Video Editing Software

[BlueShift]

We're going to edit 8 seperate streams with no timecode marking- all done by slipping the tracks in my editing software of choice (Final Cut). Simply find a common point visual or audio and line the clips up to that precise point. Takes a minute or two for each one. The edit away.

 

If you can get a timecode clock somewhere out of shot but able to be sot then go for it....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

oooh - final cut :-o *makes cross with fingers*

 

evil mac based editing software - kill it! :P

 

Avid is your friend ;)

 

if you are on an uber small budget then avid do a free version of their DV pro editing system called FreeDV. beats the pants of prosumer editing garbage anyday :wub:

[Bryson]

You'll get no muffins in my house with that attitude, Mr BlueShift :wub:

 

Final Cut and Avid are both perfectly capable bits of editing software. And the advantage to FCP being that when you quit the program, you're on a mac... ;)

[Pete McCrea]

You'll get no muffins in my house with that attitude, Mr BlueShift :wub:

 

Final Cut and Avid are both perfectly capable bits of editing software.  And the advantage to FCP being that when you quit the program, you're on a mac... ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeap. And how nice it is to be on a Mac.

 

Final Cut rocks. Whether it's the cut down (not by much) Express for £200 or the full on Studio, it does a very good job. And it allows me to edit video on a laptop. Anywhere. It doubt I'd ever have the confidence in a windows app to do that.

 

(Pete- an un-ashamed Mac head)

[BlueShift]

im gonna have to restrain my mac hatred for fear of leading this thread dangerously off course :wub:

 

lets just say that proffesional broadcasts are edited on PC based Avid systems, or on PC based Xpri systems or the like... not on final cut.

 

On a completely serious note though, for editing on the cheap - Avid FreeDV is of course free and has more professional functionality than prosumer products like premier and final cut. The reason its free is because it will only edit miniDV in PAL or NTSC, it wont do any HD or anything. But it would work well for you.

 

In terms of syncing the cameras, if you are taking a multitrack off of the desk to be mixed down as your audio for the film, you cant align the cameras using their mics because you arent accounting for the time delay caused by the PA, or their relative distance from it and one another. So the only real way to get the cameras all synced is to send a click track or something to the camera to be recorded and then you'll have to line them up that way.

In terms of syncing the audio to the video (eg. lipsyncing) that is gonna be trial and error without having timecode between the cameras and the audio recording...

 

And Bryson: I wouldnt want your mac-based muffins anyway! ;)

[Bryson]

OK, we now have a new thread in which to discuss, sensibly, the various merits of the Avid, Final Cut and maybe even Premiere families of video editing software. This needs to stay on-topic: this is about the software and it's practical usefulness as a means of editing video. It is not about whether you hate PCs, or Macs or whatever.

[Bryson]

Back without my moderators hat on.

 

The argument about what "professional broadcasts" are made on is misleading. Pro broadcasts use Avid Media Composer Adrenaline, or one of the other high-end Avid products that have no comparison in terms of features or price in the Final Cut Family. They don't get made on Xpress DV Pro, which is comparable to Final Cut Pro in terms of pricing and features.

 

But, we're not talking about creation of Broadcast level video or feature films. We're talking about the kind of video editing we might experience at work - and there, I believe, Final Cut is the superior software.

 

Avid Free DV is undoubtedly a good product, (with an attractive price point! :wub: ) but many feel that it is excessively complex for the market at which it is aimed, and the limitations (especially the limits on layers) would soon cause me a problem in my editing.

 

My point is that it is nowhere near as "cut and dried" as you imply, Blueshift. As with all these things, in the end it comes down to personal preference.

 

 

PS: Next time you see the BSOD, think of me....

[paulears]

I tend to treat the Avid Vs FCP battle as a re-run of the old VHS/Beta story in terms of quality. That battle resolved itself by weight of numbers, rather than real quality/features issues and this might happen with this 'war', but I guess the products will change before the battle is won.

