Switch from Avid Adrenaline to final cut pro

[Joe Womble]

It is certainly an option. But what is the advantage you are looking for with FCP? What is MCA not providing that you need?

Regards,

Joe Womble

[Kathleen O’heron]

Primarily, it’s a cost issue… If FCP can do the same thing for less, the question is why stick with Avid?

KOH

[Michael Hancock]

Working with numerous resolutions in FCP means you’ll need to get a capture card that will capture the different sources to one resolution/codec, or you’ll have to render your video to watch it. FCP won’t allow you to mix resolutions in the timeline like Avid will (which is one of the reasons I’m not interested in it right now).

Otherwise, FCP is a very capabable editor. From what I’ve gathered, it’s media management isn’t on par with Avid’s yet, so moving from one system to another for offline/online may be a little more difficult. It seems to lose render files easily (say you have 10 tracks, heavily effected and rendered and you decide to monitor just tracks 3 and down. In FCP, you move the monitor and you lose the render. Even if you go back to monitoring all 10 tracks you will have to rerender. Avid, on the other hand, remembers the render when you go from monitoring 3 tracks to 10).

You say you work for an independent editing facility. Does this mean you use their systems, or you have to buy your own? If you’re using theirs just use what they have. If you have buy your own definitely get some time on a FCP machine before you make a decision. You may love it or you may hate it. It’s a lot different than Avid. Many people prefer its open timeline, some don’t. The key to learning it is to not fight it by trying to make it act like an Avid.

Otherwise, be sure to consider Media Composer Software. Much cheaper than an Adrenaline, works with Mojo and Mojo SDI if you need analog inputs, and in the cases you need an Adrenaline box just rent time at an edit facility to capture then take the media home to edit.

You may also consider, if you haven’t already, posting your question in the FCP forum to find out what people are saying there. And remember, take everything said here and there with a grain of salt. People here will likely tell you Avid is better since this is an Avid forum, and people in the FCP forum will tell you FCP is better because it’s a FCP Forum and it runs on a Mac. And if it runs on a Mac that automatically makes it the best in the world (he says, ducking…) 🙂

Michael.

[Kathleen O’heron]

Thanks for the insight. Very helpful.

[John Pale]

I’m a big fan of FCP, but the Adrenaline had dedicated hardware for its effects. FCP is a software solution…the third party hardware is for capture only and does not accelerate rendering (except with DVCPRO HD, where AJA’s Kona card handles scaling, which frees up the host processor for effects).

If render time is important to you, Adrenaline may be better for what you do.

FCP is more versatile and scalable, and also has its strengths…but it may not be right for your shop, in its present form.

[Oliver Peters]

[John Pale] “but the Adrenaline had dedicated hardware for its effects”

John,

This simply isn’t true. There’s nothing in Adrenaline that accelerates effects. Adrenaline is an I/O chassis with built-in A-D/D-A, just like AJA Io. It does offer onboard codec scaling so that allows the marketing machine to claim acceleration. The effects processing in Adrenaline is handled by the software and the computer’s internal OpenGL video card. For example, look at the PIP effects. Notice you have an “HQ” button. What this does is switch the effects processing from the OpenGL card (HQ off) to software-based (HQ on). The reason to do this is because the OpenGL effects will have a somewhat lower quality than software-effects, but, the software-effects are a slow render and not real-time.

You don’t get any effects acceleration in an Avid product until you hit the Avid Symphony Nitris or Avid DS Nitris. In fact, if you run Avid Media Composer (software-only version) on a top-of-the line computer, you will get the best response of any of the Avids, mainly because it ISN’T encumbered by passing video to/from the Adrenaline chassis.

Sincerely,
Oliver

Oliver Peters
Post-Production & Interactive Media
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Oliver Peters]

[promoboy] “Working with numerous resolutions in FCP means you’ll need to get a capture card that will capture the different sources to one resolution/codec, or you’ll have to render your video to watch it. FCP won’t allow you to mix resolutions in the timeline like Avid will (which is one of the reasons I’m not interested in it right now). “

PB,

This assessment isn’t totally accurate. The capture card options for FCP generally turn incoming video into uncompressed 10-bit data, which the Apple computer then converts via a codec to some other resolution. If you work in a format that transfers over FW, like DV25 or HDV, then no card is required. Same for P2 and XDCAM-HD. Some, like AJA’s Kona cards offer onboard scaling for DVCPROHD. If your media is in the same format as the timeline, no rendering is needed until you add effects. If you are capturing anyway, why wouldn’t your media be in the same format? On the other hand, you can import any Quicktime media into a bin and use it right away on your timeline. If it is the same format, no rendering is needed. If not, you’ll have to render the output. Some resolutions can be mixed and viewed, but require rendering before output to tape. Others like animation codec, might have to be rendered first.

