Finally, a Non-Frivolous Post!

I'm anything but a professional video editor, but I've found the art and technology of DV, HDV and NLE's, etc., to be really fascinating. I was one of the first to buy a ProMax FCP 1.0 G3 bundle. So no more Hi-8 and Sima and Videonics. A friend asked if he could borrow it because the Avid they were leasing didn't do compositing. I guess I learned that you edit off-line on a cheap Avid, make an EDL for an expensive Avid to cut on-line. Very vague concepts. Finally got up-and-running and scaling the steep learning curve. Then I went to my first LAFCPUG monthly meeting, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Ken Stone was on the "Stump the Gurus" panel and in the course of responding to someone, rattled off about 10 bugs in FCP. Then, to further bring my Polyannaish mindset down to earth, Dan "Mr. JVC?NOT!" Brocket was videotaping the event, and during a lull commented that the last project he had worked on on an Avid couldn't have been done on FCP?and he LOVES his FCP! Later, on this LAFCPUG forum Koz (or somebody like that?if there is somebody like that) mentioned that the place where he worked was getting two more Avid Symphonies because of "workflow considerations."

Then "Cold Mountain" was edited on FCP, and "Dust to Glory" on Premiere Pro. Over on digitalvideoediting.com is a story of somebody else using Vegas to cut a movie. My basic question is: are these "stunts"?you know, like cooking a banquet on a Coleman camp stove? Is a $90K Avid Symphony Nitris really a professional heavy-duty industrial-grade NLE well worth the price for serious professional and profitable projects? If so, in exactly what ways? What justifies the 85% professional usage figure?

There seem to be many on these boards who are quite accomplished on both FCP and Avid, and could authoratively answer this question. And I know that I'll get an honest and impartial answer because LAFCPUG strikes a good balance between FCP "boosterism" and FCP "jingoism."

I remember reading an FCP review that said it was really good but not yet quite an "Avid killer." You know what's really ironic about that? On the boards over on the "dark side" the comment was made that now that Avid has bought Pinnacle, and has announced that Liquid development will continue, the two teams can now join their efforts to produce an "FCP killer"!

Competition man - it's all about getting you to give them your money. According to different video mags, there are wonderful editing tools out there and AVID is one of them. I think that the practice of trying to make an NLE system all things to all people is troublesome. Each tool is going to appeal to a different person with a different mindset.

Some would like After Effects built into their editing platform. Why not build DVD authoring into the application as well. Someone does! What is important is how well each tool accomplishes capturing, editing and managing video and audio media. Final Cut Pro was developed after Premier had been shipping for several years. AVID and Media 100 were the big guys at MacWorld 1997-8.

If you think Final Cut Pro is every going to attain the mystic of AVID, you may need to rethink how rapidly that newest tool gets the spotlight. The thing most of the people spend their bux on, is the favorite THING, This Year!

Hey Clarence:

Ahh, the good old days!

The place I have been producing for is all AVID, save for my lone FCP system (but I am not an editor here, just a producer) and I have to say, after living in an all AVID world for the past 8 months, I like AVID and AVID is more stable, overall, than FCP. While we don't have a Nitris here, we do have 10 edit bays with Xpress DV and two Media Composer Meridians (still running on OS9, really old school!).

I laugh at the AVID editors here who have to go out to AE for the simplest compositing tasks but I think that AVID, as an editing tool, is more robust than FCP, overall. I did two A&E Biographies last year that were FCP from beginning to end and while they went okay, we did go through several FCP type of growing pains as the software matured last year between 4.0 and 4.5. You know, crashing at times, some sync issues, but in the end, it worked out okay. Probably because we off lined on two different FCP systems and on-lined on a third on-line FCP system. Intersystem issues.

I have been contemplating bugging our owner to consider a switch to FCP, but we work for movie studios. The fact that we are all AVID is a selling point to them, many of our competitors (chop shops in the local paralance) use FCP, while we, the artists, use a "serious tool" like AVID. This has nothing to do with the relative usability of FCP versus AVID but it has everything to do with our client's perception of what constitutes a serious post production workflow.

Personally, I think all of the kids who use cracked versions of FCP downloaded from Limewire on iMacs and eMacs have cheapened FCP's image. While I agree, it's all about editing skills, that's not always the economic reality.

OTOH, I think it's insane to buy a $90k AVID to do HD when you can build a killer HD capable FCP system for about 1/4th of that. So I guess, in the end, it depends on who your clients are, what business you are in, which tool works better for you. Personally, I love FCP, I am not the best editor in the world but with FCP, I can sit down and experiment and make some pretty cool stuff, albeit, it takes me forever but on the AVID, I don't know how to make it do anything.

I will tell you this, I hire a LOT of freelance editors and lately, I can't find any good AVID editors. Everyone and his cousin knows FCP and owns FCP but try hiring a great AVID editor! They are all working and they make more as editors than I do as a producer (I have several friends pulling $5,000.00 a week on reality shows as senior editors, yikes! nice money!)

