AVID vs FCP

[Christoffer Glans]

I'm trying to find out all the pros and cons of the two.
I do not want a battle about which software is best. I want to iron out all the goods and bads of both systems. Both within a RED workflow but also in general.

So, what are the pros and cons of these systems?? What is bad in Avid, what is bad in FCP, what is good in Avid, what is good in FCP? What is good in Avid and bad in FCP and what is good in FCP and bad in Avid?

 

[Craig Parkes]

AVID pro - Reliable Media Management
FCP con - Crap (almost non existant) media management

FCP pro - Inexpensive third party hardware that's well supported (AJA, Blackmagic cards)
AVID con - VERY expensive 1st party hardware only that's well supported (at a high price)

FCP - Some strange/poor UI decisions from a full time editors point of view, although very user friendly for new editors.
AVID - Some very strong UI decisions from a full time editors point of view, although not very user friendly for new editors.

FCP - Too many settings in too many places that are too easy to change and potentially screw up your project (but if you KNOW what you are doing, then makes it traditionally very flexible to work in whatever way you want to.)

AVID - Settings are generally tied into accepted workflows and hardware supported workflows, that generally means that you have to try pretty hard to mess something up (and even then because of it's great media management it can probably fix things for you) but isn't quite as flexible in terms of formats etc (although this is changing.)

FCS - Incredibly good value in terms of bundled products, although not all the bundled products are that great, if you are only making one purchase FCS goes a LONG way.

AVID - Bundled products aren't as integrated, or as flexible and don't offer the same range of options that FCS does.

Between the two FCP as a purchase is in my mind still pretty remarkable (at it's current price point.) compared to anything else on the market.

For series television that needs to be bullet proof I can list a whole bunch of reasons I'd rather editors be working on AVID if I was in charge of the production - but if I want a flexible tool to work on a huge number of different projects FCP is a very flexible tool.

 

[Stefan Christou]

FCP - Some strange/poor UI decisions from a full time editors point of view, although very user friendly for new editors.
AVID - Some very strong UI decisions from a full time editors point of view, although not very user friendly for new editors.

When moving from FCP to Avid I did find it very confusing at first, but I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT. The Avid way of editing is so much quicker, and you actually edit the video rather than fiddling with the timeline like in FCP.

Also the price can be better on Avid, if you are a student Avid Media Composer is only $300, compared to $999 for FCS3 with no available student discount.

Also the new version of Metafuze now supports audio and handles the metadata very well indeed (which is important for your media management).

The other great thing about Media Composer is that it works on both PCs and Macs, so you can bring your files (and your preferences) anywhere with no worries about compatibility.

Stef

 

[Brad Hawkins]

AVID pro - Reliable Media Management
FCP con - Crap (almost non existant) media management

FCP pro - Inexpensive third party hardware that's well supported (AJA, Blackmagic cards)
AVID con - VERY expensive 1st party hardware only that's well supported (at a high price)

FCP - Some strange/poor UI decisions from a full time editors point of view, although very user friendly for new editors.
AVID - Some very strong UI decisions from a full time editors point of view, although not very user friendly for new editors.

FCP - Too many settings in too many places that are too easy to change and potentially screw up your project (but if you KNOW what you are doing, then makes it traditionally very flexible to work in whatever way you want to.)

AVID - Settings are generally tied into accepted workflows and hardware supported workflows, that generally means that you have to try pretty hard to mess something up (and even then because of it's great media management it can probably fix things for you) but isn't quite as flexible in terms of formats etc (although this is changing.)

FCS - Incredibly good value in terms of bundled products, although not all the bundled products are that great, if you are only making one purchase FCS goes a LONG way.

AVID - Bundled products aren't as integrated, or as flexible and don't offer the same range of options that FCS does.

Between the two FCP as a purchase is in my mind still pretty remarkable (at it's current price point.) compared to anything else on the market.

For series television that needs to be bullet proof I can list a whole bunch of reasons I'd rather editors be working on AVID if I was in charge of the production - but if I want a flexible tool to work on a huge number of different projects FCP is a very flexible tool.

Very well put! :thumbup1:

 

[Christoffer Glans]

In terms of a whole workflow with a postproduction house at the end of editing, which works best? Does Avid work good if the conform is on FCP, does FCP work good if the confrom is Avid?

