Avid Media Composer 7

[Elsie N]

Thanks for saying this so well, Steve!


...

I agree with you that transcoding and conforming have always been a normal part of the workflow, and they're not the big deal a lot of neophytes think they are. And I also agree that calling the $3000 Smoke "expensive" is kind of bewildering, but then I come from a world that had $500,000 Infernos that we thought were miraculous, 10 years ago.

...

I think, as a neophyte, that I have different expectations for post software than those who have labored in the "old ways" and are comfortable with the status quo. You've obviously been successful in that realm and want that to continue. I doubt if any of you own cameras or ever will.

But the reason that many of us find Smoke "expensive" is because we are heavily invested in cameras, lenses, sound... and the attending hardware such as computers and all the things it takes to get the entire job done. You are very fortunate to make your living doing the same things over and over.

That is, I get it that you as a group are specialized and for the clients you work with you will probably remain relevant for a time. But for someone in my category, we look forward to... no, we expect, a one-with-all solution software that helps us get the content off the set and on exhibition as inexpensively as possible. We require that because we know we are not likely to make the home run movie but we still think we can make our way with good content.

Think of us as the Odemax Crowd.

 

[MichaelP]

But the reason that many of us find Smoke "expensive" is because we are heavily invested in cameras, lenses, sound... and the attending hardware such as computers and all the things it takes to get the entire job done. You are very fortunate to make your living doing the same things over and over.

I am an indie filmmaker as well - produce and edit features from $8K (my own) on up. For me, I have found that chasing the camera, lens and such futile and will pick and choose format that best fits the story and budget and work from there. But I will always need an editing system. I can rent the latest and greatest. The same can be said for editing systems, but indie productions will spend the most time in post than on set. It is the production part that I manage as tight as possible. Once I'm in post, it's me and the director for however long it takes as "time" is my greatest asset when there is limited budget and no delivery schedule. There are so many cameras and owners with cameras that negotiating a price for a package is a no-brainer compared to owning all that gear. But if you're more of a shooter, then that's where your priorities lie. It's when you have a schedule that things get intersting and having multiple people working as much as possible at the same time or as overlapped as possible is key to managing that schedule.

There has been a discussion about the all-in-one type user, the Odemax crowd as you say, and there is choice fro those. There is a perception that because they spend so much up front on physical gear that software should be next to nothing or free and there is that choice now as well - Lightworks on PC or wait until this fall when the Mac version is supposed to hit the streets.

I think the discussions is about what works best for oneself, a production, and a workflow and learning what everyone does is great. The stupid part is thinking that one system alone is the best one while diminishing another. Be it camera, lenses, sound gear, editing systems, etc. As an editor I choose what works best for me to tell the story and manage the footage so that it can be finished anywhere on any system based on my budget or skills. I own Resolve, but it doesn't mean that I do the color correction because it would suck compared to someone who knows how to color. The producer in me says to get someone who knows how to color and I don't really care if it is baselight, Resolve, Scratch, or whatever, it is what they feel they can use to their best. If I wasn't editing, and the editor I wanted to use was kick-ass for the project and wanted to use Premiere or FCP, or whatever, then fine - The producer in me would make sure we had the post pipeline optimized for that, but I don't tie other creatives down to using a tool "just because."

There's so much of that "gear as religion" going on and it drives me crazy. For example, the Avid section on this site to me is about sharing workflow and processes of using Avid with RED cameras. Same for Adobe, and other sub-sections. Not about going into those sections and putting them down for using it. I have answered plenty of workflow questions in other sections and forums for other editing systems as I am more interested in the success of the storyteller than judging someone on their choice of tools and thinking I'm better for it. I'd rather let my work speak for itself. Good or bad...


Michael

 

[Elsie N]

I am an indie filmmaker as well - produce and edit features from $8K (my own) on up. For me, I have found that chasing the camera, lens and such futile and will pick and choose format that best fits the story and budget and work from there. But I will always need an editing system. I can rent the latest and greatest. The same can be said for editing systems, but indie productions will spend the most time in post than on set. It is the production part that I manage as tight as possible. Once I'm in post, it's me and the director for however long it takes as "time" is my greatest asset when there is limited budget and no delivery schedule. There are so many cameras and owners with cameras that negotiating a price for a package is a no-brainer compared to owning all that gear. But if you're more of a shooter, then that's where your priorities lie. It's when you have a schedule that things get intersting and having multiple people working as much as possible at the same time or as overlapped as possible is key to managing that schedule.

