FORUMS: list search recent posts

AVID - Why Not?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Rich Rubasch
AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 10, 2015 at 5:51:53 pm

Had a revelation yesterday...

Many of us migrated from AVID to Final Cut 7 when Final Cut 7 cost 1/5 that of an AVID seat. Still, Final Cut 7 had its issues and we all complained about media management and other shortcomings....but we dealt with it, and there wasn’t an alternative as capable. We owned it and eventually we loved it. Mostly.

We all happily cut away on our trusty Final Cut 7 systems. Then one day, BAM, Steve Jobs shakes up the industry and pulls the heart out of FCP7 and delivers FCPX.

What the....?

Adobe jumps in and says, “Hey look at us....it’s a whole new Premier,” (when we all really knew that it looked more like the same old Premier).

Meanwhile AVID kept adding features and lowering their prices....and one day....BAM, they make their software completely hardware and codec independent...we could use our KONA cards and ProRes (as well as every raw camera codec known) right on the AVID timeline. We could mix codecs and framerates on the timeline better than any system, with trustworthy accuracy. It still had best of class trim tools and unsurpassed multicam and all the solid performance and features (can you say Decompose?) it always had.

We didn’t bite.

So a few of you jumped on the Premier wagon....hey I need AfterEffects and Photoshop anyway, as I always have, and Premier sat, already in the kit (along with a monthly fee).

Meanwhile AVID dropped the Media Composer price again. Not Media Composer light, the whole shootin’ match. It is perpetual software and works with all of our existing hardware, Mac or PC. They do offer a subscription as well, if that's your thing.

Hmmmm.

Perhaps some of you have settled in with your shiny new tool and have embraced the roller coaster ride of updates and fixes, then more bugs and more fixes. And you have laid out your keyboard to do all (nay, most) of what you want it to do. You’ve tried to make Media Encoder part of your daily workflow, but find it is a clunky, convoluted little tool. Dynamic linking is more like playing roulette. And that sexy interface.

Tilt Media has not made the jump. We are comfortably settled, reclined back in our old broke-in leather chair that is FCP 7. But we are ready to make a move. Why not AVID? Why not now? Why not invest in the same software that Hollywood uses? Oh, they’ll tell you that Hollywood uses them all, but it’s little more than a dabble here or there. AVID is king in Hollywood. And you know that.

Are we settling for a less than the best tool. If so why?

Debate...

Rich Rubasch
Tilt Media Inc.
Video Production, Post, Studio Sound Stage
Founder/President/Editor/Designer/Animator
http://www.tiltmedia.com


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 10, 2015 at 6:20:57 pm

Rich,

First and foremost think you for the excellent post.

I have used Avid in the past, started out with with FCP 3, skipped version 6, now working under X and have Resolve 12 as an option. For me Resolve has top notch color grading tools, an interface that does not look like it came from a dinosaur age and I own a Blackmagic Cinema Camera planning to add a Digital Bolex to the mix.

On top of that, Resolve is becoming a better NLE alternative though there is still room for improvement. I prefer the node based environment for color grading, just me. Now the people from Blacmagic Design Team just released Fusion for Mac OS X, also node based. I am not a high end compositor type of guy, for from it. On occasion, I like to add some style to my footage on a single scene basis. Fusion gives me the power and flexibility. Besides, nodes are fun.

I also have Motion as part of the mix for the times I need to do a quick and easy motion graphics package. It also always for me to build custom titles, generators, transitions and effects to publish out for use in Final Cut Pro X, a very nice touch. Avid lacks blend modes and other tools that often come in handy for such needs as just described. Not saying Avid is a bad tool, just does not fit my needs right now. I do like the road Avid is taking and will certainly consider them again. My two cents, which is not worth very much in this screwball economy. LOL

The magnetic timeline, it's magnetic-o-matic!



Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 10, 2015 at 6:37:27 pm

Do you need a good compositing NLE? Don't use Avid. Premiere is much better suited.

Do you use a lot of stills in your projects? Don't use Avid...I do and it's a pain compared to FCP 7/Premiere pro. Between MOVING PICTURE linking issues at online, and the horrible Avid Pan & Zoom, and Boris Pan & Zoom...and Sapphire's expensive and equally useless Pan & Zoom...doing docs with lots of stills in Avid is time consuming as hell.

Good titles? Don't use Avid, unless you like the Blue Titler Pro. I haven't touched that yet.

Want plugins that are priced right, not too expensive? Then don't use Avid. BCC is $1200, Sapphire is $2000-$3600 (rental available). Plugins just are not cheap, and there isn't a lot of them to choose from either.

Easy multigrouping? FCX is best...Avid, well...if you have multiple starts and stops then the process is a 4-5 step, complex beast.

Really...the only reason I can see to USE an Avid is when you are in a pipeline designed around Avid. Or if you need multiple editors to work seamlessly on one project, or if you do basic editing...nothing complex in terms of compositing on the timeline. Or if you want good responsiveness on the timeline, and you have time to transcode to Avid media...offline/online is by far more solid on Avid than anything else (FCX is very close, though...I'll have to say.)

Why invest in the software Hollywood uses? What does the fact that Hollywood uses it get you? No...you base your editing investment on what tool will get the jobs you need done. Period. Who cares who uses it! I mainly cut on Avid because I work in Hollywood, and because I work on shows with 4-6 editors are working on one episode, and we need access to a HUGE amount of footage (three seasons worth), so we need to offline/online. For that, Avid is PERFECT! But if I did a stand alone edit, I would use Premiere...just like I did when I made the initial leap to FCP.

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


Return to posts index


Andrew Kimery
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 10, 2015 at 7:20:10 pm

[Shane Ross] "Easy multigrouping? FCX is best...Avid, well...if you have multiple starts and stops then the process is a 4-5 step, complex beast."

I don't know if I would say X's is the best. I've only kicked the tires on X but both PPro and X have very comparable multicam tools from what I've seen/heard but both are worlds better than prepping things by hand in Avid or FCP Legend.

I agree 100% w/your comments about compositing and stills though. You can still do cool things in Avid but it's just so much more labor intensive. Avid really, really (really) needs to improve how it handles stills and FX.


-Andrew


Return to posts index

Mark Raudonis
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 10, 2015 at 6:41:09 pm

Rich,

Why not? Better to ask, "WHY?". The reasons that AVID is strong in Hollywood center around the few things that they do better than anyone else: Large, shared storage work groups. Large projects (features, reality TV) require many people all working on the same media simultaneously. None of the other players can
match Avid's mastery of this workflow.

So, if this workflow is mission critical to your livelihood, then you'll choose AVID, and ignore all of the "dinosaur" comments about UI and features. However, if you're in a small shop, working alone, then
this feature is irrelevant to you and many of the other things that Adobe or FCP X offer will be more appealing. It really comes down to "WHY" you're making the choice.

Hope this helps.