And on the subject if it's a RED project, now with metafuze and Avid DS R3D native, what are the differences and strengths between the two programs. How far behind is Avid in terms of RED workflow today? (from shooting to a grading and conforming posthouse)

 

[Craig Parkes]

Christoffer, that really depends on what the post production house is using, doesn't it?

Both workflows allow for a EDL output, and there are (mostly third party) tools to allow more complicated conform between both platform.

If you are talking about what works today, I'd imagine it's best to discuss with the post houses you are looking at finishing with what workflows they are currently using and what they have already had success with. Workflow with RED seems to get improved on almost a weekly basis, but that's of no use if the guys you are working with aren't up on the play on those changes. If you know what's worked for them in the past you will at least be getting replicable results.

I don't know if AVID is behind in R3D workflow significantly anymore, with the exception maybe of having less workflow options (can't work directly from the QT proxies from memory). I know it's being used very successfully in a number of settings - but the entire workflow is what you need to look at, not just one single part of it, and very rarely does just your NLE encompass every aspect of your post system with R3D footage (as there is often a grade and or conform before finishing.)

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I'm actually more onto this as a hypothetical question. Merly trying to gather knowledge about the differences of the two systems.

If I as an editor has my best knowledge with one of the systems when working in offline, how much does that matter for other parts of the post production? What system today has the least complex collaboration with let's say, special effects, sounddesign, music, grading, conform etc. etc. In other words, what system offers the best collaboration between me and them, whatever software the other parts of post are using?

Keep in mind that it's not a battle between them, I'm just gathering pros and cons of both. I'm a hardcore avid user but if FCP is better at some things it's a cake I must eat and in that case use instead of Avid.

 

[mcdroid]

Craig, thanks for saving me a lot of typing. You said it quite well.
I happen to agree and happen to prefer Avid.
Fast, reliable, great media management, great in collaborative environment.
And since you spend more time "editing" than "ingesting" I think those benefits are more important. At least to me.

Andrew

 

[Dave Blackham]

AVID pro - Reliable Media Management
FCP con - Crap (almost non existant) media management

Problem solved using catDV which is very much better than Avid tools.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Problem solved using catDV which is very much better than Avid tools.

Just to get a second opinion, is this a personal opinion or is it actually tested to be better?
I mean, is it a general opinion? Otherwise it remains in the neverending "battle" between the "fans".

Still feels safer to have an in-editorial media management then outside third party plug in? Isn't it?

 

[Dave Blackham]

Just to get a second opinion, is this a personal opinion or is it actually tested to be better?
I mean, is it a general opinion? Otherwise it remains in the neverending "battle" between the "fans".

Still feels safer to have an in-editorial media management then outside third party plug in? Isn't it?

catDV is used by many small and large organisations to offer media management with in Quicktime workflow. The question was Avid vs FCP but Id suggest a second question to consider may be Avid Media Management vs QuickTime workflow of which media Composer and FCP are the edit applications. So much of this really depends on which version of 'Avid' or rather Media composer you have and what platform and hardware you run FCP and its related applications on. Perhaps one way to think of the workflow what ever route is chosen is not to think of Content or media management being part of editing or post production but consider editing or post production as part of Content management. This is why the whole QuickTime workflow and its associated applications is so compelling. One problem is that it can appear to be all things to all men so some thought has to be put in to creating a workflow that is suited to the job in hand.

So I think catDV is a leading application to offer media management with in Quicktime workflow and i wouldnt be with out it. It also interfaces with Avid to a degree. So IMHO I think its better (that's a very sweeping statement I realise) and for the record I/we use the FCS suite of applications and also Digidesign (Avid) software with in our QuickTime workflow and try to sue the best tool for the job. I don't work for Squarebox who created catDV but I do know the guys.

There's a trial download on the site why not give it a go an judge for yourself, runs on Mac or PC.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

A new strenght of Avid is the AMA and Metafuze application. Is that taken into account regarding catDV? I still would like to hear a second opinion. If you know the guys who made the software it's likely that even unintentionally you are partial with them.
Even if it's a professional plug-in/tool, I have still heard alot of editors saying that the media management is better and more reliable on Avid. So I would like to hear more voices saying that catDV is a better choice because at this hour it's 10 against 1 if you can see it from my perspective?

