Archive for the ‘Avid vs. Final Cut’ category

Quicktime Pro

January 31, 2007

Avid has done a pretty good job of making OMF the professional standard for sound turnover, but for picture, Quicktime is king. I’m finishing up a show now that used no tape in our turnover process — none for the DI, none for sound effects and music, none for mixing. The only videotapes we generated were for overseas looping where the facility insisted on it. This kind of workflow has held sway on shorter projects for some time now, but for major features, a fully-digital, quicktime-based workflow is relatively new. The advantages are many: better accuracy, better quality, lower cost and the ability to send material around via the net. On a good projector, Quicktime can look better than tape.

I suspect that this represents a competitive advantage for Final Cut over Avid, since FCP is Quicktime-native. But with the use of the Avid Quicktime plug-in, the Media Composer can function pretty well in a Quicktime world.

One essential tool for Avid folk is Quicktime Pro. It’s an upgrade to the Quicktime Player that opens up important additional functionality, namely the ability to do limited editing and make conversions from one format to another.

As an example, I recently needed to create a DVD with a new temp-mix audio track. Since we already had a locked QT picture for each reel the easiest way to do this was to use QT Pro and combine the existing picture with the new sound. The procedure is this: open the picture in Quicktime Pro and use the Properties window (command-j) to delete any sound tracks it contains; then open the audio files and use the “Add to Movie” command (command-option-v) to lay them under the existing picture. In our case, we had two mono tracks, so, again using the properties window, we identified them as left and right. We then saved the whole thing as a new Quicktime. That was much easier and faster than importing, editing and exporting with the Media Composer, and it was safer, too.

In short, Quicktime Pro belongs in every digital editor’s toolkit. At $30, it’s a bargain.

Video Games

January 5, 2007

jeff_han_image.jpgComparing the new Sony PS3 and Nintendo Wii game players has become commonplace in the computer press now and for good reason. It’s always fun to see the mighty felled. I haven’t used either of these things, but the PS3 is about as high-tech as Sony could make it with fantastic graphics and a Blu-ray disk player. The Wii is far less expensive and can’t compare on the graphics. But it has one truly unique feature that’s got a lot of gamers’ attention: its controller is motion sensitive. So to play the tennis game, you actually swing the controller around and it registers your movement in space and reproduces it on screen. It’s so compelling that Nintendo recently recalled the straps on the controllers because people were using them so hard they broke.

The more sensory modalities a digital system can connect to, the better it is. A mouse with its two dimensional interface did this a lot better than an old PC running DOS and that’s one reason why the Mac was so much more fun to use.

We’ve been using a mouse-based graphical user interface to edit with for a long time now and it has proved itself remarkably flexible and resilient. You can control just about anything you want with it. The Ediflex light pen, the Lightworks controller and the Avid MUI all seem inflexible by comparison.

As I’ve mentioned before, it seems ridiculous that with the processing power we have that we need to stop video in order to make a change. But more to the point, it ought to be possible to manipulate the interface in more organic ways.

Here’s an example of something that’s possible today. It’s an interface that can sense multiple touch points on a screen, so you can manipulate it using your hands. It’s so intuitive that there’s almost no interface needed. It comes from a guy named Jeff Han, working at New York University’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences and you can see a video demonstration here. The demo is so compelling that the audience breaks out in spontaneous applause many times as they watch. Take a look and tell me whether you still think your favorite editing system is up to date.

Wish List #3 – Segment Mode

December 18, 2006

Editors using Final Cut live in segment mode all the time. Whenever you click in the timeline you’ve selected a clip and you can move it around. That feels like a convenience to Final Cut users, but to me, and to other Avid people, the “segment mode all the time” approach is hard to get used to. I tend to move around in the timeline very quickly and it’s just too easy to grab something and move it unintentionally.

But Final Cut’s segment mode was developed years after Avid’s and in some other ways, it has advantages. Given the war that both sides are engaged in, I have to guess that Avid’s engineers are considering some changes to segment mode. I hope that wholesale alterations are not being considered, but some smaller ones would certainly be nice.

