PDA

View Full Version : Avid Media Composer 7 and Pro Tools 11 Now Available




MacRumors
Jun 27, 2013, 03:45 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/27/avid-media-composer-7-and-pro-tools-11-now-available/)


First announced (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/08/avid-announces-media-composer-7-and-pro-tools-11-ios-compatible-recording-hardware/) in April, Avid's upgraded video editing and audio production tools, Media Composer 7 and Pro Tools 11, are now available for purchase.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/06/mediacomposer7.jpg
Media Composer 7, Avid's professional video editing software, is being offered at a significant discount though it offers a number of new features including FrameFlex tools and automated media management tasks.Media Composer is the most widely used NLE for professional film and video editing. With Media Composer 7, you gain accelerated high-res-to-HD workflows, automated media management, and Interplay Sphere for Mac support (Media Composer 7 Interplay Edition only--available from Avid resellers and sales reps, extending real-time production everywhere. Experience the fastest file-based media workflows, ACE-certified tools, and the most trusted media management in the industry, now at a lower price.ProTools 11 (http://shop.avid.com/store/product.do?product=325865714796064), which launched last week, is Avid's flagship audio production software. The updated version features the new Avid Audio Engine for increased processing power, additional virtual instruments and effects, and 64-bit performance. Among other upgrades, It also comes equipped with an optimized Workspace Browser and new key command workflows for improved efficiency.The most powerful digital audio workstation just got more powerful. Pro Tools 11 redefines professional music and audio production for today's workflows. From all-new audio and video engines and turbocharged 64-bit performance, to expanded metering and new HD video workflows, Pro Tools 11 enables you to take on the most demanding sessions and maximize your creativity--without holding anything back.Both Media Composer 7 (http://shop.avid.com/store/product.do?product=308349724015072) and Pro Tools 11 (http://shop.avid.com/store/product.do?product=325865714796064) can be purchased from the Avid Store for $999 and $699, respectively. Older Pro Tools users can upgrade (http://shop.avid.com/store/product.do;jsessionid=794984C0614175FD816B738F50EA6D03.ASTPESD1?product=325865714841120) with a $300-$500 fee. Existing Media Composer users can upgrade (http://shop.avid.com/store/product.do?product=308349724017568) to version 7 for $299 to $399.

While the Media Composer 7 Interplay Edition ($1,499) is not available through the Avid website and must be purchased from an Avid reseller or sales rep, the Symphony Option can be purchased (http://shop.avid.com/store/product.do?product=308349724021440) separately for $1,499.

Article Link: Avid Media Composer 7 and Pro Tools 11 Now Available (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/27/avid-media-composer-7-and-pro-tools-11-now-available/)



keysofanxiety
Jun 27, 2013, 03:49 PM
Definitely looking forward to seeing what ProTools 11 brings to the table. But I'm more excited about Logic Pro X :D

chumawumba
Jun 27, 2013, 03:50 PM
Hurry up and update Final Cut to be more usable!

milo
Jun 27, 2013, 03:57 PM
PT11 has been out about a week or so already.

And I'm also way more excited about Logic 10, hopefully not too much longer.

HMI
Jun 27, 2013, 04:02 PM
This is good news!


Also..
RIP Larry Rubin! You will be missed!

ghost187
Jun 27, 2013, 04:12 PM
iWork, Logic, Aperture, etc... All have been delayed for a very long time. My guess is they don't know how to charge for an update. This is a very delicate matter. If they introduce paid updates, they may just loose the App Store over night. Therefore they have been doing major updates but avoid calling them a new version for years now, but they eventually have to do something about this. Honestly for the sake of iOS devices they have to swallow the cost and make Logic X update free to anyone who purchased it on the App Store.

FrizzleFryBen
Jun 27, 2013, 04:28 PM
Hurry up and update Final Cut to be more usable!

What does that have to do with this article?

Viddrumr32
Jun 27, 2013, 04:30 PM
I really wish Avid would offer a subscription in addition to their full priced model. Perhaps this may happen, for the longest time I didn't think they would open up their software to be used with other hardware interfaces besides their own. Maybe by the time PT15 comes out.

pietrociao
Jun 27, 2013, 04:33 PM
What does that have to do with this article?

Final Cut is the direct competitor for Avid. FC is from Apple. This is an Apple forum. It has a lot to do..

FrizzleFryBen
Jun 27, 2013, 04:42 PM
Final Cut is the direct competitor for Avid. FC is from Apple. This is an Apple forum. It has a lot to do..

All I heard was a rant about a competing product

blitzer09x87
Jun 27, 2013, 04:43 PM
although it a bit pricey, i will definitely buy this great app. the best i've ever seen.

goodcow
Jun 27, 2013, 04:45 PM
iWork, Logic, Aperture, etc... All have been delayed for a very long time. My guess is they don't know how to charge for an update. This is a very delicate matter. If they introduce paid updates, they may just loose the App Store over night. Therefore they have been doing major updates but avoid calling them a new version for years now, but they eventually have to do something about this. Honestly for the sake of iOS devices they have to swallow the cost and make Logic X update free to anyone who purchased it on the App Store.

Why is this such a big deal? Just name the App with a version number or year after it.

Pages 2013 or Pages 2.
Final Cut Pro 2013 or Final Cut Pro X 2.

zioxide
Jun 27, 2013, 04:46 PM
Hurry up and update Final Cut to be more usable!

Please, what takes 2 steps in Final Cut takes 10 steps in Avid. Avid has to have the least intuitive and most cumbersome interface ever.

I went to school for Communication Technology & Media and graduated last year. We used both Avid & FCP7. Using Avid felt like I was stepping back 10 years compared to FCP7.

FCPX, although still lacking some of the more advanced features of FCP7, is a major step forward. It's definitely usable but I agree if they update it to include all the features it's missing from FCP7, it will be awesome.

iWork, Logic, Aperture, etc... All have been delayed for a very long time. My guess is they don't know how to charge for an update. This is a very delicate matter. If they introduce paid updates, they may just loose the App Store over night. Therefore they have been doing major updates but avoid calling them a new version for years now, but they eventually have to do something about this. Honestly for the sake of iOS devices they have to swallow the cost and make Logic X update free to anyone who purchased it on the App Store.

I think they're being delayed because they're being redesigned to take advantage of new technologies in the new operating system due out later this year (along with the new Mac Pro & MBPs). I bet we'll see new versions of these software once these new hardware and software comes out.

Sackvillenb
Jun 27, 2013, 04:50 PM
iWork, Logic, Aperture, etc... All have been delayed for a very long time. My guess is they don't know how to charge for an update. This is a very delicate matter. If they introduce paid updates, they may just loose the App Store over night. Therefore they have been doing major updates but avoid calling them a new version for years now, but they eventually have to do something about this. Honestly for the sake of iOS devices they have to swallow the cost and make Logic X update free to anyone who purchased it on the App Store.

Well, it really shouldn't be that complicated. Just make a new version, charge X number of dollars for it, and then use a different redemption code or something at a lower price for those that already own the previous version, to provide a cheaper upgrade cost (as opposed to buying it "fresh" and at full price). With the app store, it's easy to see if someone already has the older version of the app registered to that Apple ID.

I'm really looking forward to Logic X. I hope it has some really good features to help it stay capable and competitive against the new Pro Tools and Ableton. And it could definitely use some workflow and efficiency enhancements :)

beaniemyman
Jun 27, 2013, 04:56 PM
trying my level best to save my pocket money for this app, i used the last one at my friend's house, it was awesome.

MacDav
Jun 27, 2013, 05:03 PM
iWork, Logic, Aperture, etc... All have been delayed for a very long time. My guess is they don't know how to charge for an update. This is a very delicate matter. If they introduce paid updates, they may just loose the App Store over night. Therefore they have been doing major updates but avoid calling them a new version for years now, but they eventually have to do something about this. Honestly for the sake of iOS devices they have to swallow the cost and make Logic X update free to anyone who purchased it on the App Store.

