-
AFTER NAB thoughts regarding Final Cut
-
[Jeff Coleman] “But if you and your clients are used to AVID playback and rendering, then your priorities are probably different.”
That’s correct for the majority of FCP users. There are things that AVID does better than FCP, hardware acceleration is a big one. That’s why there is such a price difference.
[Jeff Coleman] “Isn’t AJA using hardware acceleration in their new IO box? “
The IOHD converts everything in and out to ProRes so that the computer doesn’t have to do that. But it doesn’t make it so you can play back more clips in realtime in a timeline.
[Jeff Coleman] “Hardware acceleration must make sense for at least somebody.”
Exactly, just not FCP users. That’s not the core market of FCP users. They would love to have hardware acceleration, but they wouldn’t want the price tag associated with it.
[Jeff Coleman] “The cumulative software costs for FCP over the last four years have approached or exceeded the costs of a new Media Composer today.”
But what was the price tag of a Media Composer four years ago?
[Jeff Coleman] “There are more quality freelance AVID editors here than quality FCP editors. “
It’s the opposite here in Utah.
Apple isn’t going to sell of the ProApps.
Hardware acceleration if for people who have more money than time. That is not the case for the vast majority of FCP users. Most FCP users can’t drop $50k-$150k+ on a system because their clients can’t afford to pay that much.
If you need more hardware acceleration than you’re getting with RTextreme, then go buy something that will give it to you.
I would love to have a faster edit system with super realtime effects, but there are other places where I need to spend my money.
-Russ
Russell Lasson
Kaleidoscope Pictures
Provo, UT -
[Jeff Coleman] “There are many things about FCP that I prefer over Avid, but speed and media management aren’t on that list. Do you think they’ll ever be?”
As long as AVID is building hardware acceleration, I think it will always be a “faster” edit system. That’s what they do. It’s their market.
Apple’s market is to sell a computer that works well on their own hardware acceleration boxes (MACS!!!!) Simple. Easy. And not as fast as AVID. But people are still buying it so something is working.
As far as media management goes, there are some improvements that need to be made. And while there are some nice things about AVID’s closed media management, there are some really nice things about Apple’s open architecture. It does need some work to make it more stable and reliable.
Any comparing adding 720P drop frame to adding hardware acceleration doesn’t make much sense to me.
-Russ
Russell Lasson
Kaleidoscope Pictures
Provo, UT -
[Jeff Coleman] “At this level, there is built into the purchase of the software product an expectation of (how should I say this?) accommodating present or emerging common real-life field circumstances either by patch or upgrade.”
At this level? You mean you want a $1,200 Final Cut Studio to provide the exact same features as the Nitris DX which from what I can find, is priced at $36,000. Good luck with that.
I would never expect the same feature set putting $1,200 vs. $36,000. But for my workflow, FCP offers the most features for my money and for $36,000 I can outfit at least two, if not three edit workstations, thus allowing me triple the income for the price of one Avid Nitris DX.
[Jeff Coleman] “I too work on a very new very tricked out MacPro with a very fast SAN and while it is faster than that old 2GHz G5, it still takes some rendering. Which is probably why my client who works regularly with an Avid, has asked me, “Is this a fast computer they have here?””
And you did explain that Final Cut Studio is $1,200 vs. $36,000 for the Avid Nitris DX, correct? You did also explain that you have a much better color correction tool than anything in the Avid, correct?
If the client wants everything realtime, all the time, you’re cutting on the wrong workstation.
[Jeff Coleman] “It’s reasonable to desire faster editing capability and foundational editing capability from a product at this level. This is not open sourceware wherein the buyer doesn’t know if any updates or support will ever be coming.
I welcome his suggestion. There are many things about FCP that I prefer over Avid, but speed and media management aren’t on that list. Do you think they’ll ever be?”Editing on FCP is about 10 times faster than when I started on FCP 1.2.5, Apple threw in a $25,000 color correction tool called Final Touch HD last year. (I paid $5,000 for the HD version 3 years ago) We have Motion, SoundTrack Pro and DVD Studio Pro, all for $1,200.
