FORUMS: list search recent posts

FCP X vs MC pricing

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 1:48:46 am

Food for thought... For the first time, it costs more to build up a package of tools for FCP X that would equal what you have in the standard Avid Media Composer bundle

FCP X $300
Motion 5 $50
Compressor 4 $50
Xto7 $50
7toX $10
Event Manager X $5
X2Pro Audio Convert $150
Change List X $200
Sync N Link X $200
EDL X $100
Hawaiki Color $50
Nattress Curves $50

Total $1215

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 2:08:37 am

In that list are a bunch of tools that aren't bundled with Avid MC.

Motion 5 - Boris can do some things, but not all that Motion can.

Sync N Link - Nothing like this in Avid.

Hawaiki Color/Nattress Curves - Might find something comparable in Symphony, which is a $700 add on.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 2:22:32 am

You missed the point. These are equivalent, not identical products.

For the record, the MC bundle includes AvidFX (same as Boris RED), Sorenson Squeeze, Avid DVD (PC only), EDL Manager, Film Scribe, ALE and Media Log. All for about $1K these days.

[Shane Ross] "Motion 5 - Boris can do some things, but not all that Motion can."

Though not identical, AvidFX is a companion compositor, just like Motion. FWIW - AvidFX also adds a healthy set of BCC and FEC filters, but there are very nice filters in X and Motion. So I consider that more or less equal.

[Shane Ross] "Sync N Link - Nothing like this in Avid."

Sure there is. It's built into MC. AutoSynch. Just to be clear, Sync-N-Link X does not do post synching.

[Shane Ross] "Hawaiki Color/Nattress Curves - Might find something comparable in Symphony, which is a $700 add on."

Nope. I'm talking about standard color correction with color wheels and curves tools. These plug-ins give you that. Doesn't require Symphony as these tools are in MC.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


John Pale
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 3:20:47 am

[Oliver Peters] "[Shane Ross] "Hawaiki Color/Nattress Curves - Might find something comparable in Symphony, which is a $700 add on."

Nope. I'm talking about standard color correction with color wheels and curves tools. These plug-ins give you that. Doesn't require Symphony as these tools are in MC.
"


Right about the plugins, though FCPX has some secondary color correction built in, Avid doesn't. Avid hamstrings the color corrector in MC so they can sell you the Symphony option. Which is a $1400 add on unless they reduced it to $700 and I missed it.

I'm an Avid editor and enthusiast, but longtime FCP user as well...however I am not a big fan of FCPX. Just got to be truthful and say your comparison is not all that accurate. Also, have to agree with Shane...Motion is not really like Boris RED aka AvidFX at all.


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 7:32:49 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Sure there is. It's built into MC. AutoSynch. Just to be clear, Sync-N-Link X does not do post synching."

FCPX also has built in syncing tools.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 7:34:51 pm

[Marcus Moore] "FCPX also has built in syncing tools."

Doesn't work the same way and your new FCP X Synched Clips all end up starting with a 00:00:00:00 TC value. Useless for any professional editing where you need to go by TC.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Marcus Moore
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 7:41:15 pm

I admit that's a problem that needs to be solved, but if you really need TC, then you can always to a "break apart clip items in the project timeline if you need that info while you edit or at the end when you need to export info. It takes about 10 seconds.

Or do them as Multicam clips, which do retain TC.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 7:50:02 pm

[Marcus Moore] "but if you really need TC, then you can always to a "break apart clip items"

I often need timecode at the master clip side, so "break apart" is pointless.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 7:55:45 pm

I'm sorry Oliver, I don't get what you mean here. Breaking apart clip items in the timeline leaves you with the original master clips (audio and video) in main Project.

And again, if you need original TC within a container clip you can use a 2-track multicam clip.



Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 8:15:13 pm

Theres also the topic of whether using TC for reference to assets is more or less valuable in a construct like X where database stored range references (plus agile and unlimited markers) in a keyword centric system makes content navigation so different ... and dare I say so much simpler?