Here are my suggestions:

  1. Clicking in a time track should not turn off segment mode.
    Some people like this feature, but Xpress doesn’t work this way and after cutting a show with it, I have to say I like it better. Sometimes you just want to leave segment mode on for awhile and with MC there’s no way to do that. It should be a preference.
  2. Make sync locks work properly in segment mode.
    Sync locks are supposed to prevent you from throwing your sequence out of sync. I leave them on all the time, because they make trimming so much easier. But sometimes they break down in segment mode, and when they do, you have to turn them off to do what you want to do.
  3. Insert black into the middle of a complex cut.
    If I want to open up room in the middle of a complex sequence to add a shot, I’ve got to add an edit in the middle of a clip, insert black, and then drag all the pieces back together. Final Cut allows you to select all clips to the right or left and then drag them. This makes it much easier, but it takes a certain kind of nerve to drag every clip in your sequence just to open up a little space somewhere. Avid’s trim mode lets you trim and add black at the same time (control+option+drag). That’s a great idea, but it was implemented so that you don’t actually add black, you trim material away and replace it with black. That never makes sense to me. I simply want to go from this:
    open-segment-mode-2.png
    to this:
    open-segment-mode-1.png
    It ought to be a lot easier to do.
  4. Slip or slide into sync
    It’s not strictly segment mode, but it sure would be nice if we could option click on an out of sync clip to either slip it or slide it into sync. You can do this in FCP and when you’re moving stuff around in the timeline, it would be very helpful.
  5. Linked selection.
    Finally, in FCP, you click on a picture clip and if it’s associated with sync audio, the audio gets selected too. The problem is that you have to turn linking on globally and that tends to tie your hands. Avid could easily do much the same thing, but in a simpler and more practical way. If you held down a modifier key while selecting a clip, nearby sync audio or video would be selected at the same time.

That’s it. Like I said, Avid’s segment mode generally works quite well. With a few little improvements it could be even better.

Meridien, Anyone?

December 13, 2006

Hollywood editors often function as Avid’s poster children — and deservedly so. Despite Final Cut’s inroads into many markets, LA remains primarily an Avid town. But our dirty little secret is that many, and perhaps most, TV and feature editors are still using Meridien systems and don’t want to upgrade. Despite the fact that Adrenaline was introduced nearly four years ago, long-form editors have heard that it’s buggy and slow, and they don’t see a strong reason to switch.

This situation mirrors the one we saw with Meridien. It took Hollywood years to make that move and the town only switched en masse when Avid stopped supporting ABVB. The perception then was that the new version didn’t offer anything important enough to compensate for the pain and expense of an upgrade.

Avid has made much of its terrific user interface and hasn’t wanted to tamper with it. Instead, the focus has been on improved visual effects and finishing capabilities. While these things are wonderful, long-form editors tend to be more interested in bread and butter editing features: the things that help us turn hundreds of thousands of feet of film into coherent stories. And those capabilities, warts and all, haven’t changed much in over a decade.

I’ve used Adrenaline or Xpress on three shows now and would choose it again without hesitation. But I have to wonder how a glacially slow upgrade pace affects Avid and its Hollywood user base. The company can’t get useful feedback because so many of us are using old machines. And Avid isn’t making the money from us that it could be. The result is a self-reinforcing feedback loop. Editors are so certain that nothing will change that they have long since stopped asking for improvements. And Avid isn’t asking because we’re not upgrading.

Editors once drove the upgrade cycle and new features would elicit thunderous applause at user group meetings. That can happen again, but Avid needs to put more focus on figuring out what people like me want and need. The kinds of things that motivate us might not be all that hard to do. For many people here, the most desireable improvement in Adrenaline is the ability to play 16 tracks of audio and use real-time audio dissolves. Not exactly rocket science anymore.

Avid took a commanding lead worldwide in the ’90s partly because the Media Composer won in Hollywood. I hear that the Intel/Mac Media Composer is very fast and I’m hopeful that we’ll see new features introduced in April at NAB. But Avid isn’t going to drive the upgrade cycle here until it offers improvements that Hollywood editors really want.

