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 or FCP???

As Nate said, if that is your goal then work with FCP/FCS. But, the workflow you are talking about demands ALOT of computing power with fast discs etc. etc.
Even if I can do online editing on my laptop I'd rather do offline anyway, it might even be faster to go offline when working with layers of in-editing effects and stuff. If you edit online on the same system then there's no timeloss in pulling the high quality files into a finished edit. The workflow and creative work will be much smoother... that is, if you do not have alot of money to create a hardware/software setup equal to a post production house.
 
Patrick Tresch said:
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
Click to expand...

Re: FCP Timeline Navigation, Indeed! I like that the default is selecting and moving clips around I just wish that they could add a mode where if I hold down a modifier key it'll scrub through the timeline like Avid. Although, FCP7 did ad a "Zoom In/Out on Playhead" and that's really nice.
 
As someone who started with FCP and recently moved to Avid I have to say that FCP is easier for a beginner to understand since it uses a desk-top publishing metaphor to let you understand how to edit the video. Avid uses a analogue video editing metaphor which is more suited to editing moving images.

You can use FCP like Avid, but if you start with FCP you risk training yourself into bad habits, such as editing with the mouse (specifically the blade tool on the timeline) rather than the keyboard, looking at the monitors. I am having to get my head around editing the Avid way but I must say I am enjoying learning to edit right and I have become faster, more creative and more precise using Avid than I ever was using Final Cut. Not to mention not having a nagging feeling in the back of my mind about my files.

So the learning curve is steeper for those of us who never operated in the analogue video world with Avid but it is a better editor. FCP has a great grading tool that comes with it but Avid has a great FX engine.

And I have to agree with Christoffer Glans, if you are shooting for TV then you wont want to edit or deliver in anything above 1080p (if that). And if you are looking at a theatrical release then why not edit in the (film) industry standard that can be taken to an Avid DS for finishing?

Just my 2p
 
Stefan Christou said:
As someone who started with FCP and recently moved to Avid I have to say that FCP is easier for a beginner to understand since it uses a desk-top publishing metaphor to let you understand how to edit the video. Avid uses a analogue video editing metaphor which is more suited to editing moving images.

You can use FCP like Avid, but if you start with FCP you risk training yourself into bad habits, such as editing with the mouse (specifically the blade tool on the timeline) rather than the keyboard, looking at the monitors. I am having to get my head around editing the Avid way but I must say I am enjoying learning to edit right and I have become faster, more creative and more precise using Avid than I ever was using Final Cut. Not to mention not having a nagging feeling in the back of my mind about my files.

So the learning curve is steeper for those of us who never operated in the analogue video world with Avid but it is a better editor. FCP has a great grading tool that comes with it but Avid has a great FX engine.

And I have to agree with Christoffer Glans, if you are shooting for TV then you wont want to edit or deliver in anything above 1080p (if that). And if you are looking at a theatrical release then why not edit in the (film) industry standard that can be taken to an Avid DS for finishing?

Just my 2p
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. After being forced to learn Avid after years of mouse-editing in FCP, I found that loved Avid and was 10x faster in it. But in the past 8 months I've learned just how much you can use FCP as if you were using Avid. They just don't force you to learn that way. It's ironic how Avid made me a faster FCP editor.

And if we're getting into the 1080p delivery, I'd have to cast my vote for ProRes HQ over DNxHD. Color works great with it and it's well above broadcast quality.
 
I wasn't aware the new ProRes was that good. Nice to know. CC in Avid is not especially powerful out of the box but I need to get my head around colour. I just wish I could CC in photoshop
 
Stefan Christou said:
I wasn't aware the new ProRes was that good. Nice to know. CC in Avid is not especially powerful out of the box but I need to get my head around colour. I just wish I could CC in photoshop
Click to expand...

Not unlike the FCP vs Avid debate, the codec wars can get heated. I like ProRes, some people don't. I find that DNxHD can get very grainy, vary fast.

But if you think about it, the new ProRes LT is designed to be able to broadcast 1080p since it hovers around the magical 100megabits perbsecond range. Even plain old ProRes (not HQ) has a higher bitrate than LT. But people debate the finer points of what's more color accurate, what colors are better, what compromises the least, etc.

I just finished cutting a short shot on RED 4K 16:9 and think the 2K offline ProRes HQ files would look great on the in-house 1080p projecter. The DP has differing opinions and of course wants to color off the 4K source (which Color 1.5 can do).
 
Unless the DP wants a dramatically different look than you have in the ProRes, why use the originals?

Welllllll I suppose you would have more room to re-light in RAW and you could do a final debayer at the highest quality settings possible, and if he wants it sharper you can add sharpening, which should only be done once apparently, so going from RAW would be a good idea. Or he might just have OCD.
 
Stefan Christou said:
Unless the DP wants a dramatically different look than you have in the ProRes, why use the originals?

Welllllll I suppose you would have more room to re-light in RAW and you could do a final debayer at the highest quality settings possible, and if he wants it sharper you can add sharpening, which should only be done once apparently, so going from RAW would be a good idea. Or he might just have OCD.
Click to expand...