I think they will release new versions of these apps to coincide with the release of the new MacPro. The apps will be optimized to use the benefits of OpenCL. At least this is what they should do. Imho...:)

BrandoFiasco
Jun 27, 2013, 05:28 PM
Please, what takes 2 steps in Final Cut takes 10 steps in Avid. Avid has to have the least intuitive and most cumbersome interface ever.

I went to school for Communication Technology & Media and graduated last year. We used both Avid & FCP7. Using Avid felt like I was stepping back 10 years compared to FCP7.


I'm with you on this one. I recently started working at a Post-Production house that only uses Avid and I just dont understand. Granted the media management is great but other than that, the interface and the tools just dont seem to operate...naturally, I guess you can say. I bounce around and have done work professionally using FCP7, Premiere and After Effects, but jumping into Avid....I feel like such a noob!

kennethsteven
Jun 27, 2013, 06:37 PM
I'm with you on this one. I recently started working at a Post-Production house that only uses Avid and I just dont understand. Granted the media management is great but other than that, the interface and the tools just dont seem to operate...naturally, I guess you can say. I bounce around and have done work professionally using FCP7, Premiere and After Effects, but jumping into Avid....I feel like such a noob!

I was in the same situation. But after being forced to use Avid for the past two years, with the updates Avid has made, I can totally understand its strengths, and I would not want to go back to any version of FCP. Especially when working collaboratively, there are just things FCP cannot do that are easy in Avid. Avid, Photoshop and After Effects is all you need.

nerdynerdynerdy
Jun 27, 2013, 06:58 PM
There's a reason why Avid is the most widely used pro-level NLE in the world, and the choice of most high-end facilities.

There is a steep learning curve, but I guarantee you that behind what looks like a clunky old-fashioned interface is a powerful and very fast application.

If you think that Avid needs ten steps to Final Cut's one or two, I suggest you jump on an Avid forum and start asking questions. There are many ways to achieve tasks in Avid, you just need to understand them.

I've been a professional editor for 15 years, and while I'm a big Apple fan and run my Avid on a Mac Pro, FCP isn't an option for me.

mdriftmeyer
Jun 27, 2013, 09:38 PM
What hefty investment. Glad I'm in the FCP-X Camp and the rest of Apple's Pro Tools.

Pass on this overpriced past.

LaDirection
Jun 27, 2013, 10:47 PM
Please, what takes 2 steps in Final Cut takes 10 steps in Avid. Avid has to have the least intuitive and most cumbersome interface ever.

I DESPISE what Apple did with Final Cut "Pro" X, a quick search of my comments will support that statement, yet I completely agree with your statement.

After Apple killed off it's professional line of video post-production softwares I tried to switch to Media Composer 6. There is absolutely NO WAY in hell that piece of archaic garbage can cut it (no pun intended) even next to the old Final Cut Pro. I'd rather use fricking Lighworks. It is absolutely dreadful and counterproductive.

As for their statement that Avid MC is the most widely used NLE, it is complete Bull. The most used NLE currently on the market be it in TV or film is still the old Final Cut Pro, believe it or not.

Damn Apple, what have you done!?

mikeandbecka
Jun 27, 2013, 11:47 PM
I DESPISE what Apple did with Final Cut "Pro" X, a quick search of my comments will support that statement, yet I completely agree with your statement.

Damn Apple, what have you done!?

Couldn't disagree more!! Obviously you haven't really tried it out since version 10.0.0. Poorly misinformed! FCPX runs circles around 7!

HMI
Jun 27, 2013, 11:56 PM
I'm with you on this one. I recently started working at a Post-Production house that only uses Avid and I just dont understand. Granted the media management is great but other than that, the interface and the tools just dont seem to operate...naturally, I guess you can say. I bounce around and have done work professionally using FCP7, Premiere and After Effects, but jumping into Avid....I feel like such a noob!

Give it time and learn to love the keyboard shortcuts. It may seem weird at first, but you will eventually learn why professionals love it so much!

tk421
Jun 28, 2013, 01:16 AM
As for their statement that Avid MC is the most widely used NLE, it is complete Bull. The most used NLE currently on the market be it in TV or film is still the old Final Cut Pro, believe it or not.


I take it you don't actually work in Hollywood? It's mostly small stuff (independent films, student films) that is Final Cut. But with any major networks or film studios, it's something like 80 or 90% Avid.

ytk
Jun 28, 2013, 01:43 AM
I take it you don't actually work in Hollywood? It's mostly small stuff (independent films, student films) that is Final Cut. But with any major networks or film studios, it's something like 80 or 90% Avid.

Yeah, pretty much. Even the few shows that were on FCP7 are starting to move to Avid in the wake of Apple's abandonment of the pro market. And FCPX's penetration into the pro market stands at about -2% (with a 2% margin of error).

onemoreguitar
Jun 28, 2013, 01:58 AM
I DESPISE what Apple did with Final Cut "Pro" X, a quick search of my comments will support that statement, yet I completely agree with your statement.

After Apple killed off it's professional line of video post-production softwares I tried to switch to Media Composer 6. There is absolutely NO WAY in hell that piece of archaic garbage can cut it (no pun intended) even next to the old Final Cut Pro. I'd rather use fricking Lighworks. It is absolutely dreadful and counterproductive.

As for their statement that Avid MC is the most widely used NLE, it is complete Bull. The most used NLE currently on the market be it in TV or film is still the old Final Cut Pro, believe it or not.

Damn Apple, what have you done!?


I'll go with not. I challenge you to go through your movie collection and watch the last few lines of the credit roll on each movie. Let us all know what percentage of them say Avid down there somewhere. I'm bettin on a fairly high percentage believe it or not.

Avid is a professional application. It requires a professional to run it properly. It will do what you tell it to do. The trick is knowing what you actually want it to do and then being fluent enough in MC to accurately achieve that end. BTW, with Avid there is way more than one way to skin a cat. Avid allows you the flexibility to choose which one suits your production best.

As someone who works on MC for a living, I could not imagine using FCP to handle the many different formats, not to mention the sheer volume of media that I deal with on a daily basis. The only way I could see using FCP is if Avid, which has been on shaky ground for a while as a business, finally goes under and is bought by Apple with MC basically being spruced up a bit and rebranded as FCP. Given Avid's troubles as of late, I don't think that's out of the realm of possibility, although maybe not likely...who knows.

sillybilly
Jun 28, 2013, 02:32 AM
I
As for their statement that Avid MC is the most widely used NLE, it is complete Bull. The most used NLE currently on the market be it in TV or film is still the old Final Cut Pro, believe it or not.

This made me spit out my coffee! TROLL MUCH?

wtffwt
Jun 28, 2013, 02:52 AM
Avid is a professional application. It requires a professional to run it properly.

Doesn't mean you have to operate some convoluted application.

klemsaba
Jun 28, 2013, 03:04 AM
Two years ago our company switched from Media Composer 2.8.4 to Final Cut Pro. This was a complete 'sideways' move as far as features are concerned. But we had new MacPros that replaced our Windows boxes so overall life was good! I can't imagine how much MC 7 would blow away Final Cut Pro today and long for the days to return to AVID. We are still on FCP 7 and I'm not sure what we'll do in a couple of years.

SavaTom
Jun 28, 2013, 03:31 AM
There is only 1 real problem with ProTools 11.

The problem is that the new audio engine is such a quantum leap in technology and efficiency that they should have called it something else other than just "Pro Tools 11".

I dunno what they should have called it but ANYTHING would have been better than just "11".

barkmonster
Jun 28, 2013, 07:17 AM
I'm very annoyed at the amount of money I've wasted of Digidesign/Avid stuff just to use Pro Tools. I started with Pro Tools Free, noticed how awful the editing and mixing on every other DAW I'd ever used was in comparison and bought an Audiomedia III and Pro Tools LE 5, then had to ditch it to move to Mac OS X because Digidesign only offered an over priced upgrade to an 18 input Firewire interface with Pro Tools LE 7 so I bought an Mbox2 Pro for another £400 and ditched the perfectly working PCI card.

USB 2.0 for audio compared with a PCI card isn't ideal but then Pro Tools went native but I couldn't justify the expense of the upgrade.