Personally, other than window dubs for traditional clients. I don't use overt timecode very regularly anymore. I DO use the timecode MATH in X - typing in + or - numbers into the HUD to move to areas of my storyline or define specific lengths when that's important. But orienting around actual timecode locations seems to be something I rarely do now that I'm fluent in X.

So is the necessity to deal with frames by thinking in timecode locations a process that is "as necessary" today with tools like X ... or is it more a reflection of ingrained habit?

The answer is probably different for each editor?

YMMV.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 8:28:14 pm

[Bill Davis] "Personally, other than window dubs for traditional clients."

I do that all the time.

[Bill Davis] "But orienting around actual timecode locations seems to be something I rarely do now that I'm fluent in X"

There is value in sorting by TC.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 8:48:53 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[Bill Davis] "But orienting around actual timecode locations seems to be something I rarely do now that I'm fluent in X"

There is value in sorting by TC."


Ah, Yes.

But in "database view" in the Event Browser - and in the timeline index as well - that's all there in X.

It's not that X isn't tracking and managing whatever timecode is fossilized into the stream of metadata, it's just that it's offloaded much of the functions of searching and sorting into the keyword system. So once you learn that if you want to store and seek and sort something in X, it's better to make it a part of your keyword system - because that usually yields huge benefits in other areas of the software - rather than just concentrating on timecode as the single "search touchstone" of a workflow.

It's just an alternate way of thinking. Not better or worse. But it's hard to argue that using keywords over timecode isn't miles more understandable, sharable and simply "overt" than shuffling massive strings of numbers.

Particularly when you can GET to the timecode in most (granted not all) instances where you might need it.

X is NOT as timecode centric as prior edit systems. And if all your conditioning is in TC manipulation, then X will be harder to get comfortable with - at least until you migrate your search and sort thinking into the new keyword system.

It's definitely a "change point" in X from the old way of looking at navigation. No doubt about that.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index


Mark Raudonis
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 8:53:52 pm

Oliver,

You must have had a slow work day and so you decided to stir up the hornet's nest with this
heretical observation!

Bill,

Are you F***KNG kidding me???

TC reference is the lifeblood of many workflows... especially in Reality TV. Having a time of day reference on multi cameras over months of shooting is critical to being able to find anything... ever! Ignoring this
fact because its not part of your world doesn't mean that it's NOT a mission critical feature for many NLE users. Overlooking this fact because it doesn't meet your "the future is here" thesis of FCP= X challenges the credibility of the rest of your evangelizing.

If you're trying to bring in converts to the cause, you're NOT going to do it by making statements like that.


Mark



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 9:00:53 pm

[Mark Raudonis] "You must have had a slow work day and so you decided to stir up the hornet's nest with this
heretical observation!"


LOL! Of course, of all the things on that list, the argument digresses to TC ;-) That's funny.

Actually I'm in the middle of doing a Resolve 10 session.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 10:49:33 pm

[Mark Raudonis] "Are you F***KNG kidding me???"

No, I'm not.

[Mark Raudonis] "TC reference is the lifeblood of many workflows... especially in Reality TV. Having a time of day reference on multi cameras over months of shooting is critical to being able to find anything... ever! Ignoring this
fact because its not part of your world doesn't mean that it's NOT a mission critical feature for many NLE users. Overlooking this fact because it doesn't meet your "the future is here" thesis of FCP= X challenges the credibility of the rest of your evangelizing.

If you're trying to bring in converts to the cause, you're NOT going to do it by making statements like that. "


Sigh.

You are right. And you're totally wrong. IMO.

It appears you are upset because a few folks like me will not abide guys like you who have a particular "large user reality show" need - feeling empowered to remonstrate others about the direction of ALL of our industries tools. Well, sorry about that. Yep, I think differently than you do, Mark. Which I feel, on sum, is probably a good thing.

I'm sorry, but guys like me who do NOT sit in shops like yours have a right to effective tools as well. And if our need for traditional timecode display is diminishing (and it is!) and if Apple has recognized that in FCP-X - than deal with it.

IIRC, you publically dumped X because it didn't enable your type of work. Fine. I can see the reasoning and I don't have a single quibble with you for switching to another tool that better meets your needs.

