There is an important difference between firms who has a history of primary selling to business, such as Avid, compare to firms selling primary to consumers, such as the other A:s.

I just got this clear today. I am searching for a ethernet harddisk storages and found one from Intel. I download Intels product documentation and there was a long list of parts they have tested the equipment with. They know their customers relies on their products to get food home.

Avid has the same aproach. The certify systems and the long readmes and bi monthly updated software tell the same language.

And of course, Avid know I can not go to the customer an tell them, "I much charge You five days work for replacing the old CEO with the new on Your promotional video, because We have upgrade our NLE to a newer version and it can not read the older projects so we have to reedit the entire video".

m2dpost:

My Adrenaline HD system has been making me a decent living for the last 3 years and my AVBV and Meridien systems made me good money for the years before that. I really don't want to switch to a new app. However, I have resigned myself to the fact that if no major advancements in the area of application integration happen in the near future that is what I will be doing.

Strange argument!. you buy AVBV system at probably $100k and it makes you a good living for years. Then Meridian at probably $60+ makes you a good living for years, AdrenalineHD at $35K makes you a decent living for 3 years and you could probably use it for at least another 3 years at minimal cost. Nitris DX is offered at $13K with significant improvements (if you believe the publicity) and you are considering changing apps.

I would be willing to bet after your first job on a different system you will find the touted "integration" in it to be mainly lip service and as long as your pride does not get in your way you will cut your losses and rejoin the flow.   FWIW been there done that.

 Raspago - Yep I agree, I'm reading this thread and there's obviously a wide range of users out there, but for those who really think Avid is not a good value, then move on and be done with it. If you can't afford $10,000 for an editing application and some I/O hardware, then get out of the business. So you get a 4 year loan for your gear, $10,000 at 8% is $244 a month!

In fact the NitrisDX price is stunning. I'd like to know what everybody is charging as a point of reference when they start to whine about prices. We charge $225 hr US for Adrenaline HD and $185 US for Discreet and FCP. Our Discreet boxes were discontinued many years ago and are still making money. (In fact we have 2 Adrenaline, 1 FCP and 3 Edits, and 70% of our work is still done on Edits because they are sooo fast, clients love 'em, but they're dying because they can't do HD. In fact, other than the EFX plug-ins, sub clips and loading bins across machines, I see almost no advantage of MCA over Edit... but I've only used MCA for a year so I'm still learning.). So I imagine a good editor could still get many years of use out of their Adrenalines or Mojos.

And like someone said, look at the price of P2 cards... I see a lot of entry level folks using P2 and I just don't get it, if they can buy a few P2 cards, why can't they buy an editing application that will have many years of use.

I think Avid did a great job at NAB, it was really great to see the company moving forward and jazzed about their new products. They really don't deserve so much abuse on these boards. They aren't subsidized by their iTunes store.  Apple would have shut this whole discussion down many days ago.

 

Raspago - Yep I agree, I'm reading this thread and there's obviously a wide range of users out there, but for those who really think Avid is not a good value, then move on and be done with it. If you can't afford $10,000 for an editing application and some I/O hardware, then get out of the business. So you get a 4 year loan for your gear, $10,000 at 8% is $244 a month!

.- Of course.

And I'd like to know how many people in this forum actually own an HDCAM deck or a Sony professional grade HD monitor.

And OH, YEAH! I'm whining, but NOT FOR THE PRICE.

I'm whining because Avid's offerings didn't fulfil what I needed. But not precisely because of the price.

I've been trying to make my point clearer, some people have agreed with me though.

As I long time FCP user, I prefer to pay more for an Avid. Is that bad.

raspago:

but the differences between the 2 systems are small and will only get smaller.

.- Nope.

First of all, FCP hasn't changed significantly since version 2.

And the differences are not "small" diffences.

For example:

The Avid has excellent media management.

FCP doesn't even have ANY media management.

There is a lot more BIG differences between those Apps but this is not the place and time.

Do  a search, there is plenty of threads about this matter.

And Avid hasn't changed significantly in 10 years.  Look at the interface.  The exact same.  Look at the archaic way it handles video and audio effects.  The exact same.  Look at the grossly outdated title tool.  The exact same.  The list goes on.  Yes it's added new features like script sync, but Final cut also adds features.  Yes it adds supports for new formats, but so does Final Cut (and usually beats Avid to it by a landslide).

I think everyone here gets the fact that you don't like Final Cut.  You beat it into our heads every opportunity you get.  But that doesn't change the fact that it is obviously a viable solution for professional work as there are many professional facilities out there using it to great success, as well as the fact that Final Cut keeps gaining more and more marketshare every day, whereas Avid is constantly dwindling.