I would say for $1,200 we have a very well rounded suite of applications that outperforms anything close to that price range. Media management sucks, I’ve said that probably almost 100 times the past few weeks alone, but that won’t stop me from using the applications. Will it ever be all realtime, all the time. Not for $1,200.
Only if a third party developer comes along and creates a card that can somehow squeeze into a four slot Mac already full of an AJA Kona Board, Graphics Board, SAS Host Adapter and SATA Host Adapter.
So if you want all realtime all the time and your clients are complaining you’re taking too long, pony up the $36k and get the Nitris DX. You’ll be happier and your clients will be happier.
If not, stick with Studio 2 and keep on rockin. We’ve built our entire company on Final Cut Pro, we’ve delivered about 100 HD Broadcast episodes now, multiple BluRay titles (with Adobe Encore), and went from one small edit suite to three full blown suites and looking for a new building to expand.
What I have learned is that all of the clients who come to our facility really don’t give a rats a– what tools we’re using. They come because we do really good work and they want to work with myself and the other artists in my facility.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
HD and SD Production for Broadcast and Independent Productions.STOP STARING AND START GRADING WITH APPLE COLOR Apple Color Training DVD available now!
Read my Blog!
-
OK, so I’m in the minority wanting an edit system that is not priced like an Avid, but has the functionality of FCP with the ease of use of an Edius and the real-time capability of Matrox. I’d be willing to bet that if a company could make a board or box that would give FCP these true real-time abilities, that company would fair well in the marketplace. Whether it’s Apple, AJA, or some third party-I’ll bet you’d all be buying. And I’ll bet that company could charge upwards of $5K for that kind of feature. Sure there is no one solution to everyone’s work/price point. Those who say they’re satisfied with 5 or more layers in real time should try adding a drop shadow to those layers. And those of us who require green screen can forget anything resembling real time in FCP. But if I offered that to you, you’d be willing pay for the speed and convenience, not to mention the creativity that comes with that smooth workflow. That all I’m saying…in the minority.
Richard Boghosian
Bogh AV ProductionsFCP 5.14 Intel Quad XRaid and Atto SCSI UL5D Kona LHe
-
[Russell Lasson] “Any comparing adding 720P drop frame to adding hardware acceleration doesn’t make much sense to me.”
He’s probably referring to my complaint quite often of 720p Drop Frame support that took three years for Apple to implement.
720p non-drop frame wasn’t a total workflow killer for us because thankfully the AJA Kona 3 boards perform beautiful 720 to 1080i conversions allowing us to capture / edit in Drop Frame for US Broadcast distribution.
But I’m also confused as to why you would compare something like that which is obviously a code thing to hardware acceleration.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
HD and SD Production for Broadcast and Independent Productions.STOP STARING AND START GRADING WITH APPLE COLOR Apple Color Training DVD available now!
Read my Blog!
-
[walter biscardi] “You mean you want a $1,200 Final Cut Studio to provide the exact same features as the Nitris DX which from what I can find, is priced at $36,000.”
To be perfectly clear, you’re not comparing apples to apples. FCS for $1,200 is the software only. Add the cost of an 8-core Mac and hardware card that converts to ProRes on capture and the cost grows very, very quickly for Final Cut.
The Symphony Nitris DX price you quoted is turnkey–it includes either an 8-core Mac (Symphony is back on the Mac) or 8-core HP 8600 CPU, the Symphony software, and the Nitris DX box. Avid is certainly more expensive, but not with the difference of 1,200 to 36,000.
It’s really an opinion of Value, not Price. I prefer Avid’s cutting interface and toolset to FCP, so I willing pay more for it. Over the life of the product, the costs are about equal in my opinion. You have to use the tools you like that will get the job done on time, on budget.
