Switching to Avid?

[Sherman]

Been using Vegas Pro as my primary NLE for the past eight or so years.
Am outgrowing it, and wondering if there are others who have made this switch.
The questions;

How intuitive is this software?
How steep is the learning curve?
Anyone else made the leap specifically from Vegas to Avid.

Avid users are viewed by som as elistist.
Alchemists of images.
As a journalist I have only seen it used "over the shoulder".
It surely looked different.
Why is Avid surrounded by an aire of mystery.
And is it really the best.
And, maybe the most important question...will it take be another eight freaking years to learn it.

 

[scorsesefan]

I just recently switched over from FCP and it has been a relatively easy transition. I am using MC 3 and the only thing that gets me is having to enter segment modes or lasso a clip to move it on the timeline. Also the way that gaps are considered clips. Otherwise it's been a relatively easy transition. The trim mode in MC is LIGHT YEARS ahead of FCP btw.

 

[tfg]

How intuitive is this software?
It is not intuitive compared to the modern day UI pioneered by Apple and Adobe. That being said, it can absolutely be learned. As a general note I would say this: Avid feels like it was designed by editors, which is why it's the best at the actual editing part of the job. Apple/Adobe (aka FCP and Premiere) was designed by designers, which means it's more intuitive, sleeker, and logical in many functions. This is why Avid software beats Apple/Adobe at editing, but lags behind in graphics/layer intensive tasks. Specifically, the Avid software has some strange rules that do not apply to the general rules of graphic design and layering -- and this leads many Avid editors to be confused about how to handle complex layered tasks.

How steep is the learning curve?
In order to be well trained you would need a) completion of a course such as the Lynda online tutorials, and b) 2-3 months of full-time work and exposure to Avid in a team environment.

Anyone else made the leap specifically from Vegas to Avid.
I made the leap from FCP7 about 6 months ago. I had never used Avid prior.

Avid users are viewed by som as elistist.
They aren't elitists, but it's true that Avid jobs usually pay more, and that Avid editors are usually the most knowledge about editing in general. Or perhaps it's the other way around: as you become more knowledgable about editing you demand more of your software and Avid is the only software that satisfies this certain degree of control. I don't know which it is.

Why is Avid surrounded by an aire of mystery.
There is no real aire of mystery, but here's the best explanation I can offer: Avid is used heavily in TV/Film, but is almost non-existant outside of that industry. This is different from other editing apps, which try to balance the home consumer usage and professional usage. There is no mystery about Vegas/Premiere/etc because they are freely available and used by various consumers and experts alike. Avid, for better or worse, remains mostly just a mid-to-high-end industry tool, which limits the number of people that are available to offer advice, training, and gossip/etc about it.

And is it really the best.
This is debatable. I'll preface with "only my opinion" - but yes, it is the best at certain tasks. It has a "trim mode" that is still the best editing tool around. All NLEs can put footage on the timeline the same. But once the edit has layers of music, multiple layers, precise timing, etc, Avid beats other NLEs with its trim-mode, allowing micro-surgery on the timeline with more precision. It's other biggest strength is handing huge amounts of footage and never slowing down or getting confused about media files getting linked to the wrong footage. It's also great at team-based editing where many editors work on the same project. Over all Avid is more complex than all the other NLEs ... so that can be interpreted as "better" by the fact that you have more control over your footage and editing experience... but it could also be interpreted as "bad" because it means there is more setup and fine tuning required to get started on your edit. It's kind of like driving a car with manual transmissions vs automatic. Both are good in different scenarios.

 

[weismangroup]

Excellent, well thought post by tfg. The only thing I would add is that it for us it also depends on the type of projects we are working on. We edit on both Premiere Pro CS5.5 and Avid MC 6, and which we use depends on what we are editing. For our event work, we use Premiere Pro CS 5.5, because we find the overall workflow much faster from logging, editing, to final export with Adobe Media Encoder. For longer form and documentary work we use Avid, because we find the Avid interface much more conducive to the creative editing process, and also Avid is better at working with and organizing large amounts of footage. That being said, either platform is capable of handling pretty much any project you can throw at it. With Avid AMA, it is now possible to work with footage natively without consolidating or transcoding, but Avid still works better with footage consolidated or transcoded into Avid's proprietary format. Adobe on the other hand works brilliantly with native footage, as long as your hardware is up to specs. So like tfg said, both are good in different scenarios.

 

[MikeyP]

All great points in the last two posts. I have 2 Media Composers 6.0's and one Premiere CS4 system. I've owned Avid's since 1998. I can rapidly crank thru any edit on my MC's. I learned to edit on an Avid and have stayed with it, its logic is obvious to me, where I have to stop & think on my Premiere system. But that being said, the rest is really subjective....