Sorry, that was rude, but it got your attention.

First, my bias, I own Avids and think it is the best solution out there. I also want to see it continue to evolve, but I don't think any other editor comes close.

One complaint I read a lot has to do with price. May I throw this out? I think with the current pricing, the software is about $500 more than FCP or Premier. I also think a comparable Mac is about $1000 more than an HP. But, put that aside for a moment... If you are making your living with a tool, don't you want the best tool for the job? My mechanic friend buys Snap On tools and they are a lot more than Craftsman. But he likes the feel, finish... whatever. They work for him. If you are putting together a system; monitors, scopes, displays, cables, decks, racks, furniture, mixers, lighting, plug-ins and chewing gum, is a few hundred dollars really an issue to use the tool you prefer? Would you really want to limit your workflow for what amounts to less than your day-rate? If the cost of the software is an issue for you, I suggest you have bigger problems with your business model.

To the folks that want to use Photoshop with their MojoDX. I agree. It would be very handy to use my Pro Monitor with the new DX hardware like Macs do with AJA and Aftereffects. I wish my Explorer rode and drive like my Infiniti; and I wish I could carry skis in my Infiniti. But I can’t so I drive the car that works for the task. Maybe I can buy a Cayenne some day and it will do both, but for now I pick the one that gets the job done.

I guess I am a bit older than many that post here; I remember $250k ADOs that did one thing... $500k Henry's that could not edit and a walk-in refrigerator full of $100k tape decks. For under $100k to put all the power that a Symphony has, or throw Media Composer on a notebook and edit on the plane back from the shoot for under $5k works in my business model, and thank you Avid for making that happen!

Hear, hear!

A slightly more cynical take on alternative NLEs is that they tend to be successful because they give computer operators the illusion that they're editors.  "I can afford the software, so I'm an editor".

I agree

dbeditorial:

Would you really want to limit your workflow for what amounts to less than your day-rate?

I think that you'll find that the amount of the day rate is correlative to the complaint about the cost of investment.  A decent editor's day rate could conceivably purchase MCsoft in a week.

A somewhat tangential case-in-point:  Recently finishing up a corporate piece that incorporated nearly 95% stock footage.  Getty is the de facto source, but yet very expensive even with a deep discount.  The Producer went searching for cheaper alternatives and found iStockphoto to be also a fair resource.  He also found Pond5... 

We went to the Pond5 site and selected shots and downloaded the lo-res comps in order to edit the piece.  Many of the lo-res clips played in QT at 15fps, so when imported into my 30i project they were all sped up.  I had to apply a 50% motion effect to slow the clips down to "normal" speed.  I cut the piece and finished it on Friday.  Then we started the up-res process on Monday this week.  I made an "buy me" list and he went off to purchase the high-res versions. 

One shot we chose was nowhere to be found on their site in hi-res.  He emailed them, they replied "The person who uploaded that shot must've pulled it down."  - the Producer searched and selected a replacement shot.  A couple of shots came in as black and so I checked them in QT and got a white screen, I checked the codec info and it was XDCam EX 35Mbit.  Turns out that you need FCP 6.0.2 or higher installed in order have the correct QT component to read that codec.  He emailed again and they were able to convert it to PhotoJPEG for us.  Then all of those shots that I had slowed down in order to edit with Batch Imported all wrong because the high-res version actually played at 29.97, which meant that all of my 50% motion was being applied and slowing the clips down.  So, I had to re-import the high-res into a new Bin (not Batch Import) and re-cut each one back into the sequence, which meant matching timing/pacing etc all over again.  There were a large number of shots that needed to be fixed during the up-res.  So, all in all something that should've take us one day on Monday took until about 3:30pm on Wednesday. 

Today, the Producer made the comment that the money he had saved on using the cheaper Pond5 clips was totally lost by having us spend the extra time fixing a lot of the issues with those shots.  I smiled.  

 

 

Avid has come a long way in the last 2 years and can now be seen to be a very competitive package but with a few outstanding issues in the line up, but a very impressive turnaround from the dark days of a few years ago (can you imagine if Avid had not changed its ways)

It also has to be remembered not everyone who edits is an editor, they may just be doing simple clips for the internet and an Avid is overkill for them.

There is also a lot of very bad editing around these days and no application will fix that so plenty of work for a real editor still.

In many ways I agree and sympathize with these sentinments, but....