Michael.
-
[Michael Hancock] “To be perfectly clear, you’re not comparing apples to apples. FCS for $1,200 is the software only. Add the cost of an 8-core Mac and hardware card that converts to ProRes on capture and the cost grows very, very quickly for Final Cut.”
Actually that’s the point. Studio is software only so it’s very flexible and scalable, but you can’t expect the same hardware acceleration / realtime as a fully bundled product. But if you really want to compare Apples to Apples by throwing in the hardware…..
Studio 2 is about $1,200, then add the cost of a new Mac Pro ($5,000), throw in the price of a Kona 3 ($3,000) and a good, fast hard drive array (say $4,000) and you’re sitting at $13,200 for a full turnkey system. You can install 2 of these for less than the price of one DX and still have money for more RAM, more storage, more filters, etc…..
Or go with a MacBook Pro ($2,800), an AJA IoHD ($3,000), and a nice fast SATA array (say $4,000) and you’re at $11,000 for a full turnkey system. Not sure the DX is available as a portable system for laptops.
As I said earlier, use the tool that you feel is correct be that Avid, Adobe, Quantel, Apple, whatever. If your clients are complaining the toolset is too slow then you have the wrong system.
See I prefer multiple systems to bring in multiple clients at once or having more systems to do more tasks. Create / Burn BluRay discs on one system, while editing on the second systems, while creating complex composites on the third. Or simply cutting three projects for three clients at the same time. Just gives us more flexibility than putting all the resources into one system. That works for us and I like being able to put my money into more flexibility and if I have to sacrifice a little bit of realtime performance, that’s ok by me.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Biscardi Creative Media
HD and SD Production for Broadcast and Independent Productions.STOP STARING AND START GRADING WITH APPLE COLOR Apple Color Training DVD available now!
Read my Blog!
-
Don’t get me wrong Walter, I’m agreeing with you. If you want more realtime performance you choose a system that offers it, typically via hardware acceleration. I just wanted to point out that FCS is $1,200 for the software, Symphony isn’t available as software only so the price included CPU and Hardware.
A better comparison between apps would be Media Composer Software for $2,500 versus FCS for $1,200. But even then FCS still trumps Avid because, as you said, it’s a full suite of software and not just a cutting program. Media Composer comes with Sorenson and AvidDVD (which burns BluRay), but those two programs aren’t as well integrated or advanced as Compressor and DVDSP. If you just need a fast NLE, though, it’s hard to beat Avid, even for the price. Again, it’s what’s works best for your business, as you said.
I chose Avid because my scenario is different than yours. I have two systems, one with Avid and the Adobe Apps for cutting, graphics, compositing, another for DVD creation, compression, etc… I work at an all PC shop, and our production staff consists of me and freelancers we hire as needed. We do promotional items, and we’re growing the production side as much as possible.
Because I’m the only full-time production guy and I can only operate one machine at a time, I pushed for the Avid because I know it inside and out, and it’s realtime performance meets my needs. Less rendering means I can move on to another client faster. If I was in your position with multiple editors, I’d prefer a mix of Avid and FCP.
Michael.
-
[walter biscardi] “At this level? You mean you want a $1,200 Final Cut Studio to provide the exact same features as the Nitris DX which from what I can find, is priced at $36,000. Good luck with that.”
No. I expect, like Walter probably does, that Final Cut Pro will offer competitive, if not leading video editing features and functionality via bug fixes and updates.
The point had to do with the earlier poster’s frustration
“they add all these great bells and whistles and dont take care of simple things that everyone has been stammering for for [sic] years now”Walter’s solution to denied feature requests was to just go out and buy the other product that works. But this is not our expectation. And Walter could not live with his solution either. He’s still using FCS and didn’t buy the other product. This is why 720p drop frame and hardware acceleration are comparable. Not that they have equal value. Both are features that have emerged as desirable in the marketplace. One (hardware acceleration), Walter thinks, should be solved by just going out and buying a whole new editing system. The other (720p drop-frame) he thinks ought to be solved by incessant lobbying to the manufacturer. I think both are better solved by the latter.
