I think there has to be another way to get EX1 footage into a Mac environment.

.- Nope

.- Of course there is a Mac version, but only works with FCP installed in an INTEL based machine (sorry G5s) and is slow and inefficient.

It works on my G5 running osx 10.4.11 and seems pretty fast IMHO. 

There's nothing slow and inefficient about the FCP plug. From an Avid standpoint it is slower but, from a QT-based system like FCP's point of view, it works really well. And t does work on PPC systems.

From an Avid standpoint it is slower

.- That's what I meant.

A conversion to Quicktime is always slower and more inefficient than direct ingest, a wrapper conversion or a proxy workflow.

The available-now FCP plugin is just a converter.

Anyway, Sony says everything is gonna be fixed in version 2.0.

And t does work on PPC systems.

.- Version 1.1 does not work on two dual G5s I use at work.

The transfer utility works though, but only with FCP

"....get some more time in the water before posting here for a while...."

Excuse me???!!!

I have supported Avid products since their ABVB generation running on 8600's I've overseen hundreds of installations of Avid products across multiple generations. I have NO misconceptions about either Avid software or business.  Some people may have some insight into the inner workings of the company but that is pretty much meaningless. As customers, all we need to  know about a business is delivery of product functionality. As a freelance programmer I have more than a clue about software developement, having written low level device drivers I know a bit about conservative engineering practices. With their DNA line Avid was pushing the limits with the firewire bus. What were they thinking banking on a max 400mbps interface?

To acuse me of flame baiting just because I point out problems with Avid is ludicrous.
To others have the audacity to chime in, "oh but with FCP they have to be converted to quicktime..." So What? The QT is just a wrapper it is not being reencoded. It's not a disease that degrades the content. With FCP we can edit EX1 footage now!

Waiting for Sony is a sorry excuse. Their txfer product just uses ffmpeg. If independent part time developers / opensource software developers can figure out some way to work with this footage which is just mpeg2 with an mpeg4 wrapper, why can't Avid? If they put more of their resources into software and less into single purpose hardware we would all be better off.
If this is my last post so be it. It is the sign of desperation if a company cannot tolerate legitimate criticism.

There's a difference between legitimate criticism and what you have been posting. The last three posts I've seen have been very incendiary about products and or processes that you are either not familiar with or are intentionally misdirected to cause reaction. 

If, as you say, you have experience with the software, I would suggest you do some more research before posting. If you are not flame-bating, then you need to tone down your rhetoric to encourage discussion and criticism instead of ranting about things with which you are unfamiliar.

It's not the descent  that throws up the red flags for the moderators, its the tone and direction from which they come so help us and yourself out here and join the discussion instead of shouting about things you don't know about.

brainburst:

Waiting for Sony is a sorry excuse. Their txfer product just uses ffmpeg. If independent part time developers / opensource software developers can figure out some way to work with this footage which is just mpeg2 with an mpeg4 wrapper, why can't Avid? If they put more of their resources into software and less into single purpose hardware we would all be better off.

Can you explain this a bit more?

Is it mpeg 2 or mpeg4? XDCAM is either one or the other. XDCAM and XDCAM HD is MPEG 2 while XDCAM EX is MPEG4.

FFMPEG is probably used to handle the raw media (it has a built in demux/muxer and support for MPEG codecs). But the Clip Browser is there to handle metadata. Without it the whole file based workflow will not work.

Dom Q. Silverio:

XDCAM is either one or the other. XDCAM and XDCAM HD is MPEG 2 while XDCAM EX is MPEG4.

No Dom, XDCam EX is indeed MPEG2 in an MPEG4 wrapper (MPEG2 MP@HL) (see here (page 9) ) - XDCAM and XDCAM HD are in an MXF wrapper and XDCAM EX in an MPEG4 wrapper.

MPEG 4 part 14 is a container format like Quicktime.

janusz

can figure out some way to work with this footage which is just mpeg2 with an mpeg4 wrapper, why can't Avid?

