I am an Avid editor really. I know Avid, I use it every day and I am totally at home with it. But I’m not afraid of FCP, I can operate it, feel pretty comfortable with it, but it’s not my ’safe place’ and I’m not as quick or effective.
But one big issue for me, not being as familiar with FCP as I am with Avid Media Composer, is where are the strengths and weaknesses of each system. What jobs suit which system best. So I’m appealing for feedback from those better acquainted with the two systems.
Avid editors who’ve switched to FCP, or vice versa, or even better people who are using both systems actively.
Supposing you have both Avid Media Composer and Apple Final Cut Pro at your disposal, cost is not a factor, what jobs end up in what system? And why?
My overall impressions are that FCP is strongest overall in situations where you’re doing it all in one, capture, edit, finish and output. While Avid is much stronger for offline/online workflows. Also, I consider Avid a much stronger contender for multi-editor networked work, with Unity. While FCP requires a very careful approach in the same situation to avoid media management problems.
Where are the real traps? Anything that you think should be totally avoided in one system or another?
Have you shifted a regular job from one system to another? Why? What have been the pros and cons of that shift?
I’m keen to hear comments about this, but I’m not really interested in any comments that can’t at the least acknowledge that both systems have genuine strengths and benefits. Fan-boys need not apply. Would be good to know the type of work you’re doing, and what version or generation of each system you’re most familar with (ie. are you making your judgements based on Xpress DV from 2004?)
#1 by Scott Simmons - April 15th, 2009 at 23:24
Avid for multicam jobs and music videos, jobs where I need very fast cutting and group clips as my primary mo. Avid for narratives or cuts/dissolve only edits. Avid where I need rock solid media management.
FCP for graphics intensive jobs. FCP where I have a lot of different kinds of sources. And FCP where I am finishing since I have an AJA Kona for i/o and only a Mojo SDI for i/o on the Avid!
#2 by Warren Crocker - April 16th, 2009 at 16:29
I am student editor, and I am just learning Avid. For me, I am not intimidated with Avid, but most students fear it, or get frustrated with it. I think they are not used to the different modes, and multiple bins, etc.
One feature that I would totally avoid at this point in time is multicam editing in FCP. I find it much easier in Avid.
I am tempted to bring a project from Avid to FCP, but I am not sure how to convert the MXF files to MOV easily. The reason because I do not have Avid on my computer yet.
#3 by ron sussman - April 16th, 2009 at 16:46
I started as a film editor and began working on Avid ID #6 in 1990. After sixteen years of working on Avid I was forced against my will to cut on FCP, which I hated at first. Now , if I have the choice, I wont cut on anything else, regardless of the type of job. Avid has great trim functions and solid media management but the pluses of the system end there. I can work faster and more creatively with FCP. The interactivity of the timeline alone is worth the price. As far as trimming goes, yes it doesn’t have the finesse of the Avid, however I approach trimming in FCP like cutting film and the fact that I can quickly and easily make trims in the timeline without having to enter a separate mode is a timesaver. Basically they are both great platforms with pluses and minuses BUT they are both JUST TOOLS and as long as that tool doesn’t get in my way, I can work with it. I am an editor, not the system I am working on. I could accomplish the same results with a viewer, film and some rewinds if I had to. I edit on both systems, depending on who hires me and whether or not I have a choice. One other note, 95% of everything I am cutting lately has been shot on the RED camera and Avid , at this point in time doesn’t provide an easy way to get that footage into their system. RED is a piece of cake with FCP.
#4 by Todd Hallam - April 16th, 2009 at 22:30
Television editor – 20 years.
Avid for fine tune cutting and projects that rely heavily on a media managed structure, multicam and team editing. FCP where the workflow incorporates integration with other apps (AE/PS/Motion). I can throw a piece together very quickly with FCP but find I am a lot quicker and find the experience more organic and comfortable when I need to really finesse my cuts with Avid.
These days however, once the job is offered to me it is already decided which app they’re using so you kinda have to go with it. But I’m ready to work on either.
