What's this talk of a cheaper Autodesk high end editor?

Will it have any effect on Avid?

NICKB:

What's this talk of a cheaper Autodesk high end editor?

Will it have any effect on Av

since you can do everything smoke does on the Mac already with FCS/Avid, AE, etc., I highly doubt we'll be  seeing a run to Autodesk and its steep learning curve.  Especially from the Avid user-base as DS and total conform between MC and Sypmh offer a far better finish workflow than Smoke can offer.  Feels like a hail-mary pass from Autodesk, as in "what the hell do we do now to gain market share?"  And at around $15k (reported on another forum), it's still a bit pricey.

sw

Yes good point, I have FCP Avid, Adobe master collection all on my mac and other than 3D stuff like NUKE and sound apps like PRO Tools its a powerful set up however intergration could be much improved!

I wonder If this Autodesk move spells the end of High End kit, i have often thought its days are numbered.

It could effect Avid DS and Symphony market perception on price.

Agree $15k will not win them any new customers outside of its own market, however there could be a market for a good finish system for FCP projects at under $10k

NICKB:

Yes good point, I have FCP Avid, Adobe master collection all on my mac and other than 3D stuff like NUKE and sound apps like PRO Tools its a powerful set up however intergration could be much improved!

I wonder If this Autodesk move spells the end of High End kit, i have often thought its days are numbered.

It could effect Avid DS and Symphony market perception on price.

Agree $15k will not win them any new customers outside of its own market, however there could be a market for a good finish system for FCP projects at under $10k

Autodesk tested the water earlier this year with the release of Flare the Junior Flame artist station.  There is no question that the market for turnkey systems is under threat because of the march of the desktop applications like Nuke.  Nuke does many things faster than Flame and one wouldn't put it past the Foundry to bolt on a finishing app style GUI.

I've been amazed that Autodesk have managed to keep their system prices so high for so long and with such great overlap in the products too.  We've all known this was coming it was just when.

switthaus:

since you can do everything smoke does on the Mac already with FCS/Avid, AE, etc., I highly doubt we'll be  seeing a run to Autodesk and its steep learning curve.

First off, Autoscreet still has some excellent tools.

Second, in my market it easier to find a qualified Smoke operator than a qualified DS operator. Most DS operators out here are MC or Symphony guys who took the additional class to go after more work. The Smoke operators have all been doing the effects / compositing work for years as that is the main reason to go to Smoke.

Third, Smoke still commands more respect (and therefore billing) than DS does. Remember we are talking about the perception of the people who book the room, not us editors.

Fourth, we have yet to see how well this operates on the Mac. They had to wait for the 64 bit system to even do it. That puts them ahead of AE, FCP, etc. already. The system may "smoke" the others in performance. (Or it may be a dog, who knows)

If you have a graphics artist who ran Smoke in a former life (I do), and he already has the Mac (he does) and your client base can be expanded by touting that you have a Smoke, then it becomes a simple matter of ROI calculations to see how long it will take to pay off 15K. And I suspect, at least in my market that it will be far easier to justify the Smoke purchase than a DS purchase. 

VGUK2:

Cinematic editor or a wedding video editor Avid's dull marketing is about as enjoyable as being repeatedly slapped round the face with a wet fish.

Now that was funny! 

gumbaedit:

Mixing in 5.1?  How many editors do you know that 1) have the knowledge of audio it requires to do a 5.1 surround mix properly and 2) how many editors do you know have the proper setup in their editing bay to do a surround mix properly.  Then, show me a client who will entrust the audio mix of their tv or feature film, the two main uses of 5.1, to the picture editor instead of an audio facility.  At that point, I will show you a client with absolutely no knowledge of how to spend their money wisely.

However, if you do find an editor who mixes wedding videos in 5.1, let me know, I'd like to check it out.

This is an old skool type response that I should've expected if you aren't editing film or TV you must be a wedding videographer.  Pathetic elitism or complete lack of knowledge for the huge dynamic range of media production being undertaken today?

I personally have mixed 5.1 audio in many productions from digital shorts, art installations to spec spots and pre-vis, in fact I am currently working on an art installation that will certainly include a 5.1 audio mix.  Mixed with M-Audio LX4 5.1 speakers fed by a Focusrite Saffire FW audio interface.  I don't pretend this is high-end audio mixing but in terms of putting together an immersive sound installation it is certainly more than acceptable and I have even made the final mix on site via the Macbook Pro and Logic while the client was watching who was bowled over by the experience.

I am seeing a vastly different client base from when I started as they are much more media literate and keen to take their projects further after initials discussions and a surround mix may well be discussed.  So no, I don't believe 5.1 audio is the preserve of Film and TV.

gumbaedit:

Mixing in 5.1?  How many editors do you know that 1) have the knowledge of audio it requires to do a 5.1 surround mix properly and 2) how many editors do you know have the proper setup in their editing bay to do a surround mix properly.  Then, show me a client who will entrust the audio mix of their tv or feature film, the two main uses of 5.1, to the picture editor instead of an audio facility.  At that point, I will show you a client with absolutely no knowledge of how to spend their money wisely.

However, if you do find an editor who mixes wedding videos in 5.1, let me know, I'd like to check it out.

Hmmm... I seem to remember a similar argument about editing stereo about 20 years ago...

Just because your clients may not want you to mix 5.1, don't tar everyone with the same brush.

VGUK2:

...currently working on an art installation that will certainly include a 5.1 audio mix. 

... in terms of putting together an immersive sound installation it is certainly more than acceptable and ... the client was watching who was bowled over by the experience.

