Avid Media Composer Class at NYU utilizing...

O

Omari7

Member
I signed up to take a class at NYU, Avid Media Composer, and the instructor told me that they were using academic version Media Composer 2.7, so I dropped because I bought Avid Media Composer 3.0. They also was using an older verion of Mac operating system.

Is there much difference?

Omari
 
Not in interface. The meridien line did not offer firewire IOs at all. Thats the biggest downer. They were stable as heck though adn that's the major bummer of today's MC. It use to come as a turn-key product with software and proprietary hardware. This is why it was so stable. This is how Avid became the industry standard.
When they downgraded the line, they let go of that stability. Now that we literally pay to beta test for them, they are simply no longer the industry standard. It's split pretty even with FCP at this point and there is no reason to think the trend won't continue toward FCP as it progresses so much faster than MC now.


Out of curosity, why did you sign up for the class? Why not just have bought the software first? This is all ya need to get started, really. Access to the tools and initiative to master them.
 
Avid Media Composer Class at NYU

Avid Media Composer Class at NYU

I heard that the program has a big learning curve, so I figured a little assistance would get me going quickly.

I have a copy of the Animation software Maya and also a copy of Autodesk AutoCAD, and I learned from experience that with learning curve programs you need a class to get going.
 
grinner said:
Out of curosity, why did you sign up for the class? Why not just have bought the software first? This is all ya need to get started, really. Access to the tools and initiative to master them.
Click to expand...

The software would probably even be cheaper than the class.

A class is a good way to get started. I never took a class to learn avid, but people have different ways of learning.
 
Omari7 said:
I signed up to take a class at NYU, Avid Media Composer, and the instructor told me that they were using academic version Media Composer 2.7, so I dropped because I bought Avid Media Composer 3.0. They also was using an older verion of Mac operating system.

Is there much difference?

Omari
Click to expand...

Anything you learn in an introductory Avid course should be useful whether you're on Composer 2.7 or 3.0. I'd definitely recommend a short intro to Avid course. You can learn Avid by reading manuals and watching online tutorials, but nothing beats a little bit of one on one time with a teacher to get you started.

p.s. Grinner is wrong. Avid is still the industry standard, especially in New York and LA.
 
3.0 is not necessarily going to be better or even different than 2.7, you'll actually find that most places will run older versions of avid because they finally found a stable version for what they're using AVID for. I checked my desk and I'm running 2.8 - the layout and basic functions haven't changed in over a decade.
 
Jim2000 said:
p.s. Grinner is wrong. Avid is still the industry standard, especially in New York and LA.
Click to expand...

there are just more jobs available for FCP editors.
;)
"industry standard" is a relative term, not unlike "broadcast quality". 3rd generation VHS is broadcast everyday so that's hardly a standard to look at. Yes, there are still more Avid suites today because there were more of them sold years ago and people still wanna pay em off or milk em till they die. MOst of these shops do not have future Avid purchasing plans, including mine. It's not hard to see where things are turning.
In a nut shell, if you are going to be a frelance editor, you are going to learn both. If you are going to be a staff editor, you will learn both sooner or later. If you are self employed doing unsupervised work, price point vs capabilities is all ya need to look at. You can crank out great finished products with Adobe's bundle.
 
there may be more FCP jobs, but what rate are they going to pay? I know FCP just fine, but haven't taken a FCP job in my 7 years of editing. I think that is the one thing holding back FCP from taking over is that most of the really experienced editors in the industry perfer Avid. I do. When you get up to that level, the cost of the editor far outweights what little cost the bay rental is.
 
I recently got thrown back into the world of freelance and it's true- there are more job offers using FCP than Avid. But the Avid jobs tend to pay more.
Unfortunately, the Avid jobs seem to require a high end broadcast background/experience.
I am confident I can cut on Avid just as well as the next guy- unfortunately I have no broadcast experience- so I have to take the FCP jobs.
The FCP jobs pay less and most of them want someone who knows how to do everything and is fully proficient in Motion, Photoshop, After Effects, Sound mixing, DVD authoring, website design, etc.
As an editor- I can dabble in the other programs and figure something out when I need to do so, but fully proficient? It's crazy. I don't know how you guys manage.
There are days I wish I could give it all up and go bake bread.
 
Editors as Artists

Editors as Artists

I know it's a bit off this topic, but the conversation about whether to learn FCP and Avid always makes me ask the question whether editors are artists or technicians.

The longer I work in film--and the more roles I am forced to fulfill as as a lonely independent filmmaker--I find my perspective on the craft and art of filmmaking changing. I continually re-think what it means to be a director or screenwriter. And it's true of my opinion of editors too. I've heard it debated whether editors are "button pushers" (i.e., technicians) or artists, and I've finally realized that editors can be both, either or neither.

Most employers are simply looking to hire button pushers. The employer just wants to know that the editor knows how to use a program, and the editor simply has to present a resume that proves their experience with the program. But I have absolutely no doubt that editing can be a critical but misunderstood artform in the process too. I think Walter Much would agree. But most employers don't want a Walter Murch. They want a guy who can put together a news story or corporate video in 5 hours.