.- Why can't everyone else?

"Wonderful" FCP's  workflow , for example, is even worse than Avid's, since it can't even handle standard XDCAM natively, let alone EX, it has to be converted to Quicktime.

Avid can handle XDCAM natively, both raw and proxy.

MPG4 as a wrapper is not only to new to everybody, is odd.

janusz:

No Dom, XDCam EX is indeed MPEG2 in an MPEG4 wrapper (MPEG2 MP@HL) (see here (page 9) ) - XDCAM and XDCAM HD are in an MXF wrapper and XDCAM EX in an MPEG4 wrapper.

MPEG 4 part 14 is a container format like Quicktime.

Thanx Janusz

It's funny how I get chastised for "shouting about things (I)you don't know about." without citing a specific example of something I am supposedly ignorant of.

Yet statements like
 
"Wonderful" FCP's  workflow .... is even worse than Avid's, since it can't even handle standard XDCAM natively... it has to be converted to Quicktime."

go unchalleged. The files are not converted they are just rewrapped. It's a minor inconvenience compared to not being able to edit at all on the Mac.

If I get irritated it's because I am tired of getting burned. Every fall we have to roll out 150 or so edit systems and they have to be ready to work from day one of the semester without issues. Firewire out to DV decks, for example, has been flakey for some time now; Hasn't been reliable since 4.8.2
Yet it works fine w FCP. I get flack from people who expect me to make it work seamlessly on Avid. When I  hear from Avid that it's not considered an issue, what am I supposed to think?

And then I get flack from people who might support 10-20 systems about my lack of knowledge/experience?
My tone is not incendiary, the facts alone are incendiary.

Actually, you've read into what I wrote the wrong way. What I said to you was it appears that one of two things were happening. Meaning your posts over the last week were giving that impression. The impression that you were either unfamiliar with the material or were flame-baiting. If the truth is neither, then I, for one, would appreciate it if you could tone down the rhetoric a bit so that we might help.

We can't tell from here who you are or what experience you may have so all we have to go on is your posts. Between this thread and the one about Avid's FW/DNA issue, you have been raising some red flags. I simply want to get clear your intentions before more punitive measures are necessary.

Anytime you wish to compare how many systems the two of us have installed over the years, I'd be happy to oblige you. How many Studios on both coasts and Television stations across the country can you count?

The files are not converted they are just rewrapped

,- Rewrapped?

In what?

FCP can't ingest XDCAM in any flavor natively. It doesn't work with MXF either.

So, rewrapped in what?

In QuickTime???

Yeah, right...

Let's pretend this is true, although is not important.

Whether is "rewrapped" in MP4, DIVX, Word or ZIP, by any means FCP STILl needs the third party (Sony) plugin and software!!

THIS is the point of this thread.

The point is that Avid or any other can't work without the help of third party developers.

Avid is EX ready, since ver 2.8.3

Now is the turn of Sony to make their incompatible, non standard and odd format compatible to the market.

Or is it Avid's job to do their research?

I can count 150 edit systems here, 30 systems in Singapore, 15 systems in Ireland, 12 systems in Italy.
We'll be down to 70 or so total Avid systems here across different departments with, 15 in Singapore, none left in Ireland or Italy.
Privately I only have time to support about a dozen clients.

"The point is that Avid or any other can't work without the help of third party developers.

 Avid is EX ready, since ver 2.8.3

Now is the turn of Sony to make their incompatible, non standard and odd format compatible to the market."

 So FCP is no better than Avid in this regard. Well the point is we pay a premium because we expect Avid to be BETTER, we expect Avid to be a leader.

"Or is it Avid's job to do their research?"

Yes it is Avid's job to support codecs whose specifications are published and openly available. And to test such support thoroughly; the AVCIntra bug has not gone unnoticed by me.

We've also had three projects come in shot on the RED camera @ 4k Wonder when we can edit this on Avid? Doing so on FCP now.