Mark Sanger (Oscar Winner for Editing – Gravity) Avid vs FCPX

[Andrew Kimery]

Person 1: Why does Bob do things like that?
Person 2: He does things like that because for reasons X, Y and Z it’s a very reliable solution to the problems he faces.
Person 3: Stop telling me I should do things like Bob!
Person 2: ???

No one is saying what system Gravity was edited on or what thought process the editor had should be a litmus test for any and every editing scenario possible. The thread was started by what seemed like a lack of understanding of where Sanger was coming from so people chimed in to shed light on a number of reasons why it works for Sanger (and others in similar situations).

[Craig Seeman]

I understand well where Sanger is coming from. I was an Avid editor myself for about 12 years. My work was TV and higher end corporate though.

The current Feature Film (and only slightly lesser extent) Broadcast is a conservative and relatively small compared to the entire market for NLEs.

When you have a market that is not inclined to update, even for good reason, it’s not a great market for software developers looking to make income on new sales and upgrades.

The very thing that makes Avid attractive in that market, limits its growth in the other, larger, markets. That NLE market was much more profitable when a turnkey Avid system was north of $100k. Fortunately Avid makes much of its revenue in infrastructure hardware and support and service which still has a high cost of entry and profitable maintenance contracts.,

While FCPX certainly wasn’t even remotely capable of doing what that industry needed at the time he started post on Gravity, it was smart of Apple to pursue a broader and more profitable market. That market was NOT specifically “consumer.”

He even states Avid went into “strange new territory.” Making critical comments on Avid’s attempts to broaden their product appeal does not do service to Avid, which is already hampered by a conservative customer base with regards to NLE development.

[Charlie Austin]

[Andrew Kimery] “Person 1: Why does Bob do things like that?
Person 2: He does things like that because for reasons X, Y and Z it’s a very reliable solution to the problems he faces.
Person 3: Stop telling me I should do things like Bob!
Person 2: ???”

lol. Gravity was cut on MC because it suited their workflow. That dual story Honda thingy was cut on X because it suited their workflow. There are plenty of situations in which editors who would benefit from things available in FCP X don’t use it for pretty stupid reasons (“nobody uses it!”, “it needs tracks!“, ad infinitum.)

Sangers decision -3 years ago- was perfectly reasonable. If he made the same decision for the same workflow reasons today it would still be reasonable.

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Andrew Kimery]

[Craig Seeman] “When you have a market that is not inclined to update, even for good reason, it’s not a great market for software developers looking to make income on new sales and upgrades.

The very thing that makes Avid attractive in that market, limits its growth in the other, larger, markets. That NLE market was much more profitable when a turnkey Avid system was north of $100k. Fortunately Avid makes much of its revenue in infrastructure hardware and support and service which still has a high cost of entry and profitable maintenance contracts.,”

Yeah, I agree with that (I mentioned Avid’s struggles in my previous post) though there is still room for enterprise level solutions (for lack of a better term) and I think Avid is focusing on that area with the Avid Everywhere strategy. A few months ago Philip Hodgetts went to a closed presentation for Avid Everywhere and came away very impressed with the scope and direction of Avid’s plans.

[Craig Seeman] “While FCPX certainly wasn’t even remotely capable of doing what that industry needed at the time he started post on Gravity, it was smart of Apple to pursue a broader and more profitable market. That market was NOT specifically “consumer.””

I too think it was smart for Apple figure out the demographic they wanted and then create something very well suited for that demographic. I don’t think every product should be aimed at the broadest possible market though. If companies like Avid or Quantel can run a healthy business aimed at niche users then I think they should go for it.

I feel like this is circling around to the potential problem that Walter has brought up multiple times which is what happens to software developers (especially ones that create niche software) when software becomes a race-to-the-bottom, add-on type product?

[Craig Seeman] “He even states Avid went into “strange new territory.” Making critical comments on Avid’s attempts to broaden their product appeal does not do service to Avid, which is already hampered by a conservative customer base with regards to NLE development.”

Were the critical comments of Avid later in the interview? I only watched the section you pointed out (the mentioning of FCP X and how they decided not to upgrade their NLE in the middle of the movie). I don’t find the “strange new territory” comment as being critical (in a previous post Walter nicely illustrates how much Avid has changed) and Sanger even says he needed to get up to speed on the new version of Avid which, in his opinion, is the best NLE out there (he says it has “overtaken everything else”).

[Oliver Peters]

Wow, what a mountain out of a molehill. First of all, there’s really nothing about FCP X vs Avid in his comments. His “strange territory” comment really relates to the fact that they made no software updates in a three year period and that Avid had made a lot of changes in that time. He’s not criticizing these changes at all. In fact, he specifically indicated the need to catch up in order not to be “history”.

I completely agree. I wouldn’t upgrade in the middle of a project like this either. Heck, I’ve got an indie film that I cut last year in FCP X. It’s STILL waiting for some changes, so it’s frozen at 10.0.9. There’s no way I’ll risk messing up a large project with a lot of sequences and media by an upgrade gone wrong.

In fact, I’d wager that Sanger has gone through far more changes in his work than many on this list, having come from a film background and then doing assistant editing, VFX editor and feature editing.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Charlie Austin]

[Oliver Peters] “Wow, what a mountain out of a molehill.”

I’d say out of an ant hill. 😉

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Andrew Kimery]

It’s the FCP X or Not forum, we’ll debate about anything! Isn’t that someone’s sig?

[Richard Herd]

[Andrew Kimery] “It’s much easier to budget money and time around proven workflows than it is to lose money and time chasing down a problem you didn’t know existed.”

This is true of every business in the whole world.

[Richard Herd]

And…

Obviously he hasn’t used X 🙂

[Craig Alan]

Six portals that control whether you can get to a national audience unless you do it via the web.

“… unless you do it via the web,” which has become a serious player, a viable means of distribution for professional content.

Mac Pro, macbook pro, Imacs (i7); Canon 5D Mark III/70D, Panasonic AG-HPX170/AG-HPX250P, Canon HV40, Sony Z7U/VX2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; FCP X write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.