Well, truth be told, I think the color and saturation difference the conversion to ProRes entails scares him. While ProRes retains the details quite well it sacrifices and crunches color information (at least that's my limited understanding). That's why ProRes footage looks more saturated, deeper, and more vibrant than REDCODE RAW. I don't think it's a huge issue since you can color out the saturation in ProRes but I think the difference scares him. He wants 10bit DPX files to grade in Lustre. Now, getting my offline RED project online to the raw REDCODE and exported into a DPX sequence with an EDL... that has been my nightmare over the past week. PM me if anyone has solutions that don't cost money to buy more software such as Crimson.

Not to mention I have 3 shots that aren't r3d files but instead ProRes 4444 since I wanted to use SmoothCam in Motion to stabilize a few shots. :emote_head_explode:
 
When prepping DPX for Luster/Pablo and the like, Monkey Extract is probably your best tool. Yea, I realize you weren't looking for purchasable options... but I think it's worth mentioning because it has the ability of assigning reel id's on a per clip basis, something the colorist is going to want to see and send back to you. Crimson will work too, but lacks the reel ID assign function (that I am aware of) and cost 1/2 as much. At $150, Crimson is a cheap tool that could help your workflow quite a bit.
 
Brandon Kraemer said:
When prepping DPX for Luster/Pablo and the like, Monkey Extract is probably your best tool. Yea, I realize you weren't looking for purchasable options... but I think it's worth mentioning because it has the ability of assigning reel id's on a per clip basis, something the colorist is going to want to see and send back to you. Crimson will work too, but lacks the reel ID assign function (that I am aware of) and cost 1/2 as much. At $150, Crimson is a cheap tool that could help your workflow quite a bit.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I guess either one would be a good tool to have in the future. I like Monkey Extract because it can render DPX files right from there. With Crimson, I'd have use REDCINE to render out DPXs and as I hear, REDCINE can only load a 150 or so clips at a time so I'd have to do it in pieces. Hmm.

I've used Lustre and it is quite nice but going to Color would be SO much easier. I think he just hates that he has to use the mouse.

Moral of the story: TEST YOUR WORKFLOW PRIOR TO SHOOTING because now I have to send the dreaded "we need more money" e-mail to my Director.
 
Nate Orloff said:
Not unlike the FCP vs Avid debate, the codec wars can get heated. I like ProRes, some people don't. I find that DNxHD can get very grainy, vary fast.
...
Click to expand...

I've done and looked at quite a few test comparing DNxHD, Cineform and ProRes. There was a problem w/ DNxHD and interlaced material before the most recent codec release. But the 2.0 version of the codecs are outstanding, IMHO. They did "better" than ProRes and arguably better than Cineform.
 
Thanks

Thanks

Hey guys,
I would like to thank everyone for your valuable input. It is clearly not an easy decision, but considering on my focus on indy documentaries and limited budget, in view of what I read it seems to me that FCP will serve me better, even thought AVID MC is superior in some aspects.
 
It depends on the project I say... if you are focusing on feature documentaries then there will be alot of material, lot of media management. It's better to edit offline if there's a huge pile of material. In that case I would recommend Avid MC. The limited budget though speaks more in favor of FCP, but you still need the hardware to be able to handle R3D files.

I would choose based on if you will edit offline or online directly (and with how much material). Avid is better for large projects (not necessarily high budget projects, but large in terms of long + big amount of material), FCP is better for smaller projects that need a fast finish.
 
I think it's worth noting that Media Composer is available for a free 14-day trial via download. So, if you want to give it a try before deciding, it's there.

The MC software bundle is a bit over twice the FC Studio bundle. Both offer a lot of extra software, but in the case of MC, this includes Boris Continuum Complete filters and Avid FX (Boris RED). This means you get quite a lot of effects content in the deal.

Both NLEs will get the job done. It really boils down to personal preference and what you personally will be the most productive with. One last issue is that MC is cross-platform and can be migrated. If you decide to change to PC or switch back and forth, you can do this with MC but not FCP.

- Oliver
 
Not to create another debate, but if one were to go with Avid, would one be better off going with a windows platform, or a mac platform?
 
I would look to other applications you want to use in the workflow to see if one will mandate one platform over the other. I use Mac and PC and use whatever tools fit my need.

Michael
 
One of those other programs is Metafuze, so if you really don't care about Mac versus PC, then I'd consider going with a PC. You have to run Metafuze via Bootcamp on a Mac.

OTOH, if you think you are going to want to use FCPS as well at some point down the road, you have to go Mac.

But, if you're using TMPGEnc Xpress 4.0 to remove the pulldown from your HV30 footage, it's only a PC program. However, DVFilm's DVFilm Maker will also remove the pulldown and it works on the Mac.

HTH, even if it's a little convoluted.
 
Having just installed it, I'm really impressed with Parallels for the Mac. Eliminates the need for Boot Camp, so you can run PC apps on a virtual machine on top of Mac OS. Requires an Intel Mac, so if you already own Mac hardware, or want the ability to run Mac apps, consider that.
 
I would also say the same about VMware Fusion. I installed this on a demo 17" MBP to run Sony Vegas Pro 9 and the performance was pretty good. Didn't test with any RED content, however.

- Oliver
 
And MetaFuze has been qualified for VMWare...

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