I've put together several room configurations that might be useful in this discussion if you're trying to build your own suite. You'll notice that the FCP versus MC options are actually pretty close in cost. If you are doing this as a business, plan your costs over a 3-year period.

http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/edit-suite-design-part-ii/

- Oliver

I think the MC software packet is comparable with Apple studio and to some extent Adobe CS3 Production.

You got dvd-tools (Avid DVD), compression tools (Sorenson), composition tools (Avid FX) and several top of the edge f/x plug-ins (BCC), and a music tool (Smart Sound). None of these software is bad.

Compare to Adobe, you miss essensial tools such as Photoshop and Flash, but in every other aspect they are comparable.

The difference is the hardware options there Avid use more expesive hardware. I do not know how they compare to low cost solutions such as Blackmagic, but I know the differnces between a cheap deck and a expensive one.

OliverPeters:

I've put together several room configurations that might be useful in this discussion if you're trying to build your own suite. You'll notice that the FCP versus MC options are actually pretty close in cost. If you are doing this as a business, plan your costs over a 3-year period.

http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/edit-suite-design-part-ii/

- Oliver

Oliver,

You calculations is the essens of my argumentation about low and high prices of NLEs. There are lots of cost we miss then we just compare the software price.

Thanks for your calculations.

Berga,

Thanks. I think the point is that if you are doing this as a business and not a single individual, then you have to do the right thing from a business POV. If your preference is cutting on Avid and you have no real client pressure to change this, then by all means that's the right direction. In the end you will be more productive and hopefully can generate more billable hours. Although Avid isn't the cheapest on the market, the new DX gear has gone a long way in meeting user requests more than halfway. So, I think my numbers show that from a business perspective it's closer than many people think.

I, too, have argued that Avid should embrace other cards, but I'm not so sure now. I routinely work on FCP/Kona systems and I have recently given the new DX gear a workout and I can honestly say that Avid's media on DX is far more responsive than any of the QT codecs in FCP with Kona. I like that combo, but there are still performance issues if you really push the system. MC3.0 on BMD or AJA cards might lose some of the performance that it now enjoys.

- Oliver

Butcher:

Avid's hardware (NitrisDX) is better than any hardware I've seen for FCP, and the fact that it works only for Avid is hardly a drawback, in my opinion.  If something goes wrong with it, I call Avid and it's their problem.  If something goes wrong with your Kona card, they may point to Apple. Call Apple, they point to Kona.

My what a short memory we have.  Avid resellers and some well-respected people in this forum point the finger at Apple for the poor performance of the Adrenaline on the Mac Platform.

I've been doing a lot of research on the options recently, and the reported problems on both Aja and BMD have diminished since the products have matured.  From what I read (like on the Creative Cow), if you have problems, you probably have bad hardware.  Replace it, and you're set for years of smooth sailing. 

Unless things have changed at Avid, you don't just call them and get immediate replacement unless you've bought into their expensive support contracts.

The 4:4:4 and 2K capabilities of AJA and BMD are a stinging *** slap to MC Nitris and Mojo DX.  They're capable of higher quality output for about a fifth or twelvth of the cost of Nitris, depending on the model.  And they offer RT Extreme, hardware based effects support that Avid has abandoned.

For the cost of a Nitris DX, I could buy two Multibridge Eclipses and two MacPros, and just throw one away if it stops working, and still be money ahead. 

It pains me to say this, because I used to work for Avid, I own Avid stock, and I've been very loyal.  But, Avid just doesn't have much to offer me in terms of a value propsition.  FCP is growing in features at a much much faster rate than MC.  FCP has maintained parity with codec support, was first to support some new codecs, was first to introduce an intermediate mastering codec, always stay current and compatible with the latest OS and QT builds (a HUGE advantage over Avid), and their product continues to improve in media management, and interoperability with their suite, which by the way includes a Symphony-killing color-corrector.  FCP is gaining ground fast, and is overtaking Avid in the markets they should own, like me... freelancers who want to set up their own small shop or home office with one system capable of monitoring HD.

And what nice things are people saying about Nitris DX?  Oh, that it's as stable as the Meridians were.  That's freaking embarrassing.