But isn't it kinda of arrogant to turn around and say that YOUR kind of needs are the MOST important ones in the entire editing industry? And that everyone who has different needs is NUTS not to "get" that TC is the glue that holds the entire industry together?

Here's a tiny news flash. We all DO get that TC was the way that the industry was TRADITIONALLY held together. But there's a case to be made that in the modern metadata world, Traditional timecode is a less critical and, more important, DIMINISHINGLY USEFUL - tool.

I like you, have worked with TC day in and day out for virtually my entire career. The thing is, I'm now spending less and less and less time dealing with TC since I've learned X. Why? Because I can turn out large amounts of effictively editied video in a system that does not REQUIRE everything to be referenced to timecode. X understands and uses, TC when it needs to. But does not REQUIRE It. That's one reason why its so happy to work with pocket cams and goPros without being all snotty about it. That X can do excellent video processing and keep all TC largely shielded from an editor who doesn't prefer to deal with it at the moment, is, in a world, FABULOUS.

In YOUR world, you can demand that every camera be writing TC, Heck, you can demand everyone jam sync with their morning orange juice. Which is great for you. But some of us don't have that luxury - and might even prefer working outside a system of centralized overlord TC control on occasion!

Timecode is not "irrelevant" to editors like me, It's just not AS relevant as it once was, And possibly, from a mile high industry view - timecode is getting more and more like black burst generators and TBCs. They used to be the hallmark of professional editing. Now new techniques have pretty much supplanting them.

I doubt TC will ever go away (nor should it), because I understand the importance of absolute frame referencing - but I have absolutely NO DOUBT that overt timecode processing will continue to do exactly what FCP-X is doing with it today - which is managing it in the background and allowing the user to determine whether or not it's important to make it visible to a particular editors workflow.

Every time X (or PluralEyes for that matter) syncs stuff via audio waveform - timecode is a step closer to being marginalized. Same result, no need to overtly deal with matching TC streams via numbers.

And under the hood of X, I suspect that a TON more of it's video manipulation is being done by metadata reference that has NO recognizable timecode in it's construction at all. If I understand it correctly, X is nearly always referencing deep machine code - not something as "functionally dumb" as SMPTE timecode.

The truth is that TC is a very, very weak expression of position, designed for human eyes and human scratch pad math. It was a comfortable way to denote a frame for an editor who could get by with only rudimentary tools for position based information - you know, back when broadcast video (your field!) was the ONLY type of video there was?

In the modern digital world there are lots of circumstances where timecode is increasingly inadequate for many tasks we do regularly - sub-sample synced audio editing being a notable example. (mixing multiKhz samples into a very gross 30 frame limited system is a kind of a huge pain, no?)

I honor timecode and it's historic contributions to our industry. And I have depended on it for nearly three decades in my work. But if you can't see it's role changing, I don't know what I can say to you.

As modern software like X is showing us, there may be some BETTER ways to do the same tasks.

In sum, If I can get the same video out of a system without all the rapidly flashing "crutch numbers" - I'm good with that.

Particularly if the TC steam is still there for the times when I do need to edit that way.

With luck we'll continue to both get what we need.

And, nope, I am not "FUC**ING kidding you???" in any way, shape or form.

I'm offering a alternate view of the same facts. With my reasoning behind that view.

And I think your "holy shit, are you that dumb" invective is actually built largely on still effective, but fading, thinking. We'll obviously see which view turns out to be closer to the way things are done in the future.

: )

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 16, 2013 at 12:19:29 am

[Bill Davis] "But there's a case to be made that in the modern metadata world, Traditional timecode is a less critical and, more important, DIMINISHINGLY USEFUL - tool."

If I can get folks like myself, Oliver, and Mark to pinky-swear that we'll stop using old-fashioned timecode and only ever use "unique sequential frame temporal identification metadata streams" instead, could we agree that there's a place for it in FCPX's modern database?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 16, 2013 at 1:13:20 am

[Walter Soyka] "could we agree that there's a place for it in FCPX's modern database?
"


Sure Walter.

Better that that, it's already there!