MC/FCP Differences

November 26, 2006

Several people have responded negatively to my suggestion that Final Cut Pro hews closer to a desktop publishing metaphor than Media Composer does. Admittedly, the differences are pretty subtle, but this issue was hotly debated in the early days and I, for one, advocated the idea that editors were more interested in moving pictures and how they look on a screen than on little rectangles and how you can move them around in a timeline. As much as possible, I wanted you to be able to make all editing decisions based on moving video. Avid’s engineers also did without an explicit toolbar and tried to make the cursor smart enough to do what you wanted when you wanted to do it.

In one sense the difference is just one of visual semantics. The MC has a ‘toolbar lite’ at the bottom of the timeline, where you choose effects, trim, segment or source/record mode. So you’re switching modes in both programs. But there are fewer modes in MC than there are tools in FCP, and to me, that makes it more intuitive. People who started working with one of the Adobe applications before learning to edit often find FCP more intuitive.

One question is whether this difference of approach leads to a different kind of editing, or is more appropriate for a different style, or with different kinds of material. One commentator suggested that FCP seems to be used more for documentaries and music videos and the MC more for features and television.

So how’s this for a hypothesis: FCP does a better job in segment mode than MC. It’s easier to drag things around, easier to rearrange clips, easier to create new and unexpected juxtapositions. MC is better in trim mode, better at tying material together, better at making disparate material look like continuous action. FCP is better for montages; MC is better for dialog. FCP is better at making cuts that jar you; MC is better at making cuts that are smooth as silk.

In addition, FCP is better in a standalone, home-brew environment, where you might be working with full-resolution media and doing your own visual effects, sound work or tech support. MC fits better in a world where teams of specialists have to collaborate and work with various kinds of media.

Tip #9 – Scroll Wheels

November 22, 2006

Later versions of the Media Composer and Xpress finally make decent use of a mouse with a scroll wheel. Many editors don’t know this because they are using older mice that don’t have them, but the scroll wheel is great for moving quickly through large bins, navigating in the project window, or even scrolling up and down through your tracks in the timeline. Even better, if you have a scroll wheel that functions in two dimensions you can use it to move the timeline left and right. Apple’s standard Mighty Mouse works well for this purpose — the scroll wheel is a little ball that can go up and down or left and right.

Recent Apple laptops have trackpads that allow you to scroll by dragging two fingers on the trackpad surface. If you don’t have that capability you can create scroll areas on the side and bottom of the trackpad with a piece of shareware called SideTrack. I’ve been using it for several months and like it a lot. (Apple distributes something called FFScroll which allows older machines to do a two finger scroll, but I haven’t tried it.)

Scrolling in the timeline is instantly addictive because the scroll wheel produces a result that’s proportional to the amount of turning you do. Clicking and holding on an on-screen button is ‘dimensionless.’ You have to watch the result to see how far to go. But with the scroll wheel, your input (how far you roll the wheel) and the output of your action (the movement of the timeline) are proportional and that means you can do it with less conscious attention. It feels more organic, more like an extension of your body.

However, I still prefer my favorite mouse, the venerable Microsoft Intellimouse Optical (available at Amazon), because I can program the right button to be a double click. That one feature has eliminated a persistent pain I had in my forearm and has probably saved my wrist. But the Intellimouse has an ordinary scroll wheel, and that means I can’t use it to scroll horizontally.

For that and other reasons, I wish Avid would go a step further and add a setting that would allow us to control a scroll wheel. It would be great to be able to use that up and down wheel, in the timeline, to move left and right. And it would also be great if we could adjust the sensitivity of the scroll wheel. I can set the sensitivity in System Preferences, but unlike every other program I’ve got, the Media Composer ignores it. Windows always scroll at the same speed no matter what you do and often that speed is too slow.

And last but not least, it sure would be wonderful if we could scroll the timeline while video continues to play.