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 10, 2015 at 7:01:27 pm

Hmm... There are no "best" tools. Only "best for the circumstance". Stills are problems in all NLE applications. If you're smart, you'll animate them separately and bring them in as baked media.

I use and have used them all. I like FCP X a lot, but it often disappoints. Not much call for Avid in my neck of the woods and much of the local market has moved to Premiere. So locally it's Premiere or FCP X for me most the time. Avid offers you a very solid workflow and if you correctly prepping media for it, then editing with it and moving between other apps is solid and seamless. Resolve 12 is a great grading tool and a possible editor, but honestly, 90% of the time I can get comparable looks with built-in tools and filters.

The biggest issue I find is interoperability if you need to roundtrip media to other apps, like Pro Tools, grading and After Effects. In that case, the connectivity tools are already built into Media Composer for interchange. In FCP X it generally requires 3rd party utilities and in Premiere the results are often problematic if not downright unsuccessful.

Note that there is some danger in the FCP X or Premiere routes. With FCP X you are riding the crest of needing the newest, fastest Mac and OS version. With Premiere you are locked into the rental and if you quit, you will not be able to open old project files unless you re-up on the subscription or take the project file and media to someone with an active subscription. Also X and PPro are NOT backwards compatible in any way, shape or form.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Neil Goodman
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 10, 2015 at 7:28:14 pm

I think all the 3 big NLE's have their time and place,

But I've staked my career on Avid simply because round here, its most used in my line of work, and the most lucrative.

I also recommend it to projects I'm hired on freelance because its what i can use the fastest and get the best results from.

Keep in mind i don't market myself as Title/Mograph guy, colorist, or audio guy. I can do it all but don't offer those services professionally so for me, Avid does everything i need it to do assuming a professional audio and GFX guy comes in later.

Do you need to share projects, footage, and timelines - Simple - go Avid.

If not - you could pick any of the 3 and be happy these days.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 10, 2015 at 7:37:06 pm

I will add in tho..

Avid has come along way in version 8.

The Proxy workflow in 4k is really simple. One touch like FCPX but you can pick resolutions. 4k basically native on really old machines.

Another area where Avid excels, still works great on older hardware.

Also lots of options to trans-code to if you do in fact need to trans-code. Not just Pro-res.

Search in the bins/timelines, is alot like keywords in FCPX - if you label your clips accordingly.

Also way more stable than the other two options out there. Still has little annoying bugs - but havent had any show stoppers in years.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 10, 2015 at 7:48:42 pm

[Neil Goodman] "Also way more stable than the other two options out there"

Not sure that's fair, every system is different, but for me FCPX has been solid as a rock for quite a while.


Return to posts index


Neil Goodman
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 12:06:07 am

[Steve Connor] "[Neil Goodman] "Also way more stable than the other two options out there"

Not sure that's fair, every system is different, but for me FCPX has been solid as a rock for quite a while.
"


Fair enough,

FCPX has been hit or miss with me depending on the version.. lots of sluggishness in the timeline and beachballing = kind of a showstopper for me as I get super frustrated duringthe creative process

PPRO has a thing on my system where intermittently the audio just drops out and stops playing even though the levels are still jumping. Rebooting the app fix's it for me. Again really intermittent. Really annoying.

Avid has a lot of little bugs and error messages that dont seem to mean anything or effect the program - but ive never been able to not work through it.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 1:31:24 am

[Neil Goodman] "FCPX has been hit or miss with me depending on the version.. lots of sluggishness in the timeline and beachballing = kind of a showstopper for me as I get super frustrated duringthe creative process"

Consistent with my experiences, too.

[Neil Goodman] "PPRO has a thing on my system where intermittently the audio just drops out and stops playing even though the levels are still jumping. Rebooting the app fix's it for me"

I've been going through that the last couple of days as well.

[Neil Goodman] "Avid has a lot of little bugs and error messages that dont seem to mean anything or effect the program - but ive never been able to not work through it."

Yep. Me, too.

It's sort of the comparison between the race horse that occasionally comes up with a lame leg (FCPX, PPro) versus the reliable mule (Avid MC).

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 1:57:45 am

[Oliver Peters] "It's sort of the comparison between the race horse that occasionally comes up with a lame leg (FCPX, PPro) versus the reliable mule (Avid MC)."

I like how you insult everyone equally. ;)


Return to posts index


Neil Goodman
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 2:05:15 am

[Oliver Peters] "[Neil Goodman] "Avid has a lot of little bugs and error messages that dont seem to mean anything or effect the program - but ive never been able to not work through it."

Yep. Me, too.
"


Whats funny, is i'll get something crazy flash in the bottom corner source or record window that says "Fatal Error". Then i'll click on something it goes away and the rest of the session runs smooth.

Its very rare to get a freeze or endless beach ball spin or get launched straight to the desktop in MC both PC and Apple.


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 10, 2015 at 8:07:09 pm

[Mark Raudonis] "So, if this workflow is mission critical to your livelihood, then you'll choose AVID, and ignore all of the "dinosaur" comments about UI and features. However, if you're in a small shop, working alone, then
this feature is irrelevant to you and many of the other things that Adobe or FCP X offer will be more appealing. It really comes down to "WHY" you're making the choice.

Hope this helps."


As for my dinosaur comment, been reading one Donald Trump tweet too many. The interface does need some updating, just my opinion. I agree with you 100% on your entire post. Everyone has different needs and a different style of doing things. Avid is just not for me since I am a single editor and not doing any workflows with others at the moment. The moment that does change I will give very strong consideration to Avid for that very reason. Hope this explains my point of view and thank you to everyone for chiming in. This is why I love this forum and go directly to it first!

The magnetic timeline, it's magnetic-o-matic!



Return to posts index

Dan Stewart
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 12:49:26 am

Avid is for cutting. Just.. cutting. On every other front it's outflanked.

I'm 95% offline with 15 years in Avid (and a few wasted on Apple before they revealed their true colours).
But still, if I had to do a short fiddly promo with minimal cutting but multiple codecs, loads of FX and deliver it myself I would do it on an Apple laptop running Adobe no question.

But a film? 30 mins plus of cutting? With some other fella dealing with tech? Avid every time.



Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 1:27:38 am

[Dan Stewart] "Avid is for cutting. Just.. cutting. On every other front it's outflanked. "

Well, I would tend to agree, but, I've done my best and most high profile compositing with Media Composer. It was actually easier and with more real-time than any other option at that time or even today.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 1:59:22 am

[Dan Stewart] "Avid is for cutting. Just.. cutting. On every other front it's outflanked.

I'm 95% offline with 15 years in Avid (and a few wasted on Apple before they revealed their true colours).
But still, if I had to do a short fiddly promo with minimal cutting but multiple codecs, loads of FX and deliver it myself I would do it on an Apple laptop running Adobe no question.

