVID network editing system installed for example in a huge broadcast studio reminds me a bit on sort of "Orwell's 1984 for movie editing society" where a producer (BOSS) or a producer (DICTATOR) could CONTROL every second of your "artistic" editing decisions and try to intervene.

With FCP this option doesn't exist.

FCP makes you an independent without a client! Awesome! Wait... if I don't have clients who pays me?

And if I'm the director does that mean a FCP editor won't listen to my feedback?

And what ever happend to COLLABORATIVE work? It just so happens to use the exact same networking protocalls and datasharing schemes as a dictator.

Only you Sanjinn could take a huge advantage like the ability to work in a collaborative networked environment and try to spin it as a terrible drawback of the system. Bravo... now THAT is 1984 Orwellian Double Speak when collaborative == dictatorial.

 

[Dylan Reeve]

IBut I also feel FCP does some things better than Avid. In an ideal world we would be able to combine our favorite features from both apps and maybe we would have a dream of an editing system.

We invested in FCS and a Octo-Core MacPro for this reason. One thing FCP does to better (although only marginally) is HD work with Varicam at 25fps (which is a gigantic pain in the ass in FCP and almost impossible in Avid - but that's more about Panasonic than either editing system).

For our workflow is makes much more sense to cut on Avid because we're managing a very large amount of media, and because that's where the editor's experience is. However we'll be onlining in FCP and grading in Color. Both products (Avid and FCP) have their strengths and we're trying to use those to the best of their abilities.

However as an editor/post supervisor, my recommendation for offline editorial work will still pretty much always be Avid. Until FCP's media management matures Avid is still better suited to this work. However we'll increasingly be putting online through FCP (and as we become more familiar with the workflow, we'll develop our solutions to the problems we face).

One of the difficulties as an online editor coming from Avid to FCP is that in trying to find solutions to these problems (the relinking media one is a prime example) the experienced FCP user base simply have no concept at all of what it is you're trying to achieve, so questions are met with confused responses. I guess when you use FCP for a while you 'Think Different'.

Personally I find FCP editors often quite vitriolic toward Avid, it can be quite off-putting, while Avid editors (in my experience) are usually quite willing to admit the strengths of other applications (and the weaknesses of Avid). Is it all about the marketing or is there something else?

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Dylan,

That's a great approach. You're using both to get your work done.

I taught an Avid course recently at a college and the students hated Avid. Some had used FCP, some Premiere. They felt Avid was clunky. The machines were set up by IT, on laptops that were not really supported and inevitably a lot of them had issues. I think FCP does feel a bit more like a desktop app. People are able to pick it up faster.

There were quite a few Avid editors who were not keen on learning FCP when it really started to gain momentum. Some thought it was a toy, some were annoyed you couldn't map the keyboad to match Avids (that's been pretty much solved).

I say if you are a serious editor, it wouldn't hurt to know both. It will get you the most work because you'll be versatile and you can understand how to move projects between the systems. And if you can learn Pro Tools and have a good ear for dialogue, you can add that to your skillset as well.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Guys,

please all calm down.

The story FCP vs. Avid is very simple.

It's like this:

With Avid your movie can get Oscar for Best Picture (a lot of winners).

But also with FCP you can get Oscar for best Picture (Coen Bros won one).

To conclude is to say that total domination of Avid in the highest field of editing movies (digital) for Oscars or Best Picture is over.

FCP shows that there are also other players in town.

 

[Dylan Reeve]

Well that's not quite what your earlier post said, but...

There have been other players in town for a very long time. Avid still has the lion's share of that market and others, but FCP has it's own very significant user base as well.

There is no 'winner' here. There is two (well more actually) great products with very distinct advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Discussion FCP vs. AVID is not making sense in a way how it is exposed here on this tread by the "specialists".

I am more for a creative use of editing that I can perform EASY and SIMPLE in my hotel room

on the road in the case that I have got some new creative idea.

And I am not interested in any system corporate editing where main

editing decisions are made by producer or somebody else that

does not have anything to do with an artistic creativity.

That's a difference between FCP and AVID.

Corporate editing suites are not growing at the moment but

opposite that only individual and artistic editing suites/packages market is booming.

This is where I wasn't sure where you were coming from Sanjin. It almost makes it sound like with Avid you have producers interfering with the creative process and you really can't take an Avid on the road with you. It almost sounds like you said FCP makes you more artistic, which is a bizarre statement. But maybe not what you intended.

 

[Mike Prevette]

Not really wanting to get into this.

I have been a FCP user since 1.0, I also had cut on Avid before that, and 3/4 before that. It's been a few years since I personally seriously cut on an avid.

It seems that every time I work with a project at a post house that is Avid based, there is ALWAYS some issue, that ALWAYS costs me more money. "avid can't do this" or "avid can't do that" is all I here from the editors. The whole offline/online practice is massively outdated for any tape based project. Frankly Avids method for dealing with projects and files is just stupid, and outdated.

Meanwhile I have two fully uncompressed FCP stations that along with after effects can pretty much do anything. I have clients sitting behind me all the time, I can turn spots around like nothing. It's not because FCP is better, it's that it just works for me better.

A lot of the "issues" producers hear about FCP are all because of untrained or unexperienced operators, most of which have never worked beyond the DV or DVCPRO workflow.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

OK guys,

when I have first time extra US $2,495 to spent I am buying AVID MC

just because of Animatte, FluidMorph, and ScriptSync features.