What Are The Following Key Technical Differences Between FCP + Avid?…..

[Dan Monro]

Hi Ersel,

Here’s my quick two cents.

Avid requires every piece of media you use to be encoded for Avid, and put into the appropriate Avid directory structure (via importing it into your project). If your Avid project is SD everything you import must be SD. Likewise with HD everything must be HD. Anything that isn’t in the proper format (frame size, compressor, sample rate, file type) either needs to be converted ahead of time or during import. When it comes to tape ingest and output Avid is rock solid & frame accurate.

That being said, I haven’t worked much with the newest Avid software (v5, right?) that – I believe – allows you to work with a broader range of formats. But you still have to convert on input – I believe. Somebody jump in here and correct me if I’m wrong.

Final Cut, on the other hand, will accept multiple frame rates, frame sizes, compressors & file types all within the same project. This eliminates the need to convert on import. You can move your media around at will, as long as you reconnect it once you do. You can use media from anywhere you can store media – hard drive, system drive, thumb drives, networks. And that’s also BAD news. You can inadvertently be trying to edit with HD footage over an ethernet connection which just doesn’t work.

As my friend Myron says, “The good news is that Final Cut will let you do anything. The bad news is that Final Cut will let you do anything.” You’ve got to be much more careful about where you put your media, where you import from, etc. And using all of those varied formats within your project can also produce less than desirable results, and lots of rendering. We’ve had much better looking footage by converting ahead of time than by letting Final Cut do the down/up converting in the timeline.

Lastly, Final Cut does not play well with tape decks. At least that’s been my experience. I’ve had frame offset problems, synch problems and drifting. But that has also been related to the I/O card, and various builds of FCP & AJA software – not to mention OS – not being compatible. So I can’t put all of that off on FCP. But, since Avid uses proprietary hardware, you’re less likely to have conflicts.

As far as the interface goes, they’re both great. I’ve been editing in the timeline with Avid for years, so the jump to FCP wasn’t all starting from scratch. Both have strengths and weaknesses not mentioned above (FCP can have multiple projects open; Avid allows you to access individual bins at the finder level). Both are fast and flexible. Both do well with FX, interface with Adobe well, mangle resizes, crash occasionally, and constantly need to be upgraded.

So that’s my take on the differences. My personal preference has become Final Cut, mainly for the pricepoint, but also for the suite it brings along with it. Compressor is my first stop (prior to edit) and my last stop after output from FCP. I am beginning to really like Motion, although I’m much more comfortable with AfterFX. Color is great, I just haven’t had a chance to learn it well.

Now, if you’re really interested in an Avid vs. FCP discussion, I’m sure you’ll be amazed by the passion and vitriol one can produce. But as far as I’m concerned, they’re just two of the tools that every editor should have in his/her toolbox.

So much for a “quick” 2 cents…

Good luck with it,
D

Dan Monro
FCP, Avid, AfterFX, Atlanta
MacBook Pro 2.53 GHz Intel Core i5 4 GB ram
Mac OS X 10.6.4
NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M
Final Cut Pro 7 Quicktime 7.6.6
– OR –
2 x 3.2 Quad Xeon; 16 GB ram
Mac OS X 10.6.4
NVIDIA Quadro FX 5600 Final Cut Pro 7.0.2 Quicktime 7.6.6

[Ersel Erdal]

Cheers for the great insight Dan, I understand its a large can of worms to open. I’m still trying to build up my knowledge more of Avid (being more comfortable with the friendlier FCP)but there’s just so many features I have still yet to discover!

Your comment is greatly appreciated 🙂

[Dan Brockett]

While I have not yet cut with the V5.0 of MC, I believe that AVID is now much more FCP-like with this latest version than ever before.

Perhaps someone with MC 5.0 can chime in but some of the latest selling points were that AVID now works natively with any QT media and AVID now has the same drag and drop TL that FCP has.

If I was starting out TODAY and had never edited professionally, I would buy MC over FCP. I have been on FCP since Beta so it is too late for me to start over, I know FCP way too well and use it pretty effortlessly but the lack of updates and the sucky media management mean that AVID is overall, a bit stronger tool these days.