#5 by Jason Hunter - April 17th, 2009 at 01:14
I enjoy editing on both systems (Avid Nitris 1.7 & FCP Studio 1) at our small post-production shop. In my 5 years on both systems I’ve learned not to post something on Final Cut if it needs keyed (ie green/blue screen). It’s just too much work to get it to look good when there is a wonderful keyer on AVID Nitris in the next room.
With that said, I prefer to post montages/high energy/cutty edits on the Final Cut. I find the controls for the effects/plug-ins to be more intuitive. On the AVID it feels more restrained, and usually knocks me out of my groove. With heavy effects on the AVID I’m more likely to build my effects in After Effects CS3 and insert the segment onto the timeline.
I’ve never shifting a job from one system to the other in mid-edit. We have logged on the FCP and then used Automatic Duck to bring the in/out/comments over to the AVID. The pros of this are that our producer gets to log on the system he’s more comfortable with (the FCP). The cons are we have to re-dig the footage (beta or miniDv) or re-import the media (P2).
My final comment on both systems has to do with color correction. I hear time and again that AVID color correction tools are far superior to FCP. For what we do (see below) I have rarely wanted for another system’s color correction tool. I find either system to be more than up to the task of fixing/grading footage.
I work for Mind & Media, Inc, a small communications shop just outside of Washington, D.C. that specializes in government and corporate communications.
#6 by GB - April 17th, 2009 at 02:38
I find Avid a much bulkier software, while FCP is much more intuitive. However, FCP just can’t handle certain things. Multi-cam and Tim are far superior in Avid.
Check out this guys blog. His names Tej and if you look further down the page you’ll see for the super bowl he did an FCP Vs. Avid comparison. It could be helpful for this discussion.
http://artoftheguillotine.com/tejblog/tblog_two.html
#7 by Eric Wise - April 19th, 2009 at 14:39
For many years now I have been using Avid and FCP . And I think most of the comments I am reading on this post ring true for me as well. But to answer some of the questions Dylan posed at the beginning of this post, if all things were truly equal and I had a choice of editing on Avid or FCP, I would edit on FCP. The simplest reason is that I feel FCP has a faster growing user base than Avid. The more users there are, the bigger the knowledge base. The bigger the knowledge base the more extensive the resources. And with budgets getting slimmer and slimmer the lead editor is forced to be the assistant editor and even tech support. So crowd sourcing technical issues, workflow questions and best practice suggestions to the web is becoming more of a common practice. (Imagine how isolated you would feel if you were a Vegas editor or maybe even a Premiere editor). The wide user base also goes a long way towards making some FCP projects more future-proof than some Avid projects. In this area Avid’s definitely got to catch up to FCP with their HD format support so that they can stay viable to a wider range of users. I’m really pulling for Avid. Some of the best work of my career was cut on an Avid and I look forward to getting the chance to work on a Symphony Nitris or DS. So in the meantime we’ll see what comes out of NAB next week…
#8 by Ed - July 1st, 2009 at 14:12
If you cannot highlight/select a series of video and audio clip segments in order to slip/slide/trim them interactively all together in one swoop, then you are using Final Cut. If you don’t know why that’s important, you are probably a Final Cut fan. If you like your sexy hardware more than your reliable software, you’ll have plenty of company but in my experience, the only good editors are cranky, over-driven, argumentative headcases that live or die on their trims.
#9 by andrew - August 31st, 2009 at 09:39
I’ve just cut a short on Final Cut after using Avid for over 10 years.
The fcp vs avid war still rages, mainly due to mac vs pc preferences. I felt I was missing something when everyone waved fcp flags, better have a look then.
It’s good, very good – but so is Avid, just not as cool with the kids. You still need to transcode Avchd files to work on. It’s true it all tastes like chicken. There is no war…..the winner is called Liquid, formerly by Pinnacle. An excellent all in one – solid interface from logging to Dvd authoring. As it’s all about the kudos though……..Avid editors are fewer and therefore more elite than FCP counterparts. Avid is in for the long race.
#10 by Matt - September 19th, 2009 at 09:12
Well Ed, if you actually knew how to use FCP you would know how to do that in FCP. But my guess is that you are too cranky, over-driven and egotistical to believe that there may be more than one way to skin a cat and no one really wants to spend the two minutes to show you. If you are close minded about the tools and techniques you use to do your job, you probably aren’t as good as you think you are.
