[Andy Neil]

[Chris Harlan] “People like Media Composer’s approach, complexity and overall feel when it comes to trimming.”

Perhaps then I’m the one who doesn’t understand. What does it mean to like Avid’s approach to trimming if not the trim tool? What other than that are people glomming onto? Tops and tails? Because both FCPX and Premiere have that. Track selection and sync locks? To me the only thing that ever separated Avid from other NLEs was the use of the trim tool. The fact that you get a 4 up display when making a slip or slide, or that you can trim asymmetrically. What am I missing?

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

[Craig Seeman] “I think MC’s reputation for reliability came from Avid’s originally conservative position on “blessing” configurations and OS updates.”

I’ve always attributed it to when they sold the entire system. They built these complete front to end edit bays and could control most of the aspects. But you’re right, advancements are moving too quickly now to completely vet everything new thing that comes down the line. But then, if Avid’s no more reliable than any other NLE, you’re left with features. And Avid’s feature set is specialized for some workflows and looks horribly outmatched in others.

People always seem to point out Avid’s trim tool as its saving grace and sure, it’s nice. But in the nearly 15 years I’ve been cutting on Avid I can count the number of times I’ve needed it for a trim I couldn’t do in FCP7 or Premiere, on one hand. Even multi cam, which I always considered the best multi cam around feels antiquated. Why the hell do I have to enter quad split just to see my multi group angles? Why doesn’t Avid just open quad split when a multi group is loaded into the source monitor? And why do I have to enter another “mode” when switching angles in the sequence? Comparing Avid’s multi cam to FCPX or Premiere (and even FCP7 in some ways) and it’s clear to me which program I’d rather not use with a multi cam project.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

[Charlie Austin] “Then how the heck do you cut from, say 3 different multi clips, or do you just not use a “multi cam” edit style?”

Exactly, you don’t cut multi cam style. The multiclips are for convenience when more than two cameras roll on a take, but you group your scenes by take and by shot (wide, med, cu) and you’re looking for the best performances to make up the scene. Just as you say, there are numerous ways to do it, but that’s what has worked best for me.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

[Charlie Austin] “Really just curious, and this isn’t specifically FCP X related, really it’s a “how do feature editors deal with this kind of coverage”. Question.”

Typically feature editors only multi group simultaneous camera takes. So in your example, there would be a number of multiclips for each camera position. Possibly the multiclips would include all the takes from that position, but sometimes not.

However, FCPX’s multi cam feature is quite flexible, more so than other NLEs and Mark Spencer showed a workflow using the angle editor as a means to “sync” up multiple takes from multiple angles when the cameras weren’t shot simultaneously. Currently I’m cutting a music video which did 4 takes of one song using 3 cameras simultaneously. Placed in a single multiclip, I have 12 angles to choose from. I have to slip most of the shots a little to match the music, but it’s nice to have instant access to all the useful angles at a time.

The downside is that it tends to restrict you a little too. You start to miss things that can’t be found at the timecode you’re cutting from. For example, you’re cutting an OTS of one character and want to cut to a reax. However, the reverse shot doesn’t have a good reax at that point. You’ll sometimes forget to look at much earlier or later in the scene where the perfect reaction shot resides.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

[Michael Phillips] “I would add that old time, film editors would have no issue with a well designed, high performing UI design and interaction provided it did not interrupt the creative process”

[Michael Phillips] “SmartTools got a lot of kickback because it did interrupt that process and with a bit more clever design could have pleased both old cranky editors as well as all those “FCP” style editors who like to work differently.”

I’m gonna call BS on that one. The smart tool has absolutely no impact on the editing experience whatsoever unless you activate it so the traditional Avid editor could just ignore it. But they didn’t ignore it; they raised holy hell over it. They didn’t like what it signified even though there were lots of editors who wanted a more FCP approach to clip handling. If they’d truly implemented FCP grab and drag, you might have had a point because that really would have been a disruption of typical Avid editing, but instead, they timidly chose a tool design that was trying to please everyone and ended up pleasing few.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

[Craig Seeman] “FWIW I think the risk of offending the old guard has a bigger price for Avid. A portion of the old guard are dependent in ISIS and the like and people switching away from Avid means a lose of hardware sales and maintenance contracts.”

In my opinion, this is the perfect time for Avid to offend the old guard. What are they going to do? Jump ship from Avid? To what? Most of the people I work with on Avid would actually like to see some innovation from them. It’s just a few codgers who don’t want to change how they work, even if it makes them faster/better that are holding Avid up.

One of the biggest issues Avid has in my opinion is that they can’t decide whether they’re a software or hardware company. If they’re a hardware company, then why not make ISIS a compatible and workable solution for other NLEs? They could become the workflow innovators. ISIS could be in FCP shops and Premiere shops and Avid shops. Then they could make a profit and not tie their hardware success to a singular piece of software.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

[Oliver Peters] “At the end of the day, I’ll take reliability over features.”

I feel that Avid’s reliability is more based on reputation than actual working software. I’m working on it now and I have plenty of reliability issues. As close to as many as I have with X or Premiere.

AMA is and always has been glitchy. Buffer underruns are common. Hardware glitches are more apparent in 7 than in any version since 4. And even if I’m not crashing or getting errors right and left, it shows it’s age at every turn. I select a clip with audio scrubbing on and move it and the clip jumps back and forth for seconds before settling in the spot I want it to. If I turn off audio scrubbing, it works fine. You still can’t raise and lower clip volume with a keyboard shortcut from the timeline, nor nudge keyframes or any of the time saving things you can do in pretty much every other app. Animating stills with any sort of finesse is a nightmare. The list goes on; this is just what is currently bothering me today about it. Yesterday, the timeline disappeared from my monitor while I was in the middle of working. I had to jump out of my settings and back in to get it back. As far as I’m concerned, Avid reliability is a myth or at the very least, a thing of the past.

[Oliver Peters] “Whether there’s a true change in the works has yet to be proven.”

After 30+ years? I’d say the default position is that Avid will always remain as it is. If down the road they surprise us, then I’ll know that hell has frozen over and it’s time to take another look.

[Oliver Peters] “For editors who like Avid, there really is no compelling reason to change to another NLE.”

That’s the same argument for any NLE. But in Avid’s case, a small number of old film cutters with the ear of the company, resist any an all advancements in the way Avid works. There are tons of things that Avid could address in the UI alone to make it not feel so damn ancient, but old guard won’t allow it. Just look at the ridiculous ire that was spewed with Avid’s last major UI advance: the smart tool. I half-expected them to get rid of it after one version the way people cried about Avid being turned into FCP. Avid could use a little more FCP.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

Avid is just a constant source of disappointment. Their features list for new versions reads like technical bug fixes rather than significant additions to the software. And who gives a rats ass about 4K support when they can’t even get the little things right? They will forever be a one step forward/two step back company because they allow themselves to be held hostage by a small number of intractable and unimaginative editors who can’t be bothered to learn anything new. Say what you will about FCPX and Premiere (and now Resolve I suppose). They are not afraid to make significant changes to the way their programs operate.

But hey, at least I got an annoying little icon on my audio clips that can raise an lower the volume now.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

There is. You can use the “Publish” feature, but unless you check the check box that says, “Publish Final Cut Pro Generator”, it’s going to save it as a composition that doesn’t show up in FCPX.

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos

[Andy Neil]

Robin’s correct. Compositions are standalone Motion projects not connected to FCP. Just open the project and go to the file menu where you can publish it as a generator.

If, however, you made a title or effect project, you can just change the extension and place the project in the proper motion template folder (.moet for effect and .moti for title).

Andy

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107277729326633563425/videos