Avid files in Final Cut Pro?

Hello,
I am a Final Cut Pro editor that has been forced to edit on an Avid system. I am beating my head against a wall with the amount of footage that I have to edit (28hours for a 10min piece) and now I also have to deal with the pain in the a$$ of learning Avid. I know Avid is a widely used piece editing system, but it is not easy by any means. I have spent about four days on the thing and am no where. I am hoping that there is some way I can plug the external Hard Drive into my mac and somehow magically make all the files show up? Is this at all possible? Is there a price I can pay to end this misery? Please, if anyone can help I could really use it.

Thanks in advance,
Mike

you're going to have to get over this my friend.
as a pro editor you need to be able to work on all the top tier NLE's not just FCP

as for the Avid codec media, they used to work, then they stopped ... don't know what th ecurrent status is. it may be a ppc/intel issue, but you can download the latest version here:
[www.avid.com]

also the "fcp2avid" website may (or may not) be of some help.

FWIW, I have to take in Avid Meridien files from an FTP site) and put them to tape, which I do via Final Cut. Avid has a plug in for quicktime that allows QT to play Meridien files.
Works well.
And as to the software issue, I agree with Andy. The job title is "editor", not "software operator".
J

Yes, but software changed that. The days of being an editor, for most people, are long gone. When you cut on a Steenbeck or a Moviola you edited. Now you do effects, transitions, color correction, audio mixing and sweetening, titles, motion graphics with interfaces designed for much more than sync picture and sound. Not long ago an editor did NONE of this. Interfaces are now designed for multiple tracks of video and audio, multiple edit modes, with capabilities that simply weren't possible or necessary for an editor. We now drive software. Editing, unfortunately, has become an ancillary part of post production. Cutting has been superseded by effects treatments; edits by digital transitions; sound bites capped with stings; and narrations covered with repetitious wallpaper and skim coated with music beds.

I know I could learn the editing on Avid, that's not the biggest problem here, it's the timeframe that I have to edit the piece. If there was an avid editor around the job wouldn't be mine, trust me. But unfortunately I am the editor with a normal amount of editing time, its just I have never touched this program before and am running into a lot of problems. I was just hoping that I could somehow open the files in final cut. Looks like i'm going to be logging some extra hours to figure this thing out.

Thanks for the feedback though...

Automatic Duck can convert Avid OMF files to Final Cut. Expensive, though.


www.derekmok.com

I think the issue is resolved, but the sub-thread is even more interesting.
I must disagree with my colleague Tom about us (we editors) now "driving software".
Don't lose site of the forest because of all the trees in the way.
As what used to be called an "on-line editor" , I've always done the things you describe (except for the times I was gladly able to send the project to a good sound mixer). It's certainly nothing new to many editors, and the new(er) software just makes it easier.
Despite the requirements, the core job of the editor is to tell a story. Being conversant in different types of software is now, through no design of ours, part of the job of "editor".
Tom's comments remind me of a something I heard from a "camera operator" once. He bragged that he "never listened to the interview" when shooting them. What I, the editor, got from him was an interview with slow pushes to the subject in the most awkward and inappropriate places. He was acting as a "camera operator" and that's what he did, but his work product was sometimes difficult to work with.
Jay Wilson

Mikedub-

See if you get anything out of reverse-engineering this article-

FCP for Avid Editors

[As what used to be called an "on-line editor" , I've always done the things you describe (except for the times I was gladly able to send the project to a good sound mixer). It's certainly nothing new to many editors, and the new(er) software just makes it easier. ]

What you used to call "on-line editing" I used to call "vision engineering." My edits were complete when they went to the online, down to the frame, except for titles, effects, and legalizing for broadcast-- all the other stuff Tom mentioned. Traditionally, these are *not* part of an edit-- they are part of the *finish*.

The classic definition of editing--which you may have executed (and probably very well) as *part* of your vision work-- that is, judicious selection, arrangement, and pacing of footage, to tell a story, just as you say, has not and will not change. Not even if media becomes a plasmic holographic liquid polymer and we edit by thought waves.

The tools and capabilities change and allow us to wear several craft hats, as we choose. But at core, editing remains the same mindset and activity.

