Larry Rubin:

I've always wondered myself why Apple refuses to port FCP for PC, given the potential spike in market share.

Actually, Apple bought Macrovision's FCP and ported it from PC to Mac, then shut down the PC version.  So they're hardly likely to open it up for genuine competition again, are they?

jwrl:

Larry Rubin:

I've always wondered myself why Apple refuses to port FCP for PC, given the potential spike in market share.

Actually, Apple bought Macrovision's FCP and ported it from PC to Mac, then shut down the PC version.  So they're hardly likely to open it up for genuine competition again, are they?

... and above all, Apple is primarily a hardware company that operates by the old addage that software sells hardware.  If they port to PC, FCP could run on much less expensive "whitebox" machines, and that would damage Apple hardware sales.  Its the same reason Avid won't support standard QT or WM / DirectX media capture, monitor and playback hardware like AJA, BlueFish, BlackMagic, Matrox, Motu, etc. They still think of themselves as a hardware company, and are using the appropriately priced software to sell their overpriced hardware.

Apple?  Sell overpriced hardware?  They don't do that, surely!

BLKDOG:

On the other hand, I do agree that the code itself has reached the tipping point and, though 3.0 has done much to stream line it, could use a re-write from the ground up.

Larry Rubin:

Whoever said that most likely, like myself, came over to Avid from the linear world of editing. I don't think you can fully appreciate just how true that quote is unless you've come over as well. NLE only editors have NO IDEA what it took to create complex multi-layered, multi-effects programs in that environment.

...I do. I came over from editing 16 mm work prints on a Moviola, then a Steenbeck. (I loved the Steenbeck). I wasn't too crazy about 16 mm full coat (Racal Zonal) because it seemed with each pass, you got a slight loss of dB output from the fullcoat ! (Not a problem with 35 mm fullcoat). Many of us used to use a Steenbeck specially configured to take 35 MM fullcoat with a 16 mm picture head for this reason.

I remember attending a demonstration of the Avid for the first time in the late 80's and was fascinated by what you could do with it. I could never afford one then, but it is a profoundly empowering tool which really changed the film industry. For one thing, you could finish a movie much faster than you could before.

Laptopeditor:

BLKDOG, could you please explain what you mean when you say the code has reached "the tipping point ?" Also, why do you think the software needs a re-write from the ground up ?

Taking the liberty of answering for BLKDOG, any software that's been around as long as Avid has carries with it a lot of baggage in the form of "dead" code, obsolete libraries and other issues of a similar nature.  It still works, but there are inevitably components that could do with a revisit, to say the least.

The simplest way to do this is a rewrite.  It's costly to do, and can be very time consuming.  It also means that although of the known, documented bugs in the app are gone, a rash of new ones inevitably appear.

It becomes a matter of weighing up whether the benefits of the rewrite outweigh the benefits of the current stability.  That's the "tipping point".

Larry Rubin:

Steeldestroyer:

"we should all thank Avid for how it has enriched our lives." 

 

Whoever said that most likely, like myself, came over to Avid from the linear world of editing. I don't think you can fully appreciate just how true that quote is unless you've come over as well. NLE only editors have NO IDEA what it took to create complex multi-layered, multi-effects programs in that environment.

Just to clarify: I wasn't referring to an actual quote, but to more of the "attitude" of several posts.

I won't deny the power of the NLE, nor Avid's contribution to that end.  However, the introduction of Avid was 19 (!) years ago.  The market has changed significantly since then, and there is now very real competition to Avid's product line; some of that competition does certain functions better than Avid.

I suppose my biggest gripe is that I very much desire to use Avid.  The fine precision, excellent media management, and real-time performance are tremendous selling points even for me, a non-professional editor (that is, I don't edit for a living).  Unfortunately, while the software (due to excellent upgrade prices) has stayed in my price range, the hardware costs have not.  I cannot justify purchasing a certified system, nor a Quadro FX video card.  Which apparently means I'm not up to snuff to own an Avid.

As a side note, I don't claim that Avid should run on every computer, or even a majority.  But it is unfortunate that well-known, reliable manufacturers of well-known and reliable parts (in my case, the Geforce 8800 series) are excluded from compatibility.

"well-known and reliable parts" aren't the requirement.  Proper implementation of Open GL is. 

Steeldestroyer:

he fine precision, excellent media management, and real-time performance are tremendous selling points even for me, a non-professional editor (that is, I don't edit for a living).

and this is , kinda, my point. Avid is built for professionals. Those of us who do make our living with these systems. Therefore, we appreciate the way avid tests and certifies systems. That way I have a road map for asset management.

Wrong or right, and this is only my opinion, I think that, if you want to swim in the pool with the customer base Avid targets, you need to be willing to play by the rules established by the Avid lifeguards.

 Steeldestroyer, I have read through your system specs and except for your GPU MC3 should work just fine even though not qualified oficially by Avid.

Lots of people on this forum have actually softmodded their geforce 8800 into a Quadro and got MC3 to work. Here you can read how to: http://community.avid.com/forums/t/59113.aspx

If you read through my specs you'll fin that it is not qualified as well, but runs MC3 like a charme .

This is either a joke or doesn't belong in a serious forum, as with the clown who started this thread. Move on.

I love Avid and will praise it and bash it at different times for different issues.  But I see nothing wrong with a thread like this that let's people express their opinions pretty bluntly.  Telling us to "move on" is not a great attitude - if you don't like the post, don't contribute any further.  I personally like seeing all of the viewpoints from the users, which go from the novices to to the seasoned professionals.  IMO, as long as no one is personally getting bashed, there is nothing wrong with this thread.

vpcmike:

as long as no one is personally getting bashed, there is nothing wrong with this thread.

100% agreed!

Randall L Rike:

"well-known and reliable parts" aren't the requirement.  Proper implementation of Open GL is. 

Understood.  Unfortunately, paying to get "proper" implementation of OGL means I sacrifice quality in every non-professional application.  I don't consider that to be a worthwhile investment (and it is also why I don't soft-mod my 8800 into a Quadro).

BLKDOG:  As far as swimming in the "Avid" pool goes, this was why I appreciated the XDV (and even XPro) line of products.  It allowed me to swim in the Avid 'kiddie pool' (to extend your metaphor), getting some of the splash from the main pool while not getting too deep over my head.  Without the kiddie pool I either have to take the plunge or take myself to another pool.  If that's the goal of Avid's new thinking, so be it.