Now it has features that less intuitive but more feature-rich DAWs like Logic Pro has, it seems worth the update price once various RTAS plug-ins are ported to 64bit AAX format. I managed to get Pro Tools LE 8.0.5 running under Mountain Lion as an experiment and it's fine but I think I'm waiting till I can afford to update to Reason 7 and Pro Tools 11 at the same time. No point in 50% of my DAW setup living in the past while the other half is lacking plug-ins that don't work in Pro Tools 11 yet.

What hefty investment. Glad I'm in the FCP-X Camp and the rest of Apple's Pro Tools.

Pass on this overpriced past.

Apple's Pro Tools?

You do know Pro Tools is a DAW. It doesn't mean PROfessional video editing TOOLS! :D

There is only 1 real problem with ProTools 11.

The problem is that the new audio engine is such a quantum leap in technology and efficiency that they should have called it something else other than just "Pro Tools 11".

I dunno what they should have called it but ANYTHING would have been better than just "11".

It could be a This Is Spinal Tap reference like their Eleven amp simulator interface/plug-in.

reel2reel
Jun 28, 2013, 09:14 AM
It sure would be nice if Avid would revise their clunky modal approach to editing.

What hefty investment. Glad I'm in the FCP-X Camp and the rest of Apple's Pro Tools.

Pass on this overpriced past.

You think $1000 is a "hefty" investment?? And you work in Video?? hahahahahaha

Doesn't mean you have to operate some convoluted application.

It sure does mean that if you're employed for an all-Avid post house. If you're actually an Editor by trade (and not just a hobbyist or independent) then knowing Avid is a big plus. Try to tell an all-Avid employer that you choose to use Final Cut X and see how far that gets you.

milo
Jun 28, 2013, 10:04 AM
The problem is that the new audio engine is such a quantum leap in technology and efficiency

And assuming that's not just hype and actually is a big improvement in efficiency, the real reason for it being such a big jump is because PT's previous native processing was so bad, some of the least efficient in any DAW. Looks like a nice improvement, but many of the updates are finally bringing in features that other DAWs had years ago.

Digital Skunk
Jun 28, 2013, 10:13 AM
I really wish Avid would offer a subscription in addition to their full priced model. Perhaps this may happen, for the longest time I didn't think they would open up their software to be used with other hardware interfaces besides their own. Maybe by the time PT15 comes out.

I would too. I cut in Avid now, but during the times i only got freelanced to work in it I didn't want to drop $2500 on a license. Lucky for me most of the post houses in Maryland cut in Avid.

Please, what takes 2 steps in Final Cut takes 10 steps in Avid. Avid has to have the least intuitive and most cumbersome interface ever.

No real cutter in their right mind would blame the tool for their mistakes or their inability to use it intuitively. Any interface problems you have are solely your own fault.

I went to school for Communication Technology & Media and graduated last year. We used both Avid & FCP7. Using Avid felt like I was stepping back 10 years compared to FCP7.

Then your school didn't prepare you well, or you didn't pay attention in class. My school uses Premiere and Avid MC4. During the first weeks of our entry level class, we went over the similarities and the differences with those two NLEs and nothing more. By midterms, kids were making their own choices in NLEs to finish their projects, but NO ONE said that Avid was this or that compared to the others . . . only different.

Now, the real headache from comments like these comes from your lack of knowledge in collaborative post environments, which as we all should know is where the professional world of post production has been and will continue to go. Last I checked no one . . . and I mean NO ONE has an end-to-end turnkey acquire --> full power broadcast solution other than Avid.

Say what you want about the software, but negate the facts.

FCPX, although still lacking some of the more advanced features of FCP7, is a major step forward. It's definitely usable but I agree if they update it to include all the features it's missing from FCP7, it will be awesome.

I agree, and I think Apple's main approach to this is to separate itself from the Premiere (which is trying to keep up with Avid) and MC/Symphony. Apple can't compete in the pro industry, and every update in hardware and software shows it. They do shine in the indie and hobbyist realm though, more so than the other two ever will, and that's where Apple wants to go and needs to stay.

What hefty investment. Glad I'm in the FCP-X Camp and the rest of Apple's Pro Tools.

Pass on this overpriced past.

Hefty is relative. And in the world of professional post production the NLE has always been the cheapest thing in your system. Tower = $7000 easy, Video Card = $2500, ISIS/Terrablock = $110,000 entry level. Broadcast monitor = $3500, deck = $4500 . . . . . $1000 is chicken **** by comparison. Some houses are looking to get 10 seats.

As I said to the poster above. You can lie to yourself all you want, but Avid is still at the top in terms of NLEs in professional post houses. There isn't a house in Maryland and D.C. right now that doesn't have an entire Avid building out with an ISIS, Interplay, Airspeed, Symphony, Nitris, Adrenaline, iNews, etc.

Discover, Sony, Renegade, Johns Hopkins, ABC 2 News, Fox 45, WJZ 13 (with some Premiere), I could go on. I've worked for some, been in all, and no one has any intentions on pulling out a system that works for a system that may be obsolete in 2 or three years.

The past? Total garbage.

This made me spit out my coffee! TROLL MUCH?

Exactly! It's like no one reads . . . . but then again, if you don't live and breath this stuff it's easy to get misled.

Doesn't mean you have to operate some convoluted application.

Personal opinion, and only representative of the end users' lack of experience. I am sure a good deal of the users that criticized FCPX finally sat down and learned the app, then started to appreciate it. I know because I was one of them.

Now, FCPX isn't total garbage, and I see it's merits, but as an editor I have to learn MOST of the NLEs, save for a few that no one in my area cuts with, like Smoke or Media 100 (if it's still around). I wouldn't use FCPX professional, mainly because no one is asking for experience in it and because Premiere Pro is really just as competitive yet gives users a UI and tools similar to Avid.

MC 7 and PT11 are welcomed additions. Glad to see they finally have 4k support, and ditched the requirement for Avid only hardware, even though I wouldn't want to use a 3rd party personally.

BrandoFiasco
Jun 28, 2013, 10:45 AM
I was in the same situation. But after being forced to use Avid for the past two years, with the updates Avid has made, I can totally understand its strengths, and I would not want to go back to any version of FCP. Especially when working collaboratively, there are just things FCP cannot do that are easy in Avid. Avid, Photoshop and After Effects is all you need.

Give it time and learn to love the keyboard shortcuts. It may seem weird at first, but you will eventually learn why professionals love it so much!

Thanks guys, that makes me feel better. :)

Digital Skunk
Jun 28, 2013, 10:56 AM
I'm with you on this one. I recently started working at a Post-Production house that only uses Avid and I just dont understand. Granted the media management is great but other than that, the interface and the tools just dont seem to operate...naturally, I guess you can say. I bounce around and have done work professionally using FCP7, Premiere and After Effects, but jumping into Avid....I feel like such a noob!

Don't worry about feeling like a noob. That comes with growth. If you step into a job and know how to do everything asked of you from day one because you've done it before over and over again then there is no upward progress.

You should've seen the students I taught when they first looked at any NLE. Most of them came from iMovie, some had experience in Premiere but quickly learned that they are noobs, and some came from FCPX and fought change vehemently, but eventually saw the benefits in all three.

Now, if you want to see a noob face, I'll send you a picture the next time I open Smoke.

Thanks guys, that makes me feel better. :)

You are on the right path as a professional editor.

zioxide
Jun 28, 2013, 11:02 AM
There's a reason why Avid is the most widely used pro-level NLE in the world, and the choice of most high-end facilities.

Yeah, it's the same reason that Windows XP is still the most widely used operating system and the choice of many businesses. It's been around the longest and had a large install base before Final Cut even came around.

There is a steep learning curve, but I guarantee you that behind what looks like a clunky old-fashioned interface is a powerful and very fast application.

If you think that Avid needs ten steps to Final Cut's one or two, I suggest you jump on an Avid forum and start asking questions. There are many ways to achieve tasks in Avid, you just need to understand them.

Avid does take more steps than Final Cut. Why would I waste time trying to learn the backwards way to accomplish the same task in Avid when I can just go and do it in Final Cut?