- Loren
Today's FCP 6 keytip:
Select items and Shift-D to Make Offline!

The FCP HD KeyGuide?: your power placemat.
Now available at discount at the LAFCPUG Store!

"Editing, unfortunately, has become an ancillary part of post production. "

Tom,

I gotta say that your "definition" of editing is narrow, limiting, and a bit elitist. (artistically arrogant?) Worse, you sound like one of those studio guys hanging out at the commissary, "Why in my day we ran upright Moviolas. Dissolves... we didn't do no stinking dissolves. That's what the lab is for!"

I can't quite understand what you're lamenting... the fact that life in post ain't what it used to be, or that the infinite choices available to any "editor" now make the job that much more difficult.

Job definitions change with the changes in technology. I welcome the options now available to any "editor" willing to take the time to master the tools. The line between "Editing" and "Finishing" blurred a long time ago. It's only going to get fuzzier.

Mark

I think what I'm lamenting is that editing in many productions outside of narrative fiction is vanishing as an art and being replaced by effects generation. Can't make a good cut? Don't worry, we'll kill it with an effect. A lot of reality television and documentaries work seem to be the greatest offenders, but it's pretty much everywhere.

I gotta agree with Tom on this. There's no condescension towards FX artists like Joe. But the fact is, a lot of producers now get dazzled by techniques and effects and neglect the lack of narrative motivation behind them. Now they have to have a transition between every shot, and bright and shiny particles all over the place. The best effects artists are editors in themselves in that their work tells you things, means something to the overall scheme. Unfortunately, there are now many effects artists who throw in the kitchen sink just because they can. They fill every second with wild, undisciplined flashes so that the viewer overloads and everything becomes flat. Sadly, many producers now value flashy kitchen-sink lack of discipline over narrative ability...and then wonder why their shows fall apart. It's not a strike against good effects people who enhance and improve on the viewing experience by knowing when to do things and when not to.

I just saw Sunshine with a friend and we had the same reaction: So many "beauty" shots filled with FX that by the 20-minute mark, all that bright light, deafening noise and CG just ceased to impress. In addition, because you get saturated with effects every 30 seconds, the ending -- another effects extravaganza -- had no impact at all; it felt like any other part of the film. They showed the trailer for Resident Evil: Extinction and it was the same thing -- too much style, no substance. Whereas a film like Total Recall uses its effects to move the story forward and, judiciously, for set pieces that punctuate the story instead of overriding it.


www.derekmok.com

"A lot of reality television and documentaries work seem to be the greatest offenders, but it's pretty much everywhere."

Ok, now you're talking about something I know a little bit about, and I think you're just plain wrong! When did "narrative fiction" become the ONLY place where "real" editing occurs? You can dump on reality TV all you want, but let's get some facts straight. Since 1992 I've been working on the show that "defined" reality TV, and I can tell you we RARELY use anything other than a cut. A dissolve? Occasionally. A cheesy transition effect or wipe? Rarely, and then only for comic relief. Story is king, and it comes from that "editing" you claim has gone by the wayside.

Sure there are other reality shows that may make too generous a use of the "film flash" transition, but in general they all live and die on the strength of the story. If there's any shred of an interesting story, the show will survive. No story, and all the effects in the world won't help.

Tom, you're way too smart to dismiss an entire genre and the editors who work in it so callously. I'd like to think this heatwave has affected your thinking.

mark

First of all

"even if media becomes a plasmic holographic liquid polymer and we edit by thought waves. "

I *want* one of those.

Second

"other reality shows that may make too generous a use of the "film flash" transition,"

I am absolutely guilty of this myself for one show for one good reason. Garbage in, garbage out. I had to design the look of one show to include flashes as a regular occurrence because the footage *needed* interruptive cuts to disguise the mess. One presenter was known to harrass the camera guys to hurry up when shooting overlay because they 'had three shots already'. Often they were not able to even move to a different position to shoot.

My partner used to tell clients that dissolves were $2 each. But I have been on several jobs where the producer saw the cut and then said - fantastic, now add a cross dissolve to every shot and it's done. Seriously. I would explain that this was not a good idea, but they would counter with the fact that their clients thought it looked more 'professional'.