I realize the potential of a quicktime workflow, but all formats are not quicktime based and needs transcoding. With AMA, if a camera developer has it's own codec, they can give out the codec as an AMA plug so that when the camera is released, AMA will be able to edit it's codec natively; quicktime, r3d, mpeg4 etc.
And if something needs transcoding then metafuze is both fast and supported by many formats.

These two are a gamechanger in my view and I would like to hear how the Final Cut way is? Is it all that good to be quicktime based? Isn't it the same as being MXF based like Avid? Does Final Cut have anything similar to AMA that support more formats then quicktime? How is the transcoding options for Final Cut? Is it better?

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

adobe is format and resolution independant. guess if they keep the speed of evolution it will be a game changer in the post industry soon.

 

[mcdroid]

The catDV thing sounds interesting, I'd like to check it out.

I have a question for people using FCP and red footage, hope it's not too far off topic.
If I understand it right you can use the QT proxies from the .r3d files and just start editing with them right away? So that means your r3d files always need to be in the same storage pool whether you're in a single editor or multiple editor situation.
Do I have that right??

Thanks,
Andrew

 

[Craig Parkes]

The Media management I have referred to is not so much about working natively off the raw footage (to me, Quicktime wrappers, MXF or camera originals aren't much of a concern except for totally tapeless workflows, and the areas where AVID shines over Final Cut is traditionally tape based workflows (where there is original footage to link back to on a tape sitting on a shelf, that you'll need to reingest easily at a later date for an online or restoring footage - by a tape I'm referring to XDCAM as well - basically any originating format that stores timecode.)

Cat DV is a good solution in terms of cataloging media, but it's not an in built solution like Avid has in terms of media management, and as such it does rely on the user a little bit more (if you keep your own house in order, great, if you are more 'facility' like and have a number of different editors coming in and out using your system, then it's not as ideal.)

The reality of Solid State workflows and the various changes to Avid and Final Cut over the last couple of years make the differences and advantages/disadvantages of either a lot less clear cut in my mind.

To me it really comes down to 'What are you cutting?'. The advantages in either system then come down to money, time, user base (i.e are you cutting on your own or likely to outsource some, or even most of your edit jobs over time) etc.

Final Cut wins on cost so dramatically when you look at hardware support for HD output that for smaller houses trying to keep overheads low working around the down sides (which are mainly UI based and media management based, which you can keep in order with a combination of programs like Cat DV and just good house keeping yourself.) it's a pretty obvious choice.

Traditionally, other offerings (Premiere, Vegas etc.) have not had either the hardware support or the user base to be competitive offerings although a mixture of file based workflows, HD, cost and integration with other products have meant a wider adoption and an even more open playing field (then there are systems like Media 100, which at first glance are 'legacy' systems with hardware integration that have persevered in some markets despite a small market share, and whose latest iterations seem to follow a more software orientated model for those who have grown use to the existing interface.)

Being an "editor" now also may mean being a DVD author, motion graphics operator, a sound mixer, a 'colorist', an 'encoding' specialist, a web content developer, and a video 'engineer' of sorts - because of the increasingly disparate jobs that may walk through the door due to the increasingly disparate ways that moving imagery media gets created, distributed and watched. As such, the tools for the job are getting broader and broader.

[EDIT to expand on this concept.]
In my case the company I work for has clients that one day will be delivering things to WMV for a powerpoint, a PAL AND NTSC DVD for either Duplication or Replication the next, flash video for web a week later, Digibeta or mpeg muxed program stream for delivery to network (programs and ads respectively) one month, HD deliverables for broadcast the next, file based delivery for multi projector based Watchout! delivery, then delivery for digital signage the day after.

That's an example of the range of different stuff ONE client may ask for, let alone the range of different ways they might bring in the footage for us to work with.

As such we have Avid, we have Final Cut Studio, we have After Effects, we have Maya, We have Nuendo (for sound mixing). We are not a big house by any means (in terms of people doing the day to day work there are 4 of us.) and we find a use for all those tools and more on a regular basis. That's not going to be the case for everyone, and each of us have specialties, but if I was limited to an environment with only one NLE or tool I could only imagine so many jobs would be so much harder, and some that we'd probably just have to turn down...