I read a couple posts up something about someone saying that the price difference could possibly be justified because of things like a more elegant editing interface and better media management.  Yes, Avid has things that Final Cut doesn't.  But it works the other way around.  What do I get for spending twice for Avid than I do Final Cut.  Basically just an editing application.  With Final Cut you get DVD authoring, graphics creations, sound creations, professional grade color correction...all to go along with editing (which DOES work, and for many people, despite your feelings on it).  If I want even a portion of those things, I'd have to spend the equivalent of Final Cut Studio just to get some of them...and then what do I even get for that?  An extremely crippled 3D application, that I've read on these forums has been even more crippled as the releases got newer....a DVD application that the majority of people here seem to have a hard time getting to work properly half the time...and an FX package that is probably the best part of it all, but still seems to me at least to lag way behind something like After Effects.  And all of these which don't even integrate with each other as well (except for maybe FX).

So while you may get some things with Avid that is lacking in Final Cut, does that necessarily justify the price difference.  To me, no, because again, FCP has a hell of a lot of things Avid doesn't just the same.  I don't know where Avid's thinking is when it comes up with what justifies something to be more expensive.  Should Symphony be more expensive than Media Composer?  Sure.  It has more.  But does it have $20,000 more?  Please.  That's a joke.  Who was the brain that came up with secondary color correction costing that much?  Does the Mojo DX have benefits over AJA or Blackmagic?   Maybe (although the reverse is also certainly true).  So even not taking into account what something like AJA has better than Mojo DX, does what Mojo DX have over AJA justify the several thousands of dollars increase?

I guess that's the whole point to this long post.  Avid, while it does have advantages over the competition, needs to realize that the competition has several advantages over it as well.  They need to not ignore that and turn around and think that it's advantages justify a price tag that is several thousands more in both areas of software and hardware.

JVR:

the reality is that for less outlay you get more whether they may take longer or it's not as stable people still go the way of the bargain and it gets the job done.

Money Talks...

I do not know any editor who relies on an edit system for their income that would agree with you. The purchase price difference is now less than 3 days charge out rate. The last 30 day FCS job that came through here cost the Editor 8 days extra in the offline. (fixed price offline contract)  It also cost the client extra as the subsequent post services had to double shift to meet a fixed deadline.

So yes money talks. Income over cost of ownership (not the purchase price) for the earning lifespan of the equipment.  Incidentally that Award winning editor, who works from home, is now scrambling to get back to a fast, productive and reliable system.

raspago chalk this poster up for owning HDCAM deck and monitor. The real cost of being in the HD market

Bottom line:

If you can't pay $ 10,000.oo for a VERY GOOD NLE, obviously you can't pay $ 60,000.00 for an HDCAM Camera (4:2:2) $ 100,000.00 for an HDCAM 4:4:4 deck, 51,000.00 for a Middle level HDCAM deck (4:2:2) and $ 40,000.00 for a true HD monitor.

And you can't amortize HD production.

Why are you whining?

AndrewAction:

JVR:

the reality is that for less outlay you get more whether they may take longer or it's not as stable people still go the way of the bargain and it gets the job done.

Money Talks...

I do not know any editor who relies on an edit system for their income that would agree with you. The purchase price difference is now less than 3 days charge out rate. The last 30 day FCS job that came through here cost the Editor 8 days extra in the offline. (fixed price offline contract)  It also cost the client extra as the subsequent post services had to double shift to meet a fixed deadline.

So yes money talks. Income over cost of ownership (not the purchase price) for the earning lifespan of the equipment.  Incidentally that Award winning editor, who works from home, is now crambling to get back to a fast, productive and reliable system.

Anybody can come up with a story like.  "FCP cost us days worth of work.  That justifies spending more for Avid!  Blah blah blah!"

Just two weeks ago we had someone bring in 35mb XDCam footage.  Guess what, we got screwed on time because Avid doesn't support it.  Low and behold, Final Cut does!

Again, like I just addressed in my last post....the few people on these boards that use Final Cut that seem to think it's incredibly inferior and all it does is lose you valuable time are obviously in the minority compared to those who somehow get it all to magically work and work smoothly.

raspago:

Bottom line:

If you can't pay $ 10,000.oo for a VERY GOOD NLE, obviously you can't pay $ 60,000.00 for an HDCAM Camera (4:2:2) $ 100,000.00 for an HDCAM 4:4:4 deck, 51,000.00 for a Middle level HDCAM deck (4:2:2) and $ 40,000.00 for a true HD monitor.

And you can't amortize HD production.

Why are you whining?

So because I can pay $40,000 for a car, that means I shouldn't mind getting ripped off at a dealership and pay $3,000 on a GPS system for it that I can get for a fraction of that cost elsewhere?  Or any of the other addons that you'd have to pay through the nose for?

