AVID – Why Not?

[Jeff Markgraf]

Rich –

Piling on with a bunch of others here: Avid without ISIS (and Interplay) is mostly just an old-school NLE. Mostly great editing functionality, with what many consider best-in-class trim functionality. Terrible for effects and compositing. Nothing special for audio or color correction (you’ll want to sweeten in ProTools and color correct in Resolve). Graphics created by the usual suspects and dropped in.

On the plus side, as of version 8, FINALLY a decent means of dealing with file-based video and larger-than-HD video formats. Looks like they cribbed a few ideas from FCPX! But be prepared to have new, powerful hardware to handle it. (And ProTools & Resolve & AE are still required.)

But, to repeat, unless you need the kind of multi-user workflow that only ISIS can provide — at a fairly significant price! — Avid isn’t a foregone conclusion.

And while it’s conventional wisdom that only ISIS (and UNITY before it) can effectively handle large-scale multiple user workflow, I’m not so sure that’s true anymore. FCPX and PPro can both work very effectively with modern asset management systems (like Cantemo Portal and some others). The only UNIQUE feature of ISIS is multiple users on a project simultaneously. All the others require users to pull a local copy of the project and then re-integrate it when done. (With ISIS, the first user of a bin locks out the others from writing to the sequence and bin, but anyone can open the bin read-only, use a locked sequence as a source, make a copy of said sequence and do their own thing, etc. And as soon as the original user closes the bin, it’s up for grabs again.)

And, yeah, Hollywood is still primarily an Avid town. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

[Mike Warmels]

It has nothing to do with half empty, Bill.

I have no problems with the FCPX workflow or the way of editing, or the magnetic timelines. I do have a problem with FCPX performance. I am happy to hear that your set-up is working fine. Mine was done by a professional company specialised in Apple audio and video, an Apple authorised reseller. I am in constant contact with a lot of editors working on FCPX on a daily basis. And all the feedback I get is that they do run into the same problems. So I get a lot of workarounds: don’t have your Inspector on while editing, especially not with the Audio Tab open, switch off you AJA card because using your broadcast monitor can slow it down, switch off waveforms etc etc… I find all that stuff very silly, it basically comes down to saying: “please don’t use all the wonderful FCPX features because they may not work very well.”

Like you, I make a living out of this kind of work. And I find it frustrating that apart from the many, many workarounds (almost needs as much time to learn FCPX really well as it is to learn AVID) FCPX needs so much more power and disc speed to get a, in my case, very mediocre performance.

I need to use my internal SSD harddrive to store the Libraries and the Cache (with fills up so quickly even my harddrive ends up full after cutting four episodes of a fashion tv show). I need to use Thunderbolt external drives. It needs the fastest discs, the fastest computer and yet… it’s the tortoise compared to the old hare of AVID, which wins on much slower discs.

Maybe it’s that I work on somewhat more complex projects. On smaller films FCPX runs like a charm, but when it gets bigger, more footage etc… it slows down.

Now, I know I am on a older FCPX (I explained that before why I cannot yet upgrade), 10.1.4, and I’m sure 10.2 runs better. But this is then another thing: why are older versions immediately abandoned as obsolete? Why are there no patches to fix the older versions? Even on older AVIDs you get support and bug fixes, why not on older FCPX versions?

Anyway, back to cutting on FCPX!

[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi Mike.

I don’t think Bill intends to be condescending or dismissive of the issues you seem to have with X. Bill is one of a few of us who have had pretty consistently good luck with X. As Oliver and some others have pointed out, there does seem to be some wild and inconsistent variation between users and systems. Perhaps the sign of an “immature” (not meant to be derogatory, just descriptive) hardware/software relationship.

As a side note, newer versions of Avid (v8.xxx), which have finally incorporated some of the modern file-handling capabilities of FCPX and PPro, are also fraught with buggy and inconsistent behavior. And the newest Avids absolutely require modern, top-line hardware.

As far as specific points:

I used to have the open inspector window sluggishness at times. Not so much anymore on 10.2. And definitely not so much now that I’m on a new MacPro tube/trashcan/dustbin/R2Mac2/whatever you call it.

Never had a problem with my AJA T-Tap slowing down performance. (First time I’ve heard this one.)

Waveform drawing was a problem that seems to be fixed in 10.2 Slow opening of libraries and projects also seems to be fixed in 10.2.

[Mike Warmels] “it’s the tortoise compared to the old hare of AVID, which wins on much slower discs.”

As noted above, the introduction of AMA brought many an Avid to its knees. And the latest version just won’t cut it on older hardware – unless you don’t use AMA or large format video or background rendering or real-time proxies – in which case, why bother with the latest version?

[Mike Warmels] “but when it gets bigger, more footage etc… it slows down.”

I had some issues cutting a feature shot on RED 5k. Only viable using proxies and “better performance” mode. But then, that was on a Retina laptop as the CPU, and pre-10.2. Works like a charm now on the same footage, even using original 5k, now that I’m on 10.2 with the Tube.

I know, I’m sounding like a broken record.

[Mike Warmels] ” Why are there no patches to fix the older versions? Even on older AVIDs you get support and bug fixes, why not on older FCPX versions?”