Many of the operational inefficiencies that I hear about with FCP come from Avid editors who simply don't use the software day in and day out and run into hiccups based on assumptions. Given a comparable experience and comfort level, the two NLEs can be just as reliable and efficient. Yes, there can be problems, but I've had them in each. It's really just personal preference. There are working environments in which each system is stronger and many where each is far weaker.

The initial numbers mentioned aren't right, either. First off, FCP7 (Studio) is now $999 versus $2495 for the MC soft retail bundle. That's 2.5x more expensive. If you add a Kona LHi card versus a Mojo DX bundle, it's $2500 (incl FCP) versus $10K (incl MC). That's without analog i/o on the Mojo DX. If you need analog i/o, then it's Nitris DX at $15K. When I've priced out a qualified HP 8-core versus a qualified MacPro 8-core with the SAME features, the HP costs more. Same for laptops.

Price a complete room (storage, mixer, monitoring, racks, furnishings, etc.) and an FCP-based room is going to be at least $50K (PLUS extra misc software, shipping, sales tax, installation labor). An Avid-based room is going to be $6K -$12K more. If you think of that from the standpoint of a thriving editorial business over a 3-year period, then it really isn't much difference. Unfortunately that's not today's reality. The business has become much more of a cottage industry (literally), where owners buy systems and upgrades based on a single production. In that reality a $10K difference is huge.

I think once you cut through all the marketing spin, the real world is now a 50/50 split between FCP and Media Composer among actual editing professionals. That probably equates to a few hundred thousand users in each camp. Corporate, broadcast TV and traditional LA film & TV - more Avid. Small/medium edit boutiques and production companies who own post gear - FCP.  I don't see that changing for at least 3 years, so wishes to the contrary are fruitless.

- Oliver

I agree that freelance editors & system designers are moved by the Apple $$ advantage and perhaps this post reminds us just how willing folks will be to use that advantage. But I'm not freelancer. I'm not concerned with pleasing, or even finding clients. My client is my timeline. I edit for glory and enjoy the hunt for the perfect cut. I am an Avid loyalist. And I don't care what the forum rules say- I believe that here inside this Avid.com home base, the only worthwhile messages are:

a) Final Cut S*cks!

b) How can we make Avid even better?

c) how do I learn Avid*... and Oliver, you are indeed a great teacher.

d) ?

Keeping an open mind is important for an editor. So how about a video challenge to all those double-teaming, mac-lovin' editors? Let's see some side-by-side comparisons... Strip away the platform and $$ talk and focus on the 90% of what I do each day: editing the Timeline. Performing advanced trimming and clip segment acrobatics. You know what I mean. Please don't get into all the import/export & effects and nerd-driven stuff.

Once and for all, will someone, anyone, honestly compare the motion-mechanics of timeline editing- Avid vs. FCP and surprise me.... if you can!

 

 

itmatters

Lightworks would win the pure timeline cutting challenge in my book!

 

Talking of timelines, you have to go back 3-5 years to see why FCP took off, lets face it Avid 5 years ago was about an expensive Adrenaline, a hobbled XPRO or super expensive DS that is why FCP took off, it addressed a market need that Avid could not so at that time Avid S*cked!

Today we have a VERY different Avid, a much improved MC software at an affordable price which in its latest version with a DX box is the best editor on the market with only the price of the DX box holding it back for the indy editor, if they sort that out then it is up to marketing to get the message out.

 

NICKB:

Today we have a VERY different Avid, a much improved MC software at an affordable price which in its latest version with a DX box is the best editor on the market with only the price of the DX box holding it back for the indy editor, if they sort that out then it is up to marketing to get the message out.

Absoluely agree! If FCP came along today to compete with the current MC, it might be a very different story, even with the higher cost of gear. Let's hope that Avid finds a way to offer some realistic hardware options either through it's own gear or via BMD, Matrox, AJA, etc.

- Oliver

NICKB:

Talking of timelines, you have to go back 3-5 years to see why FCP took off, lets face it Avid 5 years ago was about an expensive Adrenaline, a hobbled XPRO or super expensive DS that is why FCP took off, it addressed a market need that Avid could not so at that time Avid S*cked!

To me Nick a totally wrong and probably FCP marketing hype view of history.

FCP was around long before Adrenaline and long before XDV. If my failing memory serves it was around slightly before Meridians. It was an Apple giveaway. Yes you should have paid for it but if you asked the dealer they threw FCP in as a sweetener to get you to buy the, THEN, vastly overpriced Mac hardwre.