Sandman ...right on, so those who don't like MCA, or Avid's pricing policies should go get FCP, Premeire or Vegas and leave it at that. In the HD world both MCA and FCP are render pigs. FCP/Adobe CS3 offers a lot of bang for the buck at an amazingly low price point... no doubt. And you're right about Avid's old kernal, for my 2 cents, or $20,000, I think Avid should start over and write it's code from the ground up. Lots of editors like the familiarity of MCA, so maybe change isn't needed. But if the market will only let them sell it for FCP/CS3 prices, I doubt that would make sense for them to re-code from the ground up. And yes, the titler in MCA is crap and it continues to amaze me they shun a decent character generator ability.

And Avid hasn't changed significantly in 10 years. 

.- I can guess you don't know Avid very well.

Look at the interface.  The exact same.  Look at the archaic way it handles video and audio effects.  The exact same.

.- AVX2? Have you heard of it?

FCP remains exatly the same as version 1. And is absolutely crappy.

O (zero) advance.

  Look at the grossly outdated title tool. 

.- Which , BTW, is still better than the ridiculously crappy built in title tool on FCS, which BTW hasn't changed a bit since FCP version 1.

And Avid has another built in titler: The Marquee, which is very good.

OH yeah! Livetype!  Still crappy and is not a built in titler but a differen app.

Yes it's added new features like script sync, but Final cut also adds features. 

.- FCP has added new APPS (Color, DVD studio pro, etc) to the suite, but features to the editor itself , FCP?

It has remained almost unchanged.

Yes it adds supports for new formats, but so does Final Cut (and usually beats Avid to it by a landslide).

Not new formats but new codecs.

FCP (Like it's Twin, Premiere Pro) is resolution independent, so the format depends on the hardware or codec you add.

But still there is no logic Offline/online workflow on FCP.

There is still the unacceptable TGA sequence handling on FCP.

And there is still no media management AT ALL.

Still There is no acceptable trimming on FCP.

Still there is no individual monitoring of layer without loosing the rendering.

Still the endless rendering.

Among other things.

So what's the advance, other than a cheaper price?

So because I can pay $40,000 for a car,

.- Why pay for $ 40,000,.00 for a car if you can find another for $ 7,000.00?

that means I shouldn't mind getting ripped off at a dealership and pay $3,000

.- But you wouldn't buy a $ 30.oo GPS either.

If the $ 3,000,00 GPS worth it and is gonna make you money efficiently, then is not a ripoff.

If you need it and suits your needs moch better than a cheaper GPS, then is not a ripoff.

And a $ 50,000.00 GPS would be the equivalent to a SMOKE or an Alacrity.

And people actually buy them.

But what if the $ 50,000.00 GPS really worth it??

And is gonna make you money?

The only problem is that you really think $ 10,000, oo is a big amount.

For us little guys, a Learjet seems to be an unnecessary and outrageous luxury.

But there is actually people who NEEDS a Learjet and make them a lot of money.

There is people who would pay anything to get the job done.

on a GPS system for it that I can get for a fraction of that cost elsewhere? 

.- Well, first of all there is only one Avid.

So you won't find another cheaper Avid elsewhere but another different solutions,

But, remember,  you get what you pay for.

And yes, the titler in MCA is crap and it continues to amaze me they shun a decent character generator ability.

.- The titler in MCA (Which one, BTW?) may be outdated, I can give you that.

But for simple titling needs it works perfectly. Because this is the purpose of the Avid built in  titler:

Simple Titling.

If I need something better or more complex I use Avid's Marquee (the other built in titler), Combustion, After effects or Hyeroglyph.

NOW

If you wanna see 100% FDA approved absolute crap, take a look at the FCP built in titler.

It's simply embarrassing.

The outdated MCA titler looks like a $ 500,000.00 Chyron compared to the FCP's built in titler.

Really amazes me how an FCP user can criticize another titler.

Not only the MCA one, ANY other.

raspago:

And Avid hasn't changed significantly in 10 years. 

.- I can guess you don't know Avid very well.

Look at the interface.  The exact same.  Look at the archaic way it handles video and audio effects.  The exact same.

.- AVX2? Have you heard of it?

FCP remains exatly the same as version 1. And is absolutely crappy.

O (zero) advance.

  Look at the grossly outdated title tool. 

.- Which , BTW, is still better than the ridiculously crappy built in title tool on FCS, which BTW hasn't changed a bit since FCP version 1.

And Avid has another built in titler: The Marquee, which is very good.

OH yeah! Livetype!  Still crappy and is not a built in titler but a differen app.

Yes it's added new features like script sync, but Final cut also adds features. 

.- FCP has added new APPS (Color, DVD studio pro, etc) to the suite, but features to the editor itself , FCP?

It has remained almost unchanged.

