[Craig Seeman]

[Ben Hull] “amount of server space 50, 3.5 gig videos will use, as well as stream and download costs- hence wanting them as small as possible to try and keep the costs down.”

Ah, space and bandwidth considerations. If you can get away keeping things limited to 720 that could help. You may need to present a couple of different bitrates (and therefore sizes) and see what’s acceptable to him since he has to consider quality vs size vs cost in his case.

I haven’t had to do that in a while but when I did my workflow usually involved downloading a Vimeo and YouTube video at 720 and examining the specs. Then I’d use those specs to encode to show the client. Basically, these days, the typical viewer expects “YouTube” quality so that’s what I’d use as a guide.

I just downloaded a Netflix trailer from YouTube at 720 and I see.
H.264
Video Bitrate 1100kbps
Audio Bitrate 128kbps
Profile Main
Level 3.1

at 35 minutes that would be about 323MB but you may want to test at higher and lower bit rates so client can see impact on quality.

[Craig Seeman]

[Ben Hull] “35 gigs becomes 3.5 gigs, but it’s still far too big.”

Too big for what?
If it’s subjective it’s hard to give an objective answer.

That math for file size is basic middle school/high school math.

File size equals duration times bitrate.
Lower the bit rate lowers the file size.

Quality is another issue and that’s subjective.
As you lower the bitrate generally you’ll lower the quality.
Lowering the frame size can counteract that.
Basically it’s bits per pixel (frame size and frame rate are two important factors).

So what’s acceptable to your client is subjective. Without a specific use it’s hard to offer much in the way of detail.
YouTube and Vimeo have recommendations if that’s where they’re headed.

[Craig Seeman]

Seeing the tutorials in advance is good marketing IMHO. Getting an idea of how it might compare to Color Finale.

Looking forward to seeing some Scribeomatic tutorials to compare that to Digital Heaven’s SpeedScriber.

Looks like some very interesting stuff coming up over the next few weeks.

[Craig Seeman]

It’d be nice if they had a “Selected Show Order” command in the Browser so you could see and change the order. Since it is remembering the selection order there must be a way they can get to display it (one can hope).

[Craig Seeman]

If Vegas and PPro show the same issue perhaps it’s something about decoding the GOP structure that’s at issue.
Can you try converting it to DNxHR which is an iFrame codec?

[Craig Seeman]

[Oliver Peters] “But that’s letting you define yourself by the tools”

Although I do (mis?)remember a time when some referred to themselves as a “CMX editor” or and “Avid editor” specifically.

Of course the dominance of any one edit system over others is long gone. Although obviously some still dominant certain parts of the industry. Perhaps it’s more like Formula 1 racing is not NASCAR racing and I don’t think one wants to drive the other (my guess).

It may be that while one can know many tools some may be the master of one and that’s the one they want to drive. They simply wish the other would go away. With Avid apparently teetering on the edge of the abyss a few times that’s something some can taste which probably riles up the blood lust.

[Craig Seeman]

[Oliver Peters] “[Craig Seeman] “Basically it’s “die already Avid” so we can have those jobs without having to learn an NLE that’s designed for the ’90’s with a few bolt ons to stay technically viable.”

See, that’s an attitude that I simply can’t comprehend. That’s just the same as people saying “Apple, die already, so we can all use PCs, because they are better”. Seems like the same irrational sentiment.
“

It might be coming from animus but I do think there’s real workflow issues to contend with. Some people really don’t like MC/Symphony and would prefer not to have to learn it if they want to climb the broadcast/feature film ladder.

Regarding Apple, I think some don’t like being tied to Apple ProRes which creates ajada when you have to export to it on Windows or, having to deal with importing/exporting FCPXML in certain cross platform workflows. Perhaps there’s some annoyance also when one runs into one of those (few?) facilities that have gone FCPX and then being forced to learn it to work there.

I think it is rational when you can’t avoid something interfering with your work that you’d just wish would go away whether it’s Avid or Apple.

[Craig Seeman]

Yet many call Adobe Premiere Pro “Premiere” despite there being a previous and entirely different iteration by that name. Perhaps it’s not as significant since the previous iteration was never the professional tool that FCP legacy came to be.

[Craig Seeman]

As someone who was both an Avid editor and, later, a facility engineer during the first 12 years of Avid, I share a similar disdain for them.

For those who experienced the pain of their hardware and EOL decisions, keep in mind that, for many, this was at a time when the costs for making moves for a facility were exorbitant. These days, even though there’s still some pain involved, the cost of changing NLE or some aspects of infrastructure are trivial BY COMPARISON.

Avid shows little interest in expanding their MC base. Perhaps that’s be design since they’re really a hardware/storage/enterprise company these days.

I think some hoped that First might have been a move to expand their base. That’s not the case.
It may be a training tool to keep the MC talent pool from shrinking which could be a very serious problem given the small broadcast/film niche they serve.

If it were a tool to expand their base one might be able to upgrade to the paid version to finish a project. Not currently possible. It could be the tool where one begins to cut on and then moves to a facility to finish. Not currently possible. This might even upset facilities as people might do the meat of their editing “off site,” using facilities only as finishing locations. Dare not upset their niche (at the expense of expanding it).

Yes, they’ve mentioned future project compatibility but like so much else about Avid’s behavior, I’m skeptical about that actualization.

Personally I see First as a reactive move to avert the risk of talent pool lose by attrition. As younger editor grow up on Premiere Pro, FCPX and, in time, Resolve (if it progresses to that point as an NLE), the niche market may be willing to move. The move in NLEs may result in moves in infrastructure as well (which would hit Avid even harder).

While Adobe, Apple, Blackmagic, seem to be trying to expand their base, each with different motives and business models, Avid’s posture continues to be defensive.

Of course there’s no reason to have animus for a defensive company for anyone who uses other tools expect perhaps those who are primarily proficient on other NLEs seeking new opportunities has Avid base continues to erode relative to the entire professional market using video.

Basically it’s “die already Avid” so we can have those jobs without having to learn an NLE that’s designed for the ’90’s with a few bolt ons to stay technically viable.

[Craig Seeman]

[Joe Marler] “I can’t tell whether Media Composer One supports proxy mode but if it can’t do 4k there would be less need for this”

My understanding is that it can handle 4K sources (except DNxHR) in 1080 timelines.