#11 by Michael - November 11th, 2009 at 06:55
I am a freelance editor and work on many flavors of both systems. I agree that FCP is to my eyes a bit more intuitive, and that multiple effects are simpler to add- thereby making experimentation easier. And I too find trimming better in the Avids. Most of my work is in corporate and training programming, so it tends to be more conservative in style. So add me to the list of those who say they are both just tools, and good ones at that. That being said, I have FCP Studio 2 in my office. The deciding factor was probably the ease of mixing formats, and the integration of the other parts of the Studio Suite.
#12 by Mark M - November 24th, 2009 at 22:24
I work in broadcast and I due to the size of our post production we have mainly Avids and some FCP’s. I find that depending both systems are capable of tackling anything I wish to achieve. Though I find FCP’s open timeline an asset when working with producers who haven’t had time to prep (this is due to the fast turn around nature we now live in).
I think that Avids trimming tools are more precise, though I FCP has all the same trimming options tools and gives you a number of options regarding on where and how you trim.
I like having 95%of Avids settings in one convenient place where as with FCP they seem to be in multiple menus.
but I love FCP’s Easy set-ups which makes it nice and quick to swap capture, project and output settings- some people may think its a bit “my first editor” but when you work on multiple formats; HD, sd, p2 etc it makes switching a doddle.
If money was no object then id probably go with an Avid symphony (which we have many of) as the finishing functionality is great (without having to export or flatten timelines for work in color). But on the flip side if I was given the option of either fcp & media composer then id go with FCP.
I prefer FCP for effects work and agree with Michael when he says ” that multiple effects are simpler to add- thereby making experimentation easier.”
But bear in mind with FCP only runs on Apple’s OS, so you need a Mac, with Avid you can use either Mac or PC on either Operating systems.
The other thing to consider is media management (especially in big production facilities) and we had a bad experience with Final Cut Server so much so that it was removed from Macs. Avids Interplay is far more integrated and for us makes a for a common sense choice, but there’s still questions hanging over its use with 3rdparty assets.
I think that its safe to say that before making any decision or judgement you need to look at your workflow, do you need to do heavy audio work? is the editor your working on going to be used for finishing? and what format does your end product need to be output to? But if like me and you’re happy to work with both then it only comes down to one thing, it doesn’t matter as long as it works!
#13 by Cabreiro - November 29th, 2009 at 06:47
Grew up using AVID up from version 2.0, editing mostly feature films and long documentaries. Used many other sistems, most annoyed me. Until FCP, which first felt almost equal, but now, after using it more and more, my “safe place” has switched there.
Right now I have been editing on AVID again, an all new system (MC Nitris DX), and after much FCP, a lot of things I was used to on the AVID suddenly felt really clumsy to me, especially when editing in a long and track-laden project. (Simple things like e.g. moving an edit with the red or yellow need many more clicks or keystrokes than on FCP, Media handling is way too platform restricted, FX qualities hardly evolved in the last years and feel clumsy to work with and ugly to look at today, stuff like Import being restricted at Video-resolution and many more)
FCP definitely has been a great advance in interface, while Avid doesn’t really seem to have evolved in the last four years.
The media handling when working on multi-user projects is obviously still one of the FCP flaws. I can’t confirm any big difference in system stability, FCP crashing every now and then like it always does, and our AVID doing the same.
There were problems with overheating harddrives, but they were in part due to the design of the rack (with a big set of 20 TB of harddrives, both the drives and the Nitris overheated at a roomtemperature of more than 18 degrees Celcius. I ended up working in winter-clothing. )
The one big reason why we did use the AVID here was having a 24fps project. The Lab told us they had much less problems from 24fps projects coming from the AVID than with the transferred EDLS from FCP. Whats more, you can generate a Videotape output running 24fps on the avid, with a realtime conversion to a 25fps PAL videotape, while on FPC you have to either speed up the whole stuff by a frame, or export first to 25fps.
#14 by Shane Ross - December 11th, 2009 at 10:34
I think these comments pretty much sum it up. The only issues I have seen with editors struggling with a platform that is not their preferred one is when they refuse to want to do things the way the other platform does things. Trying to make FCP behave like Avid, or Avid behave like FCP. Not changing their thinking and approach to how they edit on the different systems. They just throw up their hands in frustration and say “THIS NLE SUCKS!”