There has been a discussion about the all-in-one type user, the Odemax crowd as you say, and there is choice fro those. There is a perception that because they spend so much up front on physical gear that software should be next to nothing or free and there is that choice now as well - Lightworks on PC or wait until this fall when the Mac version is supposed to hit the streets.

I think the discussions is about what works best for oneself, a production, and a workflow and learning what everyone does is great. The stupid part is thinking that one system alone is the best one while diminishing another. Be it camera, lenses, sound gear, editing systems, etc. As an editor I choose what works best for me to tell the story and manage the footage so that it can be finished anywhere on any system based on my budget or skills. I own Resolve, but it doesn't mean that I do the color correction because it would suck compared to someone who knows how to color. The producer in me says to get someone who knows how to color and I don't really care if it is baselight, Resolve, Scratch, or whatever, it is what they feel they can use to their best. If I wasn't editing, and the editor I wanted to use was kick-ass for the project and wanted to use Premiere or FCP, or whatever, then fine - The producer in me would make sure we had the post pipeline optimized for that, but I don't tie other creatives down to using a tool "just because."

There's so much of that "gear as religion" going on and it drives me crazy. For example, the Avid section on this site to me is about sharing workflow and processes of using Avid with RED cameras. Same for Adobe, and other sub-sections. Not about going into those sections and putting them down for using it. I have answered plenty of workflow questions in other sections and forums for other editing systems as I am more interested in the success of the storyteller than judging someone on their choice of tools and thinking I'm better for it. I'd rather let my work speak for itself. Good or bad...


Michael

A well-rounded approach... and very commendable.

My own approach though, has to be different. I do my own writing, directing, and will even do some acting, in some instances. I'll be seen with (small) crew carrying and setting up equipment from snack table to cameras to sound. I shoot my own work and so can allocate as much time as needed on a project... I in fact trade time for money instead of vice-versa.

I'm overloaded and I know it but it's how I have to roll. That's why I want 1 camera system (RED) and am evangelistic about it. I'm married to it and do not want a bunch of mistresses (other camera platforms) in my life to complicate it. I'm on the PC computer platform because I've been on it for years and am comfortable with how it allows me to get the job done.

It's not like I fear change... hell I embrace change and will be an ODEMAX subscriber from the beginning, knowing my work will not reach the widest possible audience in the beginning as that exhibition platform gets a foothold.

And as a long-time user I'm about to change from Adobe as my software solution due to concerns about how they will act going forward. And when I make that change in concert with changing my Epics to Dragons, I am hoping that the next software I use will have developed (or will have such a development in the pipeline) to handle Dragon footage in a way that doesn't require a steep learning curve.

Many here will disagree with my spending precious resources on the Dragon sensor instead of on the post side of things, but I'm of the notion that having the wider dynamic range and higher resolution will save money through re-framing and lighting, not to mention working deeper into a day to get what's needed. Not only that, but I think getting the footage from a Dragon sensor into post will make post easier and faster due to the higher quality image.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

A well-rounded approach... and very commendable.

My own approach though, has to be different. I do my own writing, directing, and will even do some acting, in some instances. I'll be seen with (small) crew carrying and setting up equipment from snack table to cameras to sound. I shoot my own work and so can allocate as much time as needed on a project... I in fact trade time for money instead of vice-versa.

I'm overloaded and I know it but it's how I have to roll. That's why I want 1 camera system (RED) and am evangelistic about it. I'm married to it and do not want a bunch of mistresses (other camera platforms) in my life to complicate it. I'm on the PC computer platform because I've been on it for years and am comfortable with how it allows me to get the job done.

It's not like I fear change... hell I embrace change and will be an ODEMAX subscriber from the beginning, knowing my work will not reach the widest possible audience in the beginning as that exhibition platform gets a foothold.

And as a long-time user I'm about to change from Adobe as my software solution due to concerns about how they will act going forward. And when I make that change in concert with changing my Epics to Dragons, I am hoping that the next software I use will have developed (or will have such a development in the pipeline) to handle Dragon footage in a way that doesn't require a steep learning curve.

Many here will disagree with my spending precious resources on the Dragon sensor instead of on the post side of things, but I'm of the notion that having the wider dynamic range and higher resolution will save money through re-framing and lighting, not to mention working deeper into a day to get what's needed. Not only that, but I think getting the footage from a Dragon sensor into post will make post easier and faster due to the higher quality image.

All good Elsie. We are living in a time where choices are plentiful.

