Avid... From the idiot's standpoint

[Jay A. Kelley]

I feel I may represent a lot of potential customers. So let me take this note to explain somethings.

Here is what I know about Avid:

1. It was an editing standard when FCP was a mere gleam in Apple's eye.
2. It was horribly overpriced, and some said a little arrogant.
3. Customer service was good, but you paid for it, so it had better be.
4. Avid express was ok for small stuff, but only supported poor hardware.
5. Interface is hard to learn, but once you learn it, you're the fastest guy in town.

A lot of this is old news. Now media composer has hit a comparalble price point to FCP. And like FCP it uses its own codec for most of it's work. UNlike FCP you are still forced to use Avid's hardware which is pretty expensive. (Around $10,000 for the DX hardware and software).

So do I want Avid? Nope. What's keeping me from using it? The following:

1. I want to choose my own capture card for ingest/playback. Like a Black Magic, or Kona.
2. I want more flexibility with the codecs. I want to be able to use Cineform, or some other system if I so choose.

If these two things were to happen, Avid would have my business tomorrow. Why? Cause Avid would no longer be forceing me to GIVE UP something in order to use it's system.

Avid is the standard. And I would love to make it a part of my system, but for right now, its still not quite the right fit for me.

I am sharing this because I do feel that Avid has made the decision to get people like me into their fold, so I thought it may be useful to tell the powers that be what I need to make the jump.

I am not trying to start a fight, I am not judgeing.. But I feel by sharing what I "know" the guys at Avid can see what their marketing is saying, and they can use this to tweak their message if they think it's needed.
Jay

 

[Dylan Reeve]

Hey Jay,

These very same arguments have been had in Avid's own forums (which to their credit are very open, unlike some others).

Xpress Pro (now discontinued) was very capable, especially for SD work. With a Mojo or Mojo SDI it was (and still is) capable of 1:1 I/O and can be used for basic finishing work.

The argument about open hardware is one I've made myself, but I've since changed my mind. Having used an FCP suite more recently I see the value in Avid's approach. Their hardware, combined with media always being in their native codecs provides a level of productivity that seems to be missing in FCP (an opinion I've seen echoed by a number of other users more familiar with FCP than me).

Even with ProRes 422 in FCP, I find that I have to render a lot. This is something that simply is no where near the same with Avid where I experience much better realtime performance with Avid hardware.

It's hard to make a fair assessment of both offerings, as it hard to be expert enough in both. I can operate FCP well enough, but the dark arts of actually tuning the system escape me somewhat.

Avid have made the decision to use their own hardware for good reasons that are primarily motivated, I think, by the intention to provide the best and smoothest workflow and user experience. Not necessarily by profit in terms of limiting to their own hardware only.

Also, consider that to use FCP you also have to invest very significantly in Apple hardware - sure you can use a Blackmagic or AJA card, but you need to put it in a big shiny expensive cheese-grater.

Also, Avid will run perfectly well as software only, especially with file-based formats. The hardware is only required for physical I/O. I can run Media Composer 3.0 on my $400 workstation here at my desk and have realtime multi-layer 1080i editing. If I really want to output that, I can take my FW800 media drive at 400k Bin file to any other Avid, plug it in, open the sequence and hit play.

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

Hey Jay,

These very same arguments have been had in Avid's own forums (which to their credit are very open, unlike some others).

Xpress Pro (now discontinued) was very capable, especially for SD work. With a Mojo or Mojo SDI it was (and still is) capable of 1:1 I/O and can be used for basic finishing work.

The argument about open hardware is one I've made myself, but I've since changed my mind. Having used an FCP suite more recently I see the value in Avid's approach. Their hardware, combined with media always being in their native codecs provides a level of productivity that seems to be missing in FCP (an opinion I've seen echoed by a number of other users more familiar with FCP than me).

Even with ProRes 422 in FCP, I find that I have to render a lot. This is something that simply is no where near the same with Avid where I experience much better realtime performance with Avid hardware.

It's hard to make a fair assessment of both offerings, as it hard to be expert enough in both. I can operate FCP well enough, but the dark arts of actually tuning the system escape me somewhat.

