-
Avid slyly opening up at NAB for those that noticed
-
I think MC’s reputation for reliability came from Avid’s originally conservative position on “blessing” configurations and OS updates. There was a time when it would be months for Avid to approve even a .0x OS update.
I suspect that policy changed when so many other critical utilities, plugins, etc required a new OS version or took advantage of new hardware that Avid had not yet blessed.
I think developers all take a bit more “risk” in that they all try to be in step with updates when those OS updates include fixes and, often, improvements, their tools (or a competitor’s tools) take advantage of.
-
I am not sure there is an overall Avid “advantage” anymore. Certainly in broadcast and film they are king and recent moves show them to be protecting that base. Avid Everywhere is actually a good move for the company as it is aimed squarely at their base.
But outside this base (and it is a substantial market that others covet), Avid has lost traction. Small shops and indie folks don’t really consider Avid in the mix. Premiere, X, FCP7 and now (predicting) Resolve 11 pretty much own that space. Not sure Avid can compete there or want to compete there.
Just one point of view….
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
[Craig Seeman] “I think MC’s reputation for reliability came from Avid’s originally conservative position on “blessing” configurations and OS updates.”
I’ve always attributed it to when they sold the entire system. They built these complete front to end edit bays and could control most of the aspects. But you’re right, advancements are moving too quickly now to completely vet everything new thing that comes down the line. But then, if Avid’s no more reliable than any other NLE, you’re left with features. And Avid’s feature set is specialized for some workflows and looks horribly outmatched in others.
People always seem to point out Avid’s trim tool as its saving grace and sure, it’s nice. But in the nearly 15 years I’ve been cutting on Avid I can count the number of times I’ve needed it for a trim I couldn’t do in FCP7 or Premiere, on one hand. Even multi cam, which I always considered the best multi cam around feels antiquated. Why the hell do I have to enter quad split just to see my multi group angles? Why doesn’t Avid just open quad split when a multi group is loaded into the source monitor? And why do I have to enter another “mode” when switching angles in the sequence? Comparing Avid’s multi cam to FCPX or Premiere (and even FCP7 in some ways) and it’s clear to me which program I’d rather not use with a multi cam project.
Andy
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos
-
[Andy Neil] “People always seem to point out Avid’s trim tool as its saving grace and sure, it’s nice. But in the nearly 15 years I’ve been cutting on Avid I can count the number of times I’ve needed it for a trim I couldn’t do in FCP7 or Premiere, on one hand.”
I don’t quite understand this statement. People don’t point to Avid’s “trim tool;” they point to Avid’s overall abilities at trimming. People like Media Composer’s approach, complexity and overall feel when it comes to trimming. Or not. Really, it is taste. And, of course, the degree to which you inhabit all the options available to you. Personally, I love the way Avid trims, and it is still–marginally–my preference over its competitors. And, I’ve come to the modern Avid fairly late–in just the last few years–so its not because its an old habit that I’m not willing to override.
-
[Chris Harlan] “People like Media Composer’s approach, complexity and overall feel when it comes to trimming.”
Perhaps then I’m the one who doesn’t understand. What does it mean to like Avid’s approach to trimming if not the trim tool? What other than that are people glomming onto? Tops and tails? Because both FCPX and Premiere have that. Track selection and sync locks? To me the only thing that ever separated Avid from other NLEs was the use of the trim tool. The fact that you get a 4 up display when making a slip or slide, or that you can trim asymmetrically. What am I missing?
Andy
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos
-
Reliability is about more than just stability, and in my experience, Media Composer’s overall architecture is more robust than most.
The way MC deals with project files (every bin is a file on disk) has many advantages. For complex projects with tens of thousands of assets, Avid’s design makes a whole lot of sense. On some other systems, I’ve had problems with corrupt project files. Never on MC.
MC’s excellent media management, and its superior backward and forward compatibility also add to its overall dependability. It’s just so easy to put your trust in MC. Its architecture is solid and its design flexible. That’s what makes it reliable. Not that it crashes less than its competitors, which I doubt is the case.
-
Hey Andy!
I don’t think you don’t get it; I think maybe you just don’t like it. As I said, I think its a matter of taste, but what I’m pointing at–and what I think most people are pointing at–is Avid’s entire approach to trimming–the notion of the mode, and the way the entire mode functions as a cohesive unit. When I first started getting back into Avid, I found the mode concept annoying. I much preferred FCP Legend’s freeform approach. But the whole mode concept has grown on me–that I can stay in mode and use multiple approaches on multiple edits, that there are so many focused ways to trim, and so much info about the trimming. I enjoy it and appreciate it. It fits me.
-
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate trimming in Avid. I like it. It’s just not enough by itself to sell it as the NLE of choice over the others out there. I agree that it’s still the one area where there is some separation between Avid, X, and Premiere. But in most of the other feature areas, Avid is consistently losing ground because they’re not innovating like they used to. I mean, they were the first ones to allow different codecs and frame rates and sizes all mixed seamlessly in the same timeline. Now days, it seems the only thing they do is mess around with AMA, which to me has always felt like a half-measure feature.
Andy
https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos
-
[Scott Witthaus] “But outside this base (and it is a substantial market that others covet), Avid has lost traction. Small shops and indie folks don’t really consider Avid in the mix. Premiere, X, FCP7 and now (predicting) Resolve 11 pretty much own that space. Not sure Avid can compete there or want to compete there.”
Can’t argue with you there (about the lost traction in the indie space). And why would they want to use it anyway? Unless you know Avid inside out, the workflows are going to be slower, more complicated, and more constraining. Still, I remain hopeful that they will allocate some resources into this space.
Notice how every indie music producer still wants a copy of Pro Tools? Media Composer should be gunning along the same path.
-
[Daniel Frome] “Still, I remain hopeful that they will allocate some resources into this space.”
Nice thought, but I can’t see that happening. Nothing Avid is doing speaks to people like me, one-man show with MC on a laptop and a desktop. Nor do they speak to the small, 2-3 suite shop. Those guys have all gone to Premiere (from FCP7) or X, and will seriously consider Resolve. Avid simply isn’t in the conversation. I can’t even find an Avid suite to four-wall anymore. They made this bed many years ago and this is simply the result.
But, I think what Avid is doing to solidify it’s core market is probably the best it can do at this time. Let’s hope it works.
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up