Dan

A Producer Who Is Also A DP? Yep, that’s Me.

http://www.danbrockett.com

[Richard Sanchez]

I fully concur with Dan about Avid and Final Cut being two tools that you should know. I have worked with the new Media Composer 5, and have found the whole AMA and “Native Editing” campaign of Avid to be very deceptive. Yes, you can edit Pro Res, P2, and XDCAM EX without transcoding. However, you cannot kick out an AAF for audio mixing based on AMA footage. You will have to convert the footage to Avid’s native MXF format at some point to do that, which introduces the argument of whether you can edit natively and transcode at the end, or if you should transcode first, effectively using AMA more like Final Cut’s Log and Transfer tool. That’s an argument I won’t start in this post, but there’s been a lot of posting about it in the Avid forums.

Avid’s media management is rock solid, and I find in general, offline projects that begin in Media Composer, and are sent to Symphony or DS for finishing tend to be smooth. I can trust that when speed changes are made in offline, they’ll be carried over properly in the online. Whereas, I still find I have issues when those effects go from Final Cut to Color. Color 1.5 was better than Color 1, but I’ve still had issues with speed changes frequently enough, that I still feel the need to bake all speed changes before going to color.

The funny thing is, contrary to Dan’s experience, I’ve had more issues with Avid playing with tape decks (HD decks at least, Avid is great with SD decks) than I’ve had with Final Cut. Though, I did need to create custom deck control presets in Final Cut when laying off to D5, but HDCAM SR has always been smoother for me.

It was mentioned that with Avid Media Composer 5, and the new Smart Tool that Avid is becoming more Final Cut-like, but while that seems to be the aim of the new Smart Tool, I find the approach to Avid editing versus Final Cut editing to be so different, that as a whole, I still cut a little different in one system versus another. Just a preference thing.

I work with Final Cut more frequently than Avid, and do prefer it over Avid, but Final Cut has it’s quirks, as does Avid. When I get veteran Avid editors bashing Final Cut, because it needs it’s preferences trashes, I always remind them that Avid needs its database files rebuilt very frequently too. When they bash Final Cut for crashing left and right, I utter one word “Adrenaline”. The best thing you can do is learn both systems to be a contender for the maximum amount of editing gigs, because the argument of one versus the other is very much a stalemate.

Richard Sanchez
North Hollywood, CA

“We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.” – Bill Hicks

[Ersel Erdal]

Thanks for the comments again,

I agree about the decks from both of you guys, I have friends complaining about both FCP and Avid tape deck problems so kinda down the middle there.

Luckily myself I simply use a DSLR and have no need for tape decks.

Was just wandering about exporting with Avid, I know that FCP has compressor which gives you a mass of options and is a big selling point for me and the way it works in the background whilst editing. Does Avid have any unique selling points when it comes to outputting?

[Joe Riggs]

Richard,

That is disappointing about having to reconvert media to MXF for MC5, I’ve been wanting to dip my toes into to AVID for some time, as I know that it is the “industry standard”.

[Joe Riggs]

I have heard that Avid has a faster workflow as in keyboard shortcuts for everything and a better media organizational system.

[Richard Sanchez]

I was pretty disappointed with it too. If you’re doing quick edits that won’t require a full mix sessions in pro tools, it’s not necessary and you can mix sources to your heart’s content. That makes it an attractive feature for music videos and such. But again, AMA tended to be much more sluggish than Avid’s MXF format, and sometimes AMA volumes would randomly go offline, so I always opted to transcode overnight.

Richard Sanchez
North Hollywood, CA

“We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.” – Bill Hicks

[Richard Sanchez]

Part of what makes Avid media management so solid is, Avid media can only reside in one folder of the volume. The “Avid Media Files” folder, or if you’re using OMF media, the “OMFI Media Files” folder. With Final Cut, you can set your scratch disk anywhere, which can be nice to separate media files from different projects, but if you’re not very diligent about double checking your scratch disks, you can easily start mixing media and it can turn into a mess fast.

As far as faster workflow and keyboard shortcuts, Avid’s keyboard shortcut selling point over Final Cut used to be that you can remap your keyboard so that each user can work their fastest. Final Cut has allowed keyboard remapping for a few versions, so that’s no longer the case. Personally, I find I remap my keyboard layout for Avid since I got used to that, but I work with Final Cut’s defaults, but it’s just a matter of familiarity. I’m much faster with Final Cut’s keyboard shortcuts than with Avid’s.

Richard Sanchez
North Hollywood, CA

“We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.” – Bill Hicks

[Mark Raudonis]

[Joe Riggs] “it is the “industry standard”.”

Uh, what industry would that be?

mark