Avid goes 64 bits

Sneak peeks here:

[hollywoodreinvented.com]




www.strypesinpost.com

Hm, keeping the Smart Tools palette, I see! That's smart.

- Loren

Today's Media Composer keytip:
Loop Play In to Out with Control-6 (Alt-6 in Windows)

The Media Composer 5.x KeyGuide?: your power placemat.
Now available at
www.neotrondesign.com

That does look awesome, doesn't it? I'm hoping the Avid folks will at least be able to show us a few screen shots of that at our Atlanta Cutters meeting next week.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
biscardicreative.com

Yea, and it looks like it can have multiple open sequences! Wow! I wish that came in the cross grade...



www.strypesinpost.com

Much better looking interface. I wonder how it handles FX now - the whole 'stepping in' process always drove me crazy. I saw the demo of the smart tools and it looked like an improvement over the old mode switch system.

Well if you crossgrade now, you'll be able to upgrade to MC6 later which will be cheaper than buying brand new when MC6 comes out.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
biscardicreative.com

The crossgrade price is very nice. Take advantage.

Yeah, "stepping in" always drove me batty, too. But at least the thing has proper tracks.

All I'm seeing for the past three weeks has been FCPX defenders trying to explain away the trackless problem...while advocating workarounds that take four, five, even 10 times more effort, time, and awkwardness. Ain't gonna fly. The minute convenience of moving a clip and its overlay together is not worth harpooning the track interface. I know how to use the Group Selection tool, thank you very much. It's like Photoshop jettisoning Layers and mattes just because amateur users are too dumb to understand them.


www.derekmok.com

I'm actually more excited about this MC6, then I was with FCP X. And I never used an Avid product before. What I like best of all is that I don't have to settle for Adobe PP, and get could up in their over price upgrade madness

I'm still undecided. I was going to go Premiere because lots of people in my area are thinking that way, but I'd probably get more work with an Avid, if I could face working with it every day. If it's less restrictive then that's a massive step towards my freelancer funds.

PS. Harpooning the track interface - nice image!

Amazing that there was a version of fcpx WITH tracks... and they took them out. Ugh.
[alex4d.wordpress.com]

Somewhere in the dark caverns of Cupertino, there's a GOOD version of FCPX. But we'll never see it.

>"stepping in" always drove me batty

You don't have to step in. Just double click, or use adjustment layers (apply effects on the filler layer).

Interestingly, I never really liked the smart tools. I only like how the switch toggles on and off to let me know if I'm in insert or overwrite mode. It's still faster for me to get into the modes than to use the smart tools.

As far as FCP X is concerned, I'm like Derek. I'm not interested in learning workarounds to functions that have already existed before they decided to change my workflows. I'm interested in Lightworks too, but the whole Windows only thing is a big turn off for a beta as I dont have windows.



www.strypesinpost.com

Looking at the FAQ, I won't be surprised if it was the Mobile Me team that ran the decision making process. The PR is garbage, and the pro-app to this day is completely un-pro, and they have killed off Color, Shake and Final Cut Server, all excellent pieces of softwares that was the closest Apple ever got to the high end.

I downloaded Avid MC last night. Gonna work a short film on it before I buy it, but I'm probably going to. You can import Avid projects into Premiere, and not to mention, the integration with R3D tools and the Resolve is pretty good. My guess is that if FCP X does not become pro, Premiere will take over for many smaller houses.

Admittedly, I don't think Adobe can develop a good color correction environment. Not within AE or Premiere, because they aren't made for it, and they will probably clutter up the interface if they try to. I'll be looking at the NLEs closely, but I'm currently leaning more towards Avid, as my NLE of choice. I hope Lightworks can get good market penetration. I can't wait to try it once the Mac version is out. I like a mature editing environment because most of the features have been properly ironed out. FCP X threw years of interface and feature development away, and the result is that we are looking at lots of workarounds to features that have existed for years in the classic environment.



www.strypesinpost.com

Wow, Alex - nice detective work. And all those features would be great. My biggest problem is the lack of accuracy though. Everything is a workaround, and even trying to get to the correct frame is a real struggle.

Sure, you can make a rough guess at the range with the skimmer, add that to the storyline and then top and tail more accurately, but why? I don't want to have to cut, then fix. Pretty sure my clients who pay me by the hour don't want that either.

Sorry, shutting up now. Avid. Yes. Looking nice.

> I'm not interested in learning workarounds to functions that have already existed
> before they decided to change my workflows.

I have a different take on it. If I'm gonna have to re-learn all the tools and methods, I'm going to go with a software that has more hope of staying alive and staying pro for years. Why would I spend weeks trying to master FCPX when it might implode a year from now? Or might never get beyond its shallow, editor-unfriendly groundwork?

It took FCP7 only days to go from "full-throttle active" to "dead". With absolutely no warning, no time for adjustment and evaluation. Unlike casual users, it takes months and even years for pros to really reach a pro level of speed, facility, versatility and precision in a software. I ain't gonna waste a minute of my time trying to master FCPX if Apple might just go, "Oh, it's dead now, like FCP7, so just go with iMovie" in June 2012.

