Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Avid Launches Media Composer 6, Symphony 6, NewsCutter 10

The nitris DX has a pretty specific function. that price includes some hardware that allows the software to communicate with and control tape decks. Those tape decks are often cost 50k-150k each. In an environment where you have to buy or rent 10+ decks, the cost of the software to edit on is FAR less.

usually the editor is making $700-$800 a day to edit the show, so you want the fastest hardware and software environment you can afford. Nothing worse than paying an editor that rate to watch a timeline render!

Right now productions pay for a nitris because they trust the avid name, and because hardware alternatives have been boxed out until MC5.5, there hasn't been a real option. Now with a 'wide open' environment companies like AJA can step up and provide a cheaper, better product. Personally I'm hoping my Kona3 card, sitting in storage since apple rendered useless when they killed FCP, will get a new breath of life in MC6.
 
aristotle said:
A real pro could do their job even with Quicktime 7 Pro or windows Movie maker.

If you cannot do your job without a feature x or feature y, then you are not worth your job description and salary.

This is really going to piss off some of you but that is the reality. All of those niceties make your job easier but if you cannot accomplish your job without a certain type of software then you need to reevaluate whether you are a pro or just a button pusher.
Click to expand...

What "niceties" are you referring to? A timeline??

Do you know what x does in FCP? Or the e key? How about option-v and control-v? They're all things that save you LOTS of time. So if time is money, the button pushers are way more valuable than a purist like yourself. Do you think someone wants to pay you more because you take three times as long to do the same thing? Oh right, but you can do it in quicktime player.
 
aristotle said:
It is absolutely true. People were able to do their "job" just fine for decades in the past without all of the flashy features you take for granted. All you need is video feeds, some audio tracks and an editor.
@knewsom: With an attitude like that, I'm surprised anyone would hire you for anything. Aren't we all supposed to be adults on here? Are a 12 year old or an adult?
Click to expand...

And I'm sure someone out there is also convinced all anyone needs is the telegraph. Ma Bell called, they want their rotary back.
 
a-bob said:
Avid is continuing its assault on Apple's treatment of pros with this release. Pro Tools 10 just announced about a month ago, which I am happily upgrading to. Now once we (possibly) lose the Mac Pro, do I see an Apple-less audio post studio next year? I hope not but it's something in the back of my brain.
Click to expand...

Pro Tools 10 is a JOKE. Talk about high prices for very little! To abandon any other audio software platform - including Pro Tools 9 - for the price they're charging for 10 is to support Avid's horrifying arrogance. Such as the way they charge extra to import/export mp3s from their pro software(!). Such as the way PT only properly works in 1+ year old OS versions. Such as they way they only support OMF/AAF import/export via $500 add-ons, unlike any competitor. Such as the way they're the only platform that seems to have consistent hard drive compatibility issues. Such as the way it's usually been incredibly complicated to simply find PT periodic bug fix updates on their bloated website without a pick axe and a shovel. It's only in the recent year or so that PT has been competitive, feature-wise, with other platforms, other than a dug-in so-called "all-pro" user base (not for many years). Their entry-level interface gear - the MBox - has only recently become better than poop. They're living in their glorious past when they had a monopoly and charged $10k just to record and mix. The company is JUSTIFIABLY challenged by Logic, Cubase, StudioOne, and the like. I've been an engineer for 19 years and now I only keep PT9 to transfer client recordings to other platforms. Avid can bite me. Adapt or die.
 
Last edited:
aristotle said:
It is absolutely true. People were able to do their "job" just fine for decades in the past without all of the flashy features you take for granted. All you need is video feeds, some audio tracks and an editor.
@knewsom: With an attitude like that, I'm surprised anyone would hire you for anything. Aren't we all supposed to be adults on here? Are a 12 year old or an adult?
Click to expand...

Clearly, you are up there in Canada working in the capital of the broadcast industry and none of us know what we are on about. We can always do do 3/4" tape to tape linear edits, that was fun.

For those of us interested in a serious discussion about the state of post production, here are a few more takes on the landscape.

http://library.creativecow.net/biscardi_walter/Post-Production-comparisons/1

http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/the-post-fcp-world/

Its true that some of these 1.0 issues were addressed, but not perfectly. Its sort of up for grabs right now.
 
iBug2 said:
There's no clear definition of "pro features". There are tons of professionals who can get away with the first release of FCPX. You are not one of them, big deal. But it's so stupid to say "who spends $299 on "Pro" software lol"

(That wasn't you I'm replying)
Click to expand...