Kind of a meandering post but I guess all of the differences between AVID and FCP remain the same as they have always been. Both are good tools. Both are popular. Both get the job done. Each have their distinct advantages and disadvantages. In a way, I am glad that there are both systems on the market. Competition is a good thing. Editing would be boring if everyone used the same system, right?

Best,

Dan (Mr. JVC-NOT!) Brockett

That would be us. Four FCPs of various vintage, five and a half Avids, Unity, two Infernos, many Flames.

And the first non-feature HiDef job went to.......a VelocityHD running on PCs in the Commercial Division.

Just when you think you got this figured out....

Koz

I just finished a big job at a local production studio. The producers rented out several FCP bays not in use during the night shift so that we could capture a live satellite feed, edit the content and put together an hour-long show for satellite uplink the next afternoon. Apart from a few annoying crashes (Capture Now, anyone?) FCP performed really well. I can't compare how Avid would have performed, I'm not that familiar with it. But I do know that if they had paid Avid's prices they could never have afforded 16 bays of FCP stations along with Xserve raids, AJAs, SANs and fibre channels.

The main thing about people still using Avid is the investment. The company I work at has 6 Avid bays (Meridian Media Composers on OS 9), and all connected to a unity. They work, and they work well. We online at a post facility and all runs smooth as silk. Why suddenly drop everything and go FCP? Especially since we do wonderful compositing work using the Animatte and boris effects within the Avid? Works for us.

The one time they tried an FCP show (FCP 3) it was a disaster...primarily because they tried to plug an FCP machine into their current workflow of onlining on an Avid...and they didn't take note that the effects and transitions wouldn't carry over. Another company I worked at tried FCP too and had a horrible time...on FCP 4.0, which was really buggy. They are again all Avid.

When these systems start to no longer do what we need them to do, then they will explore other options. Right now we are running into the problem of offlining DVCPRO HD 720p30 and then onlining it. Everything is smooth, except for the layback to tape. That hasn't gone so well, and we are still working on it. It lays back if we crash record, but this being a broadcast series, we need strict frame-acccurate times.

But then several companies, like Bunim-Murray have a well oiled FCP setup that works great. And a producer I am working with will be producing an HD show for the History Channel, and has a limited budget, so we are going the FCP route. Because it handles HD, and handles it well...and within the budget constraints we have.

In my opinion they are both tools. Avid with a solid rep and solid stable system, and FCP with a growing base, and an ever-increasing stability and workflow that we all were waiting for.

And yes, the Limewire downloaders of FCP who edit small projects and short films are hurting FCPs rep. That and them suddenly think they are skilled editors (who have no knowledge of TV structure, timing, and delivery specs) hurt all of us.

I am a skilled Avid editor, and don't charge an arm and a leg (not at the $5000/week mark)...so...

(lol)

-shane

Clarence Larson wrote:

>Then I went to my first LAFCPUG monthly
> meeting, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Ken Stone was on the
> "Stump the Gurus" panel and in the course of responding to
> someone, rattled off about 10 bugs in FCP. Then, to further
> bring my Polyannaish mindset down to earth, Dan "Mr. JVC?NOT!"
> Brocket was videotaping the event, and during a lull commented
> that the last project he had worked on on an Avid couldn't have
> been done on FCP?and he LOVES his FCP!

Well no one can accuse lafcpug of being evangelistic, eh? :-)

I have a certain loyalty to Final Cut as it was the tool that gave me the opportunity to do what I could only dream of doing in this world of moving images. If Avid had been affordable and simple to use, then I'd be a loyal Avid user. But it wasn't. Not in 1999 at least. [www.lafcpug.org] I feel a bit of allegiance to Apple for that.

We all keep saying it's just a tool, but for me at least, this tool has changed my life. I've created wonderful things with this tool and told some wonderful stories. Never could of done that with any other tool. At least one that I could afford.

Plus, and I think most importantly, this "tool" has sprouted a wonderful and diverse community of users, many of whom I am honored to be friends with. I just don't see that community elsewhere. Might be becuase I don't spend enough time on the "other side," but there is something special about the Final Cut community. Think I'll hang around.

Wow, all those comments from you guys help to explain the fancy "Introducing Final Cut Studio" brochure that I got in today's mail.

Panel 1: "9:15 A.M. -Edit in HD. No Waiting." It shows a state of the art FCP station, top-notch Apple and broadcast monitors. On the desk a to-go cup of coffee, and what seems to be a TV commercial in progress.

Panel 2: "2:30 P.M.- Design in HD. With real-time motion graphics." But not really much progress in the commercial.

Panel 3: 6:45 P.M.- Create audio for HD- For the perfect sountrack." The commercial is still in progress; another cup of coffee and a take-out chinese menu on the desk.

Panel 3: "12:30 A.M.- Burn in HD- Because you can." The commercial seems to be in the DVD burning stage, while the desk is starting to show signs clear signs of confusion: a couple of take-out chinese food, cup of coffee, napkins, you name it!

Panel 4: "2:15 A.M.- Sleep. Dreaming, of course, in HD. While the panel talks about bringing the project to its end on FCP and the Mac screen is in its sleep mode, the desk still is a mess. And it's not really clear if the poor editor fell asleep in the studio after working the whole day before finishing the commercial.

