'New Thinking' from Avid unveiled

[Dylan Reeve]

Next time you're in Auckland Sanjin, gimme a call, I'll give you a personal Avid tutorial.

 

[Andrew Kimery]

The whole offline/online practice is massively outdated for any tape based project. Frankly Avids method for dealing with projects and files is just stupid, and outdated.

If you are working w/a ton of footage (say a reality show w/2500 hours of footage) then an offline/online workflow makes a ton of sense, and for a multi-user environment Avid's "bin based" project structure is much better than FCP's "project file" based structure.

It's not because FCP is better, it's that it just works for me better.

Exactly. Horses for courses.


-A

 

[Mike Prevette]

I agree, I'm mostly working on the venerable :30 sec spot. I think Avid's approach can be better, as well as finalcut's. I think there is room for a hybrid of the two as far as project structure goes.

If you are working w/a ton of footage (say a reality show w/2500 hours of footage) then an offline/online workflow makes a ton of sense, and for a multi-user environment Avid's "bin based" project structure is much better than FCP's "project file" based structure.


Exactly. Horses for courses.


-A

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Next time you're in Auckland Sanjin, gimme a call, I'll give you a personal Avid tutorial.

Thanks Sycophant. :innocent:

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Next time you're in Auckland Sanjin, gimme a call, I'll give you a personal Avid tutorial.

I'll be in Auckland on Sunday what about me?

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Not really wanting to get into this.

Me neither, bu alas.... here I am :biggrin:

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.

That's good, now I don't feel so old. We were beginning to escort 3/4" out the door when I started.

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 The whole offline/online practice is massively outdated for any tape based project. Frankly Avids method for dealing with projects and files is just stupid, and outdated.

Just like the FCP systems need to be set up correctly, so do the Avids. The issues I've seen often tend to be unsupported hardware interaction, virus software messing with things (PC), and the usual, someone messed with something they shouldn't have. You got to cut something longer than :30 to appreciate some of the media management and project structure of Avid.

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.

FCP is what is in my studio. Kona 3, allowing me to work in 1080P uncompressed. Clients don't always dig the rendering we sometimes have to do when I start doing some preliminary CC with Colorista and Looks. But overall, as long as you are snappy with the editing, it's just like any other editing system.

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.

Absolutely. Network shows tend to have intense protocols and everyone has to be on top of their game to be able to keep the pipeline efficient, with little room for error.

 

[Dylan Reeve]

I'll be in Auckland on Sunday what about me?

Ahh, yeah... Sunday... Uh... It's Easter I'll be, I dunno, mowing the lawn or something

 

[mdo]

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.

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.

I can see how there would be a problem if the recapture yielded two clips from the same reel, since the OS enforces uniqueness in filenames -- but if I understand the scenario, it seems you should still be able to relink them although it would be more of a hassle. When you say it would start however many frames into the file regardless of timecode, do you mean FCP or a separate conform solution? When I have recaptured video, the start frames have been different but the clip lined up properly according to the timecode. Is there a scenario where FCP ignores timecode?

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

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.

You sound like you completely miss read my post, not to mention put a shit ton of negative words in my mouth.

I've just simply never worked in an environment where this activity happens that doesn't mean I have no respect for how it works and to just assume that I don't care is a little insulting. I've just seen enough examples of people applying final cut pro to what could be considered similar situations to think maybe Final Cut Pro has some legs on it to do this stuff.
Not I repeat NOT that Avid is worse at it or that Avid sucks in any shape or form.
My first experience cutting was on an Avid and I didn't have any problems with it then I've just never had a chance to go back and finish learning it completely. I don't have $2500 to spare on MC and even if I did it's not going to suddenly make me go "OH THATS WHAT THEY WERE ON ABOUT SHIT SON I'M CONVERTED"
I just have a little beef with these Avid guys who come on forums going "well FCP is shit and it can't do this this and this and Avid Rocks"

I don't know about your car analogy though, are you saying that Avid can barely edit one project at once where as FCP can do 3 no sweat but it doesn't look as flashy? doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

You sound like you completely miss read my post, not to mention put a shit ton of negative words in my mouth.
[...]