No real cutter in their right mind would blame the tool for their mistakes or their inability to use it intuitively. Any interface problems you have are solely your own fault.

Lol whatever you say. The fact remains that Avid's interface is garbage. Open the application and it feels like 1997 punched you in the face. I haven't used in about 3 years, but I doubt they've made any changes to update it. But it was cumbersome, slow, and not intuitive at all. Maybe it's cause I learned on Final Cut first, but it was way more complicated to do the same thing in Avid as Final Cut.

Then your school didn't prepare you well, or you didn't pay attention in class. My school uses Premiere and Avid MC4. During the first weeks of our entry level class, we went over the similarities and the differences with those two NLEs and nothing more. By midterms, kids were making their own choices in NLEs to finish their projects, but NO ONE said that Avid was this or that compared to the others . . . only different.

Now, the real headache from comments like these comes from your lack of knowledge in collaborative post environments, which as we all should know is where the professional world of post production has been and will continue to go. Last I checked no one . . . and I mean NO ONE has an end-to-end turnkey acquire --> full power broadcast solution other than Avid.

I payed attention fine thank you. Just because that's how your professor taught doesn't make the way my professors taught any better or worse, it was just different. Saying "learn the keyboard shortcuts" doesn't change the fact that the interface is garbage. If the interface of a program is so unintuitive and complex that it takes forever to learn the backwards ass way to do something, it's not a good application, regardless of how many pros use it. Like I said, many businesses are still running on XP, but that doesn't make it good. The more time I spend wasting learning Avid's backwards methods for accomplishing the tasks I want to do, the less time I can spend working.

I know Avid's media management for large projects and broadcast work is better than FCP (and especially FCPX, the only thing I hate is the event thing, but the ease of use makes up for it), but that's about it. This doesn't affect me at all though, I don't work in high-end video production. I gave up wanting to work in television when the media went from journalism to being a video rehash of twitter rumors. That industry has gone to ****.

I agree, and I think Apple's main approach to this is to separate itself from the Premiere (which is trying to keep up with Avid) and MC/Symphony. Apple can't compete in the pro industry, and every update in hardware and software shows it. They do shine in the indie and hobbyist realm though, more so than the other two ever will, and that's where Apple wants to go and needs to stay.

You're right here. Apple's not building FCPX to take over the editing suites at Universal pictures. They tried with FCP6 and FCP7 to get into that part of the market but never really succeeded. Too many people in that part of the industry had too much invested in Avid to ever make the switch. This was pretty obvious when Apple decided to discontinue their XServe line.

Apple's got the right idea to target the lower-end professional, indie, and high-end "prosumer" market. FCPX blows all of the other NLEs out of the water for the things this segment of the market needs. They've added a lot since 10.0.0 but its still the first major version. The next major update will bring more refinements & features and will put it even further ahead. Finally, we have a NLE that uses a modern, intuitive interface.

Digital Skunk
Jun 28, 2013, 11:48 AM
Yeah, it's the same reason that Windows XP is still the most widely used operating system and the choice of many businesses. It's been around the longest and had a large install base before Final Cut even came around.

True, but Avid started and still thrives on the Mac. It's just that the Mac started waning on the hardware side with the G5 chips, and since Avid, much like Adobe apps, is cross platform, many houses decided that it's okay to switch.

Avid does take more steps than Final Cut. Why would I waste time trying to learn the backwards way to accomplish the same task in Avid when I can just go and do it in Final Cut?

The problem is that YOU take more steps to do something in Avid than you would FCP. If you learned FCP first then great! When you work in shortcuts in Avid, doing even the simplest task is just a mouse move and click away, and the most advanced tasks, many of which FCP and Premiere can't even do, is just a mouse click and a shortcut away.

It will ALWAYS depend on the editor.

Lol whatever you say.

Yes, because most of what I've said are facts.

The fact remains that Avid's interface is garbage.

No, it's not, it's just YOUR opinion (and it's okay and understandable to have it). The industry, both high-end and indie says otherwise.

Open the application and it feels like 1997 punched you in the face.

That's like saying opening FCPX feels like iMovie punched you in the face. In the end, opening FCP even in the 4-7 editions felt like you were opening an app made for non-thinking editors. I always had to go back and tell FCP where I wanted to put my files and what I wanted my timeline settings at, and where I wanted to save my work, etc. etc.

I haven't used in about 3 years, but I doubt they've made any changes to update it.

Again, read.

But it was cumbersome, slow, and not intuitive at all.

Again, only for you and those that fail to learn the app. Smoke is the same way for me now, but I wouldn't call it a POS just because I don't know how to use it.

Maybe it's cause I learned on Final Cut first, but it was way more complicated to do the same thing in Avid as Final Cut.

Maybe, I learned Avid first, and when I got a take of FCP I liked it, but once I started trying to do simple things that were just a key stroke away I got a little angry. When I tried doing advanced things with keystrokes and mouse clicks it was just abysmal.

Now, it was easy to get started, slap something together and get it out. But after dealing with rendering issues, round-tripping issues, and EDL/XMP issues I decided that it was time to learn it, but stick with the industry standard.

I payed attention fine thank you. Just because that's how your professor taught doesn't make the way my professors taught any better or worse, it was just different.

It's not how my professors taught me, it is how I teach my students.

You're right here. Apple's not building FCPX to take over the editing suites at Universal pictures.

Or even indie post houses. Just folks that want an NLE that's a step above iMovie.

Too many people in that part of the industry had too much invested in Avid to ever make the switch. This was pretty obvious when Apple decided to discontinue their XServe line.

Not many folks where actually invested in Avid to that extent. Sure, many houses have Avid systems but they don't last forever, and when it comes upgrade time, the house has the ability to switch. Some did invest in FCP, FCP Server, Xserve RAIDs and Xserves. The real problem is that Apple didn't want to or couldn't invest in the R&D to compete, and didn't want to have to go through the pains that Avid went through providing an end to end solution.

Once Apple abandoned them, they had no choice but to move on or keep unsupported tech. The only solution for end to end? Avid. Now, if you're running a business, do you keep using a company that pretty much says we won't support your $250,000 investment? NO, you move on. That's where Adobe comes in; if you don't end an end-to-end solution but want an NLE that was developed from the group up as a pure Adobe/Avid program. Let's not forget, Apple is doing a fantastic job with FCPX, but it will forever be the editor that Apple bought from another company, tried to sell and couldn't, then decided to do something with.

Sure, FCPX works great as a boutique system or for folks at home, and definitely in a non collaborative, solo editor setup, but even when it comes to price Adobe is far better, and Avid is the standard. Students need . . . . NEED to learn to edit comfortably on all three.

Apple's got the right idea to target the lower-end professional, indie, and high-end "prosumer" market. FCPX blows all of the other NLEs out of the water for the things this segment of the market needs. They've added a lot since 10.0.0 but its still the first major version. The next major update will bring more refinements & features and will put it even further ahead. Finally, we have a NLE that uses a modern, intuitive interface.

Marketing mumbo jumbo. If the past decade has taught those that know anything, it's that Apple has never guaranteed us anything. I remember talking to users like you about FCP8's updates . . .they said the same thing, and look what we have.

When we were configuring servers for our ISIS admin computers, some wanted to go Xserve, and swore up and down that the new version was coming out and was going to be blazing fast . . . . . .

rei101
Jun 28, 2013, 01:26 PM
Final Cut is the direct competitor for Avid. FC is from Apple. This is an Apple forum. It has a lot to do..

Final Cut is not a competitor anymore. I work as a Production Manager for different cable stations. I manage the work flow in the post production facilities.

After Apple dropped Final Cut Pro for FCX, the way they did it and the lack of features, the industry just went back to Avid... period.

As a individual you can have many softwares in your computer, but when you are dealing with a board of directors and going over several thousand dollars in investments and your career and reputation... you do not play games, you play safe.

Avid is more expensive but it has been reliable, it has loads of features too and is an industry standard.

I like FCX, a lot, but is not any more for the industrial field. No one is going to edit a sopera or a tv serie with it, only promos and you can do that on Avid.

So, if you are using FCX and expecting to find a job in a production house or TV station, you are wasting your time. The people who has Final Cut pro will still use it until it runs out, in the mean time they are getting Avid and for audio Pro Tools.

Blu Reel
Jun 28, 2013, 02:36 PM
Speaking of facts...

Let's remember that when Apple first released Final Cut Pro for a whopping $999, the only two existing video editing solutions were AVID's million dollar editing system used by all the professional houses and Adobe Premiere's consumer video app.

But as time went on, it became clear that people who invested the millions of dollars into their AVID systems were not going to simply abandon their investment and switch to Final Cut Pro. And financially speaking, rightly so.

What Final Cut Pro did was open up the professional editing market to a much broader audience by first creating competition where only a monopoly existed before and then setting the tone for future post production houses and independent editors. You don't need a million dollar system anymore to edit.

Avid Media Composer did not exist, yet. It was created to combat Final Cut Pro's dominating influence in this "new" market.

With Premiere CS6, Adobe finally became a real player in this market.

Now that "new" market has turned into the "old" market. Final Cut Pro is no longer viewed as the little David vs the big Goliath (AVID). But that's not the point of my topic here.

Instead, let's be clear why the majority of broadcast businesses are still pretty much working in AVID systems. They invested millions of dollars in AVID systems versus thousands of dollars in Final Cut Pro systems (even after all this time). As a business, you don't arbitrarily throw away millions of dollars.

If you don't believe me as to how broadcast business works in this regard, ask yourself why the FCC caved into the broadcast industry's collective will by downgrading the original FCC mandate of every broadcaster to broadcast in HD to just "simply" broadcasting in digital.

It's all about the cost of the gear or more precisely, how are they going to make their money back?

Conversely, speaking from a new small business perspective, given the choice of a long term investment in an editing system built by a company with massive amounts of money, but has made major mistakes since it's initial success or an editing system built by a company that has been the standard for many years, but has also been in the red for many years and manages to keep staving off bankruptcy, the financial decision is easy - not the company that's been in the red. The uncertain financial stability to me is the greater risk because I can always beat up on the company making mistakes, but I can't get support from a company that no longer exists.

rei101
Jun 28, 2013, 06:11 PM
Please, what takes 2 steps in Final Cut takes 10 steps in Avid. Avid has to have the least intuitive and most cumbersome interface ever.

I went to school for Communication Technology & Media and graduated last year. We used both Avid & FCP7. Using Avid felt like I was stepping back 10 years compared to FCP7.

FCPX, although still lacking some of the more advanced features of FCP7, is a major step forward. It's definitely usable but I agree if they update it to include all the features it's missing from FCP7, it will be awesome.

One thing is the software and another one the industry, you just graduated, I graduated in 1998.

The problem was that Apple committed a huge mistake in finalizing Final Cut Pro and releasing FCX that was a completely different software. Apple lost the TRUST people had and behaved like a crazy lunatic that didn't listen.

Imagine tomorrow all gas stations start to sell hydrogen overnight and now you have to buy hydrogen based cars. Your current car will last with the fuel it has in the tank. That is what Apple literally did. Even they retracted, what they did was to sell fuel again but no more fuel based cars.

You as an individual can buy any software, but when you have 10 video suites you can not play games with your boss money. You play safe. And Avid has been consistent.

I use Final Cut Pro, I like FCX, I do not have Avid but I download it already because there are only positions for Avid. The same with Pro Tools.

patent10021
Jun 28, 2013, 07:13 PM
Sorry, iLok = no sale. Read about the latest iLok2|Pace debacle?

Yeah sure Avid wouldn't make a fuss over one person but they will once they start going out of business.

Anyway Logic X and/or their own business ethics will be that nail.

----------

Final Cut is not a competitor anymore. I work as a Production Manager for different cable stations. I manage the work flow in the post production facilities. http://www.hjo3.net/orly/gal1/orly_bush.jpg

After Apple dropped Final Cut Pro for FCX, the way they did it and the lack of features, the industry just went back to Avid... period.

As a individual you can have many softwares in your computer, but when you are dealing with a board of directors and going over several thousand dollars in investments and your career and reputation... you do not play games, you play safe. So dropping FCP in a matter of weeks is playing it safe right? More hyperbole.

I like FCX, a lot, but is not any more for the industrial field. No one is going to edit a sopera or a tv serie with it, only promos and you can do that on Avid.More babble.

So, if you are using FCX and expecting to find a job in a production house or TV station, you are wasting your time. The people who has Final Cut pro will still use it until it runs out, in the mean time they are getting Avid and for audio Pro Tools.There are plenty of FCP users on this forum with jobs in house using FCP.

rei101
Jun 29, 2013, 12:39 AM
There are plenty of FCP users on this forum with jobs in house using FCP.

As I said: until it runs out.


You can read half of what I am typing but the reality is there. FCP won't be around anymore probably by the end of 2014 or mid 2015 top. Everybody will be in Avid.

Try to find a job in any web site like Craigslist or Indeed with FCX. There is none.

Again, companies have to buy hardware to go with the software and all the promos and shows they create they have to be able to open them 2 years from now. That is something Apple didn't consider with FCX, it was not compatible with FCP. Big mistake, companies won't fall into that.

DanPhillips
Jun 29, 2013, 02:30 PM
Let's not forget, Apple is doing a fantastic job with FCPX, but it will forever be the editor that Apple bought from another company, tried to sell and couldn't, then decided to do something with.

As a teacher, why don't you tell the class where Apple bought the entirely new FCPX. Not FCP (from Macromedia), but FCPX - which by all indications was developed entirely in-house and clearly shares little or no code with FCP.

In short: your bias is showing. We all have biases, that's fine.

DanPhillips
Jun 29, 2013, 02:40 PM
Try to find a job in any web site like Craigslist or Indeed with FCX. There is none.

I just did these searches, and found results. Perhaps the problem has less to do with Final Cut Pro X, and more to do with your search terms. :-)

LethalWolfe
Jun 29, 2013, 03:35 PM
Avid does take more steps than Final Cut. Why would I waste time trying to learn the backwards way to accomplish the same task in Avid when I can just go and do it in Final Cut?

Maybe you would 'waste your time' because some workflows are faster in Avid so knowing both Avid and FCP would allow you to pick the best tool for the job? Go into some classes or online training videos with an open mind (i.e. forget you ever used any NLE before) and you shouldn't have a problem picking up Avid. There are certainly things that are faster/easier to do in FCP7 and there are certainly things that are faster/easier to do in Avid MC.

The first time I opened Color I didn't know where to begin and nothing made sense. I bought a good tutorial DVD and 4hrs later I understood the mechanics of the app. Of course Color is dead now and the first time I opened Resolve I lamented, "Ugh, why couldn't this look more like Color?" So I'm in the process of becoming as knowledgeable and fast on Resolve as I was on Color. Same thing when I first opened Motion. I'm not AE wiz but I know enough to bang around some basics but some things are just faster/more simple in Motion so I learned Motion even though every step of the way I longed for the familiarity of AE.

As far as NLE's go, I learned Avid first, then Premiere (old, pre-Pro premiere), then FCP. For the first time in ages I'm using Avid full time again (as opposed to FCP 7) and I'm keeping an eye on Premiere Pro as it seems most readily poised to be a FCP 7 replacement (that is until Adobe busted out CC and pissed off a lot of people). Smoke and Lightworks are also on my radar but I haven't kicked the tires on either of them. If/when the gigs I want start using FCPX I'll learn that too.

They tried with FCP6 and FCP7 to get into that part of the market but never really succeeded. Too many people in that part of the industry had too much invested in Avid to ever make the switch.


I disagree. I think FCP was making a lot of in roads into big 'hollywood' productions. Bunim/Murray Productions, a huge facility, switched from Avid to FCP6/7 (the went back to Avid when FCPX came out), major features were being cut w/FCP, FCP owned the documentary market, etc.,. I think Apple bailed because they saw vastly more growth potential in a different market segment and switched directions. As video shooting and editing becomes a new, everyday form of literacy there is a booming field of generalists that also edit which will greatly outnumber specialists that only edit and those generalists are FCPX's primary demographic, IMO.


