Joe Moya
Forum Replies Created
-
[Walter Soyka] “Back to your original point, Andrew, I do think that compound clips (or nests, or precomps, or super-nodes, etc.) are an important construct. I also think that pervasive metadata is the single most important advancement in FCPX, because as we build more and more media, metadata becomes increasingly important in managing, sorting, and searching it.
I don’t think that compound clips/explicit relationships/metadata and spatial arrangement are mutually exclusive, though, and I’d certainly prefer a system that offered both.”
So… basically, the managment of video source material vs. the execution of editing the video source are actually two different factors that need to be considered when editing.
Where meta-data based managment may have advantages over a file based system… however… incorporating a pre-defined editing timeline structure only limits the abilities of the editor (and creativity of molding the final edit).
Sort of a “stand-up comic routine” vs. “improvisational comic routine” work flow. Where FCPX is good for an established comedy routine but not so much for improvisational comedy. Unfortunately, I can not think of many instances where editing isn’t a case of where it is both improvisational and routine.
Your analysis is interesting… obviously not something the developers at Apple gave much thought.
-
At this point, I can’t see FCPX being an editing application that would even be considered by any Hollywood studio…and, I do not seeing FCPX being considered for some time.
AVID will probably become the choice for most professional editing environments…BUT…no doubt ADOBE’s Production Suite has it’s distinct advantages in terms of similarity to FCP.
The best tact is to learn to use both… and, pick the editing application that is best suited for the project in question. In essense, there is no “best” choice…only the choice that meets the need. Both AVID and ADOBE have distinct advantages and distadvantages when you compare the two. As for FCPX, the comparison to AVID or ADOBE is rather simple (no matter the cost comparison)…FCPX is an inferior editing application at this time and there is no estimated time line that can determined if (or when) it will meet the professional level editing needs.
-
let’s see…
they want a professional editor to work for free AND
who also “likes FCPX”……there not asking for much… are they?
Personally, I think the “likes FCPX” is the biggest wall to climb…
-
if you post here…
https://community.avid.com/forums/34.aspx
that is a VERY active AVID forum that might add to the creative cow information
-
The only thing I might add to this post is…
Here is a link that has more specific infromation for a FCP to AVID migration.
-
In FCPX’s current state… it does not have the level of editing capability as compared to AVID or PPro.
The only real way to know if AVID is what you want is to download a trial copy and try it out… same is true for Adobe PPro.
What you have is a migration decision. And… if FCPx is as easy to learn (verdict still out) as Apple claims… then, you should have no problem going back to FCPx in the future is AVID or PPro turns out to not work for you. However, I seriously doubt that will be an issue with either PPro or AVID. Either will most likely work since all three (AVID, ADOBE and FCP)are cousin-like in the overall workflow process of editing.
Learning AVID will give you certain advantages when it comes to using it on a “Hollywood” or “TV” level of editing. While Adobe’s PPro Production package is definately a work horse of the CG/compositing industry.
AVID is good… and adaptable… but, it is also the most different in it’s UI when compared to FCP…so, the learning curve may be a bit higher than if you were to move to Adobe. If you are looking for an editing application that is comparible to FCP – either Adobe’s PPro or AVID’s MC5 will work.
AVID’s key advantages are powerful abililies, stability and flexibility. It’s key disadvantage (sorta’) is that it’s user interface has the least common ground with FCP. While Adobe’s key advantages is it’s flexibility in working well with CG, graphics, compositing and text creation. Adobe PPro has the most common user interface similarity with FCP resulting in a lower learning curve.
Perhaps instead of think about migrating to a new editing application as “jumping ship”… you should probably consider it an opportunity (specially when you look at the unbeleiveable low prices being offered) to broaden your skills and making yourself more marketable or prepared for new business.
In a nutshell… perhaps it is good to look at it as if… you didn’t leave FCP… FCP and Apple left you. And the change will not be a negative but a positive in the long run.
-
You do not need to rely on Cineform to be able to work effectively with ADOBE or AVID. I prefer to use Cineform because it keeps things simple for me (specially if I am having to edit with multiple file formats).
DNxHD will work fine between the two – ADOBE or AVID… and, is similar to ProRes that FCP prefers to use. But… you can also work natively with either Adobe or AVID (i.e., …not use DNxHD or Cineform)…but, I don’t typically recommend this if the editing project is the least bit complex, HD video or long. Whether or not working in a native HD codec is feasable depends upon your hardware capabilities and less about software.
In a perfect world, if you are editing HD material…you will prefer to work off-line and/or proxy format that is lower rez… note: the term off-line and proxy are terms that are used differently between Adobe and AVID…so, when you decide to establish a proxy/off-line process in your workflow…you might want to post at either ADOBE or AVID’s forums and get some insight and details.
No matter what video format you will decide to use… there will be a certain degree of learning as to how to apply it to your current workflow. But…neither ADOBE or AVID will likely give the kind of grief FCPX will likely cause. And… I am not picking on FCPX… I would say this about ANY ver. 1.0 editing application.
-
Well… for starters… (if my memory is correct) exporting formats are limited if using FPCX. And,…(most importantly) …that seems like an expensive application to buy/use only for capturing HDV video.
-
Adobe Media Emcoder will do what you want…and does it quite well.
As for a file codec exclusive for Adobe like ProRes or DNxHD… then, No… Adobe doesn’t have it’s own file format…
BUT… Cineforms Neoscene is a file format application that you should consider. Cineform video file format is highly effective in matching ProRes and DNxHD in ease of use but will uprez any 8bit to 10bit. Cineform codec is interchangeable between FCP and AVID… it is a very Universal-like file format that improves quality and stability (…not to infer that ProRes or DNxHD are unstable).
I’ve used Cineform, ProRes and DNxHD and found that while there are some small differences when it comes to using in most editing workflows…in general… all three are very good file codecs (…to bad ProRes is history and thank goodness I used Cineform as my primary video file of choice for editing).
-
Here is the goto site for tutorials and help for AVID… much like Adobe and FCP sites… there are some exceptional forum moderators that can answer just about any question you can think of and solve just about any problem. There is also a long list of free tutorials -some for beginners and some for advanced.