Avid Media Composer or FCP???

[Vicente Nogueira]

Considering the recent improvements for RED use with Avid Media Composer (Metafuse, etc), and FCP (R3D, Color, etc), I would like your oppinion:

If you were purchasing now a new hadware and editing software platform for use with RED footage for the next few years (suppose you had no knowledge of either software package), would you choose FCP or Avid Media Composer?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Lewis-M Soucy]

If you were purchasing now a new hadware and editing software platform for use with RED footage for the next few years (suppose you had no knowledge of either software package), would you choose FCP or Avid Media Composer?

Definitely FCP...

 

[Jörgen Persson]

Definitely Avid.

FCP is much easier for a beginner compared to Media Composer. It's more open and you can watch the files in any application that supports quicktime.
I'm a "new school" editor and I started editing DV on FCP version 1.2.5 and I have upgraded all the way to FCS 3 because it's a great software package. For quick edits and stuff that needs to go in and out of the system then FCP is extremely flexible.

But for plain editing I prefer to use Avid Media Composer because it's a tool that won't interrupt my creative flow. It also manages the media in a way that protects you from yourself since everything is kept in one media folder and you never copy or move media files using the operating system. Instead you delete, consolidate and move media inside the application. The media managing in FCP is a joke compared to Avid.

For Red projects I think Avid is a superior tool because of the rich metadata management. Every Avid bin is a separate file and it's a database that keeps track of your clips and what's in our sequences. Clips and sequences in FCP is just stored in one big ass project file which keeps on growing and growing.

Avid also tracks both types of timecodes that Red generates and other metadata in the R3D file. This is great for projects that will end up in a facility with different finishing tools.

For day in and day out editing you really need to use an editing codec to have a responsive system. The time to transcode R3D to an editing codec is basically the same for FCP and Avid. In FCP you use Log and Transfer to transcode to ProRes. For Avid you can use MetaFuze on PC or RedRushes on Mac for the essence transcoding and metadata generation.

The main disadvantage for new editors is the pricing for the Avid hardware.
Capture cards and monitoring for FCP (Blackmacic and AJA for example) is a lot cheaper than Avid products. But with Avid you have one vendor for both the software and hardware which is an advantage when something goes wrong.

Since the tools and workflows are constantly changing, you should choose an NLE that will make you more productive. Try them both and make up your own mind.

You can download a fully operational Media Composer trial at http://www.avid.com/products/tryout.html

By the way, I live in Sweden and I don't know of a single Swedish feature film project shot on Red that didn't use Avid for the offline editing.

 

[Brandon Kraemer]

I would say FCP; it's more open ended and you can cut using proxies with out any ingest time. I have my FCP keyboard mapped like an Avid, and I am an old school Avid guy, but I have to say the FCP architecture is much more open and therefore flexible. Working like I would on an Avid with my keyboard map... I haven't missed Media Composer since switching to FCP, save a few minor functions. Just my opinion.

 

[Noah Kadner]

I'd work with a reseller that dealt both and try both out first. Some folks find FCP more intuitive than AVID and vice-versa. They are both fully capable of completing RED projects, though each takes different paths to the goals. Do a lot of research but above all test-drive. There's no definitive answer here.

Noah

 

[person]

Go with both! We have two dual boot Avid Nitris DX systems with FCP and AJA. I am first and foremost and Avid editor only because I am much much faster and comfortable using it. Avid has come down considerably in price. So what you used to pay for a Meridian system gets you a Ntiris DX and FCP with Aja. Also think about what other formats you work with. I know the original posting was about RED. But if you work with P2, XDCAM, etc. Avid can work natively with these. No transcoding whatsoever. And with Avid 4.0 soon to be release you can work with all these formats at any frame rate in one timeline full quality in real time. Pretty nifty.

 

[Peter Moretti]

I think it comes down to if you are going to try to finish the work yourself. FCPS's Color color grading program provides some very nice features and the ability to work natively w/ .R3D files at full resolution and bit depth. Avid's Metafuze limits you to 1080 resolution w/ 4:2:2 10-bit color depth. For a lot of people that's fine, but it's not 4K(ish) 4:4:4(ish) 12-bit.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

For a lot of people that's fine, but it's not 4K(ish) 4:4:4(ish) 12-bit.

4K at 4:4:4? Red isn't even able to produce that and I really don't know what you need 4:4:4 for exactly. Also, Metafuze is ongoing in what it's capabilities are and going to be.
Red is best to finish of at a maximum of 2K, most productions finish in 1080p like the feature I've recently edited. Yes, 4K is the tomorrow, but the reality of it is that the presentation is more important then the finish. By presentation I mean where is it going to be shown? Even for theatre the 1080p to 35mm is looking perfect.

Is 4K going to be a format that within 2 years will become THE standard for theatres all over the world? I doubt that extremely. Most places doesn't even have a digital projector and if they do they can probably only afford a 2K projector.

