-
Bunim/Murray chooses Avid
-
I think what all of this points to is that we can no longer (and shouldn’t) place all of our eggs in one basket (NLE, company, platform, etc.). The tools are cheaper so why not enlarge the toolkit? I think Apple is perfectly fine with that as their strategy. No need to do it all. From a user standpoint, it’s obvious that it has been foolish to put all of your trust in one company.
Many folks have viewed FCP, Avid, PPro, AE (insert your preference here) as the one place that they have to do everything. That’s changing and the FCP X process has forced everyone (at least in the FCP world) to re-evaluate their post production strategies. FCP X may never be up to the task of doing what Media Composer does in the collaborative editing world. For some the mix will be FCP X for cutting and something else for finishing. Or maybe one tool for short form and another for long form. It just means the world is no longer a simple, neat little place.
Toss in Lightworks and Media 100 for fun. The game isn’t over yet.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Scott Roberts] “What was their reason for dropping Shake?”
Shake is a 2D compositor. With Nuke and the 3D compositing trend, Shake would have needed a complete overhaul to compete and support 3D geometry. Apple just didn’t want to put in the effort. They did offer up the source code for $50,000. Too bad they didn’t do the same for FCP7.
-
[John Moffat] “If Apple keep developing FCPX it will be a major threat to many post houses business model and therefore it is in there interests not to work with it.”
How is FCP X any more of a “major threat” to post houses than any other NLE? I’m having trouble imagining that.
-
[Chris Harlan] “How is FCP X any more of a “major threat” to post houses than any other NLE? I’m having trouble imagining that.”
Agreed. Haven’t we already gone through that logic with FCP 1?
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Lance Bachelder] “I was hopeful for MC6 but again a total dud – Avid did nothing to improve audio performance and track count and I hate cutting in it.”
As somebody else mentioned, I think this is a bit of a stretch. Of course the last section of your statement is the total truth — you simply don’t like to use it, and that’s subjective, and totally legit.
But Avid is the king of long-form narrative and shared workflows for a reason: it’ll deal with tonnage of footage from now until the cows (no pun intended) come home without so much as a hiccup, and share it all quite happily amongst dozens of users and round-trip audio and video with all manner of vendors and artists, etc. Far from being a “dud,” I’d say.
Personally, I LOVE the interface and find it to be completely transparent and it gets out of my way. It’s based on a film cutting paradigm, and I find that very intuitive. I recognize others don’t. Yes, I wish they’re remove the stupid 16 playable audio track limit. I don’t run into that wall too often, but when I do, it IS frustrating.
Chris
-
[Oliver Peters] “Many folks have viewed FCP, Avid, PPro, AE (insert your preference here) as the one place that they have to do everything. That’s changing and the FCP X process has forced everyone (at least in the FCP world) to re-evaluate their post production strategies. FCP X may never be up to the task of doing what Media Composer does in the collaborative editing world. For some the mix will be FCP X for cutting and something else for finishing. Or maybe one tool for short form and another for long form. It just means the world is no longer a simple, neat little place.”
While it’s true I’ve worked on many different editors in my time I’ve never liked switching around, I’m a serial monogomist.
I never liked switching between a Steinbeck and a Moviola for that matter. I’m always amazed when I see editor’s shifting back and forth between FCP and Avid. When I have to do that I’m constantly thinking about which keys to hit and what menus to find, and the moment that happen’s I’ve lost my whole flow as an editor.
When I’m cutting well I’m totally unaware of what my hands are doing — I’m simply thinking about the show and my hands are making the cuts by themselves. When I’m working well like that, if someone asked me what the keystrokes were for a given function I was doing, I often wouldn’t know – not consciously at any rate. It takes months of full time use to get to that state with a NLE, and those months, while often enjoyable for the learning, are not nearly as productive. At the end of that time, when I am finally able to edit instinctively, if I have to go back to the previous system I had been using, I would be lost all over again.
So for me, the idea of using different NLE’s for different projects would be a nightmare.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “So for me, the idea of using different NLE’s for different projects would be a nightmare.”
I’m sort of with you on that, Herb. Although I do it to some extent, I too find it better to just stick with a single editor as much as possible. I’ve been messing with Pro Tools, and when I spend a few days with that, I’m constantly pressing the wrong damn keys in Avid at work. Totally screws up my flow, as you said.
Chris
-
[John Moffat] “but the industry is changing fast, the technical side of making content is becoming easier and cheaper and importantly broadcasts days are numbered….”
The technical side is becoming harder day by day: more formats, more codecs, more wrappers, 3D, 4K, MXF, AVCintrad, AVCHD, DNxHD, is ProRes dying, what about the quicktime gamma shift – just how much more complex do you want it to get? And if you think an individual Ap is going to protect you from having to understand these elements, then there’s a bridge in brooklyn I would like to sell you.
As for Broadcast, get back to me when a broadcaster goes under. There are more cable channels than ever producing more shows than ever for a growing audience. Doesn’t seem like a funeral to me. Lower ratings for individual networks does not equal the end of broadcast TV.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
I know what you mean. Recently someone called me to ask how to to accomplish a particular function in FCP 7 that she was used to doing with MC. I confidently told her it could not be done in Final Cut, hung up the phone and then almost immediately realized that while talking to her my fingers, entirely of their own volition, had performed the very function in FC that I had just assured her could not be done.
Tim
-
[Herb Sevush] “As for Broadcast, get back to me when a broadcaster goes under. There are more cable channels than ever producing more shows than ever for a growing audience. Doesn’t seem like a funeral to me.”
Depends on the definition of “Broadcaster”, If it’s over the air broadcast they are currently a drop in the bucket compared to cable and sat. Is Netflix a broadcaster, especially now with their own exclusive series coming out?
Content will always be created by “networks” or “studios” etc, the delivery is what will change. If the giant bundling deals are bypassed by this new delivery paradigm you will see cable networks die and the individual studios replace them delivering content ad hoc.
This new type of delivery will eventually make broadcast standards a thing of the past. People will be able to view PAL, NTSC, 24p etc… on standard agnostic devices. Any flat panel TV with an HDMI input is such a device today.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up