#15 by Nate Orloff - December 11th, 2009 at 10:37
I use Avid for anything offline (i.e. not intended for finishing). The post houses I work with online from Avid projects better.
I use FCP For everything else. Promos, commercials, stuff where I can digitally import the files natively, no transcoding. I a lot of AVC-Intra and XDCAM work and FCP is amazing at just importing, cutting, and coloring in Apple Color all without ever transcoding. Absolutely love that Final Cut Studio is a one-stop-shop cut, color, and sound design (although soundtrack pro blows, it does it’s job). And I’ve used Motion increasingly for professional gigs. It’s lean and behaviors allow me to animate elements FAST without thinking about keyframes.
To me, Avid is a powerful editor meant for offline work. Period. Even if you import 1:1 (which would never be practical) it’s still a transcode. But for editing offline, as 100% of feature films do, it’s amazingly fast and powerful.
We live in a world where both editors now match each other for the important features. Some swear by script sync and would never jump to FCP for that reason along. Other people hate the fact that everything has to be transcoded (to me 4.0’s AMA isn’t that sophisticated & very limited).
#16 by Dylan - December 11th, 2009 at 11:13
“Trying to make FCP behave like Avid, or Avid behave like FCP.”
There is always apart of that. And of course because I’m most comfortable with Avid Media Composer I will always fall back to the “oh this is stupid, MC does it” position when I find difficulty with other system. That’s been true of my experiences with FCP, Smoke, quantel stuff, Premiere, Edius… And it’s hard to get passed.
In the end I got quite used to FCP, and was able to make it behave enough like FCP (keyboard customisation and stuff) that at least I wasn’t always out of my comfort zone. But at the same time sometimes I do think we’re willing to give unfamiliar systems a pass in this way too. Even when one has a genuine weak point we’ll just say, “oh but it’s different, we shouldn’t expect the same” – for me with FCP this is things like the capturing footage, render management – things that I think are actually well below par, different system or not.
#17 by Alain Dessauvage - December 17th, 2009 at 01:59
I’m a long time Avid editor, but I have quite a few years of FCP experience aswell. I like FCP for commercials and other simple edits, but wouldn’t want to cut a feature with it. Honestly, for me the choice between these two depends more on what I want to do with it. If you need a cheap software package that ’s a jack of all trades but a master of none, by all means go FCP. But if you need a rock solid editing tool that allows you to edit really fast, where you can at least trim a cut in a decent way without touching the mouse, Avid is the way to go. And honestly, isn’t trimming what editing is basically all about… I really find it so annoying having to constantly use the mouse in FCP. Also, on the FX side, Avid allows you to do things like stabilization, tracking, rotoscoping (Animatte) and so on without leaving the software. I hate to export sequences to Motion to do a simple stabilized splitscreen in FCP. Some people find it easier to build and manipulate complex layers full of FX in FCP, but I have a different experience. In Avid, you can keep on nesting FX (really usefull) and you can always copy/paste keyframes which is impossible in FCP. Multicam is nonsense in FCP, and if you want AutoSync or to be able to read AudioTC, you need to buy plugins. Best of all, Avid keeps its renders if you move a clip or mute a track
and doesn’t exactly cost an arm and a leg anymore, not much more than a FCP license with some essential plugins like AutoSync.
What I do like about FCP is the instant import of files. It’s really a pain having to wait while Avid converts a WAV file to a WAV file
, and it’s much worse with video. Of course, this means that the mediamanagement won’t be as good as in Avid. Also, I love FCP ’s timeline. Zooming in and out while playing, hi res audio waveforms, instant copying of segments in the timeline while option-clicking and so on. One really neat thing that Avid should copy from FCP is that when you load an audio file in the source monitor, the audio waveform is displayed instead of useless black. And of course, the cheap hardware is an added bonus (or even a requirement in some cases). It ’s incredible that you still need to buy a Mojo DX to be able to monitor a HD edit on a HDMI monitor.