Now let’s get to Ron Lindeboom’s point as well as Walter’s about cost, because initially that’s probably why we all threw are hat in the FCP ring. But that was then and now is now.
The posters below reflect well the real world cost of setting up an edit suite.
I offer a more realistic comparison than I think Walter’s figures represent or Ron’s allude to:
The Avid Media Composer Mojo DX vs. Final Cut Studio with a Kona card is about $10,000 vs. $4,000.
Not $1,200 vs. $36,000. (Walter’s $36,000 price may have been for the Symphony Nitris with an 8-core Mac Pro.)
By the way a Media Composer Nitris DX is $15,000.
The storage solutions are about the same.
The monitoring solutions are about the same.
The furniture is about the same.
The VTRs and miscellaneous terminal equipment is about the same.
Over the course of a three year investment, that difference in price is about $10 per business day. A little over a buck an hour. Even if you buy the Nitris DX instead, the cost difference is only two bucks an hour. $6,000 is $6,000 or $9,000 is $9,000 and you could keep all that in your pocket if you bought the FCS instead of the Nitris. You could buy another MacPro, but you couldn’t build another edit suite for the difference.
[walter biscardi] “What I have learned is that all of the clients who come to our facility really don’t give a rats a– what tools we’re using. They come because we do really good work and they want to work with myself and the other artists in my facility.”
This is good for Walter’s situation, but not universal for all FCP users as several posters have indicated in this thread already. Some of my clients come to me for the same reason, especially when doing turnkey work. But for hourly production and short turnaround jobs it’s a different story.
So to Mr. Boghosian’s point below:
“I’d be willing to bet that if a company could make a board or box that would give FCP these true real-time abilities, that company would fair well in the marketplace. Whether it’s Apple, AJA, or some third party-I’ll bet you’d all be buying. And I’ll bet that company could charge upwards of $5K for that kind of feature. Sure there is no one solution to everyone’s work/price point. Those who say they’re satisfied with 5 or more layers in real time should try adding a drop shadow to those layers. And those of us who require green screen can forget anything resembling real time in FCP. But if I offered that to you, you’d be willing pay for the speed and convenience, not to mention the creativity that comes with that smooth workflow.”
AMEN! $5K is just about right. Keep lobbying for that one!
And while I’m on it, how about better media management.
And another thing, how about a better scaling option in FCP akin to Motion’s. -
[Russell Lasson] “That’s correct for the majority of FCP users. There are things that AVID does better than FCP, hardware acceleration is a big one. That’s why there is such a price difference. “
That’s not the reason. It’s an outdated business model and an inefficient organizational structure. Avid is also a tiny company compared to Matrox or Apple, which makes R&D and mfg costs less competitive.
[Russell Lasson] “Exactly, just not FCP users. That’s not the core market of FCP users. They would love to have hardware acceleration, but they wouldn’t want the price tag associated with it. “
Not necessarily. Some of us have been down that road and know the fallacy of that approach.
[Russell Lasson] “Hardware acceleration if for people who have more money than time. That is not the case for the vast majority of FCP users. Most FCP users can’t drop $50k-$150k+ on a system because their clients can’t afford to pay that much.
If you need more hardware acceleration than you’re getting with RTextreme, then go buy something that will give it to you.
I would love to have a faster edit system with super realtime effects, but there are other places where I need to spend my money. “
Hardware acceleration is for people who like to get stuck with a fixed feature set and rapidly obsoleting hardware. I have my PhD in that approach… no thanks. I make much more money now, and I’ve never had a customer complain about our systems being slow… maybe our editors are faster?
Mitch Ives
Insight Productions Corp.
mitch@insightproductions.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up