Michael Hancock
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ” And is that an option with Avid? No?”
Yes, you can export an OP-1A .mxf from Avid. But Avid media is OP-Atom.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Isn’t that what the release alludes to?”
Release of the Hyperdeck? No, that’s Avid MXF acquisition for direct-to-edit (like KiPro with ProRes). MC6 release and new openness? No, that’s open to third party hardware and reading more acquisition formats natively. Buy Avid if you need to read Avid media, or install the trial.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Avid would do well to open this up if we are entering the age of DNxHD. “
DNxHD is the codec. What you seem to be talking about is the “age of MXF”. I’ve never had .mxf as a delivery requirement – if I did, I buy the software I needed to do it.
[Jeremy Garchow] “If I am entering the age of DNxHD and I am not going to buy an Avid, I can’t do this and I don’t have a way to wrap to MXF whatever the pattern, using QT can be funky. I’d rather use hardware, and I’d rather be able to deliver what is required. If dnxhd movs are easier, why is it so hard without an Avid?”
If you’re talking about wrapping Avid MXF files to a Quicktime for delivery, buy the Avid software and be done with it. I had to buy decoders for Quicktimes that were delivered in proprietary codecs – it’s the cost of doing business. If a hard drive was delivered with .mxf files from an Avid I’d buy the software or install the trial (likely just install the trial) and get the job done. It’s a simple solution.
If you’re talking about making Quicktime files encoded to DNxHD – download the codecs and make them. That’s even easier.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Jeremy Garchow] “I know you don’t believe me Michael but I know the difference in codecs and containers”
I know you know the difference. In the case of the Hyperdeck, though, it’s an acquisition container and it sounds like its specifically for Avid (or uncompressed Quicktime for the rest of the world). If it’s Avid specific it’s likely not OP-1A, but OP-Atom. So that’s not a deliverable MXF container that I’m aware of. Broadcasters would want OP-1A with audio and video interleaved into one file, right?
[Jeremy Garchow] “If Ben had a hyperdeck/FCP and a capture card, he could record his project to a DNxHD MXF. “
That would mean he loads his sequence in FCP, patches his output card to the deck, fires the deck up and does a tape type layoff while the deck does a realtime transcode and rewrap to DNxHD MXF – then he’d have to pull the SSD from the hyperdeck and pop it into his system and transfer the MXF off (the audio and video would probably be separate since it’s Avid style MXF), then upload those MXF files to whoever gets the final deliverable, where they would run it through a system to cache it into their playback system.
Wouldn’t a File–Export DNxHD Quicktime be better?
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
Nope. Is there something I missing about its delivery? Sounds like it requires specific codecs – I couldn’t find any delivery requirements on their website.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Jeremy Garchow] “No. Dude. MXF to Adstream, and the resulting response. “
DNxHD = codec.
MXF – container.
Post you’re referring to: [Ben Scott] “shame ad stream wont accept MXF yet but does prores”
Already talking about two different things here. Prores – codec. MXF – container. Avid can create a ProRes MXF now, but that still wouldn’t be accepted because Adstream doesn’t accept MXF (even though they accept ProRes).
Ad Stream response: [Craig RussillRoy] “I have been at Adstream for 10 years now and we have seen a lot of codecs come and go…”
[Craig RussillRoy] “I am always keen to test technologies, but on the other hand we need to rope in all the codecs we accept or our tech specs would be 1000s of pages !”Specifically says they can’t accept all codecs. Miscommunication is happening here, because: MXF – not a codec. You said you got that, but you’re still talking like MXF is a delivery codec. It’s not.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Nevermind. Avid is holy. Remind me not to take it to task on an FCP debate forum.”
Take it task all you want, but take it to task for something sensible. Saying Avid should restructure what container they capture to/transcode to because you don’t want to buy their software is kind of silly, isn’t it? I bought calibrated decoders to read DVCProHD Quicktimes on a PC because Apple wasn’t playing nice with PCs and codec support in Quicktime. Problem = solved.
As a matter of fact, I had to read Avid media a few weeks ago so I downloaded the trial and exported Quicktimes. It wasn’t an issue.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Hmm, I thought this whole thing started when talking about an MXF DNxHD deliverable. I’d invite you start at the top of the thread.”
The top of this thread is for a recording device that captures to Avid’s MXF format. That’s an acquisition, not a deliverable. If you don’t know what system you’re going to be delivering your footage to, ask. Or shoot to Quicktime – Avid handles that natively too. For a DNxHD deliverable, that’s a Quicktime.
The difference is you’re calling the acquisition format a deliverable because it might get “delivered” to you.
[Jeremy Garchow] ” And the marketing team. At least I know what I am getting in to when I deal with Apple.”
Like you got Mix and Match frame rates on the FCP7 timeline, but it did it wrong? C’mon – Apple is hardly the bastion of truthful marketing.
[Jeremy Garchow] “From Avid’s website: “An open platform that enables you to work with everything you want and integrate into any workflow.””
Yeah. Buy an Avid and it will integrate into any workflow. 3rd party hardware? Accepted (not all of them, but almost all modern cards). Acquisition formats – AVCHD, XDCam, P2, Quicktime (including ProRes), r3d, etc… reads them natively. Export a Quicktime from Avid, like to Quicktime’s using AMA or import/transcode for rock-solid media management.