And let's talk television. The HD standard at this moment is still 720p. A few special channels broadcast 1080p, but remember that everyone must change to HD television sets and broadcast companies must change to broadcast television in HD as their primary format before we can even begin talking about the 2K, 4K next step.

So to be realistic, what the end format is, is entirely dependent on the presentation.
If you want to archive the project, then I'd rather archive the offline editing, grading and finish settings and then archive the original R3D footage for a future 4K presentation.

As for the answer to the editing choice. It's entirely up to you. Read this thread:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33282&

The answer is: what ever fits you and I also think, you get what you pay for.
I think the top down and upside of both is that FCP is fast but at times unstable/risky and Media Composer is slower but stable and unrisky.
So it doesn't depend on the finish, it comes down to what you prefer and the project.
A feature film = Avid (reliable media handling and smooth workflow without getting techinal), Commercial, short films and music videos = FCP (fast edit on the fly and good grading options).

 

[Peter Moretti]

Come on Chris, 4:4:4 is better for compositing and extreme grading, and 12 bits are better than ten.

And Avid can't do 2K. I know 1920 is very close to 2K; I'm not saying there is a noticeable quality difference, but how do make a 2K digital deliverable in Avid w/o going to DS?

If the methodology is offline edit, online finish, then Avid excels. If it's do everything you can in one production suite, then Avid lags in some areas when compared to FCPS.

Avid's experience as THE offline editor makes it still the best offline editor for large projects. But a lot of Red users are working on small projects and are going to try to finish themselves. I'm not saying Avid's finishing tools are bad by any means; they certainly aren't. I'm just saying what all us MC users know, that FCPS's finishing tools are more advanced in some areas, esp. when it comes to handling Red footage.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Come on Chris, 4:4:4 is better for compositing and extreme grading, and 12 bits are better than ten.

Yes, but Red still can't produce 4K 4:4:4 so your point falls.
Didn't say anything about bits.

And Avid can't do 2K. I know 1920 is very close to 2K; I'm not saying there is a noticeable quality difference, but how do make a 2K digital deliverable in Avid w/o going to DS?

Why do you need 2K? The presentation is what counts, 2K is close to 1080p and for downscaling it's better to go with 4K HD on Red and downscale to 1080p, it produces better quality for the end presentation result. There's no reason for 2K and the most stupid choice the market could make would be to go from 1080p to 2K as a high HD format for television. The next step would be 4K and that's still years ahead.

If it's do everything you can in one production suite, then Avid lags in some areas when compared to FCPS.

That isn't true, for the most part, rendering either DNxHD 185x or Uncompressed 10-bit through metafuze is both fast and high quality enough for most end presentations.
If advanced keying is needed it's better to render it out separately as DPX and later conform that through metafuze. I can finish something on my laptop if I want to go solo. Finish it in more quality then needed in most cases.

Yes, Avid is more suited for offline editing and large projects, but it's still enough to finish something on at this time. It may change three years from now, but then again, so might Avid.

There's no reason to debate I think, it's a matter of choice by you as an editor. I prefer Avid, some prefer FCP, both are good and their pros & cons are really balancing each other out. If you are an editor who works with commercial, music videos and short films only, then FCP is the best choice because of it's fast workflow. If you are working with large projects where alot of material needs to be handled, then Avid is the best choice.

Many say that if you are working on both small and large projects it's better to go Avid.

As a footnote, I hear alot of people complaining about Avid being complicated, but I have never experienced a lag or a problem that I couldn't fix and when people have complained about avid I've fixed their problems in a second. There's alot of unnecessary complaining that is unjust.
I on the other hand have heard alot more complaining by people working with FCP. Alot of them have problems with FCP but they don't speak about it in the same way as with Avid.

There is an unjust dislike about Avid that I don't like. Whatever system you choose, learn it completely! There's too much complaining from people on both sides who really don't know what they are doing.

 

[Lewis-M Soucy]

If you were purchasing now a new hadware and editing software platform for use with RED footage for the next few years (suppose you had no knowledge of either software package), would you choose FCP or Avid Media Composer?

Come on, don't steal the thread guys, the original question is pretty simple... I said FCP, then again, I haven't touched an Avid in 10 years, so it's just my personnal taste, but I would never drop a newbie (which I think the question eventually refers to) on an Avid just like that...

This sounds like an Avid VS FCP editors war again... :violin:

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Does it sound like I'm raging war? I have said it's a personal choice. Try both, choose one.
The editorial war is only a sign that the choice isn't simple.

Thing is that saying you would never throw an Avid system on a newbie is just as much an editorial war as our discussion. And saying this when you haven't used Avid for over 10 years is downright ignorant and misleading for his choice.

I got Avid throwed in my face and I hated it, just like people who don't care learning the system view Avid. But that hate lost it's grip and I love it now. A newbie that cares about learning the system will master it and mastering it makes all worries go away...
whatever system.

But as I've said numerous time it's about the end result. In what league will he use Red and his editing suite? And for what end presentation?
Saying "for the next few years" also makes Avid a good choice by comparison, because they are developing better and better support as we speak.

