Comments on: REVIEW: AVID MEDIA COMPOSER 3.1

By: Shane Ross

Shane Ross — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:50:00 +0000

For the formats you can capture via firewire, there is no need for the MOJO or Nitris DX boxes. YOu can capture DV, HDV, DVCPRO HD, XDCAM, all via firewire at full native resolution.

Now, if you wanted to captured them in an OFFLINE resolution, say 15:1, then yes, you’d need an Avid box.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:54:00 +0000

In using the software set up instead of a Avid hardware set up, would you use a Mojo SDI box to take DVCam footage from a deck to the Avid?

By: Jon Chappell

Jon Chappell — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:19:00 +0000

Dylan, the realtime performance improvements are due to the fact that the latest version of Avid utilizes all of your available hardware. Final Cut Pro is not multicore-aware and only some types of filters (FxPlug) are capable of rendering through the graphics card.

I really hope this is something the FCP team look into when Snow Leopard comes out. Because at the end of the day, speed is the most important thing for an editor.

By: Shane Ross

Shane Ross — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:28:00 +0000

Yeah Dylan, I might be a near-guru with FCP, but I started out on Avid. WAYYY back in 5.1 days when I was in film school. It was a solid machine that had some issues here and there, but when we tackled an HD show (DVCPRO HD) we had huge issues onlining with the Adrenaline…so much so that the show went WAAAYYY over budget. When the next HD show opportunity came to me I explored FCP and had such a great experience I never wanted to go back to Avid. When I did it was on Adrenaline and all my fears were confirmed. So I became wary of the new Avid products…and didn’t want to write this review…and GLOW about it as much as I do…until I ran it through real world paces.

I am happy Avid fixed their software, and their attitude. But the hardware is still way over priced. Even bringing the MOJO down from $8000 to $5000…FCP and Kona still win.

By: Grace

Grace — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:22:00 +0000

If you ever get the chance to play with script sync, do it. I’ve beta tested it on a couple of doc/reality shows as an assistant, and it makes life So Much Easier for editors. (Back in the days of manually syncing the transcript to the video, this fact made things So Much Harder for assistants — so much so that I would lie and say I didn’t know how to use the function just to avoid hours of syncing transcripts). But the new script sync function is fast and accurate And, assistants should all love it, because it saves them the fun-filled task of finding words for a frankenbyte. Highly recommend.

By: Dylan Reeve

Dylan Reeve — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:03:00 +0000

Hey Shane, interesting review. I've been keen for quite a while to see what you think, being at near-guru status with FCP.

For me in the work I do the number one thing for me in Avid that always makes me weary of FCP is media management. For an offline/online workflow Avid's media management makes it almost impossibly simple.

Then next big thing is realtime performance. I'm not sure if it's just the way I've used FCP or the setups I've used, but for me FCP edits have always been marked by lots of rendering and the inability to output anything without some rendering.

These two things have been the standouts for me with Avid, and the 3.0 series of Media Composer and Symphony have retained and improved on those aspects, as well as dropped the price and improved other things.

It would be fantastic if the new friendlier price of Avid gets it in the hands of more students and independents who I think often have a very distorted view of what it is. Even if you're going to edit FCP most of the time, I think Avid teaches (sort of forces) some good habits.