I just have a little beef with these Avid guys who come on forums going "well FCP is shit and it can't do this this and this and Avid Rocks"

I don't know about your car analogy though, are you saying that Avid can barely edit one project at once where as FCP can do 3 no sweat but it doesn't look as flashy? doesn't sound right to me.

I don't feel like I was being in any way unfair to you or misrepresenting your posts. You claimed Dylan was talking out of his ass. You called Bruce's explanation for why he thought Avid was superior to FCP bullshit. I don't think there has been any unfair criticism of FCP in this thread. It does have limitations just like any piece of softare. It does have advantages and disadvantages. Its limitations were brought up and then you berated everybody who disagreed with your assertions. To be fair you didn't say Avid sucks, but you did seem to be siding with Sanjinn's drunken craze.

You don't get to call bullshit or say someone is talking out of their ass and then shed crocodile tears when your own credibility is questioned.

---

The car analogy was simply that systems like Symphony are probably overkill for 99% of all billable jobs. If it's not bringing in 10x the business than perhaps 10x seats of FCP are a much much better investment. (It was also completely off topic from you.)

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I don't feel like I was being in any way unfair to you or misrepresenting your posts. You claimed Dylan was talking out of his ass.

This was on the subject of "Iffy" playback and a claim that you have to render almost everything you do in FCP, So sue me if this sounded a little sensationalist to me.

What is Iffy playback anyway, and what is all this stuff about having to render all time.
I render now and then but I have a Powerbook G4 and it's after layering a few effects on the clip or bringing in a motion file and I like to view things at full quality.

You called Bruce's explanation for why he thought Avid was superior to FCP bullshit.

What a load of crap! I said no such thing

I don't think there has been any unfair criticism of FCP in this thread. It does have limitations just like any piece of software. It does have advantages and disadvantages. Its limitations were brought up and then you berated everybody who disagreed with your assertions. To be fair you didn't say Avid sucks, but you did seem to be siding with Sanjinn's drunken craze.

I didn't say any of that stuff either, I got a little upset about the iffy playback quote reminded Dylan that people can cut fast on FCP as well and I explained that I didn't know much about the online offline workflow and would be more than happy to have someone sit me down and show me how it all works. Dylan gave an example which I never objected to in risk of looking stupid (although I did pick up my FCP manual and have a flip through it.)

You don't get to call bullshit or say someone is talking out of their ass and then shed crocodile tears when your own credibility is questioned.

You miss quoted me and jumped to conclusions so sue me if I object to that! ... I don't even own an HVX!
I kinda wish I did cause my powerbook could handle the footage it shot but whatever.

The car analogy was simply that systems like Symphony are probably overkill for 99% of all billable jobs. If it's not bringing in 10x the business than perhaps 10x seats of FCP are a much much better investment. (It was also completely off topic from you.)

Ok, but I don't recall saying anything that required such an analogy

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Reason #4 according to Bruce for preferring Avid:
"More robust media management"

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.

I do believe the abbreviation "BS" stands for Bullshit.

--- (Aka <Topic Break>)

The car Analogy wasn't directed at you. Hence why there was a "---" to seperate topics. And then the "(It was completey off topic from you comment)" later. It was in reference to the studio which sold off symphony for 3 FCP seats. I was agreeing it sounded like a good business decision.

----

Still off topic but on topic...

The reason I love avid is because it ingests everything and then it's ready to rock. I can cut exponentially more tracks in RT in Avid than FCP on the exact same system.

The reason I hate avid is because I have to sit around waiting for it to ingest something instead of just linking to the damn file and getting on with life.