And in this environment can anyone afford to turn down work?

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Very good post Craig and that is true even for me editing a feature film.
I needed to deliver in different formats to different people over and over again to keep the post production running. And the smallest change needed a new DVD or file, mostly uploaded to an FTP. I could easily say that 40% of the time I was encoding rather then editing the movie.

It's an interesting subtopic, where is the line drawn to how much an editor needs to do?
It's understandable that the editor may need to know how to do different things, but at some point, especially when editing a feature film, the creative process of the editor clogs up in the pipeline of doing everything else but editing.

Continuing on this...
Must the editor know both FCP and Avid? Who decides which program to use? The director? The producer? The client? Or is it the editors choice as long as he delivers results?

If I understand it right you can use the QT proxies from the .r3d files and just start editing with them right away? So that means your r3d files always need to be in the same storage pool whether you're in a single editor or multiple editor situation.
Do I have that right??

No, not really. That data can be copied to another location, but from what I know you must pull it through log and transfer each time there's a new location? Is that right?

Still it boils down to my own opinion about offline workflow. It's fast to edit the r3d's directly but it's no good way to go on larger projects like feature films.
When I was syncing the feature film I worked on it was a mess. Timecodes gone, shifts, missing claps etc. My assistant lived on the other side of the country and we divided the work on this pile of unsorted sound to be able to finish in time. Having the offline transcoded clips on two harddrives in each hand and sending bin files by e-mail is a fast and reliable way of handling the workflow.
I don't want to imagine the magnitude of problems we would have faced if we'd used r3d native editing.

So when working on a feature film the format wars gets gets in my opinion obsolete. If I transcode to offline media formats it doesn't matter if it's FCP ProRes or Avid MXF files.
The process is the same for both. So which system is really better?

-----------

So what is really the difference behind Avid MC and FCP?
I think the question needs subquestions:

* What is the difference between them when working on a feature film?
Pros and Cons of both?

* What is the difference between them working on commercial or music videos?
Pros and Cons?

* What is the difference between them in mobility? (use in laptops, moving data, multiple editors etc)
Pros and Cons?

* What is the difference between them in fast delivery? (encoding times, rendering i.o "waiting times")
Pros and Cons?

* What is the difference in collaboration with other post production parts? i.o What is the difference between them in delivering a smooth workflow for other people, whatever system they are working on?
Pros and Cons?

* What is the difference between them in terms of finishing? (mostly the differences between Media Composer and FCP in terms of finishing a project on one and the same system/software)
Pros and Cons?



I think I can go on with these questions, but if these can be answered with a certain amount of objectivity, it may give a clearer picture.

 

[mcdroid]

No, not really. That data can be copied to another location, but from what I know you must pull it through log and transfer each time there's a new location? Is that right?

So when working on a feature film the format wars gets gets in my opinion obsolete. If I transcode to offline media formats it doesn't matter if it's FCP ProRes or Avid MXF files.
The process is the same for both. So which system is really better?

Got it, thanks Christoffer.
I agree, what's the difference at that point. I would rather be working with smaller transcoded files than moving terabytes of files around.

 

[Craig Parkes]

It's an interesting subtopic, where is the line drawn to how much an editor needs to do?
It's understandable that the editor may need to know how to do different things, but at some point, especially when editing a feature film, the creative process of the editor clogs up in the pipeline of doing everything else but editing.

Totally agreed, the question I guess being what sort of editing are you doing, how are you making your money? If you are editing feature films or series, and you find you can continue to bring in the work on the basis of your talent and experience and any other advantages you bring to the table, then hopefully you can just edit, and in best case scenario have assistant editors who handle the encoding, dubbing, digitizing, etc.

If you are a senior editor on a lot of jobs, you may well have been purely cutting so long that all the ancillary stuff is always done by other people - and that's the way you like it and want it to stay. However, if you haven't been in the field for as long then I'd say these days you have to learn everything at the outset, because you'll need to be cutting stuff AND doing all the workflow stuff. The fact that they are not always discrete jobs is a detriment (as you don't get the wealth of experience and expertise that specialization affords) and sometimes an advantage (being able to trouble shoot problems yourself, do encoding yourself, know a wide range of applications and have at least a journeyman knowledge of all of them can make you very flexible, and may be a good way to transition towards roles like post supervision over editing.).