 

I spent ages at the recent production and broadcast show shuttling between the Avid and FCP stands watching their preentations and listening to their answers to the audience questions. I came away thinking dead heat. They are just different, but so similar despite what they tell you. The reality is that the products have gravitated towards each other with every revision. I'm supposed to be buying both, but this seems pointless and I guess I will have to choose just one high spec system rather than two lower spec ones. I just can't decide which. I can't really believe I'm about to choose based on one or two mouse buttons!

[BlueShift]

Oh yes, my comment about what pro TV is made on is merely to establish that avid has a good pedigree in the industry, and that Avid FreeDV and Xpress DV pro are built upon the same fundamentals of that software - adrenaline is a different beast.

 

I will admit that for someone who doesnt do video editing, FreeDV is hard to use. However, it is not tricky to learn if you are technically inclined. It is aimed at a user base who have some video knowledge - this kind of user base often find things like final cut, premiere and liquid edition a little novice orientated.

 

My comments about the evil-ness of macs was nothing but friendly banter - while I would always favour a PC over a mac, macs are sound computing products, they are merely aimed at a different user. Mac products, over the years have genrally picked form over function, in that they market a product that is designed for people who need a computer but dont really want one. In that they do basic tasks with style over the extra functionality and flexibility that a PC user has. Windows is not as pretty, and maybe arguably more complex to the novice user, but the huge hardware and softare base that it is means it is an amazingly versatile platform - much moreso than OSX could ever be without aquiring a much bigger market.

 

Ultimately, your choice of editing software will come down to personal preference, final cut does what it says on the tin - although for the same price you can have avid Xpress, that is more versatile, but not a pretty or simple to use.

I was working with root6 during a project for MTV where they were installing 48 G5 workstations for doing on air identity work with final cut pro HD. A couple of things really annoyed me there - the fact that with FC the analogue audio outputs of a G5 arent synchronous, the fact that although final cut pro HD notionally will edit HD video, in reality the current G5 architecture isnt realistically capable of doing so, it just doesnt have the grunt needed.

 

I believe that while final cut may be simple - it doesnt bring a professional face to prosumer editing. perhaps this is not what you need, but it doesnt provide the pro architecture you get with any Avid system - be it software only like FreeDV or be it hardware based like Symphony. The fact that the same layout and workflow exist accross all their products make the move from home editing to more professional productions smooth - almost seamless. This is a good thing as it opens even the novice user up to how video is made - it teaches them the principles of timelining, editing, capture, color correction etc... that are hidden or dummed down in consumer products like FC, premiere and liquid edition. I see FC in league with those - avid is a step above.

 

the whole BSOD argument is moot - BSODs only show that the user has neglected to properly configure his/her hardware or software. This is not a bad reflection on windows - it does a very good job of catering for the millions of hardware and software products thrown at it - apple only have to deal with one hardware base. This does make OSX more stable out of the box - but just as badly configured software will kill both platforms - when properly configured, windows is no less stable than OSX. granted it may take more expertise to get it this way, but that is a caveat of having a more flexible and configurable system. Just because OSX has no BSOD equivalent, doesnt mean it doesnt suffer from similar errors. The BSOD is a great tool for diagnosing configuration problems.

 

But, I digress...

 

;)

 

let the flaming begin.... hehehe :wub::P

[James]

Back without my moderators hat on.

 

The argument about what "professional broadcasts" are made on is misleading. Pro broadcasts use Avid Media Composer Adrenaline, or one of the other high-end Avid products that have no comparison in terms of features or price in the Final Cut Family. They don't get made on Xpress DV Pro, which is comparable to Final Cut Pro in terms of pricing and features.

 

Bryson

 

It does depend on what you are doing.

 

We have a number of systems and a number of clients all who use different workflows to create their programme.

 

Some examples of workflows using either DV Xpress or Xpress Pro. (Sorry for being pedantic but DV Xpress is one product Xpress is another and Xpress Pro a third.)

