-
Bunim/Murray chooses Avid
-
I actually like the Avid interface as well. I like that I can make my bin thumbnails as large as I want as I get older lol – as pissed as Aindreas is at Apple, that’s how I feel toward Avid – how do they overhaul their NLE and make it 64bit and do nothing to improve audio performance? Forget 16 tracks – I had 3 sound effect tracks in MC6 on both Mac and PC and couldn’t hear all of them at the same time without playing over them over and over until it built up a preview I guess. I use more than 16 tracks on everything I do – feature films and animation and need more tracks!!! I’m ready to go 100% MC6 and Pro Tools 10 but not until they improve audio in MC6 – I don’t have time to roundtrip all day and hate constantly doing mix downs which is really just another workaround. Sound is half of everything I do and I need more than 16 tracks, which is really only 8 stereo paris as I cut.
Funny because of this problem, I took a 3rd look at FCPX and actually started liking it since the 10.02 update…
Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California -
Awwww…everybody, just download the latest version of Media 100 Suite 2.x and be happy 🙂
-
[Walter Soyka] “Netflix collects subscription revenue just like the cable providers do”
[John Heagy] “Correct, at $7.99 instead of ten times that for Sat or Cable. The scale required is trending down. “
Of your $80 cable bill from your cable provider (like Cablevision or Time Warner), only a fraction of that goes to any one of the cable networks (like AMC or Bravo) that’s sponsoring the production of the content.
I do agree with you that the way broadcast video is delivered will continue to change over time; I just think that the economics still favor scale players, and I think television broadcast will still be with us for the forseeable future.
Louis C.K. making money distributing his own content is the exception, not the rule; not only is his content relatively inexpensive to produce, he’s secured a wide audience through broadcast.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[John Moffat] “I think FCPX is more of a threat because the skill base to use FCPX and get professional results is a lot lower than any other editor IMO. The automated way it manages media in the background and the trackless timeline requires less of a learning curve”
Dude, operating NLE’s isn’t brain surgery. Its like typing/word processing. If you are trying to be a professional, working full time, and you can’t get over the minor inconvenience of learning some concepts and keystrokes that are less complicated than driving a car and learning traffic laws, then it really doesn’t matter, because you won’t be able to survive in the business environment anyway. These automations are for casual users who would never have any need of a post house.
[John Moffat] “The way FCPX controls how you edit, hides advance features, standardises timeline aspect ratios might annoy professional full time editors but this also reduces the chance to screw the edit up. If you are an up and coming assistant producer doing a rough cut isn’t this the ideal NLE for you?”
No. Because there is no way to transfer it out of its closed environment. Again, if you can’t learn to use the handful of keystrokes or mouse movements required to do a rough cut on any of the other systems, my guess is that you are useless in the post world, anyway.
[John Moffat] ” Let’s not forget how cheap it is as well. “
So what?! There is a point where that doesn’t matter anymore, and FCX is well past it. The difference between a 10,000 dollar system and a 30-75000 is significant. The difference between three or four hundred dollars and Fifteen hundred dollars is nearly meaningless when you set it next to the cost of the equipment and other essentials for operating a business.
[John Moffat] “Maybe I’m wrong but I can see FCPX being used in-house on producers laptops in a way Avid and Premiere can’t be. “
How? What can FCX do on a laptop that I haven’t been able to do for the last five years with FCP, Premiere, and a little more recently, Avid. As soon as I post this, I’m going back to doing what I’ve been doing all morning, which is making sellects reels from 1080i source material on my Macbook Pro.
[John Moffat] “There will be more in-house time and less at the post houses. Many shows require high-end finishing only a post house can offer. Many do not. It’s not an all or nothing equation but it is clear the balance is changing and FCPX could be an important part of the change… when it stable… less buggy… and has better xml inter-change…”
This has been happening for more than a decade, ever since the first “broadcast quality” i/o cards appeared in the second half of the ’90s. The erosive damage to post houses began to occur many years before FCX. In that regard, FCX is very late to the revolution.
-
[Chris Conlee] ” It’s based on a film cutting paradigm, and I find that very intuitive.”
I know lots of folks agree with you, but I think of it as being based on the Source/Record paradigm of analog television editing. It reminds me much more of an old CMX or a Convergence system than anything from the old film world. There was an offline system that I used for a long time–the Montage–that had a very strong film editing metaphor. It was single monitor, like FCX, and had revolving bins that were also timelines. It was very interesting to work on, but the lack of source/record probably killed it off.
-
[Walter Soyka] “[Walter Soyka] “Netflix collects subscription revenue just like the cable providers do”
[John Heagy] “Correct, at $7.99 instead of ten times that for Sat or Cable. The scale required is trending down. ”
Of your $80 cable bill from your cable provider (like Cablevision or Time Warner), only a fraction of that goes to any one of the cable networks (like AMC or Bravo) that’s sponsoring the production of the content.
I do agree with you that the way broadcast video is delivered will continue to change over time; I just think that the economics still favor scale players, and I think television broadcast will still be with us for the forseeable future.
Louis C.K. making money distributing his own content is the exception, not the rule; not only is his content relatively inexpensive to produce, he’s secured a wide audience through broadcast.”
Maybe this is relevant: https://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57353134-261/hbo-forces-netflix-to-go-elsewhere-for-its-dvds/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
-
The other big issue here is Net Neutrality. The laws seem to be leaning, currently, in favor of the sanctity of last mile provider, and quiet legislation and selective, precedent-setting legal action is further forcing us, in the US, down the road of unregulated last mile. Once it is firmly established that Comcast has every legal right to control the speed with which you can access iTunes and Netflix, the game is going to change. Its a real shame that this whole issue is so badly ignored.