But having edited my own narrative work for the past 3 years, I've come to think of editors as real artists, even though they're usually not hired as such. As an artistic editor, I'm "writing with pictures," or more often "rewriting with pictures." I talked to a very experienced feature film editor recently. She insisted she was a craftsperson, not an artist. And this is someone who works on narrative features. But when I'm editing my own work, based on my own scripts, I truly feel that I am rewriting, and don't feel much difference between the writer-as-artist and the editor-as-artist. I'm re-telling the story, changing it, taking it in new directions, even altering the ending. I don't see how this isn't "writing."

Problem is I don't know how employers would ever know which editors can help fix narrative structure and which are proficient button pushers. I think I'd hire a good screenwriter who knows how to push the buttons, before I'd hire someone with tons of experience with a certain program.
 
It depends, every place is different. Sometimes its nice to just spend 8 hours pushing buttons and use your paycheck to satisfy your creative side. The one thing I really like about editing reality shows is that editors are for the most part give full reign to do whatever they want, whatever works. Scripted shows and films can be very creative and free from for an editor, or it could be just assembling it based on the script. That is the greatest part about being an editor, we are used in so many different ways, it never gets boring [for me at least]
 
Awake-In-Anamorphic said:
...always makes me ask the question whether editors are artists or technicians.
Click to expand...
None of the above. Being a technician is a given these days. Being an artist means having complete control over the work. I have yet to meet someone in this business that had complete control over the end product. I tend to agree with the feature editor you mentioned. I would use the term Artisan to describe an editor, more or less the same as a craftsperson. In the end titles don't amount to anything. If you have strong editorial skills the clients that you work with are fully aware of what you bring to the table. If they don't understand then you probably won't be happy working for them anyway. They could call me a frame assembly technician for all I care, as long as they keep bringing me back to work on the interesting jobs.
 
grinner said:
Not in interface. The meridien line did not offer firewire IOs at all. Thats the biggest downer. They were stable as heck though adn that's the major bummer of today's MC. It use to come as a turn-key product with software and proprietary hardware. This is why it was so stable. This is how Avid became the industry standard.
When they downgraded the line, they let go of that stability. Now that we literally pay to beta test for them, they are simply no longer the industry standard. It's split pretty even with FCP at this point and there is no reason to think the trend won't continue toward FCP as it progresses so much faster than MC now.


Out of curosity, why did you sign up for the class? Why not just have bought the software first? This is all ya need to get started, really. Access to the tools and initiative to master them.
Click to expand...



My friend has a Mac Pro with FCP. He has admited Premiere is a much better system. Have you ever tried to use the titling program of FCP? Live Type sucks in my opinion because it does not integrate as well as TMP did with Edius. The integration is not verey good. Like many others before me have stated FCP is nothing more than hype. I have experience FCP in a hands on process many times and I have never been impressed. I find it to be a big joke more than anything else. My friend even admits he like Vegas, Edius and Premiere more than FCP. Have you ever actualy used FCP?

I admit many studios may infact use FCP but why?

Explain what is so great about FCP!
 
medeamajic said:
Explain what is so great about FCP!
Click to expand...
Grinner can't explain why FCP is so great because he doesn't use FCP. Heck he doesn't even own FCP. I think he may have used it once back on version 3 or 4. In fact he doesn't even use the current version of MC. He uses an Adrenaline, an EOL product which wasn't Avid's best effort. It was sluggish and didn't perform as well as the Meridien line. The new Avid products perform even better than the Meridien line and are rock solid with regards to stability.

Yes, Grinner is very opinionated about the FCP vs. Avid debate. His lack of experience with the current offerings from both Apple and Avid render his commentary on the subject useless.

In short, take Grinners views with a grain of salt.
 
milksac said:
Grinner can't explain why FCP is so great because he doesn't use FCP. Heck he doesn't even own FCP. I think he may have used it once back on version 3 or 4. In fact he doesn't even use the current version of MC. He uses an Adrenaline, an EOL product which wasn't Avid's best effort. It was sluggish and didn't perform as well as the Meridien line. The new Avid products perform even better than the Meridien line and are rock solid with regards to stability.

Yes, Grinner is very opinionated about the FCP vs. Avid debate. His lack of experience with the current offerings from both Apple and Avid render his commentary on the subject useless.

In short, take Grinners views with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...


I agree.

Anyone who ever used FCP, Premiere or Avid would admit FCP is the biggest joke in the industry. I am not saying it does not work. It is indeed used at many post production house but man what a let down when you actually get to use it. FCP is indeed hype.
 
there are so many unprofessional things about FCP that people do not think about as well, for example you can't have more than one bay/user in a project. Have they fixed that yet? That's just insane. The media management on fcp is awful as well.
 
medeamajic said:
Have you ever actualy used FCP?

I admit many studios may infact use FCP but why?

Explain what is so great about FCP!
Click to expand...

It's price point and ability to grow with the user.
I've been on it since it's v1 release. While it's titler is not the greatest, I come from an Avid background so I'm use to using AE in every session. I'd never go on record as saying it's the awesomest NLE. It just offers the most bang for the buck.
As nutsac mentioned, I sport an adrenaline and it was not Avid's best effort if profit was the goal. Nothing has come closer to killing the company as we know it than adrenaline did. I now am seeing slow staggering signs that they want to compete again. We'll see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top