Now compare that to Avid. Yes, you can mix resolutions and codecs on the timeline, but ONLY ones that have been captured or converted to an Avid codec. So capture is essentially the same as in the FCP world. But graphics import requires a conversion or transcode before you can even use it in an Avid. In some cases, like HD, the import can take a while with large files.

As an editor that works with both, I’d have to say that Avid has some substantive features over FCP, like Intraframe editing, Spectramatte, Script-based editing and more. If these features aren’t needed, then FCP and Media Composer are really quite similar. MC Soft + Mojo SDI is about $7500 (plus computer, monitors, drives, etc.). FCP + AJA Kona 3 + AJA Io is about $6000 (plus the same computer and peripheral costs). You can also get a cheaper AJA conifuration, but this is the top-of-the-line combo. It gives you a lot of things that Avid doesn’t until you get into a $90K Symphony, including uncompressed HD and broadcast quality up/downconversion.

Neither choice is wrong. It depends on your subjective choice as an editor and what your business needs are.

Sincerely,
Oliver

Oliver Peters
Post-Production & Interactive Media
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Grinner Hester]

I’ll be going this same route soon.
I have been an avid Avid fan for 15 years. I enjoyed the ride from MC v4 to the Meridian line and was a happy owner of a Symphony. Loved it. Kicked the dog out of it and it just came back for more. I wish I would not have traded it in for an Adrenaline. I’m no fan of Adrenaline at all and now, not much of an Avid fan. I dig the DS but it’s price point is too high. Don’t much dig any of their other products now. While Avid use to lead the industry, they seem to have stopped trying and while other companies upgrade their products, Avid’s “upgrades” are now attempts at bug fixes on quite down graded products. Getting the Adrenaline put a huge dent in my business as it’s just not capable of doing what needs to be done much of the time. It’s not just my Adrenaline, every Adrenaline I freelance on… doesn’t matter what version they are on, it’s too buggy to be released as a version 1 to this very day. We now pay to beta test Avid’s software. I don’t intend on doing this again.
I have had my eye on FCP for quite some time. I wish I would have kept the Symphony and just gotten FCP. I’d be rockin with two suites now if I had done this. Now, I am trying to book my Adrenaline at home at half price.
I don’t think anything has sold more copies of FCP than Adrenaline.

[Oliver Peters]

Grin,

I’m curious what sort of specific problems you are having. I’ve done some sessions lately on Adrenaline and didn’t find it that bad. Wasn’t quite as responsive or stable as a Meridien Symphony (haven’t worked a Sym Nitris yet), but not a disaster either. I also use MC Soft on my laptop and it seems rather delightful. That being said, my local freelancing is almost totally FCP and given a project that I would have total control over myself, I’m hard pressed to say which I would decide to use. In any case, I’m curious what seems to have gone so horribly wrong in the choice you made.

Sincerely,
Oliver

Oliver Peters
Post-Production & Interactive Media
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Ted Levy]

I don’t really get that disillusionment with Avid’s new products. I’m editing network nonfiction shows on my Xpress Pro with Mojo and love it more than the Media Composers and Symphonies I used to work with. The real-time audio fades/dissolves, the mixing of resolutions, the merging of editing and effect modes, the seamless integration of Boris and Moving Picture software…I know this sounds like a commercial, but it really is a pleasure. And of course the media management is reliable and powerful. I’m still a big fan of Avid.

The production company in Los Angeles that I’m working for has six Avids running on a Unity system, two shifts a day, and the three network series they’re doing are cooking along on schedule. When I bring them my Avid sequence, they load it up, online the episode, create an OMF for the audio guys, and it’s out the door to the mix house. It’s a professional tool.

Ted