And let's also not forget, part of the reason why FCP itself didn't get more usable until 2003 or so is because every piece of software like this requires history and community to reach its potential. Which are non-existent for FCPX right now. We all know how clueless Apple is about actual production and post-production problems; we always relied on people in the field, in the trenches, to provide support and advice. Avid and Adobe have those right now. Apple does not, because it just cut all the pros loose and made obsolete all our past experience, knowledge, methods and understandings. No matter how good the testers are, they will not have the years of real-life experience to ground them. And our business will pay. So I will go to software that already has years of community and real user experience, rather than a shiny new toy that will cost me a lot of time to learn.


www.derekmok.com

Interestingly enough, Color Correction / Color Grading are very high on the list of improved features Adobe is planning moving forward. They readily admit they need to step up their game there and in several talks now with the folks on that team, they are sounding pretty serious about making color grading much better within the application. Will be interesting to see where this goes. Wish they could just buy Color and make it even better.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
biscardicreative.com

derekmok Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
And our business will pay.

that's my biggest fear with the "FCP X will do everything for you so you don't have to think" mentality. Incredibly bad habits and even worse workflows. Part of being a "professional" is understanding the workflow and organization required to tell a story. Not just getting all the media into the system and throwing a bunch of stuff in the timeline in whatever order because the software will just sort it out.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
biscardicreative.com

> Incredibly bad habits and even worse workflows.

Touché. Apple dumbed down FCPX's media management to make it "easier". And in the long run, that will mean unsoluable problems, bad habits and very costly mistakes. I simply don't see a large-scale project -- such as a documentary with three years worth of media, or a feature -- being able to survive the FCPX dumbing-down without some serious, potentially fatal issues. Issues which are invisible right now because nothing like that has been done with FCPX yet.

> Not just getting all the media into the system and throwing a bunch of stuff in
> the timeline in whatever order because the software will just sort it out.

"Automatic" is the mindset of the amateur. I don't want "automatic". I want "controllable", "reliable" and "customizable". I don't want the software assuming I'm too dumb to move a shot out of the way before I put something else in its place. I don't want the software trying to organize my files for me, because no computer can ever do file management as well as a human. Especially given the fact that every damn project has its own quirks, and by extension its own file-management needs.


www.derekmok.com

Lol. I already fired up my MC. Exporting poster frames is easier than I thought. The new find tool is amazing. Wow. Anyone knows if there are any caveats when working in AMA in Avid? I heard that you couldn't export omfs previously, but that has been addressed. Any issues sending AMA media (XDCAM EX) to Color?



www.strypesinpost.com

You actually don't have to step in. No one doing effect heavy work really does that. You just stack your effects above the clip. You can put add edits ( razor cuts ) above the effected area in the empty track and drag the effect on and it effects everything below it. You can stack as many effects as you like in any hierarchy. This is also useful if you want to put an effect over a series of clips. You can also ramp an effect over a series of clips, meaning you can keyframe an effect to go 0-80-20 or whatever you like over like ten clips which would require a nest in FCP because you aren't applying one effect to many clips paste attributes style as opposed to adding one effect to a series. Like if you wanted to ramp a glow over a montage to start at 0 and end at 100 you don't have to nest. Also try using a segment based effect over a cut keyframing 0-100-0 with 100 being in the middle. That is a way to add a personalized transition effect. In FCP you have to go back and razor cut then go forward and razor cut and on the A side keyframe 0-100 and on the B side keyframe 100-0 but by stacking it's one effect going 0-100-0 over the middle. You can also place a dissolve on an effect to ramp up or out etc. You also get more flexibility because you can stagger the effects off kilter from each other moving them around like you would clips which changes when the effect comes in or out. You can also sublcip the effects as a template the way you would subclip source material then you can place the subclip in your source monitor and cut it in as an effect template. You can also copy and paste keyframes. You can also trim the effect in trim mode adjusting the in or out of the effect like a clip etc ... lot's of options but stacking really is the ONLY way to go. The only time you need to collapse or nest is if you want a shot with the effects to be shrunk down into a mortise or something or in some situations when you are dealing with mattes but then you would just double click on it and it's contents will open. I usually have about two tracks of video and ten tracks of effects so all of the effect work lives above. This also gives you a visual representation of your effects in the timeline. I should take a jpeg of one of my timelines and it would all make sense. I'd be happy to show anyone on skype.

The smart tools may seem more familiar to FCP editors but it is definitely the slowest way to work ( very clunky; Avid editors call it the dumb tool and there is much uproar to disable it entirely, it teaches bad habits and leads one to being much slower ) and doesn't allow you to see and here what you are doing while you are doing it which is the entire purpose of modes. I don't think FCP editors will ever "get" modal editing but non modal editing really is like tire-less driving or wing-less flying. Less is not more. JKL slipping and trimming is way easier in a mode than in timeline editing, that way you don't have to go back and watch because you are "feeling" it happen as it happens. Also with the smart tool you don't get all of the dual image play ( seeing both the A and B side move when dual roller trimming as opposed to in FCP where the B side is static and if you are doing a multi track trim the B side is black ) when in trim mode. Allot of FCP editors don't like modes but all you do is lasso in ( no buttons ) and click the timecode track to get out ( no buttons ) it's very very fast.Think about getting into and out of modes as getting into and out of tools. Hit S to get in and hit A to get out changes to lasso to get in and click the timecode track to get out. To me a mode is just an interface that alters itself to accommodate the current task so allot of stuff in FCP to me would be considered modal but they wouldn't dare call it that due to "modal anxiety" of FCP editors. G Edit selection is modal, a two up display while slipping is modal. Allot of FCP editors complain about having to "go into a mode" but allot of Avid editors complain about having to "select a tool" but it's really just one step in and one step out no matter what you are on as long as you are lassoing in and clicking out on the Avid as opposed to the un-intuitive keyboard driven methods. Personally I think segment mode in Avid is light years behind the FCP equivalent but trim, slip, slide modes are way ahead of the FCP equivalent.

But what I REALLY want to know is WTF is up with all of the one monitor setups with both Avid and FCP or any edit system in advertisements and websites. Don't most people use a two monitor setup? Are they trying to market to laptop editors ( nothing wrong with that ) geez.