The specialist versus the Jack of All trades discussion is a commercial/philosophical one. Neither is wrong nor right, as long as you can adapt the skillsets to a project.

Continuing on this...
Must the editor know both FCP and Avid? Who decides which program to use? The director? The producer? The client? Or is it the editors choice as long as he delivers results?

Usually the Editor/Post Supervisor should make this call, in conjunction with the Producer. If it's a freelance editor then if they know what they are doing they should be able to offline on either and master anywhere. If a deal has been struck at a post house then it's conceivable that an editor who would normally get the gig due to creative expertise may miss out on the gig if they are completely unfamiliar with the platform. Learning both is an advantage in such situations - generally you'll get offered the job based on your personality and contacts and experience, but you may occassionally have to turn down a job if the producer has made a deal to save cost which has them tied into a platform you can't use.

You don't need to know both, assuming you can continue getting the work in the one you specialize in.

So when working on a feature film the format wars gets gets in my opinion obsolete. If I transcode to offline media formats it doesn't matter if it's FCP ProRes or Avid MXF files.
The process is the same for both. So which system is really better?
-----------

So what is really the difference behind Avid MC and FCP?
I think the question needs subquestions:

* What is the difference between them when working on a feature film?
Pros and Cons of both?

Haven't edited a feature film myself, I'd imagine that AVID is faster from a UI point of view (it just feels faster) and that the medial management tools are much better. But if you are working on a feature film which uses a Quicktime workflow (as is likely to be the case in Avid) then there were historically issues (timecode not coming across from ingested quicktimes) that meant that there would be a bit of a work around involved. This has probably been updated with newer workflow, so I think file based workflows are probably fairly even between the two systems... Major post houses used to predominately get Avid edits coming at them, so there is a legacy to that in terms of having better workflows... My take is whatever you are faster at cutting with - the thing that will slow you down the most in a feature film edit is the speed at which you can make decisions and play them back for the director, AVID with an experience operator probably wins here, but I'm sure there are plenty of great FCP editors (or those who work on both platforms) who would prove me wrong on a case to case basis.

* What is the difference between them working on commercial or music videos?
Pros and Cons?

In this arena I'd say Final Cut has major advantages (especially music videos) because of the cost, the variety and the cost advantages in terms of hardware. Music videos are shot on a ridiculously wide range of formats, people often go into production with almost know idea what they are going to do in post, and you just have to deal with what comes your way. I've found Final Cut is much more flexible in this regards. Advertisements, because they are short form, I think it's probably a wash. I think Quicktime based workflows are a major advantage when working with collaborators in a small environment because of the speed in which you can integrate changes (media links into the bin instantly) and in a small house dealing with ads this can be really helpful. The cost factor again comes into play here as an advantage to FCP.

High end ads may be more like feature films, but in the general 'ad' arena where you floor is VERY low cost productions that could be coming from anyone FCS suite of tools is way more flexible and so much cheaper for someone to work with.

* What is the difference between them in mobility? (use in laptops, moving data, multiple editors etc)
Pros and Cons?

FCS on a Mac Book Pro is probably way better than it has any right to be due to software and hardware manufacturer being the same.

However, when it comes to media management this is where things become an absolute nightmare, as it's WAY too easy for something to get left 'off the scratch disk' on the laptop by accident. And suddenly that one VITAL piece of footage or graphic or sound file that you need is with some editor on a plain somewhere and NOT in your online suite.

* What is the difference between them in fast delivery? (encoding times, rendering i.o "waiting times")
Pros and Cons?