In the Event Browser, just put your viewer in database rather than clip mode and you get timecode all over the place. It's just a subset of the clip ID data and part of the metadata that flows through the program, just NOT one that X uses for much internally. Deep under the UI, X is tracking assets by larger hex IDs. These are vastly more useful than simple TC and I suspect they are the core of X's search system, being MUCH more useful than "dumb" 8 digit timecode markers. (remember, even in traditional systems, TC alone is inadequate and needed slap-on user bits to do much real work.)

So whatever you call it - relying on traditional SMPTE TC in X was simply not robust enough to do much beyond the simple user comfort displays - BECAUSE it's not nearly deep or flexible enough to do the work that the X DB actually needs done.

How I see it anyway.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 16, 2013 at 1:21:47 am

"In the Event Browser, just put your viewer in database rather than clip mode and you get timecode all over the place. It's just a subset of the clip ID data and part of the metadata that flows through the program, just NOT one that X uses for much internally. Deep under the UI, X is tracking assets by larger hex IDs. These are vastly more useful than simple TC and I suspect they are the core of X's search system, being MUCH more useful than "dumb" 8 digit timecode markers. (remember, even in traditional systems, TC alone is inadequate and needed slap-on user bits to do much real work.)"

Whether or not you believe it, EVERY NLE does this exact same thing and has been doing it since the 1980s when Avid and EMC (and CMX even before that) invented it. Timecode is something that helps the USER. NLEs don't need it and have never needed it because TC itself doesn't exist per se. It is interpolated from the TC stamp in the header of the first captured frame. It does fascilitate human tracking and interchange between applications.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 16, 2013 at 1:05:44 am

"Every time X (or PluralEyes for that matter) syncs stuff via audio waveform - timecode is a step closer to being marginalized. Same result, no need to overtly deal with matching TC streams via numbers."

Except when a camera has no audio. Heck on many high-end shoots multiple cameras don't have matching TC either. Then those "antiquated tools" like a slate/clapstick come in VERY handy. So I don't see any mariginalization at all. Heck, as cameras go from prosumer to professional, the manufacturers ADD timecode functions.

"In the modern digital world there are lots of circumstances where timecode is increasingly inadequate for many tasks we do regularly - sub-sample synced audio editing being a notable example. (mixing multiKhz samples into a very gross 30 frame limited system is a kind of a huge pain, no?)"

While that is true, the irony is that Avid's old Media Composer can resync audio at 1/4 frame resolution thanks to technology built for FILM. ;-)

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 16, 2013 at 1:25:04 am

[Oliver Peters] "Heck, as cameras go from prosumer to professional, the manufacturers ADD timecode functions."

Absolutely, but don't forget time sync was NOT always so easy. Until a few decades ago, video systems didn't have much in the way of reliable crystal controlled timekeeping. So timecode was MUCH more critical back then. But today? Rolling even a crappy consumer digital audio "stick recorder" is time stable enough so that if you can get the sample rate right, you get virtually NO drift over even hours of recording. So one of the biggest reasons that they created timecode - (allowing machines to track playback drift and adjust accordingly) is not nearly as necessary today as it was yesterday.

Really, I acknowledge freely that timecode is still an extremely useful concept. And i wouldn't want to try to work without it. But it's also true that many of the tasks it HAD to do in the past, it simply no longer has to do.

Which is a pretty big change.

Like I mentioned earlier, when was the last time anyone here felt they needed "house black" or a genlock system for their home editing? Anyone?

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 16, 2013 at 4:57:33 am

[Bill Davis] "So one of the biggest reasons that they created timecode - (allowing machines to track playback drift and adjust accordingly) is not nearly as necessary today as it was yesterday.
"


While SMPTE TC was/is used extensively for external synchronization, that really wasn't one of the "biggest reasons" for its creation.


Return to posts index

Mark Raudonis
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 16, 2013 at 3:01:28 am

[Bill Davis] "But there's a case to be made that in the modern metadata world, Traditional timecode is a less critical and, more important, DIMINISHINGLY USEFUL - tool.
"


No argument here... I'd just argue HOW diminishing. Depending on the size scale and scope of your project, I'd argue that TC can either be a minor issue or a dead in the water deal breaker.

