Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Avid Media Composer 7

Accelerating HD delivery from high-res source

As more content is created with high-res cameras and delivered as HD, editors typically must perform time consuming transcode and resize operations before true editing can begin. Media Composer 7 eliminates this step by enabling editors to work directly in HD from the high-res source, while maintaining full creative control of image framing.
 
michael zaletel said:
Accelerating HD delivery from high-res source

As more content is created with high-res cameras and delivered as HD, editors typically must perform time consuming transcode and resize operations before true editing can begin. Media Composer 7 eliminates this step by enabling editors to work directly in HD from the high-res source, while maintaining full creative control of image framing.
Click to expand...


GREAT, just what we need...editors in charge of framing shots. Maybe they should start adding editing features to cameras....
 
I wish Avid was more of a contender. I learned on Avid, and used to love it so much! I feel like I raised a child (Avid) and he grew up to be a serial killer. I want to love him. I want to believe there is still some good left in him, but there is that thing he does where he kills people. Did I not give him enough love as a child? Was it the video games? Why Avid?! Whyyyyyyyyyyyyy?!?

I grew tired of making excuses for Avid years ago. Though, to be fair I feel like I make excuses for Adobe and Apple too... I'm just happy I'm not an editor.
 
Eric Haase said:
GREAT, just what we need...editors in charge of framing shots. Maybe they should start adding editing features to cameras....
Click to expand...


I think they already did, since all the meta data can be changed after the fact...or as the editors say...fixed lol! Honestly in post I reframe all the time, because sometimes you just have to in order to fix what would be a jump cut... so you crop in and then the cut doesn't look so weird. same with bad zooms, sometimes i have to grab a still and do a ken burns type of move on it instead of relying on a bad in camera move...stuff like that...
 
Mike Halper said:
You still can't have 4K sequences or output 4K, so nothing to get excited about imo. Without full 4K support, I think Avid is basically useless these days. Even the $300 FCPX has 5K support.
Click to expand...
Useless huh? I'm working on a $50 million dollar movie right now that doesn't find Avid useless. There's a thing called conform and it has worked for years. I have no issue with those who insist on working in 4k the whole way through but to say it's useless to work in practical editing codecs and conform/export high res at the end I don't get that attitude.
 
I would offer that there are almost zero PAYING gigs that expect 4K output today. Of the high-end projects that do expect this, they tend to use more expensive tools for 4K masters. OTOH, there's plenty of need for repo/resize/pan-and-scan of larger-than-HD source material within a 1080 timeline. Naturally, you can simply add Resolve 10 for $1K, when it's released. Then you have the best of both worlds. Avid offline edit with native Redcode media (if you like - and in stereo 3D if you have the need) and 4K delivery. The total software cost - $2K without the Symphony option.

- Oliver
 
This reframing option is great and the background transcoding and media watch folders is a sweet option too.

Glad to see that Avid is listening.
 
Mike Halper said:
You still can't have 4K sequences or output 4K, so nothing to get excited about imo. Without full 4K support, I think Avid is basically useless these days. Even the $300 FCPX has 5K support.
Click to expand...

90 percent of the editing universe has 1080p deliverables for now. This is just what we need.
 
Matt Gottshalk said:
90 percent of the editing universe has 1080p deliverables for now. This is just what we need.
Click to expand...

In a couple of months Apple releases "retina" consumer PC's with 4K resolution. Playstation 4 comes out with a 4K spec Bluray. Everyone will be hungry for 4K content. Those that have it ready will earn a lot of money.
 
There certainly is a perception that one needs to edit at the same resolution as the delivery which is a strange one. The creative intent of a program is the priority of the editor (the person) and that has been being done this way for a very long time. I do see television moving this way but productions don't even want to rent the additional storage between 36 and 175 for all their footage. That will change as costs of backend workflows are lessened to offset or provide savings - now with LUT support, I have been playing with some very interesting workflows I will use on my next feature that gets me off the set faster, and keep a constant link to my colorist all through editorial with "live metadata". More important to me is the fluidity and performance of the codec I am working at combined with the amount of streams I expect to be using in post. I also like the ability to put 130 hours of DNxHD 36 on a small 2TB drive and edit wherever I am needed between set and suite. Since the camera originals needs to be backed up, archived and QC'd anyway, just make me a proxy. Even over FW800 I can have multiple real time layers, multicam, etc, with that codec. There is no glory for me in saying, "look I can edit from the 4K camera originals!" And if working on Red material natively, and you do an effect that requires a render such as FluidMotion or via a plug-in, you can't render to R3D anyway - so staying native all the way through may work for a talking head documentary, but much more rare once VFX comes into the picture.