Honestly, I think Apple is hiring ad designers sent by Avid!



====================================================================
"Prefiero pasar como ignorante cuando pregunto lo que ignoro, que pasar
como ignorante el resto de mi vida".
- A. Hauffen.
====================================================================

I will have to agree that with the release of FCP, there are wonderful support communities that help everyone from the hobbyist to the gurus themselves. Before FCP came out, we had NOTHING like this for Avid. It was either call Avid tech support (long waits and costly), tech support from a local rental company (also costly) or call your friends and see what they had to offer.

The many FCP discussions and support sites make using FCP a complete joy.

Clarence wrote-
[Then "Cold Mountain" was edited on FCP, and "Dust to Glory" on Premiere Pro. Over on digitalvideoediting.com is a story of somebody else using Vegas to cut a movie. My basic question is: are these "stunts"]

And TARNATION was cut in iMovie. Yes, they have the feeling of being stunts, but no more so than LOST IN YONKERS and PATRIOTS were feature "stunts" on Avid's new Film Composer a decade or so ago. And that had a few BIG bugs needing ironing out.

Avid had the lead time. Things like stable media management are a plus; an aging editing interface is a minus.

FCP opens the timeline to editing with a more liquid approach to image manipulation. It's less modal throughout. Editors of all kinds respond to this freedom.

FCP media management is in need of stricter control and more logical behavior-- for instance, I always forget how to properly TRIM a sequence just to the media used-- for consolidating, redidging or archiving-- it's not always as expected, the workaround is currently convoluted. Never had that problem with Avid's Consolidate and I miss that predictability. It's probably me and my bad Avid habits.

[ Is a $90K Avid Symphony Nitris really a professional heavy-duty industrial-grade NLE well worth the price for serious professional and profitable projects? If so, in exactly what ways? What justifies the 85% professional usage figure?]

In 1994, no one would look at an Avid "online" (AVR 26] for broadcast-- not even the spanking new HGTV-- I cut one of their first shows. We couldn't get it on without going through traditional 1" Type C online. Today, an Avid Meridien XL1000 with a DigiBeta A500 deck gets you in the door. But today so does an FCP with Kona 2 and Decklink attached to the same deck.. NBC "Scrubs" et al.

Production houses with deep pockets expect to pay big bucks for a finishing system. It's not all illusion, Avid's a stable piece of hardware and software, but once invested, don't expect that commitment to change overnight, even if justified. The very same logic applies to film schools who years ago outlayed big bucks for Avid workstations because FCP was perceived as a teenage bedroom bootleg editing system still growing up.

I don't know where the 85% figure for "professional use" comes from. I do broadcast work out of my studio in DVCAM offline and online. I can afford to charge much less than a grand a day here in New England, but closer to a grand in LA or New York-- ya gotta just to live! I'm no less professional than anyone working in a 300/hour Nitris or Quantel suite-- I simply don't need all that vision engineering horsepower, because my producers who need Digibeta deliverables will online there after the hard edit decisions, effects, titles, even sound design and rough color correction, have been made and implemented here. That workflow model feels more like 50% professional usage.

Today, in my opinion, if you offline in Avid, you're better off onlining on Avid. But if you offline FCP, you can online anywhere, thanks to tools like Automatic Duck.

- Loren
Today's FCP 5 keytip:
Set your custom layouts by pressing
Option>Windows>Arrange>Set Custom Layout.
Access your custom layouts 1 & 2 with Shift & Option-U!

The FCP 5 KeyGuide?: your power placemat.
Now available at KeyGuide Central
www.neotrondesign.com

Man, what a wealth of experience and knowledge there is on this forum! You preside over quite a treasure trove, Mike.

A documentary was made about my granddaughter Spencer ("Two Shoes for Spencer" about her birth defect and the operation and fitting of a prosthesis at the Shriners Childrens Hospital in Los Angeles. This was a relatively low budget undertaking for the Discovery Health Channel. It was shot with a JVC GY-DV500U (sorry Dan Brockettt?I hope that extra "t" makes up for the one I left out in my earlier post) on DV of course. The producer Ann Hassett said that that camcorder made her task affordable. It came out just excellent. I later learned that it was edited at Aardvark Post by Mark Amos Nealy on Avid (maybe an Adrenaline?what's that in relation to Media Composer and Symphony?) Effective use of J- and L-cuts, some dissolves, but nothing overdone. They gave me a DV copy of the show and I desaturated some shots and messed with the end credits to highlight my name. They used some of my TRV900 footage in the video, but I combined some other stuff I shot into an "expanded version." All my editing was done on FCP. I made VHS copies for the family, and there was no apparent difference in quality between the DV500 and TRV900 shots. More recently I captured an FCP timeline recorded to DV tape into Liquid Edition and burned DVDs right from the timeline (an ability alluded to in an above post). What's interesting is now you can see the difference in quality between the DV500 and TRV900 stuff.

Again, thanks to all for sharing your knowledge and wisdom!