 

A client will come to us with a programme that they have started to piece together. They have digitised their DV or DigiBeta into DV Xpress and have a firewire drive with their rough sequence and media. A craft editor (in house or freelance) will then tidy everything up on a finishing systems (Media Composer or Adrenaline) Add their sparkle and send it off to for Tech Review. Any problems picked up in the review can be easily fixed on any system.

 

Another client will produce the entire programme in DV Xpress, they have a freelance editor and hire the equipment from us.

 

Other clients use our FCP Suites.

 

Someone might use a DVXpress system to offline the programme and conform it in a linear suite.

 

Other people use DVXpress for viewing media digitised and edited on a "bigger" system.

 

One show had the director out on location. They would shoot and digitize to view on a laptop. They would then send back a firewire drive with each new days shooting on it to a craft editor that would take the directors rough cut and make it polished.

 

One problem with FCP is that it doesn't easily integrate into a larger workflow. There isn't the immediate ability to access sequences effects and media on a larger family of systems.

 

Another problem is the same as DV Xpress systems. Once you pay for broadcast monitors, vectorscopes waveform monitors and PPMs you might have spent 500% more than you have on the system. This is generaly essential if you want to make programmes that are legaly broadcastable.

 

But, we're not talking about creation of Broadcast level video or feature films. We're talking about the kind of video editing we might experience at work - and there, I believe, Final Cut is the superior software.

 

<pedant> depends on your definition of work! </pedant>

 

Avid Free DV is undoubtedly a good product, (with an attractive price point! :P ) but many feel that it is excessively complex for the market at which it is aimed, and the limitations (especially the limits on layers) would soon cause me a problem in my editing.

 

Absolutly - it is free though and it won't integrate into the rest of the avid family either. The only thing Avid about it in fact is the GUI.

 

Here you are being inconsistent - first you said that you should compare FCP with the DV Xpress family - now you are comparing it to Free DV.

 

My point is that it is nowhere near as "cut and dried" as you imply, Blueshift. As with all these things, in the end it comes down to personal preference.

 

Sorry but I think you are almost as guilty of making cut and dried statements.

 

PS: Next time you see the BSOD, think of me....

 

In my personal experience FCP is just as unstable as Avid Adrenaline Neither are half as stable as Media Composer and both OSX and XP have problems.

 

I could go on about how bad all packages are, I mean what happens to field one dominant media when you import it into a field two dominant sequence in FCP?

 

What happens to the Y and V components in Adrenaline 2.15 when you try to render a fluid morph effect.

 

(Just the first two off the top of my head)

 

 

Final Thought(s)

 

Both are capable packages and can have some "professional broadcasts" edited on them.

 

FCP has an advantage of being pimped at a stupidly low price to try to get people to buy Macs.

 

If you already have a PC but not a Mac then it is comparably more expensive to go for FCP

 

If you have a Mac then you can look at Xpress family or FCP

 

If you are doing a lot of editing then you want something you are comefortable with (most resellers should let you demo first)

 

If you are working with anyone else then you want somethig that will allow you to colaborate.

 

Where I work we have linear Tape based suites, Avid DV Xpress, Avid Xpress Pro, Avid MC Xpress, Avid Media Composer, Avid Media Composer Adrenaline, Avid Newscutter, Avid Film Composer, Avid Symphony, Avid Symphony Nitris, Discrete Fire, Quantel EQ, Quantel QEdit Pro and Final Cut Pro. All have been bought for a reason, all do a job and all have benifits and flaws.

 

James

[Bryson]

But, we're not talking about creation of Broadcast level video or feature films. We're talking about the kind of video editing we might experience at work - and there, I believe, Final Cut is the superior software.

 

<pedant> depends on your definition of work! </pedant>

 

That really is pedantry. This isn't a pro broadcast forum - you just happen to work in broadcast.