But a film? 30 mins plus of cutting? With some other fella dealing with tech? Avid every time.
"


If i was a one man band - I could see myself ending up on one of the other two, but I dont work this way, and frankly dont want to be a mo graph guy. Dont get me wrong i respect the hell out of the craft - and know a little AE and whatnot, but its not something I want to do professionally, and Im usually upfront about that when i book gigs.


Return to posts index

James Patterson
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 9:45:35 am

[Dan Stewart] "Avid is for cutting. Just.. cutting. On every other front it's outflanked.
"


I always find this an interesting statement when it comes to Avid, I'm not going to overstate it's ability to do FX work but there are many occasions when I've done pretty heavy comp work within Avid that I just couldn't do within another NLE.

For example, I've cut many fashion promo's on media composer that require retouching and by using a combination of paint tool and animatte have been able to do a lot of (if not all of) it within media composer, now that most of the ad agencies have switched to Adobe all of this work has to be round tripped from Premiere to AE - I've tried to do it within premiere but it's more trouble than it's worth and i think Adobe wants you to send that sort of work to AE anyway.

But even if you stand by the statement that Avid is just for cutting, that's not such a bad thing as from a pure cutting standpoint it's still (imho) the best and I can't emphasise how much i miss the trim tools when using premiere (which I've been pretty much exclusively for the past 6 months).

Titles on the other hand have sucked in media composer since I can remember! :)

Best


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 7:54:37 am

Because it still doesn't know how to use your screen real estate efficiently? The thing is ugly and it's ugliness actually gets in your way. When you clean it up to look halfway decent it stops working because "Avid is keyboard–centered NLE" is outright lie. You can't work without desperately clinging onto your mouse all the time.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 1:44:14 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] " "Avid is keyboard–centered NLE" is outright lie. You can't work without desperately clinging onto your mouse all the time."

I'm pretty sure that you need to hold onto your mouse while cutting in FCX too.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 7:03:44 pm

FCPX still doesn't get basic editing right so it shouldn't be included in this discussion at all but yes, you cannot work without the mouse in any current NLE. And that's a shame.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 7:08:27 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "FCPX still doesn't get basic editing right so it shouldn't be included in this discussion at all"


An the winner of this weeks "Aindreas award" is......


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 9:42:34 pm

Sure. Call me back when backtime edit is not an afterthought and there is a Replace on Playhead there.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 10:11:45 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Sure. Call me back when backtime edit is not an afterthought and there is a Replace on Playhead there."

Fair enough, I don't know how us FCPX users get on without those functions


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 4:07:08 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Sure. Call me back when backtime edit is not an afterthought and there is a Replace on Playhead there."

And that is the deal breaker for you? You don't recognise any positive tradeoffs?

stupid question.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 8:25:33 pm

What positive tradeoffs? The main gimmicks of FCPX are "metadata" and magnetic timeline. I don't care about magnetic timeline because that's a solution to a problem I never had. I'm not messy. "Metadata" in case of FCPX is misnomer. Whatever tags you slap onto your footage in some app becomes metadata only if there is a way to pass those tags to another app.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 10:14:38 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "What positive tradeoffs? The main gimmicks of FCPX are "metadata" and magnetic timeline. I don't care about magnetic timeline because that's a solution to a problem I never had. I'm not messy. "Metadata" in case of FCPX is misnomer. Whatever tags you slap onto your footage in some app becomes metadata only if there is a way to pass those tags to another app."

Why so angry Michael?

gimmicks
problems I never had.
messy
misnomer
slap onto...

It's clear from your language that you're still emotionally hurt by X.

Sorry it's been so hard on you.

Stick with whatever software makes you feel less angry.

I suspect your blood pressure will thank you.

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

Michael Aranyshev
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 10:29:13 pm

I'm not hurt by FCPX. I'm hurt by the general state of professional software. Have you checked Final Draft recently? Disgusting.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 10:49:17 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "I'm not hurt by FCPX. I'm hurt by the general state of professional software. Have you checked Final Draft recently? Disgusting."

Dude. I gave up on Final Draft decades ago when I realized that they only cared about narrative Hollywood scripts and couldn't even take the time to get a decent 2-column corporate format together.

Their marching orders seemed to be "It's not a real script unless it's a MOVIE script!"

Rolled my own "script prep software" using Filemaker Pro and never looked back.

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

Michael Aranyshev
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 13, 2015 at 12:03:33 am
Last Edited By Michael Aranyshev on Sep 13, 2015 at 12:04:21 am

They're entirely free to focus on any niche they wish as long as they serve it well. The problem is they don't. Realizing that changing the paragraph style should be the same shortcut regardless how many characters are typed in the said paragraph doesn't take dozens of user base polls and huge usability research. It takes some common sense and an attitude that's different from the usual "Screw you!"


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 6:19:30 am

Bill - troll may just be trolling.

There's a small percentage of posters both here and on fcp.co forums who often seem angry. Maybe they just have an inelegant way of expressing themselves. Or maybe they really do look at anything that is counter to their needs or expectations as worthless and inferior. Not sure. I just know that there's no reasoning with the anger bears. Just move on to the next post. Life's too short.


Return to posts index

Michael Hancock
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 7:59:14 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "FCPX still doesn't get basic editing right so it shouldn't be included in this discussion at all but yes, you cannot work without the mouse in any current NLE. And that's a shame."

I've found that Premiere is surprisingly close to being a mouseless program (closest I've gotten, anyway), but their idiotic and logic defying track patching stops that dead in its tracks. How they still haven't fixed it after all this time baffles me.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 6:40:03 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "FCPX still doesn't get basic editing right so it shouldn't be included in this discussion at all but yes, you cannot work without the mouse in any current NLE. And that's a shame."

Half of editing (if not more) is scanning through your footage to look for shots.

The skimmer makes that faster than anything else to me. You use the mouse with the skimmer.

Why wouldn't I want to use that skimmer?


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 8:11:33 pm

I don't "scan" or "skim." I watch it. Carefully, many times.


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 8:53:31 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "I don't "scan" or "skim." I watch it. Carefully, many times."

I do that also while I'm logging it.

Once I know what I want I scan to find it.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:15:03 am

And may I ask why do some people seem so averse to using a mouse?


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:27:55 am

Because it will hurt you after a while.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:31:42 am

I'm fine thanks


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:36:01 am

[James Ewart] "And may I ask why do some people seem so averse to using a mouse?"

James - Michael is correct on this point. The mouse is not your wrist's friend. That's why I use a pen and tablet.

As far as keyboard editing, I find that more keyboard and less mouse can be much faster. I use as little mouse as possible on Avid, and now that I'm more comfortable with X, more keyboard there as well.

But, yes, X requires more mouse than Avid. Certainly not a deal breaker, though. And I find the benefits of X more than makes up for the additional mousing.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:43:53 am
Last Edited By James Ewart on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:45:16 am

[Jeff Markgraf] "James - Michael is correct on this point. The mouse is not your wrist's friend. That's why I use a pen and tablet.
"

Absolutely agree on quotes. otherwise really hard to know where you are.