Prosumers can get away with it, not professionals. Difference. I consider myself a high end editor. I don't need this baby prosumer iMovie crap. It's all too amateurish.
 
aristotle said:
A real pro could do their job even with Quicktime 7 Pro or windows Movie maker.

If you cannot do your job without a feature x or feature y, then you are not worth your job description and salary.

This is really going to piss off some of you but that is the reality. All of those niceties make your job easier but if you cannot accomplish your job without a certain type of software then you need to reevaluate whether you are a pro or just a button pusher.
Click to expand...

are you still using floppy discs too? i mean, people worked just fine with it years ago. who needs a usb stick or cloud service right. what a illogical thinking
 
aristotle said:
It is absolutely true. People were able to do their "job" just fine for decades in the past without all of the flashy features you take for granted. All you need is video feeds, some audio tracks and an editor.
Click to expand...

Well sure. The workflow was based around the technology.

All you need are the elements and you can edit. But even when all you needed was film, you still needed another company to process your dissolves, make work prints, etc. Sure you could edit with the raw materials, but you needed to go outside of your materials to finalize your work.

What FCPX limited was your ability to bring those elements to other platforms. It has opened it up a bit with the addition of XML, but it is still mainly a stand-alone program built to work within Apple's suite of programs.

That shouldn't be surprising though as that was the whole purpose of Final Cut Studio. Studio was designed to interface with each other with less emphasis on talking to third party programs. FCP has many EDL problems where some applications simply can't read them at all. XML is more widely used now than it was when Apple introduced it.

FCPX closed that openness even further. It's fine if you are a one man crew ingesting and exporting from FCPX. If you need to talk to a Flame, Pro Tools, provide a cut list for color correcting outside of XML, it gets a lot harder.

But Apple has determined that at the $299 price point, much like when Aperture came out, they could tap into a larger market of enthusiasts. There are much greater gains to be made financially by broadening your market to a larger net of people than by catering to the professional outlets that can justify $80k for an Avid hardware system because they're billing $1k a day to use them. That market represents a minor fraction of the audience Apple wants to reach.

They've made that pretty obvious by their slowness to make any changes to the Mac Pros.

FCP didn't start off like a fully featured app that talked nicely to other programs either. It developed over time and somewhere between 5 and 7 became a very strong application. FCPX will get there over time but it may be more on the back of third party developers who will have to sell their wares on the App Store so that Apple can take their 30%. That way, Apple can have FCPX be ready for prime time while other companies make it more diverse and it doesn't cost Apple a dime. Instead, they just take their 30%.

So yes, you can edit in FCPX. That's what it does. You may not be able to get it on a client monitor right away, but you can edit. But it's going to be a little while before it's as flexible as FCP7 or Avid.
 
McG2k1 said:
The nitris DX has a pretty specific function. that price includes some hardware that allows the software to communicate with and control tape decks. Those tape decks are often cost 50k-150k each. In an environment where you have to buy or rent 10+ decks, the cost of the software to edit on is FAR less.
Click to expand...

Actually, the serial port on the Nitris DX box doesn't do deck control. You still need a separate Keyspan to USB adapter to get deck control.

It's a bit aggravating given what you pay for a Nitris box that they somehow haven't included that function.
 
jayducharme said:
I find it curious that the new look of Avid is FCX. A similar visual layout and the same muted grey tones.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the same muted grey tones that it's had for a while now? The same gray tones I see everyday using After Effects or Maya?


As for the visual layout, I do see one big difference. A viewer window.
 
scotth23 said:
FCPX will get there over time but it may be more on the back of third party developers who will have to sell their wares on the App Store so that Apple can take their 30%. That way, Apple can have FCPX be ready for prime time while other companies make it more diverse and it doesn't cost Apple a dime. Instead, they just take their 30%.

So yes, you can edit in FCPX. That's what it does. You may not be able to get it on a client monitor right away, but you can edit. But it's going to be a little while before it's as flexible as FCP7 or Avid.
Click to expand...

True, but as a longtime certified FCP editor, I'm already doing projects for my clients in FCP X, exclusively. It is just a matter of time before FCP X becomes the new standard for NLE software and everybody copies that paradigm.

Randy Ubillos was responsible for making the NLE interfaces we're so used to, so since he was instrumental in designing FCP X, I guess he wanted to improve the concept once again.
 
mikeandbecka said:
Pros do.. who spends $299 on "Pro" software lol

We'll there goes any doubt if Apple had any chance at the Pro market with X. The release of FCPX should have been held off until it was ready for the pro market and charged at least $599. So sad to loose such an awesome user base as the TV & Film industry.
Click to expand...

darthraige said:
Prosumers can get away with it, not professionals. Difference. I consider myself a high end editor. I don't need this baby prosumer iMovie crap. It's all too amateurish.
Click to expand...