And yes - shots gets reframed all the time to better serve the story in context of the story and shots it sits between. The most basic example would be the best performance of a line is on the wide, but the emphasis of that line should be in a medium or medium close-up. Editing always goes with performance first or else you cannot engage an audience. Cutting because it's a nice frame, or the action matches is secondary. It may not best serve the emotional arc, pace or rhythm being explored. Then of course the usual mikes in shot, and other typical fix up like a steadying a shot as an extraction rather than a resize.

I think v7 lays the groundwork for some interesting workflows. Some will work now, some will work with updates as there are still gaps. But it's good to see the step in this direction and Avid just needs to keep going and not assume these features are complete. Features change workflows, and changed workflows change features. It's a constant ebb and flow.

Once all these creative decisions are made - a relink back to the masters is very easy and quick.


Michael
 
I totally understand why people want to edit in proxies and conform later...

But personally speaking...if one can work in full res 4k or 5k raw and not need proxies, at all, then that saves on storage right there. Instead of a high res and low res copy all of the material, you have one copy of all the material. Throw a beefy computer in the mix and boom your off to the races..

Granted most don't work this way...but it saves you the head aches of conforming AND saves on storage...

So for me Avid outputting 4k actually would be helpful. I do a lot of AMA editing in raw already. Plus I'm attempting to circumvent using CC or FCPX for as long as possible...but at this point I can't even output 4k on anything but Redcine, and Redcine doesnt give me a lot of finishing stuff I want. If Redcine turned into a full fledged NLE, I'd use it on all my r3d work...


But as of now its looking like I might one day need FCPX if I want to output a 4k finished project... But I have no clients that need it...yet... But I am also of the opinion that the 4k band wagon is here and its the new buzz word and there will be an explosion of 4k content needed in the short term...
 
Sergio Perez said:
In a couple of months Apple releases "retina" consumer PC's with 4K resolution. Playstation 4 comes out with a 4K spec Bluray. Everyone will be hungry for 4K content. Those that have it ready will earn a lot of money.
Click to expand...

This still represents a small percentage of the entire worldwide viewing public. There is also a lot of survey material showing people watch television on television not on a PC screen. 4K has most of its impact at 80" and above which most if not any of the PC screens will be. The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) really tries to get the public to buy a new television set faster than the current average of every 7 years. When Europe starting government subsided 16:9 program years ago, research showed that after 7 years, only 50% of the consumers had 16:9 television sets. Sure kids and students watch a lot of content on their mobile and computer devices, but they are not screaming for 4K, as long is it's free.

But I am all for 4K mastering and fluid metadata to extract the program and/or versions from that master in a most automated way possible. When you start looking at ALL deliverable for domestic and foreign, and some of them get up to 15 or so versions, of which "YouTube" is only the one of several streaming deliverables", one starts to appreciate fluidity in all phases of postproduction. And that relies on metadata.

But productions with different needs will find their own optimized workflows. If I am a single shooter, with a single system, delivering to YouTube only, then editing at native essence is the best way to go. But if I am working in a multi-editor SAN, disperse, and multi-phase postproduction pipeline, native essence editorial is not a reality at this time due to time and associated costs of infrastructure, bandwidth, and time.


Michael
 
Brian Merlen said:
But personally speaking...if one can work in full res 4k or 5k raw and not need proxies, at all, then that saves on storage right there. Instead of a high res and low res copy all of the material, you have one copy of all the material. Throw a beefy computer in the mix and boom your off to the races..
Click to expand...

In a responsible or bonded picture production, you never only have one set of footage. You have at least two copies in any combination of hard drives or LTO. Cost of storage goes down once you take that into consideration as two copies of full rez, and one for proxies is cheaper than 3 at full rez not to mention bandwidth. It is also the responsibility to QC the files to ensure the integrity of the files. I find that the proxie pass from the camera originals provides that. A single 2TB drive will hold 130 hours of DNxHD proxies while the same drive will only hold 8.6 hours of Red 5K at 6:1. That's a 15x factor in storage. Not to mention the mobility of moving between edit and room and set with all your dailies. But my other post speaks to the "one-man" type post process which is a different scenario. although they should be doing the backups as well.


Michael
 
Well I thought backs up went without saying:iagree:

But yes 3 full res is a lot more space then 2 full res and a dnxhd36 copy... But for non union film work I think two full res copies (one off site) on raid 5's is fairly safe... At least safe enough for lower end stuff.
 
I just don't consider editing from one of the backups as a backup. Backups are not touched until a conform or a pull from one of them. I'd be too afraid of accidental deletions and such. Proxies are disposable. I understand your point on low budget/non-union features but having two real backups + a an additional 2TB drive (for very little money) holding 160 hours proxies is more secure in my mind that two backup where one of the them is being used for editorial.

Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top