... happy to report after 16 years into the editing journey from a P/D background and no problems with the wrist this end. i think the problem is more to do with general posture when people have issues and not being balanced or correctly set in the chair. A good solid engaged core. Not leaning or over extending.

I hate the pen and tablet. I used a Wacom but no matter how it was set the cursor was always a but "drifty" and less accurate.

Some editors seem to feel using a mouse slows them down. I'm lucky, I'm never in that much of a hurry but found it more tactile and intuitive using a mouse.

I do understand if people are bashing out news pieces in a busy news room it could be an issue perhaps.


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 2:15:59 pm

[James Ewart] "Some editors seem to feel using a mouse slows them down. I'm lucky, I'm never in that much of a hurry but found it more tactile and intuitive using a mouse."

This may have been true before X, but for me the skimmer changed that.

In editing you do great deal of moving back and forth through footage and the skimmer does that faster than JKL for me or dragging the playhead up and down the timeline.

I work with the mouse in one hand and I have remapped many of my most used keys that are two key options to one key. So I'm just hitting one key most times and skimming.

My only beef is that the skimmer should be in Motion also.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 2:51:21 pm

[Tony West] "In editing you do great deal of moving back and forth through footage and the skimmer does that faster than JKL for me or dragging the playhead up and down the timeline.

I work with the mouse in one hand and I have remapped many of my most used keys that are two key options to one key. So I'm just hitting one key most times and skimming.

My only beef is that the skimmer should be in Motion also."


+1!


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 5:19:43 pm

[Tony West] "This may have been true before X, but for me the skimmer changed that.
In editing you do great deal of moving back and forth through footage and the skimmer does that faster than JKL for me or dragging the playhead up and down the timeline."


Agreed. One of the best selling points for me that keeps suckering me back to using X. ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 9:00:07 am

[Jeff Markgraf] "But, yes, X requires more mouse than Avid."

Requires is the wrong word. I haven plugged in a mouse in three years. Not since Apple brought out the multitouch trackpad. I know quite a few editors who have the Apple standalone trackpads on their desktop systems as well.
Bye bye RSI.

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

Jeff Markgraf
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 9:03:37 am

[Bill Davis] " I haven plugged in a mouse in three years."

Well, yes, right. I was using "mouse" as a stand in for any non-keyboard device. I use a pen & tablet to avoid the RSI that was beginning to be an issue years ago.

That said, there are a few functions in X that I'd like to see available on the keyboard. But it's not at the top of my wish list, either.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 2:40:18 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "Because it still doesn't know how to use your screen real estate efficiently? The thing is ugly and it's ugliness actually gets in your way. When you clean it up to look halfway decent it stops working because "Avid is keyboard–centered NLE" is outright lie. You can't work without desperately clinging onto your mouse all the time.
"



Really? I barely need to touch a mouse once im building a cut in the timeline. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone complain about needing to mouse in MC.

Also screen real estate? You can make the UI do whatever you want. Buttons, no buttons, one window, two windows - whatever, and however you set up the UI shouldn't effect the ability to use KB shortcuts.


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 6:59:58 pm

How do you navigate your bins with keyboard shortcuts?


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 10:57:54 pm

[Michael Aranyshev] "How do you navigate your bins with keyboard shortcuts?"

You cant.

That doesn't mean your "desperately clinging to your mouse at all times"

Pretty much everything in the timeline/fx/and color modes is accessible via KB, and much more KB centric than other NLE's


Return to posts index

Michael Aranyshev
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 11:55:31 pm

So half of the interface is inaccessible from keyboard and it's still much more keyboard-centric than others? That's a sad state of affairs.


Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 11:46:35 am

Avid is outflanked in many regards in 'assistant editing' features: multicam functionality, syncing, exporting to various formats, etc. When starting a project it can seem like a daunting task begin your work in Media Composer. It's going to take longer to 'start' editing in MC, often times.

But if you focus your attention on just the actual editing, Avid is the smoothest and fastest.

For the record, I've done lots of high-end FX and grading in MC. It's far more than just a cutting tool. For compositing, though, it's usually an awkward choice due to its layering structure (again, exceptions exist).

For me, Avid will remain part of my arsenal no matter what. For anything longer than a week's worth of work, it's still my top choice.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 11, 2015 at 4:08:56 pm

[Daniel Frome] "For the record, I've done lots of high-end FX and grading in MC."

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by that? What kind of effect(s) did you do, and what made it high-end?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 2:29:07 pm

[Shawn Miller] "Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by that? What kind of effect(s) did you do, and what made it high-end?
"


"High end" is just being used as a term to describe a project that involves a major client (Loreal, Cover Girl, Bourjois Paris, to name a few). I've done roughly 20 projects in the beauty-product market. All of them finished on media composer with a combination of Boris and Sapphire filters, as well as the baselight AVX plugin.

In essence, I am just profiling the fact that Media Composer, in this example, is not being used for its editing prowess, but it's abilities to be a 'finishing' product (with the right combo of plugins).


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 3:20:31 pm

[Daniel Frome] "[Shawn Miller] "Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by that? What kind of effect(s) did you do, and what made it high-end?
"

"High end" is just being used as a term to describe a project that involves a major client (Loreal, Cover Girl, Bourjois Paris, to name a few). I've done roughly 20 projects in the beauty-product market. All of them finished on media composer with a combination of Boris and Sapphire filters, as well as the baselight AVX plugin.

In essence, I am just profiling the fact that Media Composer, in this example, is not being used for its editing prowess, but it's abilities to be a 'finishing' product (with the right combo of plugins)."


Ah, I see. I was hoping to get some insight into the specific kinds of effects you were doing, e.g., blemish removal or object removal/replacement. I don't use NLE's for compositing or effects anymore (not since Vegas 3.0), even when I probably could. But that's mostly because I'm more comfortable using other tools for those purposes. It makes me wonder how much you can actually do in an NLE now.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 3:23:22 pm

[Shawn Miller] "
Ah, I see. I was hoping to get some insight into the specific kinds of effects you were doing, e.g., blemish removal or object removal/replacement. I don't use NLE's for compositing or effects anymore (not since Vegas 3.0), even when I probably could. But that's mostly because I'm more comfortable using other tools for those purposes. It makes me wonder how much you can actually do in an NLE now."


Oh yes, blemish removal, general wrinkle softening, extra whitening of the eyes, that sort of stuff. That is all done inside Baselight AVX.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 3:38:02 pm

[Daniel Frome] "
Oh yes, blemish removal, general wrinkle softening, extra whitening of the eyes, that sort of stuff. That is all done inside Baselight AVX."


I've seen some training and promo videos for Baselight and it looks amazing. On the projects where you used it, did you work with a colorist at all?

Shawn



Return to posts index

Daniel Frome
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 3:40:48 pm

[Shawn Miller] "On the projects where you used it, did you work with a colorist at all?"

