jveekeres:

..

I would like to suggest that avid brings back Xpress pro or something similar. A product that is not loaded up with functionality that is not needed by the large majority and makes the system requirements heavier and heavier with every release.

Personally I would like avid to separate in 2 categories. Cinema and TV. In my "TV world" the stations and producers are trying to squeeze out every little dollar out of every project. And more and more I'm becoming a mass production facility, producing similar game shows, reality shows, award shows and talk shows. Seen from that perspective I don't need so much new functionality. I need more simple workflows to be faster and cheaper. Xpress pro HD 5.x with AMA support would be ok for 80% of my daily work.

For the record, I was against Avid getting rid of Xpress Pro, I thought MC and Symphony should have been improved more to create distance between the products. I also thought, and still think, Avid needs an entry level editor that has the same interface as MC.

That all said, the system requirements have actually DECREASED since the AXP days. Yup, that's true. MC 3.1.1 works better for me than AXP 5.7 did, and look at my crappy system specs below.

And if you're doing professional work, then you need a professional tool, i.e. MC. The few $K you'd save by using AXP you'd lose in time wasted due to using a product with fewer features.

3D is the hot trend and Avid could not be seen as missing it. NAB 2009 - "BSkyB Executive To Present Keynote And Join All-Star Industry Panel On The Future Of Stereoscopic 3D At 2009 NAB Show." The big studios are commiting to 3D time will tell if they were on target.

I do not want Stereoscopic 3D in my Media Composer. I have no plans to ever use it (never say never but) and all the code added to support it just complicates the Media Composer software. For ME 3D is a negative for MC and did not make me want to upgrade.

Just my thoughts.

vince

DShulkin:

My point is that if you want less functionality, lesser system requirements, and older workflows, please stay on your Xpress Pro that should still be working just fine and leave the the current software lineup where it is at!

DShulkin, I was on 1x MC 2.1.8 and 4x Xpress pro 5.1.8 systems and I was fine. But then came XDCAM. I believe strongly in filebased workflows and that they will improve my productivity. So I upgraded to MC3. (3.5 gives us AMA and that's what I actually wanted but all has been said about that.) I did one project with XDCAM and all went ok.

But my XW8200's are getting old. they need to be replaced with xw8600 but not because AMA doesn't work... no soon they need to be replaced cause 3D won't work.

I think I have to vote with the who cares on 3D. I'm looking at it from the vertical product positioning. Avid has three primary products (not counting Pinnacle). At the low end is Media Composer, the middle has Symphony, and the high end has DS. If Avid want's to claim market leadership with 3D then why wan't it in DS first, then Symphony, then Media Composer. Instead they dump this pointless feature in their low end product. I say 3D is pointless because it really is at the low end. Yes, Hollywood want's 3D. But, Hollywood will also pay the bucks for Symphony and DS. What is needed at the low end is Red, secondary color correction, and better audio.

Put features into the products that are important to the vertical placement of the product.

I call this another case of a marketing suit seeing a shiny thing. "Ohhhhh, shiny....." Marketing suits never care about the functionality or core features. They only care about the shiny.

Hi,

jveekeres:

If avid thinks that 3D is a important feature that will help sales of avid to customers like Randall and Disney then I support that. But I'm sure that most of us are not "Disney". 

Yeah, but most of us a) aren't as big a client as Disney and b) don't give Avid as much street cred as Disney. 

If Disney says "Hey, Avid, we want a 3d capability for our major motion pictures that are released worldwide," that carries more clout than me saying "Hey, Avid, I want a better effects architecture for my safety video that will be shown primarily to firemen during in-house training sessions." 

Similarly, Avid can say in their marketing materials, "Here's a list of Disney films that were edited on Avid," but I doubt they'll say "Carl Amoscato used Avid to edit Field Deployable Latrines and Shave/Shower Units for the US Air Force" in their marketing materials.

jveekeres:

It is the "one fits all" thinking that I don't believe in. Especially if we start with 3D,

You could take "3D" out of that sentence and throw in some other feature that you might not use on a day to day basis (ScriptSync, RT TC display, Fluid Stabilizer, SpectraMatte), and the fact remains that even though you may not use it, somebody somewhere loves it and would be angry if they didn't have it.  Avid's got to keep all of us happy.

adios,
Carl

jveekeres:

did one project with XDCAM and all went ok.

But my XW8200's are getting old. they need to be replaced with xw8600 but not because AMA doesn't work... no soon they need to be replaced cause 3D won't work.

Why replace systems to run functions that you will never use?  A fair and good point!  And it is not lost on me.  Maybe the compromise is an add-on.  During the install we decide what features you require.  We've done this for over a decade with Avid, why not just have the 3D as an install option.  If you install your hardware requirement is this...

From my perspective, I'm editing less and less and supporting more and more (this is just my situation), I'm selfish in the desire to have common interfaces/workflows/feature sets to all of my workstations so my training and support of them are easier for me. 