Yes it adds supports for new formats, but so does Final Cut (and usually beats Avid to it by a landslide).

Not new formats but new codecs.

FCP (Like it's Twin, Premiere Pro) is resolution independent, so the format depends on the hardware or codec you add.

But still there is no logic Offline/online workflow on FCP.

There is still the unacceptable TGA sequence handling on FCP.

And there is still no media management AT ALL.

Still There is no acceptable trimming on FCP.

Still there is no individual monitoring of layer without loosing the rendering.

Still the endless rendering.

Among other things.

So what's the advance, other than a cheaper price?

I know Avid very well thank you.  I, like yourself, use it to make a living.

But I'm going to stop you right from the beginning.  If you honestly think that Avid's effects handling is superior, than I don't even know how I can have a conversation with you.  Honestly?  Stepping in and out?  God forbid I should be able to layer effects onto one clip and then rearrange them in the way I want them to render out, the way EVERY other app works like Premiere, FCP, after effects, motion, etc.  Example situation.  I have 3 layers.  I want the add effects to V3.  I add a couple effects.  Suddenly, for some unexplained reason, the top and last effect I add to it affects everything underneath it.  So if I add a 3D Warp and want to shrink it, then all the videos underneath shrink with it as well.  The real kicker is that it only works with some combination of effects and not others.  You have to basically try it out to see if it will happen or not.  Lots of fun when you have a client sitting behind you.  At least in FCP, like the majority of other apps, you already have a default scale, move, opacity, etc.  And if you need something more complex, throw in Motion.  God forbid I should ever want to rotate a picture in Pan and Scan....

Audio effects?  Hope you don't have a lot unless you want to keep mixing down over and over...

Titles?  Marquee sucks.  You honestly are trying to throw Marquee into this conversation?  There's a reason 95% of the people don't use it.  Live type is at least usable, whether it's a separate application or not.  And for the built in FCP titler, I've read your other posts before and I really have to question how much you actually know about FCP.  You always say you can't see the titles over your picture while you make them, which is wrong.  You add the title to the timeline first, click on it, and then change it's parameters in the effects window while watching it update in the program monitor.  Simple as that.  I don't see how Avid is any better.  I have a hard enough time trying to change the font size of one word in a sentence without it updating the whole text block.  Or if I use a title a bunch of times in a sequence, and I have to update something, I have to update each one individually because everytime you make a change, it creates a new title and doesn't effect the others.  Yea, it's really fun when I spend 15 minutes trying to animate a title with it's god awful keyframing abilities (if you're really lucky, MAYBE the effect you're using will have "advanced" keyframes).  So I just spent a lot of time animating my title the way I want it....what's that?  The client just asked for a glow on it?  Well there goes all your time spent on animation.  Now you have to add an effect to it and redo the animation using the effects transform paramters.  Okay, fine.  Another 15 minutes.  Finally, done  What's that?  You need a change in the wording of the type?  I guess I better start a new title all over again because now that I've added the effect, I no longer have access to the type.  I want to matchframe my type?  Nope, sorry.  I want to try and delete all my unused renders from the media tool?  Hope I don't delete my titles since they're also considered precomputes.  It goes on and on...

And what does it matter if Final Cut adds different apps instead of different features (which FCP does indeed do, contrary to your biased belief)?  It still would give me functionality that I need that Avid just simply doesn't provide.  Apps/features....whatever.  Your game of semantics doesn't change my point.

Same with formats/codecs...the point still remains.

Endless rendering?  Over half the effects I put on my clips are blue dot effects.  At least in FCP when an effect is added, it will either just slow the frame rate or reduce the quality if it can't handle it real time, that way I can at least get a feel for how it will play out.  In Avid?  Black.  Won't even attempt to show anything.

And once again, I stated myself that Avid does things better than Final Cut.  I just added that the reverse is simply true.  So why does Avid's advantages command a PREMIUM while Final Cut's does not?  I guess because Avid thinks it does, that's why.  Too bad the majority of people out there don't agree, and they're saying so in droves.

Honestly, I wish Premiere (which also beat Avid to the 35mb XDCam punch) would make leaps and bounds above everyone and that become the major player.  What editors nowadays don't use After Effects and Photoshop to some extent?  Having that integration, along with it's superior title tool and effects handling would be great if it could get other aspects of it up to professional standards.

.- But you wouldn't buy a $ 30.oo GPS either.

If the $ 3,000,00 GPS worth it and is gonna make you money efficiently, then is not a ripoff.

If you need it and suits your needs moch better than a cheaper GPS, then is not a ripoff.

Apparently, it IS a ripoff for a lot of people, which is why Avid is continuing to wane in popularity.

- Well, first of all there is only one Avid.

But there is not only one NLE.