Thr only part of your post I'm curious about is the reframing and lighting part. To me Dragon will not solve lighting challenges. Every cinema camera on the planet still needs to be lit for best results (exceptions being natural light that works perfectly for the scene/story). Dragon will be no exception. It will just expand the possibilities. And I am not the biggest fan of reframing in post other than for stabilization, or as a last resort to fix an editing problem. when I hear people on set talk about skipping coverage because they just reframe later, I cringe. Even with all that resolution it doesn't look goood most of the time. Better to use appropriate lens, and distance.

Anyway, offtopic was just curious what you were referring to.

 

[MichaelP]

All good Elsie. We are living in a time where choices are plentiful.

Thr only part of your post I'm curious about is the reframing and lighting part. To me Dragon will not solve lighting challenges. Every cinema camera on the planet still needs to be lit for best results (exceptions being natural light that works perfectly for the scene/story). Dragon will be no exception. It will just expand the possibilities. And I am not the biggest fan of reframing in post other than for stabilization, or as a last resort to fix an editing problem. when I hear people on set talk about skipping coverage because they just reframe later, I cringe. Even with all that resolution it doesn't look goood most of the time. Better to use appropriate lens, and distance.

Anyway, offtopic was just curious what you were referring to.

Agreed. Even if going for 1920x1080 output, a scaled version of the composition versus the extracted version of the same framing can be different. The reframing is really when it's necessary to match shots between edits, remove boom, stabilization, stereo3d frame violation correction, etc. But as far as skipping coverage... yikes! It was like all the kickback the first cinealta got when Sony said "no need to light". Exposure is one thing, lighting is another and too often get confused.

Michael

 

[Elsie N]

@ Steve and Michael P.

Admittedly re-framing is a bad idea on a well-funded shoot.

But let me explain why it is such an integral and necessary part of my editing. I shoot with two cameras... one unattended acting as a semi-autonomous robot. Very cost effective IMO... no labor cost. That camera is set up to give me a wider shot of the scene and the Redmote allows me to turn it on and off so that it doesn't constantly roll and accumulate a large data dump. Of course, being unattended may mean that the actors may move within the frame to another position which is no longer centered. No problem for the manned camera... just follow the action.

When I'm in post, due to the larger sensor resolution I can re-frame the shot if in fact that particular angle becomes important to the scene, and a closer look is needed. Plus, by re-framing there's no need to shoot a scene as a medium CU, then cut and re-shoot it as an extreme CU. Time, media space, all saved by using the one best scene for both cuts. As far as lighting goes, there will be times when lighting a scene for dramatic effect will be required. But when shooting available light, the extra dynamic range will mean I do not have to light a scene just to get faux available light.

I know this sounds like some guy with a bunch of recycled bailing wire, wiring together a movie that won't look professionally done. I admire professionalism as much as the next person and where I will disagree with many is that one can achieve a degree of professionalism even when deviating from tried and true ways. I'm banking on (being in the right hands and I hope mine prove to be just that) there being shortcuts that one can take that allows good content to be made with little or no budget.

It ain't easy, but I hope I can prove it effective... or alternatively, find the necessary funding. '-)

 

[MichaelP]

I think that's a great working solution, but in order to extract the framing, the assumption now is you're working at a smaller resolution than the camera original in order to preserve "quality" without the inherent resize to maintain same raster size. Which then gets us back to Avid's first foray into "resolution independence" is exactly the scenario enabled for 1080p output.

Michael

 

[Peter Moretti]

And that's the conundrum - all the engineering to develop high level creative and quality control of pixal, frames, layers, 2D, 3D, compositing, paint, graphics, versions, etc. at any resolution, and raster independence fully color managed for input, monitoring, and output for any codec with 100% conform from any other editing system (just in case) and end consumption devices. And do all of that for... less than $1K? The issue is the ROI for that usually doesn't add up unless it has some halo other part of the company - FCPx is obvious, Resolve supports hardware I/O, RedCine X for R3D from their own cameras, etc. Maybe manufacturers can take a page from independent producers and get engineers to do it for the "credit" and not for pay- Maybe start an IMDB for engineering development...

Michael

To be honest, I'd be willing to get on board with real 2K and 4K (not UHD) raster sizes in MC, even if some built-in effects won't work in higher than 1080P projects. Since the broadcast people still want 1080P, this should be a problem for them for now.

And the people who want higher than 1080 are likely to AAF or EDL out to AE or Resolve anyway. I also feel that Avid should let BorisFX, Sapphire, Red Giant, etc. do the effects creation.

Not an ideal solution, but it would be a real shame if it's EFFECTS that's preventing Avid from going to higher raster sizes.

If so, it reminds me of a time when I was talking to someone from Avid about color correction. They kept on saying how Avid will never be an online CC solution. I kept on saying Avid needs to improve the CC tools, like better secondaries and the ability to easily add vignettes. He started talking about the complicated math and color science involved in print stock emulation.