BTW, recently, I used the latest version of Lightworks on a feature film. Hated it the first 3 days, but honestly, after getting used to it (don’t give up !
, Lightworks might be the best editing tool on the planet at the moment. Love the interface, you’re so in control of the footage, it allows you to work extremely fast. And it also has a node based FX interface, really cool, looks like Shake or Nuke. Sadly, they ‘re still having the same prices Avid had 5-6 years ago…
What’s really strange now is that FCP isn’t exactly evolving much, while Avid releases major updates more than once a year, they have the momentum now. What I also find rather funny is that most people agree with OSX being more reliable than Windows. This due to the fact that the hardware and software is developed by the same company. Well, this is also the case with Avid but not with FCP. Yes, Avid is more expensive, and a bit more closed but it always works. I lost track about all the hours I lost in getting things to work in FCP, because every configuration is different…
#18 by Elle Flaneur-dijo - December 18th, 2009 at 14:35
If you look at your editors as an artist, and you are like me and look at the marxist point of view for the artist, then it just comes down to what resources he/she has available to make his work? right now since FCP and Avid are very, very similar when it comes to making the montage, it really should not be a battle of which platform is best but more of ….. is the artist good or great?
I have seen the advantages and disadvantages that modern NLE system have brought to the moving image editor.
I’ve seen many times gear is overlooking quality, in some productions.
I’ve seen productions with no budget, running a non recent version of software, make really magnificent things.
I’ve seen “indies” write/shoot/produce/edit their own thing because the software is there, and is “so easy…(to screwup)”. and have had to spend 3 week to make an online because, TC went away.
I’ve come to the conclusion that why advocate for some brand? when it should be art
Keep it coming!
#19 by Loren - December 30th, 2009 at 10:49
I have both systems installed, FCS3 and Avid 4.x. I edit in both, I review tools like filters and accessories for both, I rant and rave about both. I teach both. I build KeyGuides™ for both!
Currently I’m doing corporate green screen HD work using KeyLight 2.0— in FCP, and its equivalent 1.2 version in After Effects. (The only reason I’m in After Effects is because you can separate a drop shadow from its source, useful for enhancing shadows on virtual sets.) I’ve never tried KeyLight in Avid.
Each vendor one-ups the other routinely. I give Avid what everybody gives Avid, great trim tools and solid one-project-at-a-time media management. I give FCP a clear edge in project flexibility, image manipulation, and a comprehensive suite of ancillary tools which are better integrated than Avid’s current kluged-together “studio.”
Choice is good.
#20 by Mark Raudonis - January 2nd, 2010 at 04:34
Happy New Year.
Great discussion. I agree with most opinions here, EXCEPT for the negative comments about “shared storage and networked workflow” regarding FCP. I hear this kind of comment often, but when I ask for details about the kind of equipment or the kind of effort put into organizing the project, I quickly learn that the “negative experience” has more to do with a lack of understanding than a physical limitation from FCP.
I got so annoyed by this casual dismissal of FCP’s “workgroup” abilities that I wrote an article about it. You can see it here:
http://www.avid2fcp.com/articles/sharing-projects
Rather than repeat the article, I’ll just say that sharing media and projects with FCP/X-SAN is just as easy as Avid, if you know what you’re doing. In fact, I’ll even go out on a limb here and say that in our case, the way that FCP sees media on the finder level and NOT in a “project” is a huge advantage for us and the scale of media that we deal with (Hundreds of Terrabytes).
We have almost 100 editors working in a shared storage, shared project workflow meeting broadcast deadlines on a daily basis.
mark
#21 by Dylan - January 2nd, 2010 at 06:57
Thanks for your commments Mark – you’re certainly the most informed person when it comes to collaborative editing with FCP.
My observation from your posts and articles in the past about the process in FCP in the past have always been that the process is possible in FCP, but a lot more ‘fragile’ I guess. It’s certainly possible in a Unity environment to mess things up for other editors and break media links, but it’s pretty difficult. The FCP methods you describe require a very high level of discipline by the editors to conform to very specific protocols. Which is ideally what editors should be doing in a shared environment anyway, but in my experience is often the sort of thing that tends to go out the window as the pressure is ramped up.