-
[John Heagy] “Correct, at $7.99 instead of ten times that for Sat or Cable. The scale required is trending down.”
$7.99… on top of whatever you currently pay your ISP, presumably a cable, satellite or phone company, for high speed internet. And who knows what state Netflix will be in a couple of years from now.
Netflix seemed poised last year to spin off it’s DVD business to raise capital and when that failed they had to hold a private stock sale and announce to investors not to expect any profits in 2012. Not to mention that the sweetheart deals they used to have for streaming rights are expiring and their licensing costs might jump from $180 million in 2010 to an estimated $2 billion this year.
-Andrew
3.2GHz 8-core, FCP 6.0.4, 10.5.5
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (6.8.1) -
Well, I can’t pass up a chance to respond to this, but there a few responses to put in so, I will hope to address them all… 😉
[Chris Harlan] “What would be an interesting wrench for me is if Adobe can convince a few major boutiques to throw in with Premiere because of their deep involvement with After Effects. I would be happy to see some competition remain here-abouts.”
I think we already have. We just don’t advertise every place that does. Granted though, I think we have room to grow. Anecdotal story for you is that the AE product manager is going to boutiques as you would expect and many times the first thing they want to talk about is Premiere Pro.
[David Roth Weiss[ “I just don’t see Premiere as a real contender in the L.A. arena any time soon.”
David, as a guy who lives locally in the NYC area, I see LA and NYC as the last bastions of Avid. There is enough work in these towns and Avid presents workflows and necessary hardware that make Avid a clearer choice in some situations. That said, I think long term I am very excited about our prospects as I know of many things coming down the road. Still, Adobe Premiere Pro is winning in both of these towns and I see that trend continuing.
[Chris Harlan] “I think if Adobe were aggressive”
I don’t see how we can get any more aggressive than we already are – do you disagree?
[Bret Williams] “And Adobe pretty much told the Apple editing community to shove it for a few years with Premiere Pro until CS3.”
Not true really. When Steve Jobs made the decision to abandon the legacy OS9 infrastructure for OSX, he made some hard choices and it was tough for Apple users for a while. Over time, those problems disappeared. In a similar manner, when we went about re-architecting Premiere into Premiere Pro, we made the strategic decision to focus on Windows where most of our market share was at the time. With CS3 we returned to the Mac and since then (5 years) have made a pointed effort of making sure Mac and PC versions are functionally identical. We are committed to the Mac market and as others have pointed out, we’re growing leaps and bounds on the Mac, so we’re in it for the long haul…
[Bret Williams] “CS6 is their last shot. If they can refine Premiere Pro into something stable and a bit less clunky feeling they’ll have a chance. I think they’re destined to lose the battle in the end because Avid was already number two or on par with FCP installs with Premiere pretty far behind. Premiere would have to convince all the FCP houses to switch to them to make a tremendous impact. But it appears it’s about split. So it’ll probably be a 70% Aivd, 30% Premiere/FCP X world for awhile. Corporate is headed Premiere because it’s freelancers can get up to speed and it’s a relatively similar fit. Broadcast and Film will go back to Avid, where Avid still had a large share anyway. Most corporate production seems to have forgotten Avid altogether.”
Okay, lots here…
No one ever has their “last shot”. If we’ve learned anything in the 20+ years of NLE, is that the dominant players can change. Avid was king, Apple ate their lunch for a season, Adobe has come up, Sony and GVG are nipping at everyone’s heels… Lightworks – who knows? Maybe. If FCPX fixes some of the standard complaints then it will be a three horse race again. For the immediate statement of CS6 being our last shot – I’ll say I’m extremely happy with my ‘last’ bullet. 😉
Premiere Pro believe it or not (I’m guessing not) is #1 in terms of installs and seats. Growing 45% on the Mac over the last year or so doesn’t hurt either. Plus, you’ve got the still larger PC platform. Of course, you can argue that it’s how you count the seats and you’re right. Apple and Avid similarly love to bake their numbers.
70% Avid/ 30% Premiere Pro/FCPX would strike me as backwards in the general market, but you’re talking feature film and/or boutique, so I can agree. Broadcast is changing and not necessarily towards Avid. Avid is still expensive and broadcasters now all already have Premiere Pro on their systems. In a tight economy and changing business model, broadcasters are looking at alternatives. I know, because I’m the guy getting the calls. There is a much larger reason why some broadcasters would think twice about Avid, but I will not speak it here as it would be classless…
I’d say, ‘my 2 cents’ but I think it’s better to say…
$2.50, 😉
Dennis – Adobe guy -
[Lance Bachelder] “Sound is half of everything I do and I need more than 16 tracks, which is really only 8 stereo paris as I cut.Funny because of this problem, I took a 3rd look at FCPX and actually started liking it since the 10.02 update…”
I’m not sure if you had investigated this enough on Avid. Let me clarify, Avid had always supported 24 tracks of audio, granted it only allows 16 to be monitored and to be used at the mixer, all due to hardware limitations. But, for that matter, FCPX doesn’t even have a mixer for riding audio levels, and it also has other limitations (like you cannot expand the “timeline” in fullscreen) So, if it has a faster waveform build, allows more than 24 and has some nice features with effects, that doesn’t mean it is better than Avid in this regard. It all depends on the workflow, as always. I strongly suspect that will change in the coming years, and we will be able to verify which solution is going to be more constrained. And I bet it will be FCPX.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up