FCP developed an appropriate level of market share given that it was by far the worst NLE around at that time. (IMO it was worse than Premier.) The cheapest Avid at the time was XPRESS on a MAC at $20 to $30k. (Even owning an Avid NT for a short time I never considered it anything other than dipping a toe in the murky waters of cheap Taiwanese PC's for Avid). 

XDV was launched to grab a share of the Premier's and FCP's market. At this time Avids share in that market was zero ( or .1% if you did count Avid NT ). The early success of XDV and the first versions of Pro's was such that it forced FCP into putting some serious attention into it's then abysmal functionality and applying serious quantities of Apples marketing hype into it. 

For whatever reason, (over confidence? over extended by DNA development? etc etc) it was at that point in time that Avid was slow to react. Since they have started to react happily it looks more like its a proactive rather than reactive process. Long may it continue.

 

 

You are going back too far Andrew, FCP tipping point was probably 4 years ago with FCP5 ? and cheap i/o cards from AJA and Blackmagic at that point 'professionals' started to look at it. A lot of editors producers and directors wanted to have there own tools Apple sold the dream.

The market was crying out for change the desktop video revolution was becoming mainstream (fast computers low cost storage and cheaper cameras) people forgave FCP of its short comings to ride a new wave.

Avid fans may not like FCP or rate it but it has changed the industry forever. 

The good news is Avid woke up and has delivered a far better product at a good price than it would ever have done if FCP had not moved the market to a low cost base.

The big revolution wave is probably over and the kids are probably now bored with it and are back on the XBOX playing racing drivers!

 

NICKB:

FCP tipping point was probably 4 years ago with FCP5 ?

Almost exactly what I said. FCP was forced to that position BECAUSE they were losing market share.

The revolution had happened long before FCP woke up with V5. That is back when Avid introduced XDV.  An Avid interface, all be it slightly crippled at the top end, for $1200, with optional cheap analog IO ($200 Canopus.) For the first 3 or 4 years of XDV almost no one missed (or even asked for) CC, JLK editing, second row of buttons etc and the few that did had MC settings made available to them through the forums here.

From memory FCP had to drop its price to match XDV and it was not until a year or so after Pro came along with MC's CC added that FCP actually woke up and did anything at all. That is FCP has only ever been reactive and IMO never the revolution.

So IMO it was XDV and the Fast family of editors that changed desktop editing forever.  Happily so far the almost give away prices of most NLE's nowdays has not crippled Avid into stopping development of really usefull (for me anyway) new functionality. Sync script, AMA, multi framerate timelines, stereo HD editing etc.

But who cares who or how the current results are working for me.

AndrewAction:

FCP has only ever been reactive and IMO never the revolution.

 

Interesting how others see it.

There's certainly a lot of revisionist history going around ;-)

I'll comment from a first-hand POV. In the 2000, 2001 era I worked for a high-end post house doing TV shows, features and spots. We were an Avid and linear shop. FCP was at about version 1.25 IIRC. We were also an early adopter of HD. Avid had no solution except the newly acquired DS, which had just been bumped up to HD and the tag was in the $300K and up range.

So the owner had me start looking around at other options. At that time Cinewave had been introduced, which let us look at doing HD at a far lower cost than DS. Cinewave by itself was about $25K. The rest was the G4, FCP and a RAID array.

At the same time we also had an SD FCP set-up within our walls used by another vendor. This was running with an uncompressed 601 Digital Voodoo card. If you remember, uncompressed was only possible in Symphony and DS back then.

A few comments were made about color correction. Granted FCP came later in supplying a 3-way Color Corrector, but it did have slider-based RGB color correction in early versions.

- Oliver

OliverPeters:

I'll comment from a first-hand POV.

Oliver, my comments are first hand POV. They are the perspective of the owner, researcher, IT purchaser and editor for the facility. Incidentally I had dropped my linear suite from productions prior to 2k.  I aquired Final Cut V1.0 to go with an existing Targa 2000 boards here. The output quality was OK..... but the FC interface was virtually unusable at time. It was simply a time consuming slog from one workaround to the next.

OliverPeters:

This was running with an uncompressed 601 Digital Voodoo card.

Ah ha latch on to any IO card with a semi decent performance, hope like hell your software manages to talk to it in some shape or form,  then claim to the kudos for your software. Remind you in any way of FCS's marketing verbal diarrhea of today?

FWIW We were editing and broacasting uncompressed analog off DPS Perception Cards long before FC raised its head.

NICKB:

Lightworks would win the pure timeline cutting challenge in my book!

Wish I'd seen it when I had the chance.  They might have survived if they took

"work" out of their name.