What became apparent is that what he thought about improving CC tools and what most of the complaints are about CC tools were two different things. I agree that pumping a lot of money into film stock emulation would be a huge waste. But adding the ability to draw a vignette in the CC Toolset... well that seems like a good use of developer time, IMHO.

The above is just an idea.

 

[MichaelP]

There can be a tendency by engineering to "boil the ocean", and your example of "having to have stock emulation" would be a nice to have, but not a first priority in an updated color correction feature set. All NLE's and solutions will have strengths and weaknesses, and we all choose accordingly. One of the maddening things about Avid is once a feature is enabled and shipped, it is very rare that it gets additional development to make it a complete solution for all the markets it serves. If they do, it will be many version in between. There have been a few instances where that was not the case - such as the first release of SmartTool was so intrusive to the editing style of many, even when it was turned off, that they "refined" it over the next two releases. But that was out of necessity and huge user outcry as it interrupted the very function that every editor does every minute of the day - edit.

What would be nice, as with color correction, is evolutaionary development in every release to be feature complete (whatever that definition might be). And if they had done that since the introduction of color correction in 1999, it would be a pretty robust tool. The issue now, is the bar has been set really high with a free Resolve being that bar. In the past, Avid would say, "we may be late, but when we do it, we do it better." And there was a time that was true, but more recently that has not been the case.

Personally, I believe that Avid needs to change its strategy to be a platform, rather than the complete tool. Media Composer becomes a platform that manages assets, metadata, and editing interaction while third parties can easily build added value as needed by the customer. Baselight is a great first example of that, but limitations in the timeline architecture prevent it from being the best it can be - such as "relational" color correction. AVX needs that for any effect but in the case of Bselight, color correct a shot and apply as needed to any shot based on whatever relation you want. Access to the source settings directly from color correction - RED, or any other type of RAW format needs to be tweaked there first, but the user needs to leave the CC and go find the source, then the settings... painful. That is what a platform would do. Not to mention scripting, XML, etc.

I do not believe that resolution independence will fall to that fate - although the question remains as to when we will see a full resolution independent pipeline. User's want to believe the next paid upgrade, but that is not always the case. And while there are some great new workflow features in v7, they are unfinished to meet the needs of some or many - and will that also be added to the list of "great start" but lacking in the long term.

That being said, Media Composer is still my tool of choice for editing and I can make it fit into any workflow - it's the ease of which I can do it that varies.


Michael

 

[Nikhil Kamkolkar]

I dropped FCP. Went back to AVID after more than a decade. Used it for a bit with RED footage. Then switched to working with Premiere CC. Liking it. I think editing R3D natively is a must for any viable editing system moving forward.

That said, the media management aspects are crucial on long form and I can imagine exploring a long form project on the AVID but switching to Premiere as a finishing tool in combination with AE and Resolve.

But basically, wish AVID would get its shit together in this department and make DS++ the next base platform for editing+finishing.

 

[MichaelP]

But basically, wish AVID would get its shit together in this department and make DS++ the next base platform for editing+finishing.

I believe when Avid updated Media Compsoer to 64bit, that pretty much answered the "DS as the next base platform for editing + finishing."


Michael

 

[George A.]

Is anyone playing with Avid Media Composer 7? It was released recently.

Opinions?

 

[MichaelP]

I have - anything in particular? Lots of interesting new functionality - some are pretty complete, some will need some refinements over time. Nothing new specifc to RED, pretty much the same process as before unless you want to try some of the LUTs being bantered about on the site for different color space outputs from the R3D file. Just keep in mind that Media Composer is a natively a Rec.709 HD system. The FrameFlex is pretty cool if you need to reframe a shot to get a mike out and not lose out on the resolution in doing so as it will extract that part of the frame from the higher resolution file. There is no rotate for leveling off a shot though. And it's only the FrameFlex effect that can do that. All other effects take the HD output of the resize/scale. The cached waveforms will be huge for a lot of people. DMF and background transcoding look cool, but I have yet to get that to work on my system so I reserve judgement beyond the fact that it won't install...

Michael

 

[George A.]

Hi Michael,

Did you try to edit R3Ds natively with the 7 version?
Thanks!
George

 

[MichaelP]

I have tried R3D's with v7. But being on a MacBookPro, it is hard to tell if there is any real performance difference.

Michael

 

[Oliver Peters]

Regarding the DS comments:

http://community.avid.com/forums/p/121484/699539.aspx#699539

- Oliver

 

[MichaelP]

R.I.P.