What makes sense for people like me is to buy a BMD Multibrige Pro for $1300, which gives me two fewer analog audio channels than Nitris (no big deal), and I'll use FCP for my projects until my home business grows to a point where I need Avid solutions, and then junk the paltry $1300 interface that I will have capitalized in, oh about a month.  This seems to me to be a no-brainer.  In the meantime, I hone my FCP skills and become a more valuable asset to the freelance market for working in other people's shops.  I just don't see a downside to this. 

As for AJA, I have read that it's the core hardware in the high end Avid DS that makes it possible to do 4:4:4.  So, if you want to say AJA is crap, look back at Avid Nitris DS.

AJA and BMD wouldn't still be in business, and multiplying their product lines if their stuff didn't work.

Avid 99:

And they offer RT Extreme, hardware based effects support that Avid has abandoned.

I like the FCP/Kona combos as well, but you are absolutely incorrect in this statement. The Kona cards can up/down/crossconvert in RT and they have on-board scaling for thin raster with DVCPROHD codec. That's it. This is essentially the same functionality at Mojo DX, except that you can go up to 2K sizes with Kona3. That's fine, except that almost no one working in the tape world works in 2K. Projects mastered to SR for TV or some DIs are done at 1920x1080. There, the main advantage of Kona3 is 444 dual-link. But, you aren't going to work at this level unless you have a serious drive array involved to get that sort of throughput.

AJA and BMD cards offer no hardware acceleration of effects. RT Extreme in FCP is preview quality only. You cannot master to tape unless ALL EFFECTS ARE RENDERED. The Avid products maintain a level of true, real-time effects that simply doesn't exist in FCP. With MC/Sym Mojo DX or Nitris DX, you can build several layers/streams of HD RT effects and master to tape in full quality without rendering.

- Oliver

 '99, have you actually sat in a session on FCP and tried to push 2k through with an actual load of media (Like anything over a :30 second spot)? Saying you can do it and actually doing it for a living are two different things. The one session I did (and this was a :30 second spot) was render intensive and very slow to respond. Very intrusive to the creative process for me.

Not saying you aren't correct. I believe that FCP is a great value for a one man shop but, as a long time cutter, it drove me nuts so I just wondered if you had experienced it.

Just remember one important feature we mostly ignore in Avid, backward compability. If a client com to me two years after a project, I can load the project from AXP 4.5 on my MC 3.0 today and start capture and reedit.

Y'know, that was a big one for us. Losing all of your projects just because you upgrade the software really blows.

Writie

My advice as someone who set up our own small independent production company but coming from a broadcast and facility background.

1. Buy a MAC PRO That way you can work towards having both Avid and FCP

2. Buy the Adobe Suite it is well worth it.

3. If you are in the UK forget working HD for now

4. Consider Offline Avid but finish FCP that way you do not need any output box for the Avid just enable Full Screen playback onto a second computer monitor.

5. Make enough money on the first few jobs to buy an Avid Nitris or Mojo DX

6. Hope that AVid realises they STILL have not addressed the small post guy and bring out a new box that hits the right price. The Matrox MXO2 box should be sat on Kirks desk in my opinion.

7. Raise more money before you start because it will cost you more than you think to set up so make a good business plan

8 Ask what your clients want, Avid or FCP 

Hope that helps.

The Nitris box may have great performance over the Mojo DX but i have not used an analogue connection in the last 10 years!

BLKDOG:

 '99, have you actually sat in a session on FCP and tried to push 2k through with an actual load of media (Like anything over a :30 second spot)? Saying you can do it and actually doing it for a living are two different things. The one session I did (and this was a :30 second spot) was render intensive and very slow to respond. Very intrusive to the creative process for me.

Not saying you aren't correct. I believe that FCP is a great value for a one man shop but, as a long time cutter, it drove me nuts so I just wondered if you had experienced it.

Hey BD, no I haven't and honestly, I don't have any 2K jobs on the horizon.  I was mainly pointing out that it's possible at a fraction of Avid's offering.   I would have guessed your experience is typical.  The very idea of doing 2K on the cheap is kind of silly, in that many say you need a ten or twelve-disk array to have the extra punch you need for guaranteed play.  So, if you're going to spend 20-30K on RAID, then a thousand dollar capture card is almost insulting to the RAID.

