You might not be saying that if you were working on a project in which there was a good deal of metadata that needed to be passed on through the post process (ASC CDL values, for instance - try that in either Final Cut or Premiere Pro......) and not be subject to loss if a project file got corrupted. The idea of MXF files is that they can carry rich metadata and that metadata is contained within the file itself, which means that even if the MXF file gets renamed, it will still relink to any timeline that has used that material (try that if you don't believe it). Avid is all about metadata and media management, and that is the reason it survives and thrives in the professional world, especially on larger studio projects where the things I just mentioned are not only expected, but often critical to the process. And yes, making proper use of those things sometimes requires a bit of extra effort. But the payoff, particularly on larger projects, can be substantial.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Disappointed with Avid Workflow
- Thread starter Desmond Ford
- Start date
You might not be saying that if you were working on a project in which there was a good deal of metadata that needed to be passed on through the post process (ASC CDL values, for instance - try that in either Final Cut or Premiere Pro......) and not be subject to loss if a project file got corrupted. The idea of MXF files is that they can carry rich metadata and that metadata is contained within the file itself, which means that even if the MXF file gets renamed, it will still relink to any timeline that has used that material (try that if you don't believe it). Avid is all about metadata and media management, and that is the reason it survives and thrives in the professional world, especially on larger studio projects where the things I just mentioned are not only expected, but often critical to the process. And yes, making proper use of those things sometimes requires a bit of extra effort. But the payoff, particularly on larger projects, can be substantial.
Nikhil Kamkolkar
Well-known member
Yes indeed, that's exactly why I'm enduring the MC quirks. I need that metadata/media management and interop capability. What I was trying to say needs some background. I was working for Softimage at the time AVID bought it, and at that time, instead of making Softimage DS the flagship product and incorporating MC into it, they sort of stifled DS and kept MC static (to please the editors who didn't want to learn new ways of working -argh!).
I still think they need to make DS the main product, lower cost on it and offer a versatile edit/finish solution to stay viable/competitive. Sadly, AVID didn't do it then (which is why I switched to FCP) and AVID likely won't do it now (which is why I am enduring MC's clunky everything just for its interop capabilities so I can use best-of-breed solutions for what I need).
Patrick Tresch
Well-known member
Still praying AVID to learns from the DS philosophy...
One of the great features of DS :
Files that are partially offline in DS relink to the masterclip where they are available. MC don't understand they are from the same tape/tc/project... and show it offline.
Very usefull when, for example, you have 1000 hours of HDV tape that got some drops (after 7 years of archival). When you want to recapture a masterclip in MC, it won't reconnect if it looses 1 frame of the masterclip...
So yes I think AVID could make the leap step wich demands courage. HD was, 5 years ago, a mastering format. Within 5 years it will be an offline format. It's time to moove!
Pat
After AVID MC 6 is there an AVID MC X? ;-)
One of the great features of DS :
Files that are partially offline in DS relink to the masterclip where they are available. MC don't understand they are from the same tape/tc/project... and show it offline.
Very usefull when, for example, you have 1000 hours of HDV tape that got some drops (after 7 years of archival). When you want to recapture a masterclip in MC, it won't reconnect if it looses 1 frame of the masterclip...
So yes I think AVID could make the leap step wich demands courage. HD was, 5 years ago, a mastering format. Within 5 years it will be an offline format. It's time to moove!
Pat
After AVID MC 6 is there an AVID MC X? ;-)
Well, like it or not, DS is a Windows only product. I don't think Avid will make the mistake of alienating the vast majority of the editor population that is Mac centric again. They tried that years ago and it almost cost them their company. Not to get sidetracked in this conversation, but it's also the case that DS was always a compositing tool first and an editing tool second. That doesn't really fit into what Avid expects from their flagship editing product. They were able to quickly leverage its capabilities to push it as an HD conforming solution for a number of years (probably the main reason they bought it), but I don't see it as a major strategic product for them going forward. And, yes, I agree, that's too bad..
Nikhil Kamkolkar
Well-known member
Yeah. The timeline I'm referring to is that they should have started to do this was when they bought Sofitmage (more than a decade ago). That was enough time to make DS multi-platform, integrate MC editing functionality into it, even offer switchable UIs perhaps, etc. They should have atleast REALIZED they needed to do this when FCP came into the picture and took off. But they didn't. They adopted the flawed reasoning that MC UI was too precious to be mucked with. Too bad indeed.
(And this is exactly why, RED is right on with their disruptive moves. Even if it hurts the existing user base a bit, or a lot, as the case may be).
Steve Sherrick
Well-known member
Mucking with the UI is a much bigger deal than you would think. Remember, there are still hardcore editors (meaning people who cut images to make stories) as opposed to Jack of All Trades who try to do everything. I recall some changes/additions that Avid did that were not welcomed with open arms. Although I don't think this is a reason to stay grounded in old technology, I do think they have a certain level of responsibility to the core of their userbase so they have to be careful on how they implement the new stuff. Although some may not agree with the approach, a gradual transition to a "new" Media Composer is probably the best way to go. Just look at FCP X for comparison. There are some editors who will not go to X no matter how much they refine it. They felt Apple was too aggressive with the way they launched FCP X.
As I understand it, things like 4K are on the roadmap. First the 64-bit foundation has to be completed and then they can start building on it. More than anything else, I want stability. I am willing to wait out some of the feature implementations while they stabilize the current versions and stabilize third party I/O.
Nikhil Kamkolkar
Well-known member
You are correct. For editors who just edit for story and have assistants do the prep work and other departments handle the other aspects, AVID works just fine.
Also agreed on the stability aspect. New features are not of interest to me either as long as workarounds (however cryptic) exist.