I think it’s cheap and that’s what you get cheap. Someone please give me another reason to “switch platforms”?

STF

I don’t know what you mean about daVinci or Smoke. FCP has better integration with Smoke than Avid does. A daVinci will only work with a video signal, i.e. a tape source or single video stream. There is no project or file integration between daVinci and Avid that I’m aware of. So all NLEs are equal in this regard, except for Quantel’s eQ and iQ, which can be externally controlled from daVinci. Still only a single stream, but daVinci can simultaneously control RT playback from and recording back to iQ.

There is no third party color grading system that works with Avid systems allowing any external control or file access except for VTR emulation. I suppose if you count the standalone Avid Media Station into this then yes, you can digitize direct to drives from a telecine, but that’s a separate capture product and not an NLE.

FCP has a file-level integration of media via XML with both FinalTouch (now owned by Apple) as well as Synthetic Aperture’s Color Finesse.

As far as audio, I routinely work with 8-20 tracks and mix inside Avid or FCP. In Avid, I have limited ability to use Digidesign control surfaces. This works mainly if you bought the Xpress Studio Complete configuration or the Control-8 surface for Media Composer.

In FCP Studio, I have Soundtrack Pro as part of the bundle. I can do improved mixing there if I like with a Send To command. I can also use an external control surface (Mackie protocol) to drive the mixer in either FCP or STP. There is no Digidesign software bundled with any advanced Avid product (Media Composer, Symphony, Newscutter or DS). So, if I want to do advanced audio in Pro Tools wth an Avid product, I must purchase Pro Tools as well as the proper video package. I have to export an OMF and make sure I have the proper Pro Tools Digitranslator to turn these OMFs into PT Session Files WITH video TC.

Sincerely,
Oliver

Then try to export nested sequences to an EDL in FCP - something the Avid does and that’s important when moving to Discreet, Quantel and others …

Avid does NOT do nested sequences. You can use a sequence as a source inside another sequence. This is identical to the FCP function “overwrite/insert with sequence content”. Both actions result in a sequence showing only original source clips. FCP’s nested sequence is analogous to Avid’s Collapse function, which creates a “container” on the timeline with clips inside.

Nested sequences are evil, but by the same token, you also can’t represent a collapsed set of clips from Avid with an EDL. So yes, if you construct a timeline that is EDL-friendly in either application, the EDL will appear the same to another NLE. Your example has nothing to do with EDLs, but rather how the editor constructs the timeline. All EDLs from NLEs only work for one layer of video and 4 tracks of audio. Period.

The point of my comment was that Smoke has a specific routine to take XML files from FCP. I believe it also has some support for OMFs from Avid. It can also take EDLs from either. So the explanation was in response to Sean’s apparent feeling that an editor was somehow at a disadvantage taking an FCP project to Smoke versus taking an Avid project to Smoke. That simply is not the case.

Sincerely,
Oliver

Avid AAFs can now be imported into Smoke, providing good interchange with support for translating Picture in Picture and speed changes and all kinds of goodness.

I firmly believe there’s a difference between an editor cutting in 2 tracks that sounds good back to back and being a musician, which most mixers I know are.

This line of discourse represents two different philosophies toward editing. One philosophy is about linear film cutting with independent sound editing (Which almost always yields are FAR superior end product), and approaching an edit like a digital compositor or graphic artist. I believe these two philosophies are both diametrically opposed and incompatible with each other. Period ! This is an apples and oranges discussion at best. The problem with so many of the newer editing apps out there is, they are not really focused on editing. They are focused on graphics with a little assemby thrown in for good measure. Avid is by far the most comprehensive EDITING application out there ! No other editing application can group collaborate with various departments, such as graphics, sound and visuial effects like Avid can. I also don’t accept the view that it is snobbery or habit which leads editors in the film industry to their continual use of Avid. For yours truly, it is strictly an issue of functionality and not always price which makes or breaks my work with the client.

Even when I’m just the offline/creative/film editor, I still build up lots of track and am responsible for a temp mix for client/director review. Even when I hand off the audio editing/mix to a sound department or mixer, I may have 12 or more audio tracks on the timeline.

Remember that 99% of the film/video world does NOT work on TV shows and features where there is a strict hierarchy. The bulk of the work is small-to-medium shops, where editors do have to be all things to all people.

As far as collaboration, I would suggest you look at films like “Jarhead”, “Zodiac”, and “Aviator” that involved complex effects and interaction between companies and that did NOT use Avid editing systems by choice.