If you read that to mean that you can take Avid’s MXF files and open them in Word, then I can’t help you. But if you buy Avid – it’s open to integration with other apps, and in most cases it does it really well.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Danielle Warren] “I really don’t believe that with so many users and a huge industry built around the software that they’re just going to let it disappear. I have to think that there’s more to come from Apple.”
There’s FCPX from Apple. There is absolutely nothing more coming from FCP7. DVDSP is EOL, Color is EOL, FCP7 is EOL, I believe Soundtrack Pro is EOL. All that remains is FCPX, Motion, and Compressor, and they’re all sold separately.
[Danielle Warren] “How is it dated exactly?”
Can’t read P2 footage natively. Can’t read XDCam native. Can’t read AVCHD. Can’t play DSLR natively. Can’t read Red natively. Requires way too much rendering compared to the other NLEs out there. Hasn’t had a significant update in about 4 years. The list goes on and on.
[Danielle Warren] ” It feels like after the negative response they received from FCPXs release, they will probably go back to then update 7 instead.”
That isn’t going to happen. The Final Cut Studio you know is dead, in the ground, and turning to dust. Apple is not bringing it back to life. Their replacement is FCPX, end of story.
[Danielle Warren] “Again, different NLE programs work for different projects. In work I do, FCP is better and less expensive to use since nothing is done online. It just doesn’t make sense for big companies to switch something after years of using one system. Most of those editors don’t know Avid either.”
Most post houses were Avid and switched to FCP. If the FCP editors don’t know Avid but the post houses switch back (and they are), the FCP editors will be out of a job. It’s a lot easier to find a seasoned Avid editor than FCP editor, because most Avid editors had to learn FCP when things shifted that way. Now they’re shifting back, they’re in a better position than the FCP only editors.
[Danielle Warren] “But I still want to know Avid just to know it, but I cringe at the idea of ONLY using that. Even the way it’s laid out, the icons, the buttons etc. seems awful to me, lol!”
Learn Premiere too, you might even want to learn FCPX. Then you can choose the right tool for the job.
Regarding the interface – I love the Avid interface because of its simplicity and bare bones design. I despise the Adobe interface and the FCP interface drives me up the wall. But I use them.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Danielle Warren] “I also forgot to mention when I wrote the post that the reason the client gave me for wanting to switch to using Avid is because he thinks that FCP will no longer be updated, version 7 at least as that’s still what a lot of people are using including he and myself. I haven’t looked, but apparently you can’t buy it from Apple anymore, you can only buy X. “
FCP7 is dead. It’s replacement is FCPX and it doesn’t do most of what 7 did, hence the reason to look at other NLE options.
[Danielle Warren] “What do you guys think about this? Is that really a valid reason?”
Yes. FCP7 is incredibly dated already, and every release from Adobe and Avid leaves it further and further behind. When new acquisition formats are released by Panasonic or Canon or Sony, FCP7 won’t be updated to accept them (FCPX probably will). It’s days are numbered and it’s now an unsupported platform. I wouldn’t trust my business to it any longer than I had to.
I started on Avid, worked on Media 100 and Edius for a while, I’m now on FCP, at the turn of the year we’re going to Adobe. If I do freelance at home I’ll use Avid. I doubt I’ll ever use FCPX. Software comes and goes sometimes, best to get comfortable on a least two of them (I’d recommend Avid and Adobe right now).
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Jeremy Garchow] “We are talking about ProRes and DNxHD as deliverables. “
Quicktime files. That’s the deliverable.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Unless you want to talk about other codecs?”
You have an issue with Avid’s MXF format. Shane is pointing out Apple’s proprietary codecs with FCP. Same issue.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Danielle Warren] “For example, I almost never use trim. I never find much use for it, so why would I use it so often just because I’m cutting in Avid?”
Because it works so well. In FCP, Premiere, Edius, etc…the trim modes left much to be desired. In Avid, it gives you the ultimate control over very minute changes to your edit. You can see the outgoing frame of the previous cut, the incoming frame your trimming, the outgoing frame of that clip and the incoming frame of the next clip. I didn’t use trim for my first year on Avid – once I discovered it and really started getting comfortable with it I used it more than anything else. I’m at a FCP shop now and it’s the number one thing I miss.
[Danielle Warren] “I want to try and learn with an open mind, but what hampers me is that it’s taken me years to become as proficient and fast with FCP as I am (and I’m always learning new things as well), and I’m worried it will take me that long again to get knowledgeable AND quick, because as we know from clients’ demands, you have to be fast with deadlines.
“Just keep working at it, and customize your keyboard. I’d estimate that 90%+ of your day-to-day editing activities can be done using only the keyboard, and once you master it and map it so it makes sense to you you’ll be flying in no time. Just keep plugging away at it and watch those tutorials. They’ll get you up to speed pretty quickly.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Jeremy Garchow] “I get it, but not everyone will. MXF on a Mac is not easy or cheap. Avid could make that easier of they want to be “open” is all I’m saying.”
Who cares if if’s not easy or cheap? In another thread you said if someone needed to encode to ProRes on Windows they could buy Episode Engine for $4,000. I quote, “I’m just saying, if you need it, it’s there.”
See here: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/20368
So if you need read an Avid MXF, buy Avid. If you need it, it’s there and it’s a whole lot cheaper than ProRes encoding on Windows. Bit of a double standard to expect Avid to be more “open” regarding MXF but it’s cool to limit ProRes encoding to Mac.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor