DS as an editor

I am thinking if i buy DS i will abandon all other editing applications, so i will do rough cut all the way to finish on the DS

is that a good idea?

 

As to Lightworks, this used to be a VERY stable application have they re written it or something?

NICKB:

is that a good idea?

I would think so. Even if you end up not liking it for long form you still have your current MC for very fast rough and ready offlines

BLKDOG:

I am just glad we got back to talking about something remotely related to an Avid Product!

Me too Todd: inspite of all its shorcomings and the recent setbacks and despite its market share all I can say Avid's Products are the best Editor, Period. If I am asked to praise Avid the first thing that comes to my Mind is

 

I trust Avid, I can trust Avid, I can depend on Avid.

 

Haze:

switthaus:

Please use the tool before making statements like this.

Well said.  An informed opinion is appreciated by all.

Guys, assuming that I do not know the DS and am uninformed (and therefore implying that I'm talking out of my You-know-what) is quite arrogant of You, not to mention the aristocratic approach of Tommyp:

Tommyp:

I totally get that some tools are not for everyone

kind of fascist, if I may; I wish MC had some of the post features of DS, but DS itself is light years away from the editing usability of MC; if I was to edit commercials or music videos ONLY I'd stick to DS from the beginning to delivery, but for anything more articulated (and longer than 5 minutes) please give me the flexibility of MC. I'm more than willing to engage in this refreshing discussion if You keep it in polite and civilized terms, as I'm trying to do myself, or else please do not take the time to reply, let's agree that we disagree, and drop it here.

 

Regards to You all with no acrimony, Luca

Jayanta:

I got a tip from George and right clicked the Lightworks icon on the desktop and changed the target from ("C:\Program Files\Lightworks\Lightworks\lightworks.exe") to ("C:\Program Files\Lightworks\Lightworks\ntcardvt.exe") and it launched alright

Yes, I  discovered that launch too.  The problem is now that it doesn't seem to want to shutdown properly.  I have to kill it in Task Manager.

However I was able to bring in some h264 and QT animation media to play with - it seems to work OK.  1920x1080 media also scaled into a PAL project in real time, trim modes function as they always used to, and I'd forgotten how handy a visible clipboard can be!  I also played an edit while simultaneously displaying video levels and vectors.  Really cool.

Unfortunately, even though it was installed on my backup Avid system it refused to recognize DNxHD media.  Apparently that is a paid upgrade.  It does handle AVCHD though, and imported a PNG animation sequence flawlessly too.

It will be interesting to see where it goes.

Dom Q. Silverio:

In their defense I think this is a major code rewrite and not your typical upgrade.

Yes, Dom, it does look like a reasonably substantial rewrite rather than a simple upgrade.  A bit like MC5 in that respect I guess.

[EDIT] Just talked to my son in Holland, who has also been trying it.  Apparently there has been a bug fix patch released already.  Sound like anyone we know?

John, after starting LW with the ntcardvt executable a couple of times You can come back to the Lightworks.exe launcher and it works as it should (!), as for quitting the software: use the top right X icon, or ALT-X; if You go to the settings, the fingerprint icon in the left toolbar, You can enable the standard Windows frame window and quit the usual way.

 

luca.mg:

but for anything more articulated (and longer than 5 minutes) please give me the flexibility of MC.

 

Hi luca, Can you expand on that? What do you think is missing from DS to not make it as good an editorial editor for longform work compared to MC ?

 

Hi NICKB, I simply find MC to be leaning itself more toward editing than DS does, DS has far superior colour correction, masking tools, compositing, and effects, but when it comes to flexibility I find DS to be more "square", so to speak; take the inability to load sequences in the source monitor for example, if working on a feature film broken in reels, when one has to join the reels for a screening it is not as easy as with MC. You may argue that I'm not as skilled on DS as I'm on MC, and I also own an outdated DS, don't even remember the release, but it was "almost current" back in 2005, when I've had it second hand, which is why it's taking the dust, and the older it gets the less I use it, the less I use it the less I get fluent with it, the less I'm fluent the less I can appreciate it, and so on... but if DS is shipped with a copy of MC there must be a reason after all.

luca.mg:

I wish MC had some of the post features of DS, but DS itself is light years away from the editing usability of MC; if I was to edit commercials or music videos ONLY I'd stick to DS from the beginning to delivery, but for anything more articulated (and longer than 5 minutes) please give me the flexibility of MC.

Luca - as many know here, I am more than happy to engage in a professional debate.  Where you are taking most criticism on this subject was your blanket statements without mentioning the experience you have on the product (are you a DS operator as well?), that are simply not true.  If you had couched your first comment in a statement like "for me, I see DS as a finishing tool, not an editor...." the things would have been different.  Using terms like "arrogant" and "facist" certainly don't hold up to your "civilized" and " "polite" test, eh?  

luca.mg:

let's agree that we disagree, and drop it here.

While I certainly don't agree at all with your point of view on this one, I am cool with this.  You might want to pop over to the DS forum and see what kind of responses you get there!  It's an even more passionate user base than Media Composer....  

regards - Scott

luca.mg:

DS is shipped with a copy of MC there must be a reason after all.

DS includes MC to use as an assist station for ingesting file based material (XDCAM HD, P2, etc.).  In this regard MC does outperform DS, but I wouldn't qualify ingesting material as "editing".

Hi Scott, as a long time forum member I have it pretty clear that You're keen to engage in professional debates, we don't know each other, but I read Your posts here and on the L2, and I'm aware of who You are; there must be a communication/language problem here: if You say

switthaus:

luca.mg:

DS it's a finishing tool, not an editor.

This is about as false as any statement can be.

I take it as You said "Luca you're a liar", being english not my first language I can be mistaken, my apologies. Of course I'm not a DS operator, I'm an editor, and even if I own an old DS, whenever I have to use it I hire an operator, but to say that I do not know the DS at all would be a false statement 

switthaus:

If you had couched your first comment in a statement like "for me, I see DS as a finishing tool, not an editor...." the things would have been different.

I understand that and totally agree with You.

switthaus:

Using terms like "arrogant" and "facist" certainly don't hold up to your "civilized" and " "polite" test, eh?

Touché, but believe it or not, statements like "some tools are not for everyone" can indeed sound unpleasantly aristocrat, and while I do agree that fascist may be an overstatement, the gap between aristocrat and fascit it's a very a small one. 

switthaus:

While I certainly don't agree at all with your point of view on this one, I am cool with this.

I'm cooling down too

switthaus:

You might want to pop over to the DS forum and see what kind of responses you get there!  It's an even more passionate user base than Media Composer....  

regards - Scott

That I can tell, best regards, Luca

I am testing it for 2-3 days now.

Great futures that are really missing from MC.

If MC had it (or got it from Liquid) it would be a real champion.

But LWs as it is now is not to be trusted for any kind of serious editing.

sverkalo:

But LWs as it is now is not to be trusted for any kind of serious editing.

Of course it can't be used for serious editing: it's a beta release.

How do you know? Have you tried?

It's just to easy to say something while I took many hours to test it.

Hi George, take it easy mate, I'm testing the software too; I'm slightly disappointed as I was expecting for a linux release, but am not complaining about the bugs, because it's a beta release after all; what is the matter with this thread and me? Am I in the wrong place at wrong time? Whatever I post here I seem to upset people, is it time for me to take some time off the forum or to unsubscribe this discussion!?! Cheers, Luca