Avid have made the decision to use their own hardware for good reasons that are primarily motivated, I think, by the intention to provide the best and smoothest workflow and user experience. Not necessarily by profit in terms of limiting to their own hardware only.

Also, consider that to use FCP you also have to invest very significantly in Apple hardware - sure you can use a Blackmagic or AJA card, but you need to put it in a big shiny expensive cheese-grater.

Also, Avid will run perfectly well as software only, especially with file-based formats. The hardware is only required for physical I/O. I can run Media Composer 3.0 on my $400 workstation here at my desk and have realtime multi-layer 1080i editing. If I really want to output that, I can take my FW800 media drive at 400k Bin file to any other Avid, plug it in, open the sequence and hit play.

Thanks for the response Dylan, you make some wonderful points. I am not an FCP person, but I feel it's Avid's only real competition. I think Premiere will be a serious force to contend with SOMEDAY, but not until it makes more of an effort to adopt professional tools, like better timecode support, and better audio handeling.

Jay

 

[Dylan Reeve]

I haven't looked at Premiere for a while, but I've heard good things (well certainly better than when I last used it).

It's interesting to look at different NLEs and see where they devote their resources. I think it says a lot about the markets they are most concerned with.

For example, Avid takes quite a bit of flack for not supporting as many import formats (most notably Mpeg 2) as other NLEs. It clearly doesn't see it as a huge issue for it's core market.

FCP lacks in areas of media management and to some extent simple things like video capture, tape output. And has almost no ability to reconcile changes in a sequence against existing media. It seems more focused on the online-only workflow where you capture or import once, edit and output.

Premiere Pro, as you say, has issues with timecode and audio as I understand it. Making it okay when everything stays 'in the family' but make interoperability with other systems difficult.

Speaking of FCP and Avid (the only two I really know remotely well) it seems that FCP is more willing to let you do whatever you want, damn the consequences (mix formats, resolutions, audio rates, etc) whereas Avid in some ways forces a more planned approach.

My experience with FCP (I've just finished onlining a six-part HD series) has been very far from the dream ride that many FCP-advocates suggest, but there are certainly strengths in FCP that I have identified, but I find the 'do whatever you want' approach actually complicates things in many ways. The next series (if there is one) will be finished in Avid Media Composer now that the DX hardware is available. We choose FCP this time around because the Adrenaline with DNxcel didn't offer an attractive cost/benefit for us. The DX series hardware does.

 

[Wayne D]

Hi Jay,

FCP was the best thing that ever happened to AVID. It smashed their monpoly and made them better for it. I think for me AVID is better as it is a turnkey solution (yeah, yeah - turn the key and it crashes....i'll beat you to it)
and for big end, high volume media content jobs there is no rival.

Having said that, they both do the same jobs - edit pictures and sound.
Yes you casn finish on them but there is also a limit to that. Whatever sytem you choose my advice to buy the best you can at the time of your purchase and get as much media storage as you can afford - you can never have enough.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

honestly, premiere is imho really good, it has some cons, yes, but if they are clever i`ll switch back.

 

[Dylan Reeve]

I think for me AVID is better as it is a turnkey solution (yeah, yeah - turn the key and it crashes....i'll beat you to it)

To be fair, Avid has been decidedly uncrashy for us in the last 18 months or so. My experience with FCP hasn't be as joyous (although we're going to reinstall OS and latest FCP before I settle on that complaint permanently).

and for big end, high volume media content jobs there is no rival.

It certainly does seem so. People are managing big jobs with FCP - it can be done, but it's not a simple as it is with Avid and a Unity for example.

Having said that, they both do the same jobs - edit pictures and sound.

And now all sorts of other things too...

Yes you casn finish on them but there is also a limit to that.

Finishing for broadcast is more than possible on Media Composer and FCP. Sure, there are other better options, but for the majority of work they are often overkill (IMHO).

Whatever sytem you choose my advice to buy the best you can at the time of your purchase and get as much media storage as you can afford - you can never have enough.

Consider also how you use that storage. We find that separate FW800 drives, one or two for each individual project, gives us great flexability. Certainly better than trying to get 10TB all online at once, when we only need a couple for each job.

