Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

'New Thinking' from Avid unveiled

One day someone is going to have to sit down in front of an avid machine and a final cut machine and show me this "media management" BS cause I just don't buy into it.
My only understanding is that it allows Avid users to be extremely lazy and not name their files properly because in avid everything is dumped into a single folder where the program keeps track of it in some weird fashion that causes it to take forever to import anything cause it has to convert it into something it can read.
It's my impression of the way it works but I could be wrong and I'm more than happy for someone to show me how I'm wrong.
Thing is the only time I ever herd anything that made sense was this time I was digitizing video and the guy was explaining the importance of naming the files right when bringing them in.
 
I am in a middle of a FCP crisis,

1. I don't get the Ref. Movies working in RT although I have a MacPro8 with a 5600fx.

2. I can playback 444 RGB Media in FCP, but should not manipulate the file in FCP because it gets degraded to 8bit. The current workflow is "only" YUV 10bit. Not bad for video but far from optimal concerning RED. FCP as a online tool wouldn't just do it.

Here we are.

Premiere Pro can do this (2.). Do I have to switch to Premiere Pro? Looks like.

Hans (who's been working with AVID from its beginning and FCP from version 1.1)
 
FCP vs AVID is not a really worthy discussion as long the application is not defined.

A feature film is mainly straight forward sequencing. No VFX, nothing, just edits and maybe a dissolve. No funky EDL in the end. Conforming will be easy.
For a feature film which will be conformed later AVID is the way to go. Media management is better. Period - even FCP heads don't belief it.

If you want to do complex stuff and all is online straight from the beginning FCP has advantages if you consider budget. Also the editing itself feels more intuitive - up to ónes taste though.

FCP has beed revolutionary and is not anymore. Apple has been brilliant, others seem to catch up and overtake. Apple changed in the last 3 years the business model entirely: IPhones, IPods, you name it.

We'll see at NAB.

Hans
 
It's hard to explain the Avid Media Management I guess, without you already having some idea of it.

Avid users have no need to name files in anyway, because the media is managed based on reel and timecode (as you'd manage it in a linear system, or as in reel/edgecode as you would for film), the filename is entirely irrelevant. What's more it can be moved to any place Avid indexes and still remain online.

In practice this is hugely beneficial on long-form work. And for things like commercials where a few versions may share alot of common media.

I onlined a feature documentary in Avid a couple of years ago that had three distinct versions (a broadcast, a cinema release, and a festival version). All three versions were largely the same, but the story was told differently in them, and they were cut a little differently. I was able to digitise the media necessary to build the largest of the versions, and then relink the other sequences to the media I captured for that one. In doing so, about 90% of the media required for each other version was linked and online. Only minimal digitising had to be done to bring the other two online fully.

This is impossible in FCP as it has no means by which to link to media by anything other than filename/frame count.

For example, if you have a clip in a sequence from Reel 'AF002' that starts at 14:23:14:21 and ends at 14:23:16:23 you are unable, in FCP to simply have it automatically link to a clip that already exists from that reel and runs from 14:20:21:11 to 14:25:12:09. Despite the fact that the required footage is already in the system, FCP has no way to associate that existing footage, with the segment that is required for the sequence.

CraigWB said:
One day someone is going to have to sit down in front of an avid machine and a final cut machine and show me this "media management" BS cause I just don't buy into it.
My only understanding is that it allows Avid users to be extremely lazy and not name their files properly because in avid everything is dumped into a single folder where the program keeps track of it in some weird fashion that causes it to take forever to import anything cause it has to convert it into something it can read.
It's my impression of the way it works but I could be wrong and I'm more than happy for someone to show me how I'm wrong.
Thing is the only time I ever herd anything that made sense was this time I was digitizing video and the guy was explaining the importance of naming the files right when bringing them in.
Click to expand...
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
If you want to do complex stuff and all is online straight from the beginning FCP has advantages if you consider budget. Also the editing itself feels more intuitive - up to ónes taste though.
Click to expand...

That is part of the disconnect with FCP users I think. They never have another workflow. They do all their work in one pass. Since FCP has risen in popularity, I can't count the number of times I've had someone come to me and ask something like "I've lost a drive and I need to get my media back, what can I do?" only to find that they didn't capture timecode, or bother to name tapes properly as they never imagined (or in some cases even knew) they would need to redigitise tapes.

People say "why not just do it all online anyway?" - there are many many reasons. In the case of our current TV series, the offline editorial has used a little over 1.2TB of disk space with DV25 offline material - if we'd done it all online with ProRes or DNxHD, that'd be close to 10 times that, which becomes a much much bigger headache. It has over 10,000 individual clips from over 150 tapes. Managing that as simple files within a filesystem (as with FCP) would be a huge pain in the ass.
 
Sycophant said:
People say "why not just do it all online anyway?" - there are many many reasons. In the case of our current TV series, the offline editorial has used a little over 1.2TB of disk space with DV25 offline material - if we'd done it all online with ProRes or DNxHD, that'd be close to 10 times that, which becomes a much much bigger headache. It has over 10,000 individual clips from over 150 tapes. Managing that as simple files within a filesystem (as with FCP) would be a huge pain in the ass.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes. But your TV series is like a feature, tons of straight cuts. There, an AVID is better, for sure. Doing a music video for example is something else, also corporate stuff - many effects and no budget for FFF. Here FCP excels.

