-
Avid Media Composer 6.5’s drastic need to continue to update….
-
As a long time avid and FCP user, the Smart Tool struck me as odd, as well. Never really use it in Avid, despite my FCP experience. Just always seemed like I was more efficient doing things the original Avid way.
The Smart Tool Doesn’t really mimic FCP behavior and js just plain clunky and weird within the Avid editing paradigm….and now FCP is dead…FCPX is totally different! -
Well that’s interesting to hear, as one of the SmartTool’s design goals was to appeal to FCP users and make that decision transition to Media Composer before Apple forced that decision upon them. But it’s not the first time I’ve heard it as everyone approaches editing differently and I believe that interaction style also changed based on footage and genre. For example, an MOS montage style versus a dialog intense scene. I would consider SmartTool for the former, but not for the latter as more precision (JKL) and audio monitoring is needed.
As I mentioned, there are many good starts to features in Media Composer, but I wish they would get properly refined in the very next follow up releases. SmartTool got tweaked due to a a very loud and unhappy user feedback which truthfully could have been avoided right with the first release in my opinion. Same goes for “Find”. Nice start, but only being able to load the one clip at a time in the source monitor as the only resulting action is limiting. Also its inability to filter based on clip type (master, sub, sync, group) and not seeing metadata on audio clips coming from audio in an AutoSync function lowers the proposition value depending on the situation. Add to that the inability to have a results view that displays the columns in which the search term was found, having to re-nter the search time twice when you know what you’re looking for is in a particular column, etc, no shortcut syntax in original search term, etc. and of course the ability to take all the results of a search term and so something with it, like batch enter metadata or save to a bin for future use, search locators, etc. etc. etc. So, the promise is there, but when dealing with feature filmproduction, hundreds of bins (studio level features have thousands of bins by the way. I am told that Alice in Wonderland had over 5000 bins), scores of metadata columns, all autosynced or grouped, the need to sort results with no filtering at times make the feature more work than it needs to be when it could be the best thing going for such large projects.
There’s my soapbox for the day. It would be great to see these types of feature refinement/enhancement in follow up releases along with new innovative ones – we shall see what NAB brings. The good news is, there’s no shortage of things to be done, the bad news is, there’s no shortage of things to be done… 😉
Michael
-
Just wanted to say that I found this to be a very interesting discussion.
I’ll bet Avid wants to make all of these changes, but given finite engineering resources many things probably get pushed down the list all the time.
I wonder if backwards compatibility makes updating more difficult given that their core code is around 20 years old. Does anyone think Avid could pull off a fresh-slate piece of software that learns from and leapfrogs its competitors?
-
That was exactly what one of the engineers I talked to at Avid has confirmed, the code is very very old. This is REALLY alarming, if you think about how much longer they will want to stay in the same mold? How many more years will we stare at 90’s font with a 80s/90s architecture? Eventually, like the other NLE companies who constantly are innovating and changing, they will need to “over-haul” this code.
Tom Laughlin
Producer/Editor
Digital Chop House
Salt Lake City, Utah -
[i]Avid considers the areas devoid of clips or media, as FILLER…clear film if you will.[/i]
This has changed in 6.5.2, where you can now select multiple segments sans filler. -
want the code supposed be totally refreshed with MC 6.0? Wasnt that the point of the whole 64 bit rewrite? Tom ove on from the old code? Thats what they were saying upon its release. Definantly feels alot snappier than the older builds.
Anyways, i think Avid is all around the most complete editor out there, but like other have said, Theres and FCP way of doing things and an Avid way. Trying to force on into the another is not gonna be ideal. In my experience nothing is as satiusfying as editing on an Avid tho. It just feels like your really operating something and the keyboard centric editing lets me really get lost in an edit.
That said, id like to see a few changes too. Scalable interface is one. On a 30 inch screen having to jump down to 1920 x 1080 resolution isn’t ideal as i have to keep switching back and forth when goin to other other apps. Id also like for Avid to not stop whats its coin or playback with every mouse click/command especially volume adjustments in them mixer. FX/Keyframe manipulation in the timeline wouldbe nice, and mainly id love for some more after market plugin manufacture to start making Avid stuff. Its rediculous how many people make plugins for FCP/X, PPRO, etc and how cheap some if it is. In Avid we get Boris (ok, but expensive) Saphire (great but unreasonably expensive) and New Blue (ok, great price). Not too many other options out there tho besides red giant.
Neil Goodman: Editor of New Media Production – NBC/Universal
-
There is a big difference between a 64 bit total rewrite and supporting 64 bit when it comes to the application. Now granted, it doesn’t mean that some parts of the code haven’t been rewritten to take advantage of additional memory and access to more CPU processing, but if it was a total rewrite, then why put back in the same limitations such as not being able to save in the background, click in the UI while still playing without stopping, etc.? 🙂
I believe the marketing message was, the 64 bit architecture is now available so they can add all these types of features in the future as it was impossible with 32 bit OS – now it is possible. For example, additional memory in theory would give access to true frame based metadata that is not just an offset count from head of clip (timecode, KeyKode, etc.) but lens metadata, GPS on moving shots, etc.