 

[Greg M]

The reasons Avid, and other vendors (Discreet, Quantel, etc) require specific hardware are numerous. Basically it centers around support, imagine as a programmer having to rewrite your code to work with all the various drivers, and hardware and then deal with the tech support calls associated with the dozens of configurations that are now available. Its not as simple as you suggest Jay.

Personally I disagree with your point 2, I have owned a dozen different Avids, and never did I feel I overpaid...to the contrary I always made a profit on our Avid systems. I also never felt the need to supply my own hardware, the turnkey system worked as advertised and we never had config issues.

BTW- Avid support covers your system as well, so as long as you maintain your support contract, if a component fails you simply call Avid and the next morning you have a replacement...you cant really put a price on that in our industry.

 

[Wayne D]

Hi Sychophant - agree with all your points. The "crash" reference was my attempt at humor (it's early morning in Oz....):blush:

except the only the taht bugs me these days is because the systems can do "all sorts of other things to...." you spend you time neck deep trying to push the edit systems to be a comp/sound/ect... device. which i agree they can do but it eats out edit time and a lot of producer seem to have a "magic button" approach...as if the software will make up for their shortcomings when they hit the suit.



as for drives (i am on Windows XP) - if it is not a unity - i am using SATA. Have had great success with them and good value for $.

Jay - but whatever you want. Just keep in mind the limitations of all makes.

and remember - content is king in any edit.........no system can fix that!

 

[Dylan Reeve]

I've generally found that clients and producers are pretty understanding about the limits of what we should be doing in the edit. To some extent I think they still have the expectation of Avid as a 'editing only' sort of system and don't expect as much, I wonder if they would ask more on FCP?

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

Guys please keep in mind that I was only sharing what I have heard and the impressions I have been left with through word of mouth and marketing. Both for and against Avid.

I have NO direct experience with the system so I KNOW nothing. Greg, I can ask for whatever I wish, I don't have to care how complicated it is, it's the joy of being a customer.

As long as Avid has been around I am sure they have reasons for everything they do.. Most people do. But they also had reasons for charging a LOT more for composer 3 years ago... Now they seem to have different reasons.



I have a post system.. I'm happy for now.. I am not really shopping, I was just sharing info in the hopes of helping.. It's a forum, so it's what I do.

Have a good one all

Jay

 

[Wayne D]

my dam soapbox keeps getting under my feet.........

 

[Chris Swartz]

Jay,

Once you get on an Avid and get past the learning curve, you won't really want to move over to FCP. It's not like a premiere or fcp, it has it's ways of doing things, but once you're hooked there's no going back. FCP has done a tremendous job of marketing itself and giving it's software away, especially to the new users and students who are now clamoring for FCP in every situation. (I mean does Apple really care if they give away their software if it takes a +$3k computer to run it?) Most have not even used Avid, and if they have, they simply just become frustrated with the regimented structure of the editor, which I completely understand.

As for your ingest problem, hey Red is a File based acquisition format. One of these days it'll be drag and drop into the bin. Hell the workflow would be exponentially better if they'd just release a windows QT red codec. It's gonna happen, Red can't afford to exclude 80% of the professional post houses just because Apple "answered the phone". It's just a matter of time.

BTW 10K for the Mojo DX and Media Composer bundle historically is a great deal, but as I see it today it's BS, especially for the little guys like you. But remember you get what you pay for and 10K in the grand scheme of things isn't much money, I mean you just invested probably 20K+ into a bitch'n camera, look what that's brought you. (We won't mention your notorious reputation, which btw gives me endless amounts of enjoyment, hours and hours). Since you say all the things I want to say.

Chris

One of these days I'll make it over to St Louis and you can show me the Hot Rod Camera.

 

[Dylan Reeve]

We just (like in the last hour) got an old Avid Xpress Meridian system from the lockup of an old non-defunct production company. It hasn't be available to purchase since around 2002, and the last software update was in November 2003. I requires Windows 2000.

And do you know what we're going to do with it?

We're going to use it! This practically ancient Avid still has legs as an edit suite for offline. I can still capture and cut on it, and when I'm done I can take my sequence and open it up in brand new Media Composer and redigitise everything at full resolution for finishing.

This on a system that dates back to the late 90's.

 

[Wayne D]

This on a system that dates back to the late 90's.

......this sounds like me........ahhh.....the good 'ol days..........