I’d still say that the FCP solution to collaborative editing is not nearly as simple or ‘fool proof’ as Unity, but quite clearly it is possible when managed right. As for scaling, I can certainly see times when the simple filesystem-based method might be more efficent – a corrupt media database in a large Unity project is a mighty pain.
#22 by Larry Wheeler - January 6th, 2010 at 10:54
I have been an FCP editor since version 1.2.5 . I have very little to complain about in Final Cut, it’s been great for me. The LAFCPUG meeting about AVID made me really think seriously about the AVID, for the first time in years. I am nearing the end of the 30 day trial on MC 4.0.
I have to say, that I am quickly falling in love with it. While the learning curve is steep, the basics are easy to get, after you mess with it for a while. The mix and match is pretty sweet, and I love it’s instant access to my XDCAM stuff. It’s RT performance is pretty nice too, even on a laptop. Overall, I am quite pleased with it, and find more to like about it, every time I work on it. The fact I am saying this, would confuse some of my former co-workers. I personally switched 2 production facilities away from MC a few years back, for FCP. Not trying to start a flamewar…
The one thing that is baffling, is a seeming inability to use some media files. I have a unique situation, I shoot 3 cam interviews, 2 in HDV 24p, another in Canon HDV 24f. This presents a strange scenario on both editors. Budget wise, this is the way it is on these…
In FCP, I “de-telecine” in compressor the HDV 24p stuff as ProRes, the 24f can stay intact as native in Final Cut. (I’m in 6.0.6) In Avid, I can’t find a good solution. In order to pull from the tapes, I have to (please, Please correct me if I am wrong…) create a project in 1080 60i to pull from HDV 24p, and it does well with this. However, in order to pull 24f footage, I have to create another project as 1080p 24, and then I can option to a 24f import from the deck controls using the XH A1 for both tapes, for import.
My question is this, how do I tell Avid, to import the media from the 24f project, into the 60i project, or vice versa. No import options seem to work at all. It keeps erroring on import attempts,telling me to go to documentation, and I have read everything I can find, and still can’t figure this out. This is even with it’s own MXF files. If I can get around this issue, (which I know is a newbie issue) without having to import and transcode around it, that will fix my only real issues with MC so far.
That said, there is something to be said for using both, and having a knowledge of both systems. Love the discussion so far… Larry
#23 by betty wiggens - January 17th, 2010 at 13:06
QUESTION: short of using Automatic Duck, is there any way to take an Avid project and color correct it on FCP or ???
#24 by Dylan - January 17th, 2010 at 18:53
That really depends on how complex your Avid project is, and how you want to colour correct it.
At the most basic you could export a Quicktime from Avid and use that as the source in FCP. Taking it a step further it should be possible to export an EDL of the sequence which can then be used to cut the Quicktime in FCP to make grading easier – Digital Haven used to have an App called “EDL Mirror” that did this – it’s been discontinued, there are probably other tools that can achieve the same thing.
Using that Quicktime and EDL principle it should also be possible to take an edit from Avid into Apple Color (which can import an EDL to apply as a cut list) – but I’ve never tried it.
If this is something you’re seriously keen to do, I’d definitely recommend Automatic Duck – it’s a brilliant tool, and I’d say pretty much essential in any environment with both Avid and FCP suites.
#25 by roli rivelino - January 27th, 2010 at 21:50
I am still very much a novice, but I started on Avid Xpress and regularly wanted to cry and tear my hair out. I got the distinct impression that Avid made the software deliberately complex in order to sell their courses.
I moved over to FCP in May ‘09 and haven’t looked back, it seems more stable and uses much more intuitive language, it seems that where Avid says ‘Audio Clip Gain’ FCP says ‘Turn volume up’ and that for me helps me concentrate on the important stuff.
#26 by Dylan - January 27th, 2010 at 22:02
Hi Roli,
The learning curve for the Avid applications is probably steeper than for FCP and some other NLEs.
Most of the conventions in Avid can be very well explained. Because the software has developed as a film-cutting tool many things relate to terms and methods that were existing in film editing.
I many ways my feelings toward FCP mirror yours toward Avid. These days (despite first editing on Premiere and FCP) I find myself much better able to simply concentrate on the important stuff in Avid.