Concerning bad HDs: Raid5 is a must for anyone doing serious stuff.

Cheap is not always the best as expensive is neither.

Hans
 
Bruce Allen said:
Sanjin, I'm beginning to think that you don't like Avid for some reason ;)

Tell you what, if Apple sold a program called Final Cut Pro Extreme for $1000 more, that had:
1. fewer weird bugs
2. ProRes36 (a nice offline cross-platform 1920x1080 codec)
3. free codecs so anyone could work with your files (not just Mac FCP users)
4. more robust media management
5. ability for multiple editors to easily work on the same project
6. arguably nicer and more responsive editing tools
7. some nifty features, like the ability to paint mattes, script synching, better keying,
8. a license that works on both PC and Mac (you get both versions when you buy it)

...would you buy it?

If you were a professional for whom a day saved in the offline editing room is worth $$$, or for whom a few hours saved in an online bay or sound mix are worth $$$, you'd definitely look into it, because it could possibly pay for itself very quickly.

If you don't consider the above and understand that on many jobs Avid is better and would be well worth the money, then you simply being closed-minded or are brainwashed by marketing.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

Bruce has got upset because he is employed in a company that use AVID

and till today he did not realize that he just think and behave like a corporate

even if he "camouflaged" himself in sort of smart and also "quazy" punk or rebel youngsters attitude.

There is not much creativity left in a corporate environment today.

Guys like a Joel and Ethan Coen wanted to have a simple and effective cutting option

that is close to "feeling" of film cutting and they found out that FCP covers their creative needs.

And after 3 or 4 films cut on FCP they just have got Oscar for Best Picture tis year.

Tribeca Film Festival 2007 - Download podcast>>>

Also not to mention that PJ's "Crossing The Line " was cut on FCP a year ago and

that was the first 4K movie shot on RED by a famous award winning director.

HD4Indies archiveed link:

Details, samples, commentary on the Red One shot, Peter Jackson made 4K short "Crossing The Line"

Discussion FCP vs. AVID is not making sense in a way how it is exposed here on this tread by the "specialists".

I am more for a creative use of editing that I can perform EASY and SIMPLE in my hotel room

on the road in the case that I have got some new creative idea.

And I am not interested in any system corporate editing where main

editing decisions are made by producer or somebody else that

does not have anything to do with an artistic creativity.

That's a difference between FCP and AVID.

Corporate editing suites are not growing at the moment but

opposite that only individual and artistic editing suites/packages market is booming.
 
Bruce Allen said:
Sanjin, I'm beginning to think that you don't like Avid for some reason ;)

Tell you what, if Apple sold a program called Final Cut Pro Extreme for $1000 more, that had:
1. fewer weird bugs
2. ProRes36 (a nice offline cross-platform 1920x1080 codec)
3. free codecs so anyone could work with your files (not just Mac FCP users)
4. more robust media management
5. ability for multiple editors to easily work on the same project
6. arguably nicer and more responsive editing tools
7. some nifty features, like the ability to paint mattes, script synching, better keying,
8. a license that works on both PC and Mac (you get both versions when you buy it)

...would you buy it?

If you were a professional for whom a day saved in the offline editing room is worth $$$, or for whom a few hours saved in an online bay or sound mix are worth $$$, you'd definitely look into it, because it could possibly pay for itself very quickly.

If you don't consider the above and understand that on many jobs Avid is better and would be well worth the money, then you simply being closed-minded or are brainwashed by marketing.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

I have to agree with bruce here.
For editing, avid systems are still quite more functional than Adobe CS or Apple FCS.
We use all 3 of them, any of the systems has advantages - but for fullfeature and series work there is a reason why avid, even if more expensive, is still used for >75% of the work. In shortform/mid-budget coorporate etc however, i would prefer Adobe CS or Apple FCP.

But also one should remember, that Apple is the cheapest offer, an Avid MC will cost more, also an full Adobe CS.

And so every system has it pros and cons:
Adobe has excellent quality (4K and 16bit color in RGB) but to use all of its power you need to buy the more expensive CS Master and its offline/online is just average and the redcode support is later this year. Its crossplatform which is nifty for many folks, including us.

Apple has low quality for Red (only 2K and 8 bit rgb), but works with redcode and is excellent for HDCAM YUV, 1080p etc jobs, is very inexpensive, but is intentionally platform restricted (ironic, because it was originally a windows program when macromedia started it...) and has color and motion, which are excellent offers especially regarding the price

Avid is missing lots of the VFX/graphics functionailty of Adobe/Apple, but has -rock-solid- longform editing, is crossplatform, certainly the -largest- user base of -best of the world- editors for longform, doesnt support redcode directly and the hardwareprices for HD, especially for the Adrenaline HD, are outrageous.