I agree on the plug-ins – perhaps it is the AVX plug-in architecture, or simply a matter of priorities and market share for the manufactures when they develop – a lot more people buying Adobe based plug-ins as well as FCP sheer numbers wise compared to Media Composer I would think. Don’t know for sure, but every vendor sets their priorities based on resources, and ROI.
I believe the editing interface can be enhanced and still maintain the goodness of what has been done since the first Avid/1 – it’s about setting a design goal of getting work done while staying focused on the picture and sound and not where you are clicking.
Michael
-
OK – credit when credit is due – Avid did do a very nice follow up refinement with the latest point release (6.5.2) to the select left or right feature with an option modifier to not select filler. So while I may be critical to features taking many version to be refined from the v1 release, this one was done within a 12-18 month period.
Michael
-
Can we add to the list a better handling of alpha channel information. Every time I apply an effect to a layer with a matte and is effects the background as well it frustrates the hell out of me. It’s time to fix this Avid!!!
Michael W. Towe
President M2 Digital Post
http://www.m2digitalpost.com -
[Tom Laughlin] “I failed to mention being able to work on and have multiple time-lines open.”
There’s toggle source/record timeline button, which I find much more elegant as a storytelling tool than FCP or PPro’s ability to open multiple timelines, because you can isolate and direct your audio tracks before you insert it into your timeline, also you can see the image on both your source and record monitor. This toggle source/record timeline is probably my favorite MC feature of all time.
I agree with most of Shane’s point. Except perhaps the Title tool. Many Avid editors I know of who are making the transition to FCP7 absolutely loathe the FCP7 title tool. I like the FCP7 default title tool for only 2 reasons- 1) the information in the title tool is exported into XML, not too sure about Avid’s title tool, 2) I can create a text object and get into the text box solely by using keyboard shortcuts, so that’s really fast if all I want to do is to create a placeholder.
I’m glad someone here mentioned the find tool. Avid’s find tool is not as developed as FCP7’s, but at the same time, it has very nice integration with phrasefind. And the find tool in FCP7 can be a very useful tool for categorizing footage, not so in Avid, which really is designed purely as an editorial tool.
Most of the points raised seem to actually peg Avid into an FCP hole. That doesn’t work very well. Avid has very unique strengths. I agree that Avid has some catching up to do, but age of a software does not necessarily mean that it’s a bad thing. Many people frown upon it. At times it may make it harder for developers to add a feature. But at the same time, you could also see it as a work of art that took years to perfect, and the job is still ongoing. OS X is pretty old too, it started from NeXT, so is the coding language C, which dates back quite a few decades. So old is not necessarily bad.
The fonts? Ever tried squinting at the fonts in PPro? In Avid you can change the size of the font in your bins, or even change the font. Only thing you can’t change is the size of the font in effects panel. That’s WAY too small.
If you are talking about the look of the interface, Avid has a much nicer interface than FCP7, and in many cases, it’s a lot more pragmatic too. Take the customizable timecode windows. MUCH more options than in FCP7.
The smart tool? Avid actually had a pretty nice way of working, although it takes some getting used to if you are coming from FCP7. Option drag to lasso a clip or a few clips, option drag to lasso edit points, option drag right to left to lasso a edit points across a few clips.
Avid’s bin system limited as it seems, facilitates the seamless sharing of bins. It’s not something you’ll understand until you are working on a Unity/Isis, and you need to open the bin of another editor to pull a shot or a rough cut. Having a file locking system and separate Finder level file objects facilitates this. There is no way for editors to share bins within a project in FCP7 or Premiere in the same way that you can in Avid. In Premiere, you need to import a bin, you cannot open a bin while someone is working on it. In FCP7, to do the same thing, you need to create a project file just for sharing, and if you pull rushes from another FCP project, you lose the ability to “reveal master clip” or “reveal bin”.
The Avid media management system is the most complete one out there. When you copy media into Avid, it automatically fast imports/transcode media into your media drive. Relinking offline to online media is a snap, although it gets to be a bit of a dance with AMA with hiding folders and all, but once you hide the folders, re-linking is one push of the button. FCP’s media management is akin to flying by the seat of your pants, same with Premiere. In Premiere, it’s slightly worse, because you have to decide on your workflow before deciding whether to transcode, and XMP is still a work in progress. FCP in some ways got more Avid-like over the years, if you compare Quicktime the FCP equivalent of Avid’s MXF. For FCP, you had to convert all media into an editable Quicktime format. Timecode and reel name information is stored in both the Quicktime file and in FCP itself. Adobe on the other hand owns neither a high quality intermediate codec nor a file container, hence it has been working with native for a long time, and that’s why native works so well in Premiere, but yea, media management, re-linking, offline/online, all that needs to be much improved in Premiere, but I guess they laid the foundations with XMP.
Compound clips? How is compound clips different from a nest? Aside from the fact that if you change the child/parent clip, it is able to automatically update across projects? When I think of that, I think of the text tool in Premiere, where you copy and paste the text, change the text, then it changes the previous one. Oops. Need to “make new based on current”. I never really liked nests because you couldn’t make a change to the edit instantly. You had to step into nests to change an edit.
But I agree that Avid needs to continue improving their software, background importing would be nice, also, encourage 3rd party developers to develop apps and plugins for their software. They still need to improve AMA in Avid, both in terms of performance and reliability, as well as in offline/online integration. I like Avid for editorial work, but not so much for editorial work with effects.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up