Speaking of facts...

Let's remember that when Apple first released Final Cut Pro for a whopping $999, the only two existing video editing solutions were AVID's million dollar editing system used by all the professional houses and Adobe Premiere's consumer video app.
Many other pro NLE's existed back then (Media100, Discreet Edit, various Pinnacle NLEs, etc.,) and the old Premiere wasn't a consumer app anymore than FCP was. Premiere at the time owned the corporate/industrial, wedding and event segments of the market. Also Avid's systems were in the high 5, low six figure range. Much more than FCP or Premiere but definitely not a million bucks. You also have to take into consideration that even though FCP was only $999 you would still be spending about $15k total (on the short end) to build out a 'broadcast quality' cutting room. Again, still much cheaper than Avid but many times people compare the price of FCP itself against the cost of complete editing suite built around Avid.


Avid Media Composer did not exist, yet. It was created to combat Final Cut Pro's dominating influence in this "new" market.

Avid Media Composer has always existed (for a while there was also an Avid Film Composer which edited 24fps while Media Composer edited at 29.97). Avid released Xpress DV (and later Xpress Pro) as a lower cost, feature reduced version of Media Composer to take on FCP on the lower end of the market (they even had very feature limited, no-cost version called Free DV available for a while). The Xpress versions never really took off so they were eventually killed and Avid released Media Composer available as software only (no need to run it in conjunction with Avid's hardware) for the first time. The price was $5k I think.


Instead, let's be clear why the majority of broadcast businesses are still pretty much working in AVID systems. They invested millions of dollars in AVID systems versus thousands of dollars in Final Cut Pro systems (even after all this time). As a business, you don't arbitrarily throw away millions of dollars.
I agree that money, hardware and personal investment are all hurdles to switching platforms. I've worked at facilites that spent millions of dollars building workflows and infrastructure around the old FCP and they are still on FCP 7 as the try to figure out what other NLE will meet their needs and allow them to keep as much of their current infrastructure in place as possible.

There is also a very pragmatic approach by many that if it works, why fix it? I know some facilities that run on years old hardware and software but it works. They know all the pit falls to avoid, they know long various process take and they meet their deadlines so the only reason to change would just be for the sake of changing and that's not a very compelling reason. Some facilites are working year round so there's no 'off season' where they could shut everything down, switch out all the gear, and train everyone on the new systems.


If you don't believe me as to how broadcast business works in this regard, ask yourself why the FCC caved into the broadcast industry's collective will by downgrading the original FCC mandate of every broadcaster to broadcast in HD to just "simply" broadcasting in digital.

The mandate was always just a switch to digital, though it was a common misperception that it was a mandate to switch to HD. ATSC standards (which replaced NTSC) included SD. Forcing a switch only to HD wouldn't have made sense as 99.9% of the content would still be in SD.

Digital Skunk
Jun 30, 2013, 07:51 PM
As a teacher, why don't you tell the class where Apple bought the entirely new FCPX. Not FCP (from Macromedia), but FCPX - which by all indications was developed entirely in-house and clearly shares little or no code with FCP.

In short: your bias is showing. We all have biases, that's fine.

Your ignorance is showing. Especially given that, as many here have said including me, no one in the high end market wants to invest in a product where the manufacturer totally re-writes the code and changes the UI and feature sets, leaving those from the previous version with no real upgrade path.

Apple may have bought FCP then tried to sell it, failed, then decided to keep it; but that didn't doom the application. Those versions were just fine, and held there own against Avid and Adobe. It's when they made that change that helped the pros, especially the ones that found little niggles in FCP7 that slowed them down, make the choice to move on.

Welcome to 2010. I'll wait for you to read a bit more to catch up.

No one here hated FCP1-7. Many, including me, don't hate FCPX. But, as I've said . . . .if you would just read instead of vomiting words out of your mouth, Avid is not some archaic app that gets trumped by a beefier version of iMovie; verified by some bloke who from what many can see hasn't gotten his/her feet wet in the post production industry.

JM-Prod
Jun 30, 2013, 08:21 PM
Avid does take more steps than Final Cut. Why would I waste time trying to learn the backwards way to accomplish the same task in Avid when I can just go and do it in Final Cut?

Eh? The only reason why you say this is because you don't know how to use Avid. Learn how to edit with your keyboard, and do an Avid course, and I can promise you that working in Avid is faster than FCP 7. More difficult to learn? Yes.

----------


Avid Media Composer did not exist, yet. It was created to combat Final Cut Pro's dominating influence in this "new" market.


????

First version of Media Composer was released in 1989.

Digital Skunk
Jun 30, 2013, 10:03 PM
Eh? The only reason why you say this is because you don't know how to use Avid. Learn how to edit with your keyboard, and do an Avid course, and I can promise you that working in Avid is faster than FCP 7. More difficult to learn? Yes.

Now that's something I can get behind. MC5.5 . . . . for me anyway . . . is a bit harder to teach than Adobe Premiere. Most of the students that come into uni with skills come with Adobe, FCP (7 and X) and iMovie. They pick up Adobe extremely fast.

Music4Film
Jul 1, 2013, 10:11 AM
Unfortunately for AVID though...their iLok USB copy protection dongle (which is managed by a completely different company called PACE) recently changed their software for authorization and cloud database, etc...and it has been locking people out of using their paid for programs...and erasing other authorizations on the iLok. Big time studios who use both Pro Tools and other plugins that use iLok protection have been locked out for weeks if they were unlucky enough to update their systems right away. Universal Pictures was having major problems.

If you use AVID stuff...you have to deal with iLok. And at this point...that is not looking good as PACE has proven itself to be a company with poor customer support and a cavalier attitude to helping the end user, because the end user is not their customer. AVID is.

Even folks who have bought and paid for the iLok "Zero Down Time" insurance have been down for a couple weeks. It is all a horrible joke at this point.

One can read about it more at the GearSlutz forums Music Computer section where most of the studio heads hang out.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/844460-warning-do-not-install-new-ilok-software.html

Digital Skunk
Jul 1, 2013, 11:49 AM
Unfortunately for AVID though...their iLok USB copy protection dongle (which is managed by a completely different company called PACE) recently changed their software for authorization and cloud database, etc...and it has been locking people out of using their paid for programs...and erasing other authorizations on the iLok. Big time studios who use both Pro Tools and other plugins that use iLok protection have been locked out for weeks if they were unlucky enough to update their systems right away. Universal Pictures was having major problems.

If you use AVID stuff...you have to deal with iLok. And at this point...that is not looking good as PACE has proven itself to be a company with poor customer support and a cavalier attitude to helping the end user, because the end user is not their customer. AVID is.

Even folks who have bought and paid for the iLok "Zero Down Time" insurance have been down for a couple weeks. It is all a horrible joke at this point.

One can read about it more at the GearSlutz forums Music Computer section where most of the studio heads hang out.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/844460-warning-do-not-install-new-ilok-software.html

This is good to know. We don't have to deal with iLok as much on the EDU front. The only iLok we ever needed was for our ProTools HD system. That was installed over 3 years ago.

I WAS the one
Jul 1, 2013, 11:59 AM
I've been doing Audio Porduction for more than 20 years for a living. Nothing beats Protools.

Music4Film
Jul 1, 2013, 12:30 PM
I've been doing Audio Porduction for more than 20 years for a living. Nothing beats Protools.

I would say it would depend on the project. For audio recording and sound design...ProTools is the industry standard. Yes. A film is mixed on Pro Tools. Music is frequently mixed on ProTools. But...for midi...while ProTools is getting better, there are much better DAWs out there like Digital Performer, Cubase and Logic. The audio of those 3 are just as capable as ProTools..and with the better midi tools, they make a much better experience when using virtual instrument.

If someone was investing in one...I would say they would have to really know what their use is...what the folks around them are using and choose appropriately. Many do midi on Digital Performer, Logic or Cubase and then export OMFs or AAFs to ProTools for delivery. That can be done too. But a lot of the power in ProTools is in those hardware cards...which the native DAWs like the other 3 mentioned do not have. Also...a lot of the expense in ProTools is also in those cards and other hardware. Which is arguable that they are really needed any more with so many other "native" alternatives.

