Friday, October 13, 2006

Avid vs. FCP: Another View

This comment was recently submitted:

"I am fascinated by these comments about FCP. Having been editing on FCP for 4 years now, I have just started a project on Avid. I thought it would come back to me right away but it is like working in slow motion. The amount of extra key strokes and/or clicks one has to do to accomplish the smallest of tasks is truly frustrating. I can't believe there is anything in FCP that would actually cause more keystrokes as Mr. Bass has indicated. To me Avid is clunky, slow, and time consuming. FCP is quick, and efficent. This is why I can spend time with my family.

After delivering two featured (sic) on FCP we found no problems with "multiple levels of post in the professional world". I had the most amazing assistant team that knew how to really use the system. Friends have had very difficult experiences with FCP but I have found this is mostly due to the department not really knowing how to fully use the system. I'm also glad there is competition in the industry now. Maybe Avid will start improving their software instead of leaving as is because "everyone" uses it. As for me, after this show, having to use Avid will be a deal breaker for me. It's not worth the pain of the inefficient system. "

Competition is good. But, to each his own.


Anonymous Tobias Steinigeweg said...

You speak with my tongue!!!

2:26 PM  
Blogger robert said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10:59 AM  
Blogger robert said...

I agree the avid system defiantly needs some major revisions to the user interface. Like the old saying goes “old habits die hard.” I think the reality is that the old school editors who came out of cutting film knew the avid as one of the first real successful digital film cutters. Don’t get me wrong I think the Digital revolution is the best thing that happened to the film industry and avid was a part of that. But when I cut with avid I feel like a software programmer not an artist. With FCP if I want to make a cut I make a cut. What also bothers me is the price of the FCP system which is about $2000 and the best avid editing system about $100,000 and yet the two systems can do the same job. Are the big Hollywood studios only buying the system only for the sake of being exclusive? Is it prestige or are big studios saying you’re only a filmmaker or editor if you can afford the big expensive equipments? I think it is inevitable that all big studios will need to cater to the FCP user that can and do own there own system. But as history serves, in the case analog V.S. digital, I predict the same or similar conflicting events that Avid and FCP have together now. It is only a matter of time before portable backpack Hollywood studio becomes a main stream.

11:27 AM  
Blogger Shane Ross said...

To me...they are tools. The job dictates what edit system I will use, as they both have strengths and weaknesses. Just like you'd use a hammer to pound a nail, you wouldn't use it to pound in a'd use a screw driver.

Know the tools, and choose th right one for the job.

Although I do find creative editing on FCP MUCH easier and elegant, moving what I want to where without having to click extra buttons to do so, Avid has the advantage in the offline/online workflow.

Currently I am editing a History Channel doc at full resolution that I will output to tape, upconverting on the fly with a Kona 3. Something that I have yet to see an Avid offer. No offline on this show...When I am done editing, I am ready to output. HD.

1:45 PM  
Anonymous Matthew Kuborn said...

A hammer is only as good as the man swinging it. Like Shane said they are tools and it pays to know how to 'swing' either hammer.

10:44 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home