Nope, I do all the post: ingest, edit, color/FX, output to air.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 4:48:58 pm

You can certainly do a lot of FX and finishing using MC/Symphony but it can be much more labor intensive to get the same/similar results compared to using other NLEs. Maybe if I used the FX in Avid more often I wouldn't find them so cumbersome but it's always seemed like a PITA to me.


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 7:50:55 pm
Last Edited By Mike Warmels on Sep 12, 2015 at 8:32:07 pm

I've been cutting a lot of television shows on FCPX this last year and I must say: it's rather underwhelming.

When I do a documentary series or a children's series (meaning a lot of footage available for all the episodes and a lot of the same formatted elements (sequences, graphics etc)), I find FCPX clogging up very quickly. As soon as it gets complex, there's trouble: using a lot of synchronised audio, 6+ audio tracks, graphic layering etc etc... FCPX gets enormously SLOW! I find working with it in a bigger environment (with a facility house and a network) is only posing a lot of problems that take ages to resolve.

Relinking a project for instance when sending off a project file to another station with the same media... FCPX has a tendency to lose its links to media, causing the editors that finish the shows that I make rough cuts for, spending lots and lots of time doing that.

I just had an issue with synchronised clips. 80% relinks perfectly, the other 20% relinks well but there's no audio audible when cutting it in the project. All the footage is from the same source, synchronising is exactly the same, yet FCPX always finds little things it can't hack. I found out that having separated audio where some have 6, some have 7 or 9 tracks, causes problems. Took me 1,5 day to get everything right. In AVID the exact same work takes me an hour max! Including checking the occasional one frame delay correction.

Now, this is just one of those typical complex things that FCPX doesn't seem to handle properly on a larger-than-one-clip-or-video-scale, things I find absolutely horrendous. Asking myself WHY... Why does FCPX have so much trouble handling large libraries (for six 30 minute shows for instance)? Why does it have so much trouble with handling or processing audio? Why does it have such a hard with basic stuff we've been using for ages and that FCP7, AVID or PPRO doesn't seem to have major problems with.
For instance: I had to cut a MUSIC EVENT in two, because...there were TOO MANY CLIPS in it. It crashed all the time when I tried to open the event. I mean: what is that all about? Too many clips???? I often need a lot. FCP7 could handle it, AVID can handle it just fine. I suspect all the audio and waveform generation is something that bears heavily on CPU and sic speed... too heavily to my taste.

But for me the worst is bloody beachball showing up all the time, slows the entire process down. There are days I find myself working more with FCPX than the show I have to cut, finding another of the 1000+ workarounds that FCPX obviously needs.

Support?? Where? There is none.

No, I prefer AVID all the way at the moment. It's a solid beast, it's fast, it always knows where its media is, it always handles all it's imported media super fluent and it's great for exchange between different locations and sets.

FCPX looks nice, has some nice features but it is too underdeveloped for me. The programming is faulty when it comes to complexer projects. It's an NLE that is far from finished yet it claims to be professional. It's too bad my biggest client uses it now as their only NLE, but it is gonna cost them. Because, and most editors working there agree, it's in the end for regular tv work slower... slower than AVID, slower than PPro... and it has nothing to do with the way it looks or how you cut, I can work around that. I can work around the fact that a lot of things take more actions than in does in AVID, as long as I can do it quick. And FCPX just isn't very quick on larger projects.

Oh and for those who like to rant to people not liking FCPX: I work on a trashcan 6 core for MacPro, I use Thunderbolt external drives, libraries and cache on my internal SSD etc etc... I did everything the avid FCPX fans said I was doing wrong and it is still Final Cut SLOW...

So AVID... yes, why not! I like it a lot!


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 12, 2015 at 10:46:03 pm

Sounds like with a workflow as complex as yours, you might need a qualified workflow architect?

Everyone I know who does that type of large system tuning is in Amsterdam at the moment, but if you're having this much productivity grief, why not have your boss give the folks at FCPWorks a call? Sam, Noah or one of the big european facility guys like Ronny Courtens may have some solutions as to why you're facing so much grief and how to stop some of the pain?

You want to pull the rip chord and go back to AVID - feel free. And if you don't have a personal choice because it's a corporate decision, then I feel for you just like I feel for the guys that would prefer to use X but are filling seats in shops that picked Premiere Pro. It's never comfortable to be using a tool that you feel you are fighting. As to AVID It's strengths in the traditional collaborative worklows are legend - but editors every day ALSO bitch about that.

Nature of the beast. Editing is personal.

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

Mike Warmels
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 13, 2015 at 7:53:34 am

Well, I don't find the workflow very complex, myself. I've been doing stuff like this for twenty years. So that's my biggest question mark: why does an advanced, brand new NLE like FCPX have so much trouble with it.

AVID runs faster on external hard discs with half the speed of the Thunderbolts I am now using to get FCPX moving at least.

But I am an independent. I work on both AVID and FCPX (and FCP7 although that one is pretty dead). I'd work on PPro is any client would require that of me. So my biggest client has decided to go full blown with FCPX, using SAN. But the development on that end is so slow (they're about to implement Yosemite so they can move to FCPX 10.2 with the El Capitan coming out any moment) that we're not really moving ahead.

Again, one of the advantages of AVID is that it's downward compatible. It makes no difference in what version I or my clients work on, they all communicate. Would be nice if FCPX could do the same (if not imperative).

So yeah, there are gripes about AVID. But for me it runs fast, project and media exchange is flawless and when I hit my spacebar it plays immediately. Not 2 seconds later. To me that is pure bliss... If I have to chose now (I mainly do bigger projects) AVID all the way.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 13, 2015 at 8:30:02 am

[Mike Warmels] " and when I hit my spacebar it plays immediately. Not 2 seconds later. To me that is pure bliss"

That should improve when your client moves to 10.2


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 13, 2015 at 8:45:49 am

You won't believe how much I look forward to that. I keep pushing them to upgrade, but they have to upgrade 10 editing suites and the SAN system... And you don't want to piss off your client, even though it is costing them more money now. Money I'd rather spend on development and filming, instead of waiting for a beach ball.


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 15, 2015 at 2:45:40 pm

Hey Mike,

I see you are based in Utrecht. If you know your big client well and he has any questions about upgrading his network or his workflows, tell him he can contact me. My advice is always free, and I think I know reasonably well how to make FCP X run fast as hell on a large shared storage network.

ronnycourtens@mac.com

- Ronny


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 13, 2015 at 5:04:40 pm

I'll just comment on your first paragraph and leave the rest cuz to me that's the interesting question. In my opinion, they changed X so substantially because very smart people with world class understandings of both modern computing power and developments in editing saw that the hardware and internet landscape had already shifted hugely and would likely continue to do so. And saw that they could better re-architect media manipulation for that future. It's certainly uncomfortable for editors who just want everything to work perfectly during the transition. I get that. But progress is messy. And it's also necessary. Simple as 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

Oliver Peters
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 13, 2015 at 5:09:35 pm

[Bill Davis] "And saw that they could better re-architect media manipulation for that future. It's certainly uncomfortable for editors who just want everything to work perfectly during the transition. I get that. But progress is messy. And it's also necessary. Simple as that."