I remember when Avid offered their Free DV product during the PowerPC days. I wish they kept it around, but I guess Avid is doubling down on higher-budget pro users.

Maybe this market separation is a good thing? Avid focuses on high-end professional work and FCPX for prosumer and below. Now each product can better cater to each group.
 
I was watching a wedding I finalized on Blu-ray and noticed some audio was off. Thank you FCPX! I would have seen warnings my video and audio were out of sync in FCP7. Magnetic timeline is crap and annoying, we had tools that did that for us when we needed them in FCP, named ripple and roll. Now the computer is deciding where my video and edits should go.

I am not sure why people defend version FCPX 1.0, when I waited years for a 64-bit version of FCP 8.0 that would have had everything already in place. I needed an upgrade, not a rewrite, big fail on Apple. It was a decade in the making of FCP7. I don't have a decade for FCPX to catch up.

Avid looks like a promising software compared to the new FCPX.
 
Looks like a complete UI disaster.

I've never liked Avid. It always seemed kludgy, and it had a chronic problem with pure blacks. It could never get them right.

Competition is good though. Maybe FCP features will be fast-tracked.
 
Ed A. said:
True, but as a longtime certified FCP editor, I'm already doing projects for my clients in FCP X, exclusively. It is just a matter of time before FCP X becomes the new standard for NLE software and everybody copies that paradigm.

Randy Ubillos was responsible for making the NLE interfaces we're so used to, so since he was instrumental in designing FCP X, I guess he wanted to improve the concept once again.
Click to expand...

I think it CAN eventually get there. I don't think Apple is particularly concerned about it getting there. I think it's going to depend on a lot of other companies making the types of bells and whistles that will make it as feature rich as some other programs like Premeire, etc.

Which is fine. It's a tool that is going to be great for some people. For some people it's great right now. But the fact remains that at this moment, as it currently lives, it does not suit the needs of all the people that were/are running FCP7. It can eventually. The problem may be that people jump ship before it's ready and other companies like Avid and Adobe are not going to sit on their hands.
 
zapnyc said:
Pro Tools 10 is a JOKE. Talk about high prices for very little! To abandon any other audio software platform - including Pro Tools 9 - for the price they're charging for 10 is to support Avid's horrifying arrogance. Such as the way they charge extra to import/export mp3s from their pro software(!). Such as the way PT only properly works in 1+ year old OS versions. Such as they way they only support OMF/AAF import/export via $500 add-ons, unlike any competitor. Such as the way they're the only platform that seems to have consistent hard drive compatibility issues. Such as the way it's usually been incredibly complicated to simply find PT periodic bug fix updates on their bloated website without a pick axe and a shovel. It's only in the recent year or so that PT has been competitive, feature-wise, with other platforms, other than a dug-in so-called "all-pro" user base (not for many years). Their entry-level interface gear - the MBox - has only recently become better than poop. They're living in their glorious past when they had a monopoly and charged $10k just to record and mix. The company is JUSTIFIABLY challenged by Logic, Cubase, StudioOne, and the like. I've been an engineer for 19 years and now I only keep PT9 to transfer client recordings to other platforms. Avid can bite me. Adapt or die.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you just need to go on to Reaper and be happy. And if PT10 is a joke, well tell that to Skywalker Sound, The Dub Stage and all the other PRO'S in Hollywood that it's a joke. If you JUSTIFIABLY find Logic, Cuebase, StudioOne in a pro audio post facility in the US, then most likely they are NOT PRO. Yeah you can do it..but you would be thought of as a prosumer shop. You're a music guy, that's cool...stay with with that software. Pro Tools is the standard for pro audio post PERIOD. NO JOKE.
 
AWalkerStudios said:
Here's my video review of the new Media Composer. I've been cutting on it for the past 3 weeks:

WideOpenCamera.com
Click to expand...


thanks - great overview/review. (including the text bit too)

i'm looking at the all options as where to go from Final Cut Studio- Avid looks like the most sensible upgrade path- although i'm liking a lot about FCP10.

will have to wait and see what happens over the next year.

thanks
Graeme
 
Avid

Regardless of what you think of Finalcut X, they already won the war, Avid is a legacy company now and they will be lucky if they get broken up and survive at a niche player.
There is no longer a growing market for high end video editing, it is increasingly mass market, the fact that high end SLR's take better videos than high end video cameras of only 5 years ago, and the processing power of current intel based computers are much greater than dedicated video hardware of years past.
This is good as the tools to make pro looking video are avail be to a much wider group of artists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back