Avid essentially ignored Canon's 24F format; it took approximately three years to finally support it in MC 3.5. (Which I am thankful for.)

But for three years, Canon sold thousands of its very popular XH-A1, XH-G1 and XL-H1 cameras. Some versions are quite professional, with interchangeable lenses, timecode in/out, genlock; all have XLR audio inputs and extensive user controls.

These are cameras Avid needed to support. Great image, performance, excellent reviews and robust sales from the get go. But for three years Avid stuck its head in the sand.

How many thousands of customers did Avid lose by not supporting these cameras? How much money did Avid lose? I'm certain it was many times over the cost of development for 24F support. And this exact same behavior was done with some JVC HD camera formats.

How in the world could Avid not realize they have to support a camera's format to realistically be chosen as a platform to edit its images? How can Avid not recognize they have support formats of cameras that are selling well if they want to sell their software and hardware?

Here's a response to MC 3.5's 24F support that sums up this sentiment exactly (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-xh-series-hdv-camcorders/145516-avids-mc-3-5-supports-24f.html):

 

"It's about time! Had they done that 3 years ago I'd be on MC today instead of FCP."

 

Don't let the past be prologue. Learn from your experiences with the Canon and JVC formats. You have to be out in front of new formats.

 

P.S. I was just looking at the B&H website and came across their listing of Canon's XH-A1, the camera whose 24 frames per second format Avid willingly chose to ignore. This is the most highly rated prosumer video camera on the site. 126 reviews averaging to five stars.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/447098-REG/Canon_1191B001_XH_A1_3CCD_HDV_Camcorder.html#reviews

While hemorrhaging market share, Avid decided to ignore the hottest camera in the market. How in the WORLD was that decision made? It's just unconscionable.

Media Composer 3.5 supports Canon 24F.

 

Michael

BobbyMurcerFan:

It's just unconscionable.

What is unconscionable. and Canon admit doing it, is not understanding, researching or implimenting a proper progressive format to save themselves R&D. Then bring the flawed product into the market place at a cheap price, not warning the consumer, and silently letting NLE's take the blame for their incompetence.

The camera costs more than the NLE software so why is it the softwares problem. Especially when the flawed 24 frame rate is only one of many that camera is capable of shooting.

BobbyMurcerFan:

"It's about time! Had they done that 3 years ago I'd be on MC today instead of FCP."

What a crock. 3 years ago there was no MC soft and, IMO for this sort of case, there would have been some other imagined reason for moving elsewhere.

We have recently had a rash manufacturers all implement their own unique formats.  Some will win out, some will lose.  If Avid directly implemented every one, one of two things would happen.  Either the bug level of their software would rise or the cost would rise.  The considerable additional R and D effort required to chase every new format released to the market would mandate this.

There are always going to be trade offs.  Avid has now implemented AMA as a means of more readily addressing the format explosion issue.  This has the potential to bypass one of Avid's major strengths, its media management.  I trust that Avid has plans to ensure that this doesn't happen, otherwise they risk gaining support for every amateur format at the expense of the project control the professionals need.

A downside for me: AMA bypasses third party media management tools like MDV, which I have come more and more to rely on.

MichaelP:

Media Composer 3.5 supports Canon 24F.

Michael, I realize that. And while it's appreciated, it's way too late coming. Which is the point of the thread.

 

AndrewAction:

What is unconscionable. and Canon admit doing it, is not understanding, researching or implimenting a proper progressive format to save themselves R&D. Then bring the flawed product into the market place at a cheap price, not warning the consumer, and silently letting NLE's take the blame for their incompetence.

The camera costs more than the NLE software so why is it the softwares problem. Especially when the flawed 24 frame rate is only one of many that camera is capable of shooting.

...

What a crock. 3 years ago there was no MC soft and, IMO for this sort of case, there would have been some other imagined reason for moving elsewhere.

Even if Canon brought out yet another format, the fact of the matter is the cameras were selling extremely well and Avid need to support them SOONER rather than later.

As for there being no MC, well there was Xpress Pro. That's what I was using when the cameras came out. I stayed with Avid b/c I'm on a PC and while I use a XH from time to time, I don't own one.

As for supporting the other frame rates. Give me a break. 24 frames per second is the magic frame rate that was making or breaking cameras at that time.

BobbyMurcerFan:

. 24 frames per second is the magic frame rate that was making or breaking cameras at that time.

Oh no  the woeful power of advertising.....