When I interview editors for articles for Videography magazine, I frequently ask the Avid vs. FCP question. I almost always find the editor’s choice is Avid but the assistant’s choice would be for FCP. This tells me that when these assistants become editors in their own right, the pendulum will swing towards a larger FCP percentage.

Sincerely,
Oliver

IMHO only the very very top end of the market will be able to concentrate solely on editing, everyone else will be expected to have a broader range of skills. In a freelance market, the editors who have more skills will get more work.

What I find interesting is that as the editor’s skills have broadened, we’re still using software programs that segregate the tasks - editing, graphics, audio - and in a non-linear workflow that can be very inefficient. When you think about it, it’s all just media on a timeline which should be freely interchangable between these different software “modules”. I believe in the future, one of the big three (Adobe, Apple, Avid) will do just that.

This goes out to the sound guy with nice fat handles, so he can do his magic.

I’m not sure how some people manange this on 2 tracks. On the other hand, I’ve also seen some terrible messes, where people have 15 tracks of audio with no organisation, or idea of why they end up where they do.

It’s even better! Since version 5.1.2 you can navigate from tabbed bin to bin from the keyboard– Command-Shift [ or ].

I’ve been wishing for a shortcut for that forever and didn’t realize that it has just recently been given to me.

Thanks for pointing that out!

The bottom line is Avid has been stagnant for too many years. I feel they have tuned out the editors needs/requests in favor of positioning themselves as huge installation specialists. Thats why discussions like these are even relevant.

And have you come across some of these big installations? They often include amped up Newscutter apps slammed together on a unity server. Newscutter is a totally crap program that feels like you are editing with a sledge hammer and a rock. And they crash 4,5, or 8 times during a session. Way fun when you are crashing for a deadline. Even the new Avid Nitris is crashing like crazy. I don’t care if it has an AVID log on it or an Apple logo on it. Just make it work!

I’m not talking about a local market/cable company hack jobs either. I can testify that they are found in major television network environments in the heart of the industry. These systems get sold to corporate big wigs who dont know the difference between an Avid and MS Word.

In the old days we would always beg for more toys to be brought into the room. ADO, Abekas, bigger and better switchers, you name it. Now editors want more features in our software. How about a few more F/X without having to buy Sapphire? Maybe a little audio sweeting would work wonders. Being number one for so long Avid forgot what it was like to be hungry and work for its customers.

Here is a simple request, I want the ability to drag a photo directly from my desktop onto the timeline and keep full resolution. Avid Pan and scan? A JOKE. You can pan, and you can scan, but if you want to rotate we will charge you extra. BITE ME. How does that equate to AVID having a superior graphics integration? My word. Most graphics departments are saving files as Quicktime movies. You can’t get more integrated than quicktime and FCP.

There was a time when you could simply write off FCP as a pro-sumer app that appealed to wedding videographers, but those days are long gone. FCP has proved itself as a nimble program that can handle a variety of demands. It’s not just a “cheaper app” that is cute for the “non professionals”. Most professionals I know are editing on an Avid during their day job, and then going home to work in FCP at night.

Imagine what Avid would look like if they had grown the program as much as Apple has with FCP.

This is all great in a perfect world… a simple world. If you’re cutting a drama, or a doc then you can easily fit into 8-12 tracks. But when you’re cutting complex sequences for an action film, or a sci-fi show, or anything that requires a lot of layering of music and effects, 16 tracks can be a pretty harsh limitation.

The feature I’m directing right now has this basic audio scenario:
- Production provides 4 channels in each master clip (3 lavs and a boom - sometimes 6 if there are more characters in a scene.)
- Sound effects (often stereo)
- Ambiance/backgrounds (stereo)
- Music/score (stereo)

Not an issue if everything can be cut back to back with minimal layering. But when building an action sequence, with one or two layers of 4 track production audio, three or more layers of stereo effects, at least one stereo ambience track, and at least one track of stereo score with accent hits on another, you can very quickly max out 16 tracks.

Mix-downs are a huge pain, and I would love to have those extra 8 tracks for the occasions when they are needed. When you don’t need them, you don’t care that the option exists… but when you DO… boy is it nice to have ‘em.

Obviously we’re not doing finished audio in the off-line on a feature, but these days you have to get damn close to it even in rough cuts. As the quality of off-line picture has risen, so too have people’s expectations for temp audio - even in rough cuts.

So,16 tracks enough? 24 tracks enough? Depends what you’re cutting. I say pick the tool that has the most flexibility. I hardly ever complain about features I don’t use, but I will kick and yell for features I need and don’t have.

Toby

So for cutting, you can have as many lines as you want. I think in earlier versions (up to V2?) it used to be limited to 99 lines.