Who's using M100HD?
I was just curious as to who is using the M100HD (or SD for that matter) and what sort of clientelle they are working with. I am an Avid and Final Cut Pro editor and have done all of my feature and documentary work on those two systems and they both have their strengths and weeknesses. I've been very intrigued by the M100, however, and it's intuitive user interface. I've been looking into adding it to my skillset as an editor and possibly making it my primary platform, but was wondering in what sort of arenas other M100 editors find themselves working? I know M100 had a really strong following in the broadcast arena back in the day, but where does it stand today?
Thanks for all of your input on this matter. Like I said...just curious to see who's working on a M100HD and what they are cutting.
I use both FCP and M100HD for both corporate and broadcast work here in the UK.
I used to run a cable TV channel, and our production base was entirely media 100. Back then, (pre 2000) M100 had a strong footing in broadcast TV. Now though, from what I have seen, it has all but disappeared.
That said, I still like the system, despite its eccentricities and find, probably due to the ten years I have been using it, that it works the way I want to work. It seems to lend itself to documentaries, allowing you to easily condense and rearrange hours of footage into interesting naratives. It's great for telling stories, and when you are telling compelling stories, do you need all the bells and whistles that other platforms major on? Perhaps, perhaps not.
But to come back to your main question, I and my company get hired for many reasons but seldom the edit platform we use. I do freelance out to some of the few companies that still use Media 100, in which case, my knowledge is a bonus. But mainly I would suggest you go with whichever platform allows you to get the job done. And for many jobs out there, that's still Media 100 for me.
Thanks for responding. What you say is true, that it is the editor and not the system; I couldn't agree with you more. For whatever reason, however, at least here in the states...or, at least here in Southern California, many clients are very specific about what system they want you to be cutting on. Some times they have good reason, based on there intended finishing platform, for instance, and would rather cut on an Avid Media Composer because they know they will be finishing on a Nitris or Symphony. Of course, you could cut on anything and still finish on pretty much anything, but they want the streamlined flow. And, of course, where Avid is concerned, there is still a mystique about it that convinces people that an Avid editor is a better editor, or can produce a better result, than a FCP editor or Premiere editor or Vegas editor or M100 editor or whatever. If I could afford it, I'd probably be on a Smoke...but that's another story.
At any rate, I guess the real gist of my initial question was to see how people enjoyed the M100 platform when working on different sorts of projects. Have they found it a benefit or a hindrance in regards to certain types of projects over others. For instance, right now, based on the dictates of my employers, I am cutting a documentary series on an Avid and a feature film on FCP. I love both systems and can work fairly quickly on either one. However, if I had my druthers, I would be cutting the feature on the Avid and the docs on FCP, or even a M100. I can produce the same cut for any of the projects on any of the systems and in a comparable amount of time...but, for me, the work flow and tools of the Avid seem more conducive to the features I work on, and the same for FCP and the docs. And that is not a judgment of the quality or efficiency of the programs, just my own personal tastes and sensibilities.
Well, I guess that was all a bit more long-winded than it had to be. It will always remain a curiosity to me, the perception of the producers, etc., who believe that one system is going to give them a better product versus another, instead of trusting that a talented editor who knows how to craft a story can do so regardless of the technology involved.
Just my $.02, even though nobody asked. :^>
[ventureforth] "And, of course, where Avid is concerned, there is still a mystique about it that convinces people that an Avid editor is a better editor, or can produce a better result, than a FCP editor or Premiere editor or Vegas editor or M100 editor or whatever."
Ha! Tell me about it! I only have to compare my freelance rate with my Avid using buddy to completely agree. I have always reckoned that Media 100's biggest mistake was that it was too cheap (a problem that has also plagued Premier IMO). Apart from not being "reasuringly expensive" like Avid, it meant most companies bought their Media100's and used them in house with staff editors rather than feeding a dry/wet hire facility system like with Avid. The lack of facilities meant a lack of freelance Media 100 editors, so when a staff editor left a media 100 using company, the lack of ready replacements meant that most of them simply binned the system and went with something else. Also many people were burnt by 844/x, but that's another story.
[ventureforth] "many clients are very specific about what system they want you to be cutting on."
Oh definitely, and the same is very true here too. What I meant, I guess, was that we Media100 survivors tend to find we *must* trade on our experience as editors as the profile of Media 100 is so low. It's also the reason I also use FCP.
[ventureforth] "Have they found it a benefit or a hindrance in regards to certain types of projects over others."
OK, to specifics. I have found finishing films, or anything that needs to look like a film a real pain on Media 100 due to the way that Media 100 does its effects in layers, rather by applying effects to each clip. The lack of industrial strength colour correction tools on the timeline mean you have to grade through Boris or another AE. Boris works on the timeline, but as a layer so you need to do some jiggery pokery to make it work consistently. This has been addressed in Version 12 though to be fair.
Doc series I've done have been a breeze though. As too are corporate films.
Hi, just thought I'd chime in.
We do mostly multi cam music concerts and magazine type shows and have been editing with the Media100 almost since inception, version 1.2 It was our first non-linear system.
Cutting the magazine and documentaries are very easy on the system, the multi-cam stuff not so, but we have stayed with it using work-a-rounds for multi-cam mainly because it always work! Have tried other platforms/software but I guess we are too lazy to change. Our first edit on the HD system was a music video shot on HD and delivered on HD and went without any hiccups. Its been fairly smooth since except for recent issues with the Sony hdv m10u which seems to be a Sony problem. Other models work.
Knowing all the problems of computers and software, I have been very happy with the way our three M100 systems work, I guess mainly because we are used to the work flow on the software.
Like Lukkee, I've been with Media 100 since the early days & love the ease of narrative cutting & the intuitive interface. The system is solid & works well with all but a few VTRs for capture & mastering. I do, however, wish they would sort out the colour corrector, with something like FCPs. I am now using Digital Film Labs plugin, in AE, to grade & it takes hours. Only other gripe is Media 100s slow uptake on native formats - like Sony XDCAM & XDCAM EX. While I understand it takes time to develop software, It's being kept in the dark about their intentions, which I loath. So much so, that we are considering changing our systems to FCP, purely because Apple keep on top of emerging formats & work-flows, so much better.
Re your original question - My company's output, through Media 100, is mainly high-end corporate (if that isn't a contradiction in terms!), with some broadcast (music videos). As to why Media 100 is such a closely guarded secret & sells few units - I believe the industry's thirst for a system that "does it all" & has a name with "kudos", accounts for much of Apple & Avid's success. Not to mention their marketing skills!
G5 dual 2.7, OS10.4.10, 4G RAM
Media100 HD V11.6 & Producer, AE 7
3.6 terra RAID
Having learnt my editing with 16mm film 30 years ago, when I started with digital video 10 years ago, I wanted an editing system that resembled my work method as closely as possible. Media 100 was exactly that. Media in easily sorted bins (just like hanging the clip on a nail into a linen lined bin!) and a timeline just like I had in the pic sync.but so much easier and faster! Also I had never even switched on a computer before and Media 100 is so intuitive I managed to learn it all reasonably easily. Cutting documentaries mostly I find I can do all I need to with Media 100 but like Sheeplove I do wish they would tell us more of what they are planning and I too am getting nervous about XDCAM Ex and whether we will be able to edit it with Media 100.
I am a huge fan of Media 100 and won't hear a word against it but wow wasn't our loyalty stretched with the Optibase episode!