(OOPs .. I temporarily forgot that I make my living out producing ads )

Remember the camera cannot not lie, unless it only selectively tells some of the truth.....

(Now I remember.... thats why I am an editor )

Let's for argument's sake stipulate that 24F is a stupid format and that the 24 FPS advantage is a lot of marketing hype. That doesn't change the fact that the cameras are excellent and an outright winner with consumers. Sales figures, journal articles and customer reviews all prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The issue is Avid negelcting an extremely popular camera line by choosing to ignore a frame rate that customers perceived as important. The lost revenue and market share which resulted from that decision I believe were substantial.

And since Avid would probably come around to supporting 24F eventually, the issue wasn't really even whether or not to support 24F, but rather supporting it sooner rather than later. I would imagine money was saved by not fast-tracking 24F, esp when universal binaries and version 3 of MC were under development.

MC 3 is a very nice program and universal binaries is extremely impressive. No doubt. But there was a broad hole in Avid's vision. Final Cut, Premiere and even Vegas were eating into Avid's market share (mostly from AXP). So in the midst of losing customers, Avid decided to not fully support what was perhaps the single best selling prosumer camera line. That's crazy to me. And I fully believe Avid has paid significantly for this decision.

Arguments over the merits of 24F or Canon's intentions are moot. Avid needed to see that 1) the cameras recorded amazing images, 2) potential Avid customers were buying lots of them, 3) 24 FPS was big selling point.

When that's plugged into "Should we or should we not support the format?" the answer should have been a "Yes." 

Plug Avid's dwindling market share, competitors' solutions and the short lifespan of camera technologies into "Should we support sooner or later?" and the answer should have been "Now."

This isn't hindsight. The strong camera sales and Avid's lack of support went on for years.

FFwding to today. The development money has been spent and 24F compatibility is part of the latest MC release. But the camera line has matured. So while 24F support is nice and IS appreciated, it has not nearly the impact that it would have had two years ago.

Let me be more specific about what Avid needs to learn from the 24F experience:

Avid needs to adopt important new formats EARLY. There is definite advantage to being first and it is worth the extra development $'s.

This should be a mantra for the company. "Important new format, Avid will be first."

Because if Avid is late supporting the format, many camera buyers will select another platform on which to edit. It's that simple. And once they've chosen another NLE, it's going to be very difficult and expensive to win even some of them over to Avid.

But if Avid is one of the few platforms that works well with the new format, camera buyers will have a very good reason to choose Avid. And that's a very good thing.

This is a no-brainer, follows common sense and Avid has to adopt this way of thinking.

And we agree with you Bobby'. Witness the implementation of the new AMA feature. This is the feature that will allow Avid to incorporate new formats much quicker.

Hello,

 

Everyone says that 3.5 supports 24f, but I do not see that option anywhere on import.  So then I assume I need to choose 24p, but all I get is errors.  Has anyone actually gotten this to work on 3.5 and if so what settings do you need to use?  While the specs say that they proudly support 24f I have not found any documentation in how to make it work.  Any help would be appreciated!

You are in a 23.976 prject type rather than 24 correct?

 

Michael

Hi Michael Thanks for responding.  I have tried several different setting and do not seem to come up with a combination that will capture in 24f.  For instance if I choose a 23.976 project, it appears to attempt to capture for a couple of seconds and then I get an error which states Exception: Audio/Video is unexpectedly no longer coming into the system.  If I choose a 24p project, then I get the same error if I choose video only.  If I try to select audio as well then I get a You may not capture audio and video together unless the audio sample clock is pulled down. 

When I was on MC 3.1.2 I did not have this problem, however on 3.1.2 I never was able to capture 24f and I have been waiting forever to get this feature and now I am stuck.  I do not know if it is a problem with 3.5 or if I am doing something wrong in trying to capture 24f. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

For the 24F capture, there is one little additional step. While in a 1080p/23.976 project and in the capture tool, turn off the timecode track. The 30fps timecode used by Canon for the 24fps is a bit funcky and throws things off.

 

Michael

So in other words there is now 24f support but without timecode support?  That seems to be a big loss to not have timecode!

Well, apparently FCP has been able to capture 24F with proper timecode for two and a half years and Vegas since Version 7. Premiere seems to be in the same boat as MC.

 

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-xh-series-hdv-camcorders/146740-timecode-problem-when-capturing.html

 

It took this long to get 24F support and timecode can't be captured? I just don't get it. And if Avid knew timecode can't be captured, then why not at least tell people ahead of time. *sigh*