No one enjoys getting immersed in their soundmix more than self-absorbed installation artists.

gumbaedit:

Mixing in 5.1?  How many editors do you know that 1) have the knowledge of audio it requires to do a 5.1 surround mix properly and 2) how many editors do you know have the proper setup in their editing bay to do a surround mix properly.  Then, show me a client who will entrust the audio mix of their tv or feature film, the two main uses of 5.1, to the picture editor instead of an audio facility.  At that point, I will show you a client with absolutely no knowledge of how to spend their money wisely.

However, if you do find an editor who mixes wedding videos in 5.1, let me know, I'd like to check it out.

5.1?! How about just having the ability to change the volume w/o stopping play? How about being able to stack audio effects? How about not having to stare at the timeline while waveforms redraw? How about not having to wait for the next pass to hear an audio change? How about being able to change the Play Loop length? How about being able to press Play Loop while in Source Record w/o being thrown into Trim Mode (which is just one of those tolerated bugs) b/c according to Help, this should not happen.

I have enough knowledge and experience to adjust a volume control and know that it should not stop the sound from playing.

I know you're talking about 5.1, but MC falls short when it comes to some much more basic audio features.

And if I'm wrong and any of the things I mentioned are no longer issues in 4.0 or I just didn't know how to get the program to do what I want it to, I'm all ears.

VGUK2:

In other news Avid is about to have its high-end business attacked by Autodesk as they are imminently releasing a software only version of Smoke for the Mac with Kona3 for IO.  Bye bye DS...

Where did you hear that?  Would love to read if there is a link.  

If this is true, it is a very interesting development.

Smoke is an extremely powerful finishing system.  I know I am opening the can here when i say this, but I feel very comfortable in saying this that with all due respect, as of now, there is absolutely no comparison between a smoke system and an FCS/CS4 package on a mac (no matter how fully loaded that mac is).  I am pretty sure that people in this forum, who have properly used smoke at some point in their career, will agree.  Aside from its rock solid stability and an excellent set of tools/modules that have been perfected over the period of some 16 or 17 years or so, its the way you work/interact with that piece of software that makes the whole process incredibly fast and reliable.

If the above news is true, then it is for sure to cause some stir out there...

"...we have yet to see how well this operates on the Mac. They had to wait for the 64 bit system to even do it."

Agreed.

I am afraid thats not true.

The cheap Smoke may only be available to facilities who buy into all the Autodesk family of products rather than be available to everyone. 

Wouldn't A DS be better for 'editors '?

From what I hear the announcement will be made at the Japanese version of NAB which happens within a week or two. Not sure what it is called.

itmatters:

VGUK2:

...currently working on an art installation that will certainly include a 5.1 audio mix. 

... in terms of putting together an immersive sound installation it is certainly more than acceptable and ... the client was watching who was bowled over by the experience.

No one enjoys getting immersed in their soundmix more than self-absorbed installation artists.

Nice edit BTW!!!

I was the artist and I didn't spit any sushi anywhere.  Not only do I have a successful production company but I also work as a commissioned artist.  Self-absorbed?  Maybe, but I'd prefer to think of it as attention to detail...

TCurren:

First off, Autoscreet still has some excellent tools.

never said it didn't.  Use them when the project/budget calls for them, but that's not often.

TCurren:

Second, in my market it easier to find a qualified Smoke operator than a qualified DS operator.

Big world outside LA.  DS is a far more flexible system than Smoke and works much better with Avid than Autoscreet does.  And yes, I have bought both and used both platforms for finishing work...even the type of work you do, being long form broadcast.  DS is simply better going from and Avid offline.  We have a shop in my market that bought a smoke* at NAB two years ago thinking that smoke* did command that respect from top agencies and they could offer the few features uniique to smoke* over DS to these clients...funny thing is it rarely gets used and DS could not be dislodged at the workhorse of the facility...in fact, the shop may be looking to offload the smoke* in the near future.

TCurren:

Remember we are talking about the perception of the people who book the room, not us editors.

You are letting the people who call to book a suite make "platform decisions" on the gigs that come through your shop and what is best for a particular gig?  That would point to lack of confidence in the editor.  I ran into that when I brought the first Flame systems into my market.  People would book the Flame on buzzwords, not knowing what they really needed.  My clients never dictate to me that I need to offline on one system or online on another.  In essence they are looking to the editor (me or someone else) to guide them through the post process.

TCurren:

Most DS operators out here are MC or Symphony guys who took the additional class to go after more work. The Smoke operators have all been doing the effects / compositing work for years as that is the main reason to go to Smoke.

Thats a good point.  I see smoke* as much more of a niche product suited more for compositing and effects.  Personally (and you know my POV, so its no surprise), I would pony up for the DS because you have all the great editorial and audio tools, with the grfx. efx, etc and it works far better in the Avid workflow.   Avid never has promoted the editorial capabilities of DS well enough, which are far better than the Autoscreet product.  At one point, the facility where I was general manager/senior editor of had 2 flames, 1 smoke, 1 DS and two media composers.  I certainly got to know what worked best for each platform.  Spots done on our smoke* were usually heavy in effects and taken from start to finish in smoke (meaning, no Avid offline).

TCurren:

If you have a graphics artist who ran Smoke in a former life (I do), and he already has the Mac (he does) and your client base can be expanded by touting that you have a Smoke,

Those days of touting one box over another are mostly gone (at least outside LA, I guess).  Today most clients really don't care what system we use.  Make their product great, have a good experience during the process, and come in on budget.  They'll be back for more of that experience versus "I have a smoke*".