When you did your 2K project, did you off-line it first at a lower res?  Seems to me the way to go would be to just use the 2K for on-line and CC, so all that rendering wouldn't destroy your flow.

For those considering 2K for feature work, you're likely looking at big iron.  But, it's a new day, and how well it catches on remains to be seen.  Since the new order is a race for the bottom, I wouldn't be surprised to see more.  If we can offer 2K for 1/10 of Mr. Q, but it takes five times as long, that's still a happening deal for our clients.

I think FCP drives all seasoned Avid editors nuts at first.  Most of my initial complaints were due to my lack of knowledge about what FCP could do and where the right functions were (and hitting my Avid shortcuts by rote, and getting the wrong result). I've done a few TV shows, and several industrials on it now, and there are many things about it that I like better than Avid.  At this point, I think the pros of FCP outweigh the cons.  Avid taking a year to qualify OS and QT is getting extremely tiresome and unacceptable.  What editor doesn't need AE, PS and a decent DVD program, and want to use new features?  With Avid, I recommend two computers in every edit room, and that's become yet another high expense solution to add to the premium cost of Avid products.

My HDTV show cutting experience on FCP was on G5+Aja, and that was more frustrating than anything I've done on FCP on a MacPro.

By the way, everybody, don't get me wrong.  I love Avid, but this is tough love, and things that Avid needs to hear from loyal customers.

Believe me, the've heard it.

It's all in what you can work with I guess. I've been on FCP for more than 6 years and I still can't take the workarounds and the less than advertised performance. If you're comfortable with it in your work, then I say go for it. In the end, it's the market will decide.

OliverPeters:

AJA and BMD cards offer no hardware acceleration of effects. RT Extreme in FCP is preview quality only. You cannot master to tape unless ALL EFFECTS ARE RENDERED. The Avid products maintain a level of true, real-time effects that simply doesn't exist in FCP. With MC/Sym Mojo DX or Nitris DX, you can build several layers/streams of HD RT effects and master to tape in full quality without rendering.

- Oliver

 

Yes, but Avid offers that level of true, real-time effects through use of the software, not from it's boxes.  So the fact that AJA and BMD doesn't offer acceleration shouldn't matter, because Avid's hardware doesn't either.  So where does that massive increase in hardware price come from when it actually offers no more (less, actually) than competing products at a fraction of the cost?

SandmanX82:

Yes, but Avid offers that level of true, real-time effects through use of the software, not from it's boxes.

That's not true. The new DX boxes share FX processing with the GPU and CPU. It's the power of the distributed processing that allows for the increased RT performance.

BLKDOG:

SandmanX82:

Yes, but Avid offers that level of true, real-time effects through use of the software, not from it's boxes.

 

That's not true. The new DX boxes share FX processing with the GPU and CPU. It's the power of the distributed processing that allows for the increased RT performance.

Is that actually true, or is that as true as the debate between whether Adrenaline actually added to increased performance?

And if true, does it really command a price tag that's $10,000 more than competitors?  I told myself I'd never do this, but I'm going to make the dreaded car analogy...dun dun dun.  Anyway, you have Car A (FCP) which is nice, and Car B (Avid) which is a little nicer and a tad more expensive.  Neither comes with power windows, so you want to add it.  You can add it to Car A for a little more money, although there is no master control for all the windows on the driver side.  You can also add it to Car B....but for a LOT more money.  Car B's power windows comes with the master control that Car A lacks...but is it worth spending over 10x as much for it?

That's what it comes down to...for me anyway.  If it's true that Avid hardware does increase performance (which I believe Mojo DX doesn't do, but I'll leave that out of the equation), how much extra money is Avid justified in demanding for it?  I don't know much about the Final Cut side of hardware, but I know on Premiere, the most you're bound to spend on hardware is around $4000 for Matrox and it adds a sh**load of extra performance, plus gives all the uncompressed 4:4:4 garbage that Avid leaves out, and still comes in at around $10,000 less than what Avid asks for.  So again, where's the justification?