Except that - given some advance development time - they've had 5-6 years to get it right and it's still not there. That's what's frustrating. Many of us who regularly use X on challenging projects start off well enough and then the complexity of the project simply grinds you to a halt at the point when you can't turn back.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 13, 2015 at 8:32:26 pm

I don't doubt that this is your experience, Oliver. But there's a LOT of high end video production and programming coming through the X pipeline now - broadcast, film and corporate - and while I absolutely hear of folks complaining about having to come around to working the X way - what I don't hear much about is shops hitting a blind alley and not being able to go forward.

News, Networks, Agencies, Sure I hear grousing = particularly from shops in their first year or two. But for the folks who've put the same amount of daily production time into X that you'd expect a well experienced editor to have in their primary shop tool - whatever it is - I just don't hear more than the regular amount of complaining.

I've been arguing for years here that it's not easy to dump and re-learn the stuff that X requires.. But at the same time, I've preached that if you put in the effort - you can get outstanding and very efficient results.

What I do tend to hear is that editors who come from years on other NLEs - who do a few projects on X - then go back and do more projects on AVID - or Premiere - then back to X again - they tend to sound just like the folks who work primarily on X sound when they have to cut something on AVID or Premiere. They miss what they're used to.

It's a world FULL of old style timeline editors with decades of experience in that.

The most experienced of us "magnetic" editors have 4 years in now - and with the slow uptake that X went' through for whatever reason, even in pro shops using X full time - the seat holders may have a year or two if you're really lucky.

Looking back at the early days of FCP Legacy, AVID or anything else, we had a term for editors with just a year or two experience on those new systems - even if they had years of cutting on a Steenbeck.

Newbies. (I guess now that's noobs.)

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

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: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 13, 2015 at 8:47:28 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Sep 13, 2015 at 8:48:15 pm

[Bill Davis] "I don't doubt that this is your experience, Oliver. But there's a LOT of high end video production and programming coming through the X pipeline now"

Nor do I doubt that either. But that's where the disconnect happens. Comparing the various forums, I see far more situations where performance with FCP X is inconsistent than I do with the others. And by inconsistent, I mean the same people who have good experiences also have some really bad ones. With Avid or Premiere it tends to be universally bad or good. So clearly there's an issue with project size, media type, plug-ins, the OS, etc. I don't know that answer but it seems to be the case a lot with X. I think Mike's posts are a very good example of that.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 13, 2015 at 10:03:46 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I think Mike's posts are a very good example of that."

I think the system Mike is using is pre - 10.2 and Yosemite, which doesn't help with project size issues and beachballing.

I've found there have been big improvements in both of these since 10.2


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 13, 2015 at 11:58:14 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Sep 14, 2015 at 12:02:41 am

[Steve Connor] "I've found there have been big improvements in both of these since 10.2"

I'm on the newest stuff and I'm seeing improvements, but nothing significant, I'm afraid. A lot of this varies with the kinds of projects. Here's an interesting example. Watch this demo by Denver Riddle of grading a feature using Color Finale. The points to notice are when he drags an adjustment layer title over a clip (about 4:45 into the video). Note how "sticky" the UI becomes before it settles down. This is the sort of UI interaction that shouldn't happen in X but does, whereas the same sort of thing in Premiere pr Avid is completely smooth.







- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 13, 2015 at 5:14:16 pm

I have no problems with FCPX architecture. I hate the fact that it slows down so much, that it's unpredictable in its bugs, in things that seem simple but have many weird pitfalls, that you need so many workarounds and that there are things that it can handle for like 90% but the other 10% causes huge time delays. And I find it bothersome that there is hardly any support.

There's a endless list of little things that make FCPX not entirely reliable in some basic features: the audio meters - what are they peaked to? There's no reference. Color correction: if you change the black or highlights in Exposure, the midtowns also vary, audio synchronisation using timecode - works great expect if there are variations in tracks of the seperately recorded audioclips, etc etc etc. It goes on and on.

So to work with it: fine, it has its merits, some very nice features, some very good, others are meh but okay to work with if you have the speed.. And I often don't, so to work ON it usually means a lot of time delays, work arounds, the occasional crash and mysterious things that don't work for some reason etc. etc. That is my main gripe with FCPX. And the usual answer I get it: it will be fixed in the next update, hopefully.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 13, 2015 at 8:47:21 pm

[Mike Warmels] "There's a endless list of little things that make FCPX not entirely reliable in some basic features: the audio meters - what are they peaked to? There's no reference. Color correction: if you change the black or highlights in Exposure, the midtowns also vary, audio synchronisation using timecode - works great expect if there are variations in tracks of the seperately recorded audioclips, etc etc etc. It goes on and on.
"


Okay. I get it. The glass is super half empty for you. I get that.

For me, I see none of those delays. Don't know if it's my hardware, my formats, my types of jobs or just random dumb luck. But I see none of that.

For me, it's fluid and easy and super responsive.

All this does, maybe, is inform the discussion that what you're seeing is not the only thing that all other X editors are seeing. Take that for what it's worth. That's all.

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

Steve Connor
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 13, 2015 at 10:00:01 pm

[Bill Davis] "my formats, my types of jobs"

What formats are you using Bill and are you doing any long form work with over 1000 clips?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:23:44 am

Steve. I don't personally do long form. But I'm very well connected in the global FCP X community and I know plenty of editors all over the world who work on long form - Movies, TV shows and Documentaries - day in and day out. Our own Tony West just finished a 3 year project doing a full blown documentary in X and Chuck Braverman's team in LA just cut the two major TV Movies coming out in a couple of weeks on the OJ Simpson anniversary. I know some of the team that cut those. And my friend Jari in Finland's been cutting hour long TV for their national networks for more than 3 years now. So it's not like long form is unexplored territory in X. Honestly, you're a bit late to the subject. Perfect? Nope. and all of them faced issues along the way - learned to solve them - and rather than waste time complaining or fighting the software - they all report big changes for the better in their workflow after X "clicked" for them. Its that type of evidence from real working pros with REAL experience in X that I trust. i'm not saying X doesn't have quirks or need workarounds. I've just never experienced ANY software in 20 plus years of editing that hasn't. That's all.

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

Mike Warmels
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 6:39:26 am

It has nothing to do with half empty, Bill.

I have no problems with the FCPX workflow or the way of editing, or the magnetic timelines. I do have a problem with FCPX performance. I am happy to hear that your set-up is working fine. Mine was done by a professional company specialised in Apple audio and video, an Apple authorised reseller. I am in constant contact with a lot of editors working on FCPX on a daily basis. And all the feedback I get is that they do run into the same problems. So I get a lot of workarounds: don't have your Inspector on while editing, especially not with the Audio Tab open, switch off you AJA card because using your broadcast monitor can slow it down, switch off waveforms etc etc... I find all that stuff very silly, it basically comes down to saying: "please don't use all the wonderful FCPX features because they may not work very well."