Why people try to make this choice between FCP and Avid either blindly easy or unreasonably complicated is beyond me.

 

[Lewis-M Soucy]

Awright, forget what I said, you completely missed my point. And I won't be a target for Avid frustration. The guy asks "Avid or FCP"? I say FCP, you say Avid, and that's fine. Don't kick me in the balls because "you are tired people say bad things about Avid"... Get a gym membership. I was just expressing my POV nicely. Read my post.

PS: from the trailer, the picture looks great by the way...

 

[Stephen Gentle]

Yes, but Red still can't produce 4K 4:4:4 so your point falls.
Didn't say anything about bits.

But there isn't 4:4:4 or anything like that with RED... It's RAW data, nothing subsampled... I mean, sure, when you convert to RGB or YUV you don't have 100% data in each of the colour channels, but you can't broadly apply a YUV term to it...

 

[Peter Moretti]

Yes, but Red still can't produce 4K 4:4:4 so your point falls.

...

Your attitude blows.

I recommend to the OP to critically evaluate everything you read about both platforms. Either choice that you make, you'll be getting a very powerful system. And if you think you might switch or want to use both, consider buying a Mac b/c Media Composer can run on a Mac. (Metafuze can't run in a Mac OS, you'll have to use Bootstrap.)

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Awright, forget what I said, you completely missed my point. And I won't be a target for Avid frustration. The guy asks "Avid or FCP"? I say FCP, you say Avid, and that's fine. Don't kick me in the balls because "you are tired people say bad things about Avid"... Get a gym membership. I was just expressing my POV nicely. Read my post.

PS: from the trailer, the picture looks great by the way...

"The guy asks "Avid or FCP"? I say FCP, you say Avid, and that's fine."

No, I say try both choose one. Don't say that I miss the point when you do the same.
POV's aren't very useful for his choice, if you haven't touched Avid for 10 years, how can you give him insightful info and support in his choice?

But there isn't 4:4:4 or anything like that with RED... It's RAW data, nothing subsampled... I mean, sure, when you convert to RGB or YUV you don't have 100% data in each of the colour channels, but you can't broadly apply a YUV term to it...

That is both true and not true; RAW doesn't have 4:4:4 or 4:2:2, but if you render out footage in 4K it becomes that, you can't get 4:4:4 and 4K out of an R3D file.
You need the debayering process down to at least 2K to manage it.

Your attitude blows.

I recommend to the OP to critically evaluate everything you read about both platforms. Either choice that you make, you'll be getting a very powerful system. And if you think you might switch or want to use both, consider buying a Mac b/c Media Composer can run on a Mac. (Metafuze can't run in a Mac OS, you'll have to use Bootstrap.)

Your attitude blows.

Perhaps that's an internet text message interpretation, I'm merly seriously discussing.

I recommend using both learing both, try both. Mostly because there's so much, excuse me, bullshit wars when trying to find info. Speak with experienced editors on all kinds of projects and evaluate from that.

 

[francois]

That is a wrong question. FCP as well as MC are two different tools to do the same job. I worked with both but, from my way of working, thinking and getting along with the interface I prefer MC. So as it is said, the operation depend upon the operator

 

[Sam Roberts]

The goal for me is to get a software/hardware package that does away with the offline/online thing. Full, real time 1080 or 2k playback with maybe two or three streams of video stacked on the timeline for efx with no rendering. I was doing just this working in SD before I switched to HD. I'm sure this is just a matter of time. The term offline will be lost to history as it should be.

 

[Nate Orloff]

The goal for me is to get a software/hardware package that does away with the offline/online thing. Full, real time 1080 or 2k playback with maybe two or three streams of video stacked on the timeline for efx with no rendering. I was doing just this working in SD before I switched to HD. I'm sure this is just a matter of time. The term offline will be lost to history as it should be.

I'd recommend the FCP/Color route then. I love Avid as an EDITOR but if you're looking for a solid production suit that can edit the 4K proxies at 2K resolution, send to a color grading program at the native 4K, all on one computer, then go with Final Cut Studio.

But do yourself a favor if you're gonna edit the proxies and get a few internal hard drives for you Mac Pro and RAID0 them for the highest read/write speed possible. It'll help reading the large amounts of data REDCODE has. Just make sure to backup since RAID0 is only about speed and has a higher change of data corruption. Although I haven't had a problem with my 2x1TB RAID0 in the year and a half I've had it. I just have a 3.2TB Drobo that Time Machine backs everything up to.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I come from 10+ years of avid background (xpress to DS). But I would vote for FCP if the needs are to be versatile from editing to posting in a lowbudget configuration. If you can afford the right tools for the right job then buy yourself the whole AVID line up to DS... (and hire the right peoples).

FCPstudio is incredibly efficient. (But the timeline navigation SUKS!!! even color timeline navigation is better. DS has my award for the best time line navigation... but that's another story.)

Patrick