But Carl,

I agree with you... Avid got to keep us all happy. So in the line of what "the dark" said could the solution be to expand the line again to Xpress Pro, MC, Symphony and DS?

I don't believe avid should focus on my needs. Greece should in no case be used as a reference. I do understand that there is a very big group of users all over the world that wants to acquire and output media more easy and most of all faster in a file based world. That group is by far bigger then the one that needs 3D. That does not mean avid should not bring 3D. But it is not needed by most of us in MC now.

the_dark:

If Avid want's to claim market leadership with 3D then why wan't it in DS first, then Symphony, then Media Composer. Instead they dump this pointless feature in their low end product.

They "dumped it" in MC because the editors who are/will be cutting these Stereoscopic 3D films will be using MC as they always have.  MC is the core editing app for all those films edited on Avids. Those people will need to be able to monitor their work before they get to finishing on the DS.  Your POV is vastly skewed if you're thinking that the reason 3D functionality only exists in MC because no one at the higher level wanted it. 

And I agree with Carl about replacing "Stereoscopic 3D" with any feature added in the last few years.  I have no need to edit in Surround sound.  I don't even need AMA.  But I'm not going to spurn Avid for developing innovative features that set it's products apart from the competition.  To me, that's what it's all about. 

Avid can now say unequivocably that they have been an innovator of Stereoscopic 3D post production.  That's big news.  If you don't need the feature then so what?  I couldn't tell you the last time I used an Asynchronous Trim, but the feature is there and I'm not going to cry and lament about how it should be a user installable option because I don't use it. 

Hi,

DShulkin:

why not just have the 3D as an install option.

That's a solution to "I don't want to pay for 3d," but doesn't do anything to solve "Avid is spending too much of their internal resources solving problems that most of us don't face, like 3d, while neglecting things like P2 & XDCAM import, effects improvement, audio, color correction, etc."

Kenton.VanNatten:

I have no need to edit in Surround sound.  I don't even need AMA.  But I'm not going to spurn Avid for developing innovative features that set it's products apart from the competition.  To me, that's what it's all about. 

Avid can now say unequivocably that they have been an innovator of Stereoscopic 3D post production.  That's big news.  If you don't need the feature then so what?  I couldn't tell you the last time I used an Asynchronous Trim, but the feature is there and I'm not going to cry and lament about how it should be a user installable option because I don't use it. 

Exactly!  We all cry and moan when Avid falls behind because we think they're not innovating anymore.  Then when they add something innovative, we all cry and moan because the area they're innovating in isn't the specific area we wanted them to work on.

The only way to solve it is to sell Media Composer as a 1 video track/2 audio track cuts-only editor for $20.  Everything else (more video tracks, more audio tracks, trim mode, effects mode, color correction, ScriptSync, RT TC, AMA, 3d, etc) would be offered separately and cost between $1 - $50.*  Lots of people like Trim Mode, so it only costs $1.  Apparently only James Cameron wants 3d, so it costs $50. 

*Based on all the angry upgrade threads I've read over the last 5 years or so, $50 is all anyone is willing to spend.  We could also try "Radiohead Pricing", in which everyone just pays what they think a particular feature is worth.

good luck,
Carl

camoscato:

I have no need to edit in Surround sound

Todd started this thread from the priorities point of view. Please give me one good argument why avid needs to give 3D priority over surround? We have have protools for that? Surround is now 5,6 (how many?) years out there but the number 1 (cinema) movie editor can't do it while every movie is in surround. I can see you in 3D... but can't hear you in 3D.... sorry but I don't get that.

It is not the innovation itself that is the problem... It's the priorities in which they are implemented.

jveekeres:

camoscato:

I have no need to edit in Surround sound

That was me that said that.

Todd also started this thread a year ago.

jveekeres:

Please give me one good argument why avid needs to give 3D priority over surround?

Surround sound editing/playback from directly within Avid already exists.  It's new in 3.5 as well.

Hi Jeroen,

1. You quoted me wrong.  That quote came from Kenton.

2. I'm not getting into an internet pissing contest about what feature is more important than what other feature.

good luck,
Carl

Final Cut Studio 3 could be out soon, what if that had 3D and Avid didn't?

3D is at 2 levels

1. Big Hollywood blockbusters

2. 'Hobby' experimental productions, which i wouldn't mind playing about with myself for fun.

As to other things Avid should be doing, how do we know they are not working on improving Media Composer? I suspect they are and they will release when ready.

I think it's great to have a new innovative feature. The reason not a lot of people need it yet is because it is a new innovative feature! Just think, it could be a new selling point for your clients next big production and you won't have to worry about being under bid by a competitor using some other non linear app.

Who's saying we can't have both new features and better file format workflows? I want both.

jveekeres:

It is not the innovation itself that is the problem... It's the priorities in which they are implemented.

And that is the core moral of this entire thread - priorities.