It all just depends on how one is going to use it.

milo
Jul 1, 2013, 01:17 PM
I would say it would depend on the project. For audio recording and sound design...ProTools is the industry standard. Yes. A film is mixed on Pro Tools. Music is frequently mixed on ProTools. But...for midi...while ProTools is getting better, there are much better DAWs out there like Digital Performer, Cubase and Logic. The audio of those 3 are just as capable as ProTools..and with the better midi tools, they make a much better experience when using virtual instrument.

You took the words right out of my mouth. For audio post, definitely PT stands out. Even for straight up multi tracking, I can see why someone would prefer PT. But for anything with midi, particularly plugin instruments, PT has been lagging most of the other DAWs for years. Now that 11 is out and is finally 64 bit, we'll see if it is any better for midi/VIs.

Blu Reel
Jul 1, 2013, 05:08 PM
Originally Posted by Blu Reel
Speaking of facts...

Let's remember that when Apple first released Final Cut Pro for a whopping $999, the only two existing video editing solutions were AVID's million dollar editing system used by all the professional houses and Adobe Premiere's consumer video app.


Many other pro NLE's existed back then (Media100, Discreet Edit, various Pinnacle NLEs, etc.,) and the old Premiere wasn't a consumer app anymore than FCP was. Premiere at the time owned the corporate/industrial, wedding and event segments of the market. Also Avid's systems were in the high 5, low six figure range. Much more than FCP or Premiere but definitely not a million bucks. You also have to take into consideration that even though FCP was only $999 you would still be spending about $15k total (on the short end) to build out a 'broadcast quality' cutting room. Again, still much cheaper than Avid but many times people compare the price of FCP itself against the cost of complete editing suite built around Avid.


Yes, they did. I used Premiere in the corporate events market. I didn't mention the others because the people I worked with in the industry at the time were highly biased to either Avid or Premiere. If you wanted the "cheap" route, you did Premiere. If you wanted to do it the "right" way, you did Avid. The other brands you mentioned fit in the middle to them and were simply overlooked. My apologies for being too broad with my generalization.

I also have to admit that my million dollar reference comes as second hand information provided by one of the many highly paid technology experts at that time, my boss.



Avid Media Composer did not exist, yet. It was created to combat Final Cut Pro's dominating influence in this "new" market.

Avid Media Composer has always existed (for a while there was also an Avid Film Composer which edited 24fps while Media Composer edited at 29.97). Avid released Xpress DV (and later Xpress Pro) as a lower cost, feature reduced version of Media Composer to take on FCP on the lower end of the market (they even had very feature limited, no-cost version called Free DV available for a while). The Xpress versions never really took off so they were eventually killed and Avid released Media Composer available as software only (no need to run it in conjunction with Avid's hardware) for the first time. The price was $5k I think.


My bad. I was thinking of Xpress DV. Thanks for making my point clearer :)




If you don't believe me as to how broadcast business works in this regard, ask yourself why the FCC caved into the broadcast industry's collective will by downgrading the original FCC mandate of every broadcaster to broadcast in HD to just "simply" broadcasting in digital.

The mandate was always just a switch to digital, though it was a common misperception that it was a mandate to switch to HD. ATSC standards (which replaced NTSC) included SD. Forcing a switch only to HD wouldn't have made sense as 99.9% of the content would still be in SD.

I stand corrected on digital vs HD, and the point I should have correctly stated is that the FCC extended the deadline of the original mandate due to the industry's protests about the costs of conversion.

Nice catches. It's good to know that someone is reading what I write :)

DanPhillips
Jul 1, 2013, 09:13 PM
Your ignorance is showing. Especially given that, as many here have said including me, no one in the high end market wants to invest in a product where the manufacturer totally re-writes the code and changes the UI and feature sets, leaving those from the previous version with no real upgrade path.

Apple may have bought FCP then tried to sell it, failed, then decided to keep it; but that didn't doom the application. Those versions were just fine, and held there own against Avid and Adobe. It's when they made that change that helped the pros, especially the ones that found little niggles in FCP7 that slowed them down, make the choice to move on.

Welcome to 2010. I'll wait for you to read a bit more to catch up.

No one here hated FCP1-7. Many, including me, don't hate FCPX. But, as I've said . . . .if you would just read instead of vomiting words out of your mouth, Avid is not some archaic app that gets trumped by a beefier version of iMovie; verified by some bloke who from what many can see hasn't gotten his/her feet wet in the post production industry.

I've quoted you in full, since I find it fascinating that you responded in such an aggressive manner and yet completely failed to address my point - instead bringing up several "straw man" arguments against points that I never made, and diving into personal invective.

"Beefier version of iMovie?" Since you're a teacher, for bonus points: what was the initial name and purpose of the new program that became iMovie '08, completely replacing the original iMovie code (to the consternation of many Apple users, at least initially)?

Again, your bias is showing. That's fine, we all have biases. But, your original statement that FCP "will forever be the editor that Apple bought from another company" is both false and meaningless.

LethalWolfe
Jul 2, 2013, 01:01 AM
Nice catches. It's good to know that someone is reading what I write :)

You made some good points in a well thought out post, just a few of the details were a little off base. Nice change of pace from rants and personal attacks. :)

Digital Skunk
Jul 2, 2013, 09:37 AM
I've quoted you in full,

your original statement that FCP "will forever be the editor that Apple bought from another company...

Let's not forget, Apple is doing a fantastic job with FCPX, but it will forever be the editor that Apple bought from another company, tried to sell and couldn't, then decided to do something with

Apparently not.

Again, read ALL of my comments, you'll find that the only bias I have is toward getting facts out about the topic at hand, and then mentioning my opinions which are founded on those facts.

You not only quoted be incorrectly, you inferred way too much from a snippet of my comment.

Please don't try to take the strawman argument defense. Correct your own inconsistencies first, and get the full story before taking the thread off topic. I've mentioned many times that FCPX is a good NLE, but (my opinion here now) it's not the end all be all and it doesn't trump Avid and Adobe offerings.

How about correcting the bias statements from the other commenters?

Again, your ignorance is showing.

You made some good points in a well thought out post, just a few of the details were a little off base. Nice change of pace from rants and personal attacks. :)

Oh how I do wish that could be the case for everyone.

Junkdrop1
Jul 2, 2013, 09:50 AM
Samplitude dances circles around PT.

While Avid touts 'innovation', they promote new features that have been in other DAWs for 20 years.

Anxiously awaiting the Mac version of Samplitude.

(Yeah, yeah, I know I'm a troll, blah, blah, blah) :)

F

milo
Jul 2, 2013, 10:18 AM
I wonder why I don't hear about Samplitude more, seems like most PC guys use either Cubase or Sonar.

Liquidstate
Jul 5, 2013, 01:37 AM
First of all, thanks to Music4Film for the heads-up on iLok and PT.

I hate iLok and the cloud, and this is exactly why.

I think it is interesting that Avid did a silent 180 on their threat to make Pro Tools 10 the last native version. That was flatly stated for months on the PT part of the Avid site, and it looks like they did a huge about-face and are now proudly touting their support of open native software.

There must have been a huge industry pushback.

But then there's the AAX plug-in issue. As of PT11, Avid has completely dumped RTAS and TDM plug-ins. So if you upgrade to PT11, and you have 3rd party plug-ins, then you will probably be paying more to use what you already have.

Not to mention what the issues will be for PT11 and the nMP.

One thing's for sure, I am paying a lot more attention to future-proofing.

beelzebubba
Jul 5, 2013, 02:37 AM
First of all, thanks to Music4Film for the heads-up on iLok and PT.

I hate iLok and the cloud, and this is exactly why.

I think it is interesting that Avid did a silent 180 on their threat to make Pro Tools 10 the last native version. That was flatly stated for months on the PT part of the Avid site, and it looks like they did a huge about-face and are now proudly touting their support of open native software.