I work with framesequences a lot and Avid will take in a frame sequence and make it something I can edit with as fast as DV even if it's 720p. On identical systems FCP for me has "iffy" playback. FCP and Adobe (they both operate on the same paradigm of playback) do great with RT codecs (DV, DVCPro, HDV) that are officially supported but if you drift or include something not 'official' then you have to start rendering while editing. It had better be something really really tricky if it's going to have to render. That's my view on editing. RT ONLY.

I hate rendering more than anything else. Because rendering breaks me out of the flow. And that is why I like Avid editing systems. But only after they've finished ingesting. Honestly I personally have no use for 99% of the features in most editing systems. I just want speed and in a foot race Avid has won everytime for me.

The exception to this rule is where the time it takes to ingest the footage is greater than the time it takes to create a new project... ingest all the footage... wait for it to encapsulate it.. etc etc.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Reason #4 according to Bruce for preferring Avid:
"More robust media management"
I do believe the abbreviation "BS" stands for Bullshit.

It was actually feature number 4 that he would have apple put on the ideal "Final Cut Extreme" but whatever.
My comment wasn't directly er directed at Bruce anyways but rather at the idea that FCPs Media management was a joke which is the average Avid users main argument against the product.
My understanding was that although it wasn't perfect it certainly isn't a joke and it is getting better.

 

[laguun]

could we also add the topics:
windows vs. osx: who is superior
lp vs cd: which sounds warmer
and
zooms vs primes: which shoots better movies

to the discussion, just to make the discussion a little bit spicier?

SCNR

 

[Dylan Reeve]

It was actually feature number 4 that he would have apple put on the ideal "Final Cut Extreme" but whatever.
My comment wasn't directly er directed at Bruce anyways but rather at the idea that FCPs Media management was a joke which is the average Avid users main argument against the product.
My understanding was that although it wasn't perfect it certainly isn't a joke and it is getting better.

The argument with FCP's media management is a fairly fundamental one. It certainly could be improved, but the way it works with a file-system based filing method has a pretty big impact on. Apple could certainly improve it, but more or less nothing has changed since Version 1, although the Media Manager (or Mangler as I've heard FCP editors call it) is some improvement in that it helps move media around and so on. But still doesn't offer nearly the same level of control.

I hope it does get better.

could we also add the topics:
windows vs. osx: who is superior

I prefer the underlying architecture of OS X, but I don't like aspects of the GUI (the fact that there is no support for an 'SDI' window mode among others)

lp vs cd: which sounds warmer

I think LP sounds warmer, but I don't care.

zooms vs primes: which shoots better movies

Generally primes, but there's some very good zooms now. As long as they're not zooming in and out constantly.

Now, what about Linux distributions?

 

[Steve Sherrick]

could we also add the topics:
windows vs. osx: who is superior
lp vs cd: which sounds warmer
and
zooms vs primes: which shoots better movies

to the discussion, just to make the discussion a little bit spicier?

SCNR

Be careful what you ask for. This thread could get really insane. :biggrin:

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

Post software drives me nuts. We may all bitch about RED's post issues, but lord knows they weren't the first!! I've been dealing with compatibility problems in post for a LOOOONNGG time now.

Steve I still have some of my origional shows ON 3/4"... It's depressing.

I have learned use what works for you. Pure and simple. Most people look for software that supports their current hardware. This is good business.

I've never used Avid, but I would love to learn it.. Like I have THAT kind of time...

FCP is great, no doubt about it, if you are in Pro-Rez or DVCProHD, it's a no brainer.

For me though, RED is about DEEP color and resolution. And right now, I like the support that Premiere gives me in that area. Color finesse is pretty solid also. Nowhere near real time, but that's ok with me.

I'm happy.

Jay

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Jay,

That's the beauty of the time we are living in right now. There are choices, and affordable ones at that. When I looked at buying an Avid many years ago, it was about $40,000 for an offline system. It's amazing to think how far we have come.

That's why the Avid vs FCP debates are kind of funny to me. The fact that we can now argue what's better the FCP suite for $1299 or Avid MC for $2499 is so cool. Those numbers were so unrealistic many years ago.