Bill, In your rush to move forward into your brave new database/keyword world, you're dismissing an effective time honored (pun intended) tool that serves a useful purpose for multiple workflows, genres, and editorial styles. If Apple was in agreement with you, they probably would have eliminated TC reading from the program. They didn't.

I'm well past the realization that FCP-X was NOT optimized for me and the kinds of workflows that I rely upon. No hard feelings. It's business. Just please stop preaching that we just don't "Get it". I DO GET IT! It's NOT for me and my specific needs. That doesn't belittle you or anyone else. It just means that it's NOT right for a certain kind of workflow that I require.

Now let's get back to arguing about total cost of ownership, shall we?



Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 16, 2013 at 4:17:27 am

[Mark Raudonis] "Bill,
Are you F***KNG kidding me???"


A sentiment that neatly sums up about a quarter of my posts on this forum since it's inception.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 16, 2013 at 9:07:14 pm

[Mark Raudonis] "TC reference is the lifeblood of many workflows... especially in Reality TV"

I wonder what Tony West does? Hope he's around to answer.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 8:26:11 pm

[Marcus Moore] "I'm sorry Oliver, I don't get what you mean here"

I need to be able to see and sort by TC, so that when I search by TC or my client refers to TC I can go to it in the browser.

[Marcus Moore] "if you need original TC within a container clip you can use a 2-track multicam clip"

You've got to be joking! Do you realize how incredibly awkward that sounds? Now try that for 2,000 clips!

;-)

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 8:42:04 pm

So IF the Sync clips retained Original TC, then that would be fine? If so, we're a bug-fix way from making that point moot.

As a side note- because I agree that the Sync clips SHOULD contain original video timecode, but,

You're making Multicam clips sound more complicated and awkward than they are. There's technically very little difference between a Sync clip and a multi-cam clip except that a multi-cam clip can technically sync more than 2 original media files. Other than that I don't think they're any more processor intensive. Mo More difficult to create. No more difficult to use. And the tiny symbol in the corner is different.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 8:56:00 pm

[Marcus Moore] "So IF the Sync clips retained Original TC, then that would be fine? If so, we're a bug-fix way from making that point moot."

Theoretically, yes.

[Marcus Moore] "You're making Multicam clips sound more complicated and awkward than they are."

All unnecessary extra steps affect workflow. There may be down-the-line issues with multicam clips. For example, in sending to grading apps. Not sure of the impact there. I understand what you are saying, but IMHO it's using a screwdriver to drive a nail.

The original point is simply that it's a built-in function in MC that was specifically copied (and possibly bettered) by Philip and Greg because there was a valid need and customer demand in the FCP world for it.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 9:03:41 pm

[Oliver Peters] "[Marcus Moore] "I'm sorry Oliver, I don't get what you mean here"

I need to be able to see and sort by TC, so that when I search by TC or my client refers to TC I can go to it in the browser."


But Oliver,

Since in X you can sort the Timeline Index by TC. And you can sort the Event Browser in database view by TC. I'm not sure why this is such a burden. Seems to me that you can find any particular TC point pretty darn quick using the tools already in X.

But maybe I'm missing something here.

Clearly you're frustrated and don't find the way it works in X to be as simple or direct as it was in Legacy or AVID.

But that's always going to be true when you compare two systems that work differently.

The big question is can you get where you need to go in both - and what are the overall benefits and challenges of using each. And while X certainly has challenges - it undeniably has massive benefits as well - and so I'm not sure that the critique on pricing that you've started this thread to examine is gaining much traction.

To me, it's just saying "hey, if you want to make X today work more like your AVID system of yesterday - you have to buy add-ons."

But if you don't - you don't. And I expect that by far the largest audience for X kinda doesn't.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 9:20:43 pm

[Bill Davis] "And you can sort the Event Browser in database view by TC. "

The TC of the source clip as a Sync Clip is 0 in the browser. NOT the ACTUAL TC of the camera clip. This is why I'm using Sync-N-LinK-X instead of Sync Clips in the first place.

[Bill Davis] "Seems to me that you can find any particular TC point pretty darn quick using the tools already in X. "

So when you sort by TC and have 2,000 clips that all start with 0, how do you find it by TC? Not to mention that the client/producer has reviewed footage from the shoot dailies, prior to synching and his reference is source TC from the camera.

[Bill Davis] "Clearly you're frustrated and don't find the way it works in X to be as simple or direct as it was in Legacy or AVID."

I'm not frustrated at all. The solution exists, but not within X. I'm simply pointing out that the solution that is required is a paid add-on, which exists within the purchase price of MC. It's simply a comparison.

[Bill Davis] "it undeniably has massive benefits as well"

My point was never about benefits as I stated upstream in this thread. It's simply an observation, because I do believe some sort of threshold has been passed. Of course, that will change when Apple decides to toss X in for free with every Tube sold ;-)

[Bill Davis] "And I expect that by far the largest audience for X kinda doesn't."

I suspect that's not completely true, otherwise there would be no market for these add-ons. But heck, you don't need timecode for cat videos on YouTube ;-)

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 10:11:01 pm

AH...Sync N' Link X must be different than the FCP 7 version.

And Avid FX confuse me, so I don't go there.

OK...I've been put in my place nicely.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 10:12:15 pm

[Shane Ross] "OK...I've been put in my place nicely."

Definitely not my intension.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 16, 2013 at 1:01:10 am

No no...it's a good thing! Even I spew out incorrect information, or don't know what I'm talking about.

It's all good.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 16, 2013 at 5:11:56 am

[Oliver Peters] "Though not identical, AvidFX is a companion compositor, just like Motion. FWIW - AvidFX also adds a healthy set of BCC and FEC filters, but there are very nice filters in X and Motion. So I consider that more or less equal.
"



I like AvidFX enough that I bought Red to go with Premiere.


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 6:56:55 am

With FCPX I get the option of deciding if I need these extra tools or not. For most of the work I do for TV or internet I wouldn't even need half the stuff on that list.

"Always look on the bright side of life" - Monty Python



Return to posts index

Helge Tjelta
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 12:14:35 pm

Also, if you use FCPX, motion, compressor and DaVinci, you don't need the extra stuff…

If you never use EDL, 7 to x or x to 7, the only thing you really need is xtoPro, to get the audio out…

so

FCPX, Motion, compressor, DaVinci and X2Pro, is still far less, for us that has left to "OLD" way of working.

:)

Helge


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 4:23:36 pm

[Nikolas Bäurle] "For most of the work I do for TV or internet I wouldn't even need half the stuff on that list."

Obviously YMMV, but for the work I do with X, I've used a little bit of all of it, except Change List X. That includes web videos, TV commercials and indie features.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Leo Hans
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 12:43:42 pm

Oliver,

I don't think you need Xto7 if you have X2Pro and EDLX
Change List X?
Hawaiki + Natress Color? (Not to mention the option to have DaVinci for free, just supposing FCPX color correction is not enough).

Leo Hans
Editor AVID - Final Cut Pro (7+X)
http://www.leohans.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 1:10:43 pm

[Leo Hans] "I don't think you need Xto7 if you have X2Pro and EDLX"

You do for project interchange with old FCP projects.

[Leo Hans] "Hawaiki + Natress Color?"

Answered in my reply to Shane.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 1:02:37 pm

Just to add an edit. The price would actually be $1315, since one would have to add SliceX w-Mocha, as well.

None of this is a judgement, however. Merely that we've passed some sort of milestone.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 1:32:51 pm

Why would you need to add Slice X? Does Avid offer something similar in their package, automatic tracking? As far as I know they don't...

What if you don't like avid fx? For me one of the reasons i never invested in Avid was the fact that you spend more money and get features you might never use.

"Always look on the bright side of life" - Monty Python



Return to posts index

John Pale
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 3:11:12 pm

Avid does have tracking in app. It's decent but it ain't Mocha.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 15, 2013 at 3:24:15 pm

Leo Laporte put forward the idea that apple might bundle the pro apps with the mac pro as a surprise announcement

iOS gets iWork
OSX gets iLife
the new MacPro gets all that plus the Pro Apps, so that's FCPX, Motion, Compressor, Aperture and Logic Pro? That's about what, 700 dollars worth of apps?

Drop in the ocean of the Mac Pro sticker price probably, but it would be a nice gesture, and they can say "ready to edit and post your next 4K feature out of the box, your own post production studio blah blah.."

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 16, 2013 at 1:22:51 pm

The list seems a little arbitrary. You need these things, I don't.

My list would only contain:
FCP X - $300
Motion - $50
Compressor - $50
7toX - $10

Total - $410.

Event Manager X, don't need sparse bundles work better for me. Nattress and Haiwiki - don't like them. I do wish there were a plug-in that provided real curve adjustment in FCP X (Nattress is not it)

The other thing is licensing. I can legally install FCP X on any computer I use since the license is per user. With Avid I'd have to go through deactivation and activation. Because we have two users at work with two licenses, I'd have to continually be managing licenses, if my partner wants to work on the workstation and I want to work on my laptop. I'd have to deregister my license on the workstation, register it on my laptop. He'd have to deregister his license on his laptop or secondary workstation and license it on the main workstation. Bottom line, it just wouldn't happen. So for expediency we'd end up having to buy 4 licenses compared to 2.

Not to mention I can ingest material, or render out files from one workstation while working on another with a single license. Happens all the time.

So my calculation - cost for FCP X for our shop - $810. Cost for Avid - $5000.



Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 16, 2013 at 2:13:40 pm

I would add NEAT Video :)


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 16, 2013 at 4:22:49 pm

[Brett Sherman] "The list seems a little arbitrary. You need these things, I don't. "

Need was never the point. It's a list of equivalent items to equal the Media Composer built-in functions plus third-party add-ons that you get for the $1K price.

[Brett Sherman] "The other thing is licensing. I can legally install FCP X on any computer I use since the license is per user."

This is only true for personal, non-commercial use. I realize everyone skirts that issue and Apple looks the other way. If you want to play that game, I can install MC on an unlimited number of machines - PC or Mac - and authorize/de-authorize according to which I want to work on at the moment. I do understand your need for concurrent use, but you are utilizing a loophole.

[Brett Sherman] "So for expediency we'd end up having to buy 4 licenses compared to 2."

And from an Apple POV, violating the EULA.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 19, 2013 at 7:31:33 pm

[Oliver Peters] "This is only true for personal, non-commercial use. I realize everyone skirts that issue and Apple looks the other way. If you want to play that game, I can install MC on an unlimited number of machines - PC or Mac - and authorize/de-authorize according to which I want to work on at the moment. I do understand your need for concurrent use, but you are utilizing a loophole."

Simply not true. See the section of the EULA from below that pertains. You can either operate as a user-based license OR a workstation-based licenses. For businesses that have multiple editors, they have to use workstation-based licensing. I don't. Whether or not I can as a single-user have to workstations concurrently running FCP X is not defined and therefore is not against the EULA. I'm guessing it's not a problem in that I can only work currently with one computer while utilizing another for unattended work.

"(ii) if you are a commercial enterprise or educational institution, to download, install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software for use either: (a) by a single individual on each of the Mac
Computer(s) that you own or control, or (b) by multiple individuals on a single shared Mac Computer that you own or control. For example, a single employee may use the Apple Software on both the employee’s desktop Mac Computer and laptop Mac Computer, or multiple students may serially use the Apple Software on a single Mac Computer located at a resource center or library"



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 19, 2013 at 8:55:00 pm

Correct. Falls into the "under your control" category. If you own 5 machines personally, but bring in 5 freelance editors to create spots, then that's a violation. If you are concurrently operating the same 5 machines, but you are the only operator (rendering different projects, for example), then that's not a violation, I suppose.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: FCP X vs MC pricing
on Sep 17, 2013 at 2:02:32 pm

I think their whole goal was a pay for what you want system. Bring you in at a low price and then
the user could add things that were relevant to them.


I have programs that I have paid for, like RX or Neatvideo. Everybody's list is different.

I prefer that method myself.

I bet if you asked the question, "which method do you prefer, come in low and pay for what you use, or
pay higher for more that you may not use"

Folks would go for the come in low.

Just my guess.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]