 

[MichaelP]

Up untill a few years ago, Ron Shelton's films were still being done on v4.5. 4.0 came out in 1992 as the first native digital NLE 24 frame editing system... So it has held up quite well!

Michael

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Jay makes good pionts about Premiere's shortcommings. But using Premiere, After Effects and CineForm as an integrated system will Rock. Of course the "Holly Grail" is to get Adobe to make a premium product for high end finishing that integrates all of After Effects power and all of Premiere's editorial control into one software platform. Want motion blur or animated titles? It can all be there right on the timeline. No exporting, no importing, just one damn amazing interface. We should spread the word and have everyone we know email and call Adobe. If they could achieve this and make Jay happy I'd gladly pay $7,500 for a product like this. I've been a facility since 1987 and have never owned an Avid product. $3,000.00 per year per edit system for software upgrades made my blood boil.

 

[Rubancam]

i am not in anyway disrespecting the Avid Faithful users. But IMO Apple will significantly improve their system 4K realtime capable with AJA/Matrox hardware acceleration. All these years the personal computers were slow and now they have significantly improved and keep improving. Once All sorted out FCP, Color, Motion, Shake, Soundtrack pro, Compressor and DVD studio pro combined makes FCP an awesome choice. Same goes to Adobe Premiere now. Adobe like Mark Crabtree mentioned also will be a tempting choice.

But now when its comes to high end editing esp 2K, 4K, Avid, Discreet and Quantel are the leaders. Out of these three, i only see Discreet ( Autodesk) surviving with it's great software lineup including Lustre .

The reason these systems are fast because they are proprietary hardware accelerated editing suite. i remember Editing Media 100 which is now history.

 

[Bruce Allen]

I think everyone who says "FCP / Premiere is better than Avid because it supports X resolution or Y feature" should ask themselves:

"Why aren't Hollywood films being cut on Quantel or discreet Smoke or Avid DS?"

Those programs are years ahead of FCP, Premiere, Avid Media Composer from a feature / specs point of view. But very few people edit narrative stuff on them.

If I am a novelist, I don't need DTP features. I need a word processor that has a good interface, is fast and responsive, doesn't crash, doesn't muddle up my chapters, etc. I may want to easily work collaboratively with people. And I want to have an easy path to a published book once the creative is done.

To me, Avid is the best "word processor". And it's a pretty good "DTP program" too. FCP and Premiere are perhaps better "DTP programs" but in my opinion are inferior "word processors".

That's why I choose to do my creative decisions in Avid.

BTW, I have used Premiere since v4 and FCP since v1.2. I only learned Avid in 2002.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Bruce Allen]

Sorry, Jay, I realized I didn't actually answer your original question.

Here's my theory on why Avid doesn't support any codec:

1. it will definitely make the system less responsive
2. it will definitely make the system less reliable
3. it will make people less likely to buy their more fancier hardware (which is designed to hardware-accelerate their own codecs)
4. they'll have to hire many more programmers and QA testers just to get it up to basic level
5. it might be harder for them to pull off tricks like allowing you to mix formats in one timeline
6. chance of entering Quicktime gamma hell a la FCP is increased

And why Avid doesn't support other hardware:

1. they'll lose out on the fat profit they make on the hardware
2. it will definitely make the system less reliable
3. they'll need to hire more programmers, QA testers, etc.
4. it might well ruin the Mac / PC cross-platform elegance of their system.

Their product generally has a reputation for being responsive and reliable. They want to keep it that way.

Agreed, the cost of external hardware is exorbitant for folks like us. I'm planning to forgo it for now - I'm in LA, and it's easy to rent / finish out of house. What's it like where you are?

BTW, why are you so keen on the whole 2K / 4K home finishing thing? What's wrong with 1.9K (eg 1080p)?

Also, why are you so against DNxHD? You could definitely argue that CineForm is better. But I'd say DNxHD would be #2 - ProRes is way behind.
- supports alpha channels
- is a free Mac and Windows download (anyone can decode AND encode)
- less 10-bit silly problems than ProRes
- less gamma silly problems than ProRes
- has super-cool super-fast offline 36mbps mode
- has worked since early 2005 (that's when the old company I worked at got it - and we finished MANY trailers to film using it)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com