Avid Free DV is undoubtedly a good product, (with an attractive price point! :P ) but many feel that it is excessively complex for the market at which it is aimed, and the limitations (especially the limits on layers) would soon cause me a problem in my editing.

 

Absolutly - it is free though and it won't integrate into the rest of the avid family either. The only thing Avid about it in fact is the GUI.

 

Here you are being inconsistent - first you said that you should compare FCP with the DV Xpress family - now you are comparing it to Free DV.

 

If you read the posts properly, you'll see that I'm talking about FreeDV because we were already discussing it.

 

My point is that it is nowhere near as "cut and dried" as you imply, Blueshift. As with all these things, in the end it comes down to personal preference.

 

Sorry but I think you are almost as guilty of making cut and dried statements.

 

Then quote me.... But really, it's inevitable that each poster will have bias to conform to their point of view...

 

 

But overall, thanks for the post...

[James]

But, we're not talking about creation of Broadcast level video or feature films. We're talking about the kind of video editing we might experience at work - and there, I believe, Final Cut is the superior software.

 

<pedant> depends on your definition of work! </pedant>

 

That really is pedantry. This isn't a pro broadcast forum - you just happen to work in broadcast.

 

I think I needed a smile at the end of that statement. I appreciate that this isn't a pro broadcast forum - but I work in the broadcasting sector and when threads start to tread on broadcasting issues I tend to jump in with both feet in mouth.

Avid Free DV is undoubtedly a good product, (with an attractive price point! ) but many feel that it is excessively complex for the market at which it is aimed, and the limitations (especially the limits on layers) would soon cause me a problem in my editing.

 

Absolutly - it is free though and it won't integrate into the rest of the avid family either. The only thing Avid about it in fact is the GUI.

 

Here you are being inconsistent - first you said that you should compare FCP with the DV Xpress family - now you are comparing it to Free DV.

 

If you read the posts properly, you'll see that I'm talking about FreeDV because we were already discussing it.

 

Oh yes I know "BlueShift" mentioned it, The thing that made me rise to mention it was you quite rightly pointed out that DV Xpress was the correct comparison with FCP but proceded to critique Free DV when the subject seemed to the casual reader to be on FCP vs Avid and a FCP vs Free DV comparison isn't very favourable

 

My point is that it is nowhere near as "cut and dried" as you imply, Blueshift. As with all these things, in the end it comes down to personal preference.

 

Sorry but I think you are almost as guilty of making cut and dried statements.

 

Then quote me.... But really, it's inevitable that each poster will have bias to conform to their point of view...

 

But overall, thanks for the post...

 

Bryson - you have to admit that you burn a candle for MAC rather than PC don't you :P

 

comments like "Final Cut and Avid are both perfectly capable bits of editing software. And the advantage to FCP being that when you quit the program, you're on a mac.. . "

 

and

 

PS: Next time you see the BSOD, think of me.... but you also say with your moderators hat It is not about whether you hate PCs, or Macs or whatever

 

Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

Sorry

 

James

[Englishpete]

Avid, lovely. Who's got the money? And you never quite feel as if you own your own material on an avid system, is something many many people feel hemed in by. Final Cut is open standard, fantastic piece of kit. The BBC are going over to it big time, state-side use it for loads of things, and some news channels have gone entirely MAC bassed for their gathering, editing and output.

 

A hattred of Macs is often very unfounded. Xenophbia?

[James]

Avid, lovely. Who's got the money? And you never quite feel as if you own your own material on an avid system, is something many many people feel hemed in by. Final Cut is open standard, fantastic piece of kit. The BBC are going over to it big time, state-side use it for loads of things, and some news channels have gone entirely MAC bassed for their gathering, editing and output.

 

A hattred of Macs is often very unfounded. Xenophbia?

 

Pete

 

Can you elabourate on some of the points you have made.

 

Particularly

 

"Who's got the money?"

"you never quite feel as if you own your own material on an avid system"

"Final Cut is ... fantastic piece of kit"

"The BBC are going over to it big time"

 

Thanks

 

James