Well…having used Avid since the mid-90s, I have found that “patches and bug fixes” were almost exclusively new versions or .xx updates. Just like FCPX. To this day there are certain versions of Avid that simply don’t play nicely with certain OS versions, both PC and Mac. So I don’t think it’s fair to expect 10.08 or 10.1.xx to be patched to bring it up to par with 10.2. As with Avid, it’s often far more than a simple patch to fix the problems associated with older versions.

None of this is to dismiss the very real problems you and some others are having. I wish I knew what the secret sauce is to fix the problem systems. And it probably doesn’t help to hear that some of us just don’t have the issues you’re having. I think you’re stuck, to some degree, until you can get the 10.2 upgrade.

[Mike Warmels]

Thanks, Jeff. I often find FCPX users a little UNDERcritical about their NLE.

And sure AVID has it quips and quirks… I NEVER use AMA myself, simply BECAUSE it is unreliable. It often loses it links (but so does FCPX sometimes). I transcode everything and work form there, and that system is very solid. AVID has come a long way since the mid-90’s BTW. The FCP7 and PPro have certainly been a great contributor to its improvements (including patches to older versions), which I hope for all NLE’s: use what’s better in the competitor.

Now you might say: transcoding everything costs. But I convert everything to Apple Pro Res before starting to cut on FCPX too. Having too many issues with some codecs. Once I start cutting, I want to move. Transcoding or importing can all be done at night when I’m sleeping.

But yes, I doubt there’s a chance for patches for older versions. Apple could easily solve this problem to make Libraries downward compatible (as AVID has). Then editors working in a larger environment could just work in the version they’d like. If that would be the case, I’d have been on 10.2 since it came out.

So all in all, I agree with you on the immaturity thing (as a descriptive analysis, that’s exactly what I meant). And yes, Bill is a lucky man indeed. And I am happy for him that it works so well. But as I said before, I know of lot of editors who run into the performance issues of FCPX as well. Maybe I should go over and cut with him. 😉

[Jeff Markgraf]

[Mike Warmels] “Maybe I should go over and cut with him. ;-)”

I’d pay money to see that 😉

Regarding AMA – I’ve found a mostly useful workflow (cutting promos and sales reels and short-form). Because I can’t tolerate the incredibly slow import process in Avid (import a 50 minute pull reel? No thanks!). So I’ll AMA link the long clip and scan for my pulls. Then subclip each pull and immediately transcode the subclip. Doing it right away, I can name the transcoded clip and include the reel number (NCIS_Eps 504-510_PR1415-2) in the name so I can easily get back to the source reel if something goes awry. Then I delete the temp AMA’d subclip and move on. Ultimately faster than batch subclipping, batch transcoding and hoping I get the clip names right. Then I delete the link to the source and cut away. I can always relink to the source and pull more clips.

As far as transcoding to ProRes for X: I rarely have to cut with h.264 or other really nasty source footage, so I don’t usually need to transcode in advance. Now that I can work with MXF files directly in X, I don’t even transcode Avid DNX files anymore. I can just pull them right off the ISIS drives into X, make a synch or multicam clip to lock the audio & video together, and cut away.

I’m curious why you don’t just optimize the clips in X? Or make proxies. That can be done overnight, as well.

Lastly, regarding Avid: I didn’t think you could go backwards in projects. I can open up older projects in, say, v7 or v8. But I don’t think I can open up a v8 project in v7 or v6. Am I mistaken? Never had to do it.

[Mike Warmels]

Well for one, using proxies is really the low end of editing for me. I mean, we did that like 20 years ago. I can’t bear to look at it anymore. All software is and should be fast enough run footage in real quality. It does in AVID and PPro, so I think FCPX should be able to do that. That professionalism, I think.

And yes, you are mistaken about the backward compatibility in AVID. It’s always been that way, and I have been working with AVID for twenty years. Everything works back and forth between 8.4 (current version) as far back as 5.5.5. However, some effects have changed, like color correction. Older versions see the new ones, but you’d have to change it.

Some facility houses work with ISIS and older versions. While I work on my 8.4 system, I just take my projects to their 7.x system and I can start working instantly. It’s simple: AVID’s media system is always the same. It’s the effects, the plug in etc that change, but the core media management system and projects are always the same.

Now, as it comes to transcoding in FCPX. I have had great performance issues using XD-Cam directly when I have som 20+ discs for a project. Or even the Quicktime version of MPEG2 HD422… slow slow… So I transcode it all.

However, FCPX cannot optimise XD-Cam material. I tried and it won’t. I have heard people here say that is because Apple considers it a native codec for FCPX. So whether you want to or not: FCPX won’t do optimisation of XD-Cam footage. Too bad Apple wants to do the thinking for you.

[James Ewart]

[Mike Warmels] “Well for one, using proxies is really the low end of editing for me. I mean, we did that like 20 years ago.”

I pretty much always work in Proxy mode. It’s so easy to switch back to Optimised/Original if you need to.

Just because it’s a 20 year old workflow doesn’t mean it’s no good after all.

[James Ewart]

And may I ask why do some people seem so averse to using a mouse?

[Mike Warmels]

Yeah, well I hate looking at the low res. I don’t think you can judge very well for sharpness or whatever. I want to see what I have. I don’t like the “better performance” look either, but that’s something I have to accept so I will run better.

[James Ewart]

[Mike Warmels] “Yeah, well I hate looking at the low res. I don’t think you can judge very well for sharpness or whatever.”

Wow you actually get footage that’s in focus? Now that’s something I do miss from 20 years ago.

: )