There must have been a huge industry pushback.

But then there's the AAX plug-in issue. As of PT11, Avid has completely dumped RTAS and TDM plug-ins. So if you upgrade to PT11, and you have 3rd party plug-ins, then you will probably be paying more to use what you already have.

Not to mention what the issues will be for PT11 and the nMP.

One thing's for sure, I am paying a lot more attention to future-proofing.

There's been pushback for years. Many that use DAWs in a pro setting have either switched to another tool or they squeeze as much mileage as they can out of what they have even if they have the funds to replace it. We got off of TDM about 5 years ago. We did turn some LE rigs into PT9 and use it a bit to mix. I know guys that do high profile projects on 7 and we use a contractor that has a pretty robust 8 rig.

A couple of things contribute to the pushback and are the same things that caused us to migrate from the platform...

Cost of hardware/software. They also were not flexible with third party options.

Inconsistent or poor support unless you are high profile and even then if the issue is slightly out of their comfort zone of compatibility it may not get resolved.

Slow certifications of new hardware and OS upgrades.

If you use Waves plugs (Waves is another issue in and of itself..) and have WUP the upgrade should be included. That is, when Waves ships AAX. If how long they take to ship is anything like 64 bit support for other platforms I wouldn't hold my breath. IIRC McDSP is providing low cost/no cost upgrades for registered owners. And they are shipping.

maflynn
Jul 7, 2013, 04:31 PM
[MOD NOTE]
Stop with the bickering and stay on topic

Digital Skunk
Jul 7, 2013, 06:52 PM
First of all, thanks to Music4Film for the heads-up on iLok and PT.

I hate iLok and the cloud, and this is exactly why.

I think it is interesting that Avid did a silent 180 on their threat to make Pro Tools 10 the last native version. That was flatly stated for months on the PT part of the Avid site, and it looks like they did a huge about-face and are now proudly touting their support of open native software.

There must have been a huge industry pushback.

But then there's the AAX plug-in issue. As of PT11, Avid has completely dumped RTAS and TDM plug-ins. So if you upgrade to PT11, and you have 3rd party plug-ins, then you will probably be paying more to use what you already have.

Not to mention what the issues will be for PT11 and the nMP.

One thing's for sure, I am paying a lot more attention to future-proofing.

I never knew PT to have so many issues. Even on the iLok end. I wonder why Avid stopped handling the dongles on their end . . . at least for PT that is. They've always done it for MC versions and Symphony, I don't know about PT.

The only dongle system we have in our building is a PT7 HD system with an iLok.

milo
Jul 8, 2013, 08:26 AM
I think it is interesting that Avid did a silent 180 on their threat to make Pro Tools 10 the last native version. That was flatly stated for months on the PT part of the Avid site, and it looks like they did a huge about-face and are now proudly touting their support of open native software.

Where specifically did they say that? Sounds like you were misreading something.

DanPhillips
Jul 8, 2013, 02:07 PM
Where specifically did they say that? Sounds like you were misreading something.

My guess is the OP was thinking of the announcement that PT10 would be the last version to support Pre-HDX hardware. They've since softened that stance a little bit, as in the PT11 FAQ:

http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/faq/Pro-Tools-11-FAQ

"In 2011, Avid announced that Pro Tools 10 would be the last software release to support the legacy “blue” interfaces. The time required to thoroughly test and develop firmware upgrades for future versions would severely impact our ability to develop and deliver new feature innovations. These interfaces will not be qualified or thoroughly tested for use with Pro Tools 11, and we will not offer customer support to troubleshoot issues. However, we will not disable these interfaces so if you choose to use them with an HDX or HD Native system please understand they are untested/unsupported."

This is all about support of legacy hardware, however - not "native" operation as in the original post.

I WAS the one
Jul 11, 2013, 08:53 AM
there are much better DAWs out there like Digital Performer, Cubase and Logic.Which is arguable that they are really needed any more with so many other "native" alternatives.It all just depends on how one is going to use it.

Well, I'm no musician. I work on Broadcasting and mixing down CDs for Mass Production. I open a session and start working on it and in my case DP, CB and Logic are dust magnets (no offense) Most of my work comes from unfinished projects made on those apps and is Protools the tools that fixed them. In my book that means Protools is the only tool to deliver a finished product.

Expensive? Yes. Fair? No. The Best? Hell Yeah.

milo
Jul 11, 2013, 09:01 AM
Well, I'm no musician.

Which puts you in no position to make blanket statements about which DAW is the best. As a number of us have said, it depends on the project.

Music4Film
Jul 11, 2013, 05:12 PM
Well, I'm no musician. I work on Broadcasting and mixing down CDs for Mass Production. I open a session and start working on it and in my case DP, CB and Logic are dust magnets (no offense) Most of my work comes from unfinished projects made on those apps and is Protools the tools that fixed them. In my book that means Protools is the only tool to deliver a finished product.

Expensive? Yes. Fair? No. The Best? Hell Yeah.

Lady Gaga's last album was done (created AND mixed) in Digital Performer. I guess she and her producer are using what? A toy program?

The last few world tours of Madonna, Beyonce, The Eagles, Roger Waters, Prince, Motley Crue (just to name a few) were all run in Digital Performer. Every aspect of the show from backing tracks...so sound reenforcement, stage movements, video, click tracks, lighting, everything.

Film composers Howard Shore uses Digital Performer on all the Lord of The Rings and Hobbit stuff....Michael Giacchino on Start Trek films, any Danny Elfman scored film...Dario Marianelli, Thomas Newman, Marco Beltrami, All on DP.....Hans Zimmer, all of his stuff in Cubase. BT uses Logic Pro. I suppose all of these guys don't know what they are doing either right? Not really "PRO?" Haven't hit the big leagues yet with their software choices?

If you think ProTools is the "only tool to deliver a finished product"...because you have been delivered things by clients in other programs that were in need of "fixing", that is really more of a comment about your clients and not their software choices.

Right tool for the right job. Sometimes that is ProTools. Sometimes that is not. And to get back to the original topic, which is now really dead anyway, when you factor in a product like iLok into the mix...many of those other products become a much better solution when not having to deal with a company like PACE for their Avid/ProTools copy protection.

Liquidstate
Jul 11, 2013, 06:19 PM
First, thanks to DanPhillips for helping to clear up the issue of PT11 support for native versus legacy gear.

I also think beelzebubba's comment on squeezing as much as possible out of the PT version you have is increasingly the case. I decided to circle the wagons at PT10 because of Avid's unclear stance on upgradability.

But I'd be interested in knowing the practical advantages of PT11 over PT10, so I can continue charting my upgrade paths. Anyone care to weigh in on this?

I WAS the one
Jul 12, 2013, 08:28 AM
Lady Gaga's last album was done (created AND mixed) in Digital Performer. I guess she and her producer are using what? A toy program?

Paul McCartney (Beatles) did an entire album on Garage Band. Does that means Garage Band is the best app to do produce/edit music?

NO.

----------

Which puts you in no position to make blanket statements about which DAW is the best. As a number of us have said, it depends on the project.

So, Only musicians can work on Audio Production Software? you need to expand your mind a little. I do a living using Audio Production Software and I'm not a musician.

milo
Jul 12, 2013, 08:58 AM
So, Only musicians can work on Audio Production Software?

Nope, didn't say that. Try reading my post again.

Chad3eleven
Jul 12, 2013, 03:55 PM
I laugh everytime I read 'I just graduated and learned Avid and FCP7, and FCP 7 is better'

or some inexperienced person saying that FCP is the direct competitor of AVID.. what about Premiere?

It all depends on what you do with these programs

if any of you were actual professionals you would know that you would be washed up if you didnt embrace several platforms at once, and learn the ins and outs..

Some one on here said Avid is clunky and FCP7 is better.. what do you think FCP7 is based off of? FCP7 is 32 bit.. rendering, dropped frames, audio glitches, etc all sucks.. Yes Avid has its issues, and so does Premiere.. but to be a true professional is to learn on a few of these, so you can adapt and work with other studios..

Try editing raw RED in FCP.. HA!