amitzinman:

Except for some minor icon change is it any different?

MC's GUI has pretty much matured. Any changes are always have been minor with few recent exceptions (AVX 2 keyframing and CC). Looking at the list of improvements (codec, project type, performance, etc) I don't think it require any major GUI modifications. The SubCap and TC Generator of course are new that require an extended Effects Editor - which you can see with the video in the site.

I can tell you flat out, there are absolutely no GUI changes in this release other than a few Icon changes.

BLKDOG:

I can tell you flat out, there are absolutely no GUI changes in this release other than a few Icon changes.

Splash screens...

uh...you countin' that as a GUI change Terry?

BLKDOG:

uh...you countin' that as a GUI change Terry?

;-)

BLKDOG:

I can tell you flat out, there are absolutely no GUI changes in this release other than a few Icon changes.

Steeldestroyer:

I'd be good with everything on the interface except for the effects handling.

That won't change until the next AVX level. I have no idea what that will be, but I got the idea a few years back that there was some sort of roadmap for the AVX future.

Other than that, you are talking a complete rewrite of the MC application. Doubtful in the foreseeable future. 

It doesn't help that Avid has no incentive to invest now that they've been told by many here that they should be giving away their software and hardware.

Did you mean us poor blokes who have to get rich pretty quick to afford buying Avid hardware? I did hear about that. 

And explain to me once again why Avid has to rewrite AVX to make it easier for user to apply multiple effects? Or search for a particular effect? 

amitzinman:

Did you mean us poor blokes who have to get rich pretty quick to afford buying Avid hardware?

     I mean that anyone whose definition of "rich" means they can afford 20K worth of gear to perform their profession, is destined to always be poor. The average editor in LA makes $2,000 per week. That is just their wage, not gear. The average edit room rental in LA is $1,000 per week, moving towards $800. lately. 

     If you paid 20K for your edit system, it would take you 25 weeks at $800.00 per week to recoup your cost. This is a very simple math that doesn't take into account all the business aspect, but it should give you an idea.

     Unfortunately it appears that many folks on this list believe they should just get the system for next to nothing! Why should they have to invest? Come on, buy it for nothing, then charge $800. a week to rent it?!?!

     More lke buy it for nothing and not be able to rent it! That's the problem with that concept. Why do you folks want to drag the existing businesses into the ground? Just so you can edit for free?

     Here's the end result. You will be lucky to get $100 a day for your edit room. Of course you still have the expense of the rent, electric, maintenance, furniture, monitors, decks, etc. (I mention decks because you folks seem to want an I/O box for cheap). So you may even lose money on your system, but what the heck, it gets you a job...

     ...But, every kid in town who has a cracked version of FCP on his computer is your competition. They can work for peanuts just to get the work. They live with their parents who pay for everything, so all they are investing is time which they have an excess of. So you are going to have to work for nothing also...

     ...Unless, you can convince clients you are more valuable. You can't use the edit system to do that anymore because they have no value. So you have to do it on talent. There goes more overhead as you struggle to get the word out to convince folks you have more talent than the kid down the street.

     And don't expect any new improvements in your edit system to help you gain an advantage. Avid has been out of the picture for a while since they couldn't survive selling gear for less than it cost them to make. So you only have FCP or Premiere Pro to use. Apple stopped heavy R&D in Pro Apps once it saw Avid die as it now had a captive market and those dollars would be better spent on coming up with the next iGadget. And Adobe? They have a system that makes Flash for the web... what else do they need?

     Oh, what a wonderful world...

amitzinman:

And explain to me once again why Avid has to rewrite AVX to make it easier for user to apply multiple effects? Or search for a particular effect?

     I am not a programmer. I don't play one on TV. I do understand the problems with poking around in 20 year old undocumented code. What sounds simple to you is a giant can of worms to them. Changing one element in the code can cause a ripple effect that breaks things all over the place.

     There are plenty of features I have been begging for since I first started using an Avid in the 90s. Most of them will never happen, not because the folks at Avid don't want to, but because the level of complexity to achieve them is too great.

     But don't worry, you can just stick with Apple. Even though, they still haven't fixed media management even though it is one of the top ten complaints of FCP users for many years. 

TCurren:

Oh, what a wonderful world...

Well said, Terry!

adios,
Carl

TCurren:

Avid has been out of the picture for a while since they couldn't survive selling gear for less than it cost them to make. So you only have FCP or Premiere Pro to use. Apple stopped heavy R&D in Pro Apps once it saw Avid die as it now had a captive market and those dollars would be better spent on coming up with the next iGadget. And Adobe? They have a system that makes Flash for the web... what else do they need?

This is a very important point that is surfacing for the first time in this thread:  What would we do if Avid went out of business? What would the future portend for broadcast level editors when their tool of choice no longer is viable?  Would it transpire as Terance predicts, or would someone else pick up the Avid gauntlet and rise an editing Phoenix from the ashes?

Thoughts?

Larry Rubin:

What would we do if Avid went out of business?

Larry, I hope and pray that it never happens. If it did, I would continue using my Avid products until I run them into the ground, or until market conditions force me to use something else

Whatever the tool, I wholeheartedly agree with Terry that the most talented will inevitably rise to the top.

As for all of those who want an I/O box for next to nothing, are you complaining just as loudly to Sony about the price of an HDCAM deck? Or to Panasonic about the  high cost of a DVC Pro HD deck? You obviously use these or simlar decks if you need the I/O so badly. And, if that's the case, you already have AJA and Final Cut - so what's the problem?

These forums provide a great service, and invite this type of discussion and criticism. That's very healthy. But when I read some f these posts, it occurs to me that perhaps some of you complain simply because you can.

Peace.

Brickwad:

 

These forums provide a great service, and invite this type of discussion and criticism. That's very healthy. But when I read some f these posts, it occurs to me that perhaps some of you complain simply because you can.

Peace.

And to me I've been rather impressed how Avid has responded to some of the demands. It is very clear to me that if I ever have a very serious issue, I can be assured that the right people are listening right here, and there are e-mail addresses that goes to a named person. Not support@ohmygodyou'llhavetowait.com

I sense a bit of market protectionism by some of the defenders of Avid's hardware pricing.  I can understand that a level playing field might be intimidating from both a business and artistic standpoint.

The MojoDX features and pricing make Avid look silly.  So much of the attention that was garnered by the MC price cut and the New Thinking campaign was lost with the hardware introductions.

IMO, if Avid were to go out of business, it would more likely be because of its resistance to market realities.  The real value is in the software; and people should pay for that as opposed to an appliance like an I/O box.  If anything, they should have kept the software pricing the same and cut the pricing on the hardware.  Almost the complaints I read about Avid (by Avid and non-Avid users) seem to be centered on the hardware pricing.

A comparison between an I/O box and proprietary hardware is problematic. I suspect Panasonic has few more R&D dollars to recoup on the DVCPro HD format than AJA did with Kona. Similarly, when I look at the guts of an HDCAM deck, I see more technology and moving parts than in the inside of an I/O HD.

I completely agree with the value argument proposed in this and other threads.  MC is definitely worth the cost, and I make a good living using it.  However, unnecessarily high pricing can create resentment instead of loyalty.  Additionally, it keeps people looking over at the grass on the other side of the fence.

Ultimately, I'm good with the direction things are taking with MC.   I just hope that Avid sells enough product to keep the software R&D wheels rolling. 

Blitzer:

However, unnecessarily high pricing can create resentment instead of loyalty.  Additionally, it keeps people looking over at the grass on the other side of the fence.

Low prices and low price buyers are not conducive to brand loyalty. That is why they chase the lowest prices.