Depends on hardware config - Avid needs more third party software, whose interfaces do not tie into Avids. This can be a slow down. However, often this third party software (especially on PC) is stripped down and sleekly coded with specialist uses in mind, so can be far more efficient on the right set up. Internally, a quick summary is that Avid generally makes you wait at the BEGINNING of an edit (at the ingest stage), Final Cut can make you wait at the end. Avid is less dangerous in that regard on tight timeframes, unless you are DEFINITELY going to need to transcode (in which case someone would have to do benchmarks on both systems editing an identical timeline on identical hardware to give you an idea.) - but if you've got your sequence settings right in either, and keep an eye on what's unrendered on your timeline (in either) then I'd say it comes down to hardware.

* What is the difference in collaboration with other post production parts? i.o What is the difference between them in delivering a smooth workflow for other people, whatever system they are working on?
Pros and Cons?

Comes down to other peoples experience. Depends on your market and who you are collaborating with. Some people places love Avid/FCP, other places hate Avid/FCP, some places are NLE agnostic (as long as they can do EDL's, OMFs and the editors know what they are doing, or if not some other workflow is worked out before hand).

* What is the difference between them in terms of finishing? (mostly the differences between Media Composer and FCP in terms of finishing a project on one and the same system/software)
Pros and Cons?

Finishing comes down to hardware generally - the difference here is that Avids hardware is locked in with it's software, if it's their workflow it either works or it's broken, in which case it's their issue, not yours (unless you've really stuffed things up.). Except of course if you are on PC, in which case PC related issues can cause nightmares, but if you've got an AVID spec system with AVID support you should be gold (and out a lot of gold, their hardware comes at a price.)

Final Cuts finshing is tied in with third party hardware on 1st party computers, generally using third part plugins and codecs. The plus here is that if you are borked by problems, then chances are everyone else is too so the problem gets fixed.

The difficulty here is that if you are borked by problems, potentially everyone else is too so you have to roll back to older software and wait out the storm if you accidentally agreed to that harmless seeming Quicktime update.

Also, if you get your settings wrong, and/or you don't understand how timeline settings mesh with hardware mesh with 8 or 10 bit supported effects mesh with whatever other plugins you are using or quicktime component wrappers or third party codecs you can be stuffed.

 

[mcdroid]

Once again Criag is doing all the work here giving you some great info.

We’ve been an Avid shop for over 17 years so I can’t answer to the difference on a lot of what you are asking.
Every couple of years since Final Cut has come out we’ve evaluated the option to go FCP.
Especially when we started shooting so much RED footage. We have 3 or 4 freelancers that we use who are well versed in both FCP and AMC and they all hands down prefer to edit on Avid in a pressure situations or just in general. One of those freelancers has his own facility with both FCP and AMC and always prefers to edit on Avid.
When you can put 3 people in the same project (assuming you have a Unity system $$$) working on different parts of the same show, it’s a good thing. Maybe FCP can do that now, not sure.

And if you are editing features, one feature in Avid that I can’t do without is the Script mode editing. Whether doing a spot or 2 hour documentary the ease and speed of finding and editing dialogue from different takes is amazing. Again, maybe FCP has something like this now??

We have spent a LOT of money on our toys, but it’s all to be able to meet the deadlines efficiently.

NORMAL WORK FLOW AROUND HERE:
RED > SCRATCH process QT > AVID offline > SCRATCH final color > SMOKE/FLAME finish.

We have also added a StorageDNA system which does a lot of cool thing besides media backup.
Like synchronize footage between our Unity and another editor’s storage at a remote location.

Anyway, we keep looking at FCP hoping it will fit our needs, but hasn’t yet.
It sucks cause we are all big Apple fans here.

 

[mikeburton]

I like that this discussion has been mostly an honest discussion about the tools strengths and weaknesses and not a popularity contest. I have been a freelance editor since 2000 mainly working in FCP. I started cutting tape to tape, then Media 100, Avid Media Composer and FCP.
I think its wise to be familiar with the available tools on the market. If I hadn't known Media 100 when I was first starting I wouldn't have gotten my first gig. I mostly use FCS now as I have grown with it since 1.0 so I guess there is a evolution I feel connected to as we have grown together i like to think. That said, every once in a while I will force myself to work in AMC to keep my skills up. I don't like to be a branded editor as neither company pays me to advertise for them.
I do believe that both FCP and AMC have their good and bad depending on what kind of project your working with but at the end of the day, I love to edit and that's all I really care about. There is some good advice in this thread and its good to hear from the editors in this forum!