switthaus:

Are you saying that FCP has been successful based on price and over-hyped marketing?

If you read the whole sentence rather than just the portion quote and I feel reasonably confident the meaning of my "much broader generalisation on marketing" will become apparent.

um, I did and still came up with the question asked, as I think many would.  Question stands.

Oh my another FCP vs Avid thread on the Avid forums.

AndrewAction I'd love to read your answer to Scott's question.  I consider myself a pretty fair minded individual and have to say I came to the same conclusion as Scott.

When I read these FCP vs Avid threads the one thing that is always apparent is the most fervent naysayers against a particular tool are the ones with the least experience of that tool.  I can recall many newb mistakes being flagged up on this forum as evidence that FCP is not up to the job.  When I transitioned from Avid to FCP I was shown the correct FCP workflow from a very very experienced broadcast FCP editor as apposed to trying to make FCP work like Avid like so many here.

FCP for my workflow is rock solid but I don't pretend it is 100% for 100% of all jobs out there that's why I think it is very important to listen to the likes of Scott who has a wide experience using both platforms.  To my knowledge there isn't yet the perfect NLE but I find FCS3 more perfect than Avid, others will have the contrary opinion but to just put one platform's success down to "over-hyped marketing" shows a level of complete and utter ignorance.

Just an FYI, I never started this as an FCP vs. Avid thread, but more as hype/marketing thread.  If you go to the other companies site and read about the success stories, the post production teams gush about how well it works, same here for Avid.  But, what you never hear about are the jobs where there is an "oh sh**" moment and they have to go back to whatever it was they were using.

gumbaedit:

But, what you never hear about are the jobs where there is an "oh sh**" moment and they have to go back to whatever it was they were using.

The title should read more like

From Avid to Hell and Back!

Honestly though I'm glad theres competition!

lol

gumbaedit:

 

Just an FYI, I never started this as an FCP vs. Avid thread, but more as hype/marketing thread.  If you go to the other companies site and read about the success stories, the post production teams gush about how well it works, same here for Avid.  But, what you never hear about are the jobs where there is an "oh sh**" moment and they have to go back to whatever it was they were using.

 

Can I ask if you actually read the article before posting it?

The Studio Daily article makes an interesting read and if one just takes the title at face value and reads nothing more one might conclude that FCP is not up to task.  However reading the article really shifts the attention off FCP and focusses on the inadequacies of the infrastructure that was provided for the editors to work on.

If you read the article they state clearly that there was no provision for a Unity replacement combined with a overall lack of storage space which is put squarely at the door of FCP.  However, when they move back to Unity and have ample storage space it becomes an Avid success all of a sudden.  It's just incompetent journalism and the vast majority here lapped it up.

“When I was cutting on the [Final Cut] system and didn’t have to share, I had no problems with it,” says Burnett. “The moment we tried to treat it like a Unity, it didn’t work the way I was used to. I would have to create a new project and copy it into another system. The system just wasn’t a good fit for what we do here.” If you set up a shared editing environment and the only way you can get it to work is to copy projects then surely it is not the fault of the NLE it is the fault of the berk that put in the infrastructure.  Why do you think Apple provides Final Cut Server for exactly the type of environment described in the article?

The "oh sh**" moment would've been when they spent thousands more $$ transitioning back to Avid when they could've purchased Final Cut Server for $999.  Someone should be losing their job for incompetence not blaming FCP or any other NLE for their own lack of provision.

If any finger pointing should be done to Apple it should be for the generally lousy publicity of Final Cut Server.

You make a good case although to put it simply isn't it saying that Avid can do what FCP can't surely your not comparing FCserver with Unity are you?

Jvr

JVR:

You make a good case although to put it simply isn't it saying that Avid can do what FCP can't surely your not comparing FCserver with Unity are you?

 

Jvr

No I don't think that is what the article saying at all.  The article is really saying that if you fail to design your infrastructure to meet the requirements of your workflow then blame someone else and in this case FCP was the fall guy.  In essence the article is more about the sloping shoulders of the system integrators than the merits of one solution or the other.  It is not beyond the wit of man to set up a working collaborative editing environment using FCP and FCSvr it is just different to MC+Unity.

Personally, I know of two facilities that are using FCSvr for asset management, collaboration and automation of output and it works in their workflow.

VGUK2:

it is just different to MC+Unity.

and to too many "drink the Kool-aid" Avid employees and users, "different" means inferior, which is of course, wrong (I certainly drank my share of that Kool-Aid back in the day...).  We saw the same thing when Avid bought Softimage and the DS product.  While superior in many ways to any product Avid had on the market, the "different" tag haunted it almost to extinction. Perhaps Avid marketing is smart NOT to get into this type of narrow approach.