[Tiborius]

I have recently started work on FCP, coming from Avid.
There are lots of things I love about FCP, but then there are basics that are poor (color grading is a joke, why is the sync-lock always on?, insert and overwrite edit jumps controls to the timeline away from your clip, difficult filter and motion tabs).

Apple obviously is working on these issues, and I was delighted when they came out with ‘color’ just as I start to train on FCS.

But after a wee play I was disappointed that ‘color’ is not integrated into FCP.

Personally I don’t mind ‘motion’ not being inside FCP, and ‘live type’ works O.K as an external app (although it would be better as a tab of FCP),
but color grading is something that needs to be done inside your suite.
It is only done in an external suite in a very expensive workflow (TVCs or Film), and then it would be done in an expensive suite, not a pro-sumer edit system.

I really like being able to color grade as i go, fixing shots for the offline edit, so the approvals process goes more smoothly.
If I use the ’round trip’ approach I have to trash all my early test grades in FCP (which are impossible to find as they get lost between other ‘filters’ you apply, don’t get me started about hidden filters!), I don’t get to color grade graphics, and to add further insult, it can’t do anamorphic!

As smart as it is, and revolutionary in many aspects, it still feels like I have paid to beta test an unfinished bit of kit; note how anamorphic images stretch when capturing, and trimming, and in color e.t.c.

I will continue to use Final Cut, but will also keep working with Avids for certain jobs that require it.
The best option is sadly to constantly mail, and talk on Apples forums about fixes and ‘enhancements’ to get Final Cut up to spec in a few years time to really be an unbeatable kit.

I do like it, and enjoy the fresh ideas and techniques used in FCP, but it is a pro-sumer kit price-wise and in it’s workings.

[Tiborius]

Hi,

I too am just switching to FCP; from avid.
I am really annoyed at the way ALL tracks are somehow sync-locked.

Say I have cut Interviews on V1 and A1&A2,

Next I drop a few cutaways only on V2 (I like to keep it separate till the final cut)
I watch my sequence and want to cut a piece out of the cutaways track; ONLY the cutaways track, the IV is fine.
So I find the point I want gone, mark in and out, I make sure that only V2 is selected (or “auto selected” in FCP).
I then hit the ripple delete…….. but a blank space appears?!
It should RIPPLE DELETE right?
But for some unknown reason FCP decides that the other tracks are sync-locked?

I have turned off “linked selection”.

It works if I lock the other tracks, but that is a pain as in FCP I would have to lock the audio tracks first, then the other video tracks (why can’t we just “lock all but current track”?).

Why have an ‘auto select’ and the ability to turn off ‘linked selection’ if can not ‘ripple delete’?

There must be a way to turn off sync-lock?
Avid has it clearly in the timeline, and I have it always turned off.

Please help here as this seems to be the only really terrible ‘feature’ of FCP.

Tiborius

[Tiborius]

Hi,

I am a new editor to FCP, but have worked on all Avid systems for years.
Finally I have decide to set up an FCP system and see what all the fuss is about.
I have committed to a 4 moth multi part project on this system.

So I got the latest macpro, and Prostudio 2.
When using it I realised I needed something comparable to a MOJO, or IO hardware.
After talking to my hardware suppliers I was down to two choices, the KONA LHE, or the Blackmagic HDExtreme.

And here I ended up after a google search on comparisons.

Frankly I am not convinced that the Kona is just a more expensive peice of kit, that does no more; in fact as dr said:

“The Black Magic HD box allows
not only digital IO but also analog where you need extra boxes and converters
to do that with KONA 3.”

so far Black magic sounds better.
I have read that the customer service is better with the Kona, but then I live in New Zealand and customer service is always slow, and so I guess it will be less of an issue.

So now a blow by blow analysis os what I found here:

Shane said:
“The advantage that AJA has is: a) Tech Support is killer, b)They work VERY CLOSELY with Apple, so their products integrate very well.”
So the AJA card is solely built for FCP?
If so then I would assume that it would work smoother, although FCP is built to smoothly take other hardware and be resolution independent; that’s the main advantage of FCP?

“Decklink was BAD at one point…getting a hold of tech support impossible. They are getting better, but AJA has always been there.”
FCP was bad at one point, Avid was bad many times, most companies and software/hardware has had one or more bad times, but most get up and fix those issues.

Gary Adcock said:
I believe all Leaders in this forum all use Kona Cards for their main stations, even when other solutions are available in their edit suites. There is reason that, avid, discreet and others rely on AJA hardware to make their NLE systems better.

Shane said:
“All the leaders just happen to own AJA products, so that is what we have more experience with, so that is the first recommendation out of our mouth. ”

Walter ads:
“I think every single NLE except Quantel uses AJA now and it’s possible they use it as well. Obviously there’s a reason why these companies have all gone to AJA for their capture boards. They’re reliable and a proven broadcast quality product.”

Gary said:
“But think about what you said about “what makes AJA better” we are talking about the the same hardware from AJA in Avid’s 4:4:4 solution and inside of industry leading hardware solutions like Flame, Inferno and Smoke and that hardware is available for FCP.

The bigger questionto me would be: If there is not much difference between the cards why do all of those companies use Aja’s (albeit more expensive) hardware and not BMD’s”

Maybe they are more flexible to big companies, or make cheap deals and charge more to direct consumers?
Maybe they make better hardware solely for those companies?
Maybe they spend all their real Development money on those systems and then strip it down and make a quick digital only version for FCP?

Personally I am seeing Avid hardware get worse (well anything is better then their meridian hardware I must admit). One of the main reasons I am testing FCP is exactly because I have heard and experienced Avids not working well with HD, and having lots of hardware issues. So In that light I am not so sold on a “well Avid uses them so they must be good”; in that case buy an avid if you want to spend up large and get snobbish over which is most used.

Walter said:
“Look at high profile events like the Super Bowl, World Series, Nascar and look at which card is being used to cut at those events.”

It seams to me that there is some kind of snobbery of systems. As if ALL the top editors use a Kona, ALL the best productions use a Kona.
Well in that case we should all go to Avid systems to edit, and inferno to composite as they have done MUCH more and used by many more.
It isn’t an issue of who loves who the most, it should be what ACTUAL experience people have.

It sounds like some need to justify the expense, like buying a European car and saying that just because it is “European” and you paid more.
I don’t mean to get anyone up in arms, but it’s O.K to say “I only have a KONA and am totally happy”, it is just ignorant to say “well everyone else has one, so it must be good”; in that case buy a PC, by an Avid, shoot DVCAM or maybe VHS?

So on to the only real comparison:

jeremy said:
I have used both and for me, my Kona2 and Kona3X has been invisible, which is good. If the card becomes visible, there’s something wrong.

Well my old Avid XpressPro is a different beast, and tells me so, when it has a MOJO attached. I believe visibility of a card isn’t something wrong. How do you define it as being wrong?
Does it slow the system, or demand a new workflow (that is to say a dramatically different workflow?).

David said:
Warmer, audio, better support, faster driver updates are just a few of the reason that I prefer Kona.

Faster driver updates sounds like a good point!
How often do they update?
I know that in the past on systems I have owned they get stuck with a particular OS, and can never be updated at at all or change as the edit ware and hardware don’t update.
If Kona keeps up drivers with the latest software and OS updates that sounds really good.
Anyone know of how BM goes with updates?

How is the audio warmer?
Is this a monitor thing? Or is it actually capturing audio better?

I send all my work out to get audio mixed so monitoring doesn’t need to be perfect.

Now, are there any BM users out there who haven’t been scared off by the “Big Editors” who sound like they look down on those who don’t follow them.

Tibor