Like you, I make a living out of this kind of work. And I find it frustrating that apart from the many, many workarounds (almost needs as much time to learn FCPX really well as it is to learn AVID) FCPX needs so much more power and disc speed to get a, in my case, very mediocre performance.

I need to use my internal SSD harddrive to store the Libraries and the Cache (with fills up so quickly even my harddrive ends up full after cutting four episodes of a fashion tv show). I need to use Thunderbolt external drives. It needs the fastest discs, the fastest computer and yet... it's the tortoise compared to the old hare of AVID, which wins on much slower discs.

Maybe it's that I work on somewhat more complex projects. On smaller films FCPX runs like a charm, but when it gets bigger, more footage etc... it slows down.

Now, I know I am on a older FCPX (I explained that before why I cannot yet upgrade), 10.1.4, and I'm sure 10.2 runs better. But this is then another thing: why are older versions immediately abandoned as obsolete? Why are there no patches to fix the older versions? Even on older AVIDs you get support and bug fixes, why not on older FCPX versions?

Anyway, back to cutting on FCPX!


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 7:18:01 am

Hi Mike.

I don't think Bill intends to be condescending or dismissive of the issues you seem to have with X. Bill is one of a few of us who have had pretty consistently good luck with X. As Oliver and some others have pointed out, there does seem to be some wild and inconsistent variation between users and systems. Perhaps the sign of an "immature" (not meant to be derogatory, just descriptive) hardware/software relationship.

As a side note, newer versions of Avid (v8.xxx), which have finally incorporated some of the modern file-handling capabilities of FCPX and PPro, are also fraught with buggy and inconsistent behavior. And the newest Avids absolutely require modern, top-line hardware.

As far as specific points:

I used to have the open inspector window sluggishness at times. Not so much anymore on 10.2. And definitely not so much now that I'm on a new MacPro tube/trashcan/dustbin/R2Mac2/whatever you call it.

Never had a problem with my AJA T-Tap slowing down performance. (First time I've heard this one.)

Waveform drawing was a problem that seems to be fixed in 10.2 Slow opening of libraries and projects also seems to be fixed in 10.2.

[Mike Warmels] "it's the tortoise compared to the old hare of AVID, which wins on much slower discs."

As noted above, the introduction of AMA brought many an Avid to its knees. And the latest version just won't cut it on older hardware - unless you don't use AMA or large format video or background rendering or real-time proxies - in which case, why bother with the latest version?

[Mike Warmels] "but when it gets bigger, more footage etc... it slows down."

I had some issues cutting a feature shot on RED 5k. Only viable using proxies and "better performance" mode. But then, that was on a Retina laptop as the CPU, and pre-10.2. Works like a charm now on the same footage, even using original 5k, now that I'm on 10.2 with the Tube.

I know, I'm sounding like a broken record.

[Mike Warmels] " Why are there no patches to fix the older versions? Even on older AVIDs you get support and bug fixes, why not on older FCPX versions?"

Well...having used Avid since the mid-90s, I have found that "patches and bug fixes" were almost exclusively new versions or .xx updates. Just like FCPX. To this day there are certain versions of Avid that simply don't play nicely with certain OS versions, both PC and Mac. So I don't think it's fair to expect 10.08 or 10.1.xx to be patched to bring it up to par with 10.2. As with Avid, it's often far more than a simple patch to fix the problems associated with older versions.

None of this is to dismiss the very real problems you and some others are having. I wish I knew what the secret sauce is to fix the problem systems. And it probably doesn't help to hear that some of us just don't have the issues you're having. I think you're stuck, to some degree, until you can get the 10.2 upgrade.


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 7:29:17 am

Thanks, Jeff. I often find FCPX users a little UNDERcritical about their NLE.

And sure AVID has it quips and quirks... I NEVER use AMA myself, simply BECAUSE it is unreliable. It often loses it links (but so does FCPX sometimes). I transcode everything and work form there, and that system is very solid. AVID has come a long way since the mid-90's BTW. The FCP7 and PPro have certainly been a great contributor to its improvements (including patches to older versions), which I hope for all NLE's: use what's better in the competitor.

Now you might say: transcoding everything costs. But I convert everything to Apple Pro Res before starting to cut on FCPX too. Having too many issues with some codecs. Once I start cutting, I want to move. Transcoding or importing can all be done at night when I'm sleeping.

But yes, I doubt there's a chance for patches for older versions. Apple could easily solve this problem to make Libraries downward compatible (as AVID has). Then editors working in a larger environment could just work in the version they'd like. If that would be the case, I'd have been on 10.2 since it came out.

So all in all, I agree with you on the immaturity thing (as a descriptive analysis, that's exactly what I meant). And yes, Bill is a lucky man indeed. And I am happy for him that it works so well. But as I said before, I know of lot of editors who run into the performance issues of FCPX as well. Maybe I should go over and cut with him. ;-)


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 7:52:18 am

[Mike Warmels] "Maybe I should go over and cut with him. ;-)"

I'd pay money to see that ;-)

Regarding AMA - I've found a mostly useful workflow (cutting promos and sales reels and short-form). Because I can't tolerate the incredibly slow import process in Avid (import a 50 minute pull reel? No thanks!). So I'll AMA link the long clip and scan for my pulls. Then subclip each pull and immediately transcode the subclip. Doing it right away, I can name the transcoded clip and include the reel number (NCIS_Eps 504-510_PR1415-2) in the name so I can easily get back to the source reel if something goes awry. Then I delete the temp AMA'd subclip and move on. Ultimately faster than batch subclipping, batch transcoding and hoping I get the clip names right. Then I delete the link to the source and cut away. I can always relink to the source and pull more clips.

As far as transcoding to ProRes for X: I rarely have to cut with h.264 or other really nasty source footage, so I don't usually need to transcode in advance. Now that I can work with MXF files directly in X, I don't even transcode Avid DNX files anymore. I can just pull them right off the ISIS drives into X, make a synch or multicam clip to lock the audio & video together, and cut away.

I'm curious why you don't just optimize the clips in X? Or make proxies. That can be done overnight, as well.

Lastly, regarding Avid: I didn't think you could go backwards in projects. I can open up older projects in, say, v7 or v8. But I don't think I can open up a v8 project in v7 or v6. Am I mistaken? Never had to do it.


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:06:09 am

Well for one, using proxies is really the low end of editing for me. I mean, we did that like 20 years ago. I can't bear to look at it anymore. All software is and should be fast enough run footage in real quality. It does in AVID and PPro, so I think FCPX should be able to do that. That professionalism, I think.