The fullfeature for this summer we are laying out right now are avid-basing btw.
 
Andrew McCarrick said:
lol.... ya know, to me award shows mean jack shit about how good software is. Actually award shows mean absolutely nothing to me in anyway.

Winning an award doesn't mean it was good.... It just means it was better than the other three films nominated.
Click to expand...

Last year I was listening to an interview with a company that provides classes for learning to use editing software. I don't remember the company name, but it seemed to be the largest in the business.

The comment I remember most was that they had cancelled all entry level classes except for FCP. The market for people wanting to learn any other post software was gone. They said the had some upper level classes for AVID but that was it.

So it seems that FCP is dominating the market for up and coming students and editors. It's logical because new artists (especially students and universities), are drawn towards the coolest offerings - Apple knows that market very well.

I am not taking sides here, and I don't think that quality is the most important factor in who will dominate. It's just the way it is.

I hope Adobe comes on strong again and Premiere can compete with Apple as it has in the still and pre-press markets. As for Avid, I think they have a lot of work to do, if they want to survive in the long run.
 
The Third Man said:
And I am not interested in any system corporate editing where main

editing decisions are made by producer or somebody else that

does not have anything to do with an artistic creativity.

That's a difference between FCP and AVID.
Click to expand...


Lol, you've really outdone even yourself with this one Sanjin. What a joke.
 
Steve Sanacore said:
So it seems that FCP is dominating the market for up and coming students and editors. It's logical because new artists (especially students and universities), are drawn towards the coolest offerings - Apple knows that market very well.
Click to expand...

Yes, Apple Inc. hires some of the best PR and marketing suits in the corporate world- I'd wager that they allocate a rather low percentage of their resources to make their products, with the greater share budgeted for brand management to make their products register as "cool" with their target demographic.
 
The Third Man said:
Bruce has got upset because he is employed in a company that use AVID

and till today he did not realize that he just think and behave like a corporate
[...]
That's a difference between FCP and AVID.

Corporate editing suites are not growing at the moment but

opposite that only individual and artistic editing suites/packages market is booming.
Click to expand...

I love ya Sanjin, but you are (as we seem to say in this thread) talking out your ass.

There is nothing inherently more 'creative' about FCP than Avid. There's no a lot I can do in FCP that I can't do in Avid Media Composer. But that's beside the point - becuase for most professional longform and dramatic work the editor has no need or desire to do much more than make cuts. Some of the best story-telling editors I've met can barely manage more than a Picture-in-Picture (and they have no need or desire to do more).
 
The Third Man said:
...that is close to "feeling" of film cutting and they found out that FCP covers their creative needs.
Click to expand...

cutting negatives was hardest work and terrible things could happen.
-really- terrible things.

i still get half a heart attack when i remember how i destroyed many minutes original negative as 19year old assistant. before the editor (she was ~50) came back i most realistically considered instant emigration to south america.
 
It's the bottom line.

It's the bottom line.

Virtually everyone whose opinion I respect and that had significant serious experience with both products said MC was the better product but maybe not worth the price difference to me. So my hesitation with FCP versus MC was the price - I simply didn't consider MC at $5K vs. $1299 but at $2500 I have to take a second, closer look.


Bruce Allen said:
Sanjin, I'm beginning to think that you don't like Avid for some reason ;)

Tell you what, if Apple sold a program called Final Cut Pro Extreme for $1000 more, that had:
1. fewer weird bugs
2. ProRes36 (a nice offline cross-platform 1920x1080 codec)
3. free codecs so anyone could work with your files (not just Mac FCP users)
4. more robust media management
5. ability for multiple editors to easily work on the same project
6. arguably nicer and more responsive editing tools
7. some nifty features, like the ability to paint mattes, script synching, better keying,
8. a license that works on both PC and Mac (you get both versions when you buy it)

...would you buy it?

If you were a professional for whom a day saved in the offline editing room is worth $$$, or for whom a few hours saved in an online bay or sound mix are worth $$$, you'd definitely look into it, because it could possibly pay for itself very quickly.

If you don't consider the above and understand that on many jobs Avid is better and would be well worth the money, then you simply being closed-minded or are brainwashed by marketing.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...


digitalfx said:
We have both Final Cut and Avid suites and I can tell you the Avid systems are superior. There is nothing wrong w/ FCP, actually there is a lot to like...but the avid systems are rock solid
Click to expand...
 
It's going to depend on your intended use I guess... But as far as 'offline' and just good old editing is concerned, I've never seen anyone come close to being a fast, free and efficient in FCP as in Avid.

For all-in-one quick and dirty capture, effects and output FCP might have an advantage, but that said, I've cut 5x 48Hour films on Avid and never had a problem doing everything I wanted to on Avid. And I've onlined at least 200 hours of broadcast television for network in NZ, Australia, the US and UK and never had a problem with the feature set available in Avid.

Using FCP to cut a film is one thing, try using it to cut a non-scripted reality show - hundreds of tapes from many cameras over a few weeks to make up multiple episodes, being edited by multiple editors. That's one area where Avid really shows it's strength.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top