And yes, you are mistaken about the backward compatibility in AVID. It's always been that way, and I have been working with AVID for twenty years. Everything works back and forth between 8.4 (current version) as far back as 5.5.5. However, some effects have changed, like color correction. Older versions see the new ones, but you'd have to change it.

Some facility houses work with ISIS and older versions. While I work on my 8.4 system, I just take my projects to their 7.x system and I can start working instantly. It's simple: AVID's media system is always the same. It's the effects, the plug in etc that change, but the core media management system and projects are always the same.

Now, as it comes to transcoding in FCPX. I have had great performance issues using XD-Cam directly when I have som 20+ discs for a project. Or even the Quicktime version of MPEG2 HD422... slow slow... So I transcode it all.

However, FCPX cannot optimise XD-Cam material. I tried and it won't. I have heard people here say that is because Apple considers it a native codec for FCPX. So whether you want to or not: FCPX won't do optimisation of XD-Cam footage. Too bad Apple wants to do the thinking for you.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:12:09 am

[Mike Warmels] "Well for one, using proxies is really the low end of editing for me. I mean, we did that like 20 years ago."

I pretty much always work in Proxy mode. It's so easy to switch back to Optimised/Original if you need to.

Just because it's a 20 year old workflow doesn't mean it's no good after all.


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:16:57 am

Yeah, well I hate looking at the low res. I don't think you can judge very well for sharpness or whatever. I want to see what I have. I don't like the "better performance" look either, but that's something I have to accept so I will run better.


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:20:01 am

[Mike Warmels] "Yeah, well I hate looking at the low res. I don't think you can judge very well for sharpness or whatever."

Wow you actually get footage that's in focus? Now that's something I do miss from 20 years ago.

: )


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:28:36 am

Errr... yeah?


Return to posts index

James Ewart
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:31:09 am

Sense of humour failure?


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:41:01 am

Hehehe... not really...


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:50:13 am

Well, kids, it's late here in LA and tomorrow is a school day. But keep those cards and letters coming...


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:38:30 am

The "hurt you" post is a slightly out-of-order response to James' "why not use a mouse" post.

The threading on this forum is not ideal. Which is why it's a good idea to quote the post to which one is responding.


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:27:43 am

[Mike Warmels] "I can't bear to look at it anymore."

I used FCP-generated proxies on the RED 5k movie footage because the MacBook Pro couldn't decode and debayer 5k in real time. 4k would have been fine. Mind you, the proxies were about 1/2 resolution, so effectively 2k. Even the DP could barely see a difference on my Flanders Scientific monitor showing a 2k picture. And since you can switch immediately from proxy to original and back, it's a pretty seamless workflow. So...maybe rethink the proxy issue?

Good to know about the Avid backward compatibility. I have v8, and have been reluctant to use it for stuff with a facility still on 7.something.

I hear you on XD-CAM. Big bag o' hurt. And I wish FCPX could force-optimize XD-CAM. So, you're right - transcoding is the only way to go. That sucks. Although I will note that even Avid gets cranky with XD-CAM. and you absolutely have to transcode for layback or export. Which also sucks.

Pretty much any other format plays nice with my system. Ah, there's that inconsistent performance issue again. Really a drag.


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 10:33:14 am

Yup.

Well, what I do with AVID, especially after a day of shooting on the CANON C300 for instance. When I come home, I AMA link the lot (which is just a few clicks), set it transcode and I go to have dinner. Sometime at the end of the evening it's done. I start copying for back-ups and go to bed. The next morning I start cutting.

It's the luxury of having a set in an office next to home, I guess.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:51:35 am

Somebody wants to send me a plane ticket - all I need is my laptop and a USB 3 speed mini drive and I'll be happy to sit at a table with anyone! In fact bring your own project on a Thunderbolf drive and we can play with that. Unless it's a long flight, I'd even do a turnaround. Just buy me lunch. I actually like editing in X so much I'd do it for recreation! Plus I occasionally like living on the edge! Back in 2012 when I did my live Multicam demo at the LACPUG - 15 minutes pre-demo none of my files were working! Thank heavens Phil Hodgetts and Greg Smith let me leach their hotspot to download fresh files. Then it went off without a hitch! That was the night I got to meet and drink with Iron Man editor Dan Lebental - so I'm always up to meet new people and tempt fate!

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

Jeff Markgraf
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 8:55:44 am

[Bill Davis] "Just buy me lunch."

Bill, you're my hero!

Sorry we didn't get to do lunch/drinks at NAB this year. Maybe the next time you're in LA...


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 14, 2015 at 6:39:00 am

Rich -

Piling on with a bunch of others here: Avid without ISIS (and Interplay) is mostly just an old-school NLE. Mostly great editing functionality, with what many consider best-in-class trim functionality. Terrible for effects and compositing. Nothing special for audio or color correction (you'll want to sweeten in ProTools and color correct in Resolve). Graphics created by the usual suspects and dropped in.

On the plus side, as of version 8, FINALLY a decent means of dealing with file-based video and larger-than-HD video formats. Looks like they cribbed a few ideas from FCPX! But be prepared to have new, powerful hardware to handle it. (And ProTools & Resolve & AE are still required.)

But, to repeat, unless you need the kind of multi-user workflow that only ISIS can provide -- at a fairly significant price! -- Avid isn't a foregone conclusion.

And while it's conventional wisdom that only ISIS (and UNITY before it) can effectively handle large-scale multiple user workflow, I'm not so sure that's true anymore. FCPX and PPro can both work very effectively with modern asset management systems (like Cantemo Portal and some others). The only UNIQUE feature of ISIS is multiple users on a project simultaneously. All the others require users to pull a local copy of the project and then re-integrate it when done. (With ISIS, the first user of a bin locks out the others from writing to the sequence and bin, but anyone can open the bin read-only, use a locked sequence as a source, make a copy of said sequence and do their own thing, etc. And as soon as the original user closes the bin, it's up for grabs again.)

And, yeah, Hollywood is still primarily an Avid town. I don't see that changing anytime soon.


Return to posts index

Mike Warmels
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 16, 2015 at 6:51:13 am

Well, I work with two companies with FCPX and SAN... it's not really a great marriage. It basically works, but it's not super smooth. And Cantamo, now I have not worked with that myself, but all the editors I know do a lot of complaining about that one. They consider it not very user friendly.


Return to posts index

Michael Harrington
Re: AVID - Why Not?
on Sep 16, 2015 at 2:03:52 pm

AVID, FCP, FCPX, ADOBE, RESOLVE, Magnifying glass, develop solution and razor blade - whatever, I just want to edit.

Whichever tool l I choose I want it to work as advertised and I don't want my projects to be the testing ground.




Old dog, still learning new tricks.

Michael Harrington
MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2015)
2.5 GHz Intel Core i7
16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
AMD Radeon R9 M370X 2048 MB

Apple Cine Display 30"
Thunderbolt 2 Dock
GTech GSafe, GTech Drives

Adobe CC2015
Premiere Pro 9.0.2


Return to posts index

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