What is a Vegas user likely to love/hate about Edius?

[Paul Cascio]

Got an HMC150 on order and I thought I'd give Edius a try. I was wondering what typical comments are from first time Edius users? I've used both Vegas, whcih I love, and Premiere, which I found frustrating. Thanks.

[Ervin Farkas]

Edius has little in common with Vegas, so if you like it, stick with it and save yourself the frustration.

Edius, like all the real video editors, works more like a true video editor and less like an audio editor patched to do video as well.

For specifics, look up the official site.

[Bill Ravens]

Paul...

I moved from vegas to edius, last year. I was pleased with the smoothness and reliability of Edius. However, in all honesty, I was disappointed in the "simplistic" nature of Edius. it isn't nearly as developed and requires a lot of support software. For example, if you have After Effects to perform compositing tasks, the changeover to Edius is not so bad.

After a few months of use, I decided to try Avid Media Composer. Was I ever surprised. I've found Avid to be a truly professional app. These days, I rely in AMC exclusively. I'm so so happy I moved over. Learning AMC was painful, so, I don't want to minimize the loss of productivity, at first. But, these days, I'm finishing projects in about half the time with half the stress. Well worth what I had to do to learn AMC.

[Paul Cascio]

Bill, the thing I really liked about Vegas was it helped me become an editor. Premiere OTOH was very difficult to use. Did you find AMC easy to learn? Does it let you edit as quickly as say Vegas?

[Ron Evans]

I use Edius as my main editor mainly because it has the best multicam that I have seen. Vegas I use for audio ( started using when it Vegas Audio!!!) and also for export to DVD Architect 5.0 for authoring. Vegas is also good for single track AVCHD as it will edit native at full frame rate ( reduced resolution). I like both and use them for their strengths.

Ron Evans

[Bill Ravens]

Originally Posted by Paul Cascio

Bill, the thing I really liked about Vegas was it helped me become an editor. Premiere OTOH was very difficult to use. Did you find AMC easy to learn? Does it let you edit as quickly as say Vegas?

I started my editing career about 15 years ago with Premiere. It was so balky, would freeze my entire computer so many times I finally transitioned to Vegas and left premiere behind. To this day, I avoid Premiere. Learning Vegas was intuitive and almost instantaneous. What I didn't understand was easily explained by some very good people at the vegas forums.

Over the years the vegas forums became a free for all, as well as the program. I really don't wish to enter an argument with any vegas faithful, simply want to report my own personal experience. Vegas became balky and unpredictable. The people on the forums became ego-centric and closed to opinions that differed from their own. When I finally discovered that the vegas scopes were'nt always right, I left vegas and moved to edius.

After a month on edius, which was fairly easy to pick up, altho' not much like the workflow in Vegas, I realised that edius would have to evolve a long way before it could match the capability of vegas. I had been spoiled. I will say that Edius plays the timeline without a glitch, altho' some users have reported otherwise. The biggest beauty of Edius is that it is one of the few NLE's that works in the YUV color space. Since most digitalcams record in YUV, it avoids some potentially damaging transitions back and forth from YUV to RGB.

The opportunity arose for me to learn Media Composer. On first execution, I was met with a daunting display, and icons I could not grasp. Everything I did resulted in a crash or a freeze. Again, circumstances presented themselves for me to go to film school, where Media Composer and Final Cut were the only NLE's taught by the school. So, I learned Media Composer at school.

To answer your question directly, no, Avid Media Composer is not easy to learn. Having said that, I will say, now, that one reason it's hard to learn is because of its flexibility. One must learn the workflow, which is not, initially, intuitive. Once you get how things work tho', learning comes quickly. That was a year ago. This year, I learn something new about Media Composer almost every day. Another shortcut, or another way to do something. I'm becoming quite proficient and fast with it. There are some things that Vegas can do quicker, but, only if vegas doesn't lock up on me or playback in a stutter. I've become an Avid zealot, I guess. I surprise myself, sometimes, how easily i breeze thru a gig. Not that it's THAT easy, mind you, editing is intensive. But, I don't make nearly the mistakes I used to make with Vegas. No hunting and pecking for a technique, I just know how to do it with Avid.

One other small thing, the people on the Avid forums are reminiscent of the old days with Vegas. All of them are helpful and professional. No petty egos and slanders. And Avid customer support is making a true effort to listen to their customers, again, like the old days with Sonic Foundry. No wading thru two pages per day of egos and self indulgence from users on the forum. Only professional threads, queries and responses.

Well, enuff said, I suppose. Yes, Avid is expensive, and it is hard to learn. But, it's extremely capable and very, very professional. I make my living with my tools. I wouldn't buy a cheap Chinese knock off hammer for carpentry work. I rely on Avid. An NLE is an investment in a profession. There's other costs associated with choosing an editor....plugins, codecs, interfaces with AE, DVD Writers, and so on. After all the $$$ I invested in Vegas, it really was a disappointment to have to walk away from most of them. I want an NLE that's gonna be around for a while, that is multi-faceted enough to do a variety of tasks. Edius has a ways to go to have these features. And an NLE needs to be stable enough that the vendor isn't gonna make big changes in the workflow. People criticize Avid for being old and out of date. On the contarary, its a predictable, stable workflow. Not a fly-by-night whim for some company that's gonna sell it off....at least i hope not.

[Ervin Farkas]

Bill, does Avid transcode everything to QT on import like it did in previous versions or it works now with any native file like Edius does?

Thanks,

[Bill Ravens]

Originally Posted by Ervin Farkas

Bill, does Avid transcode everything to QT on import like it did in previous versions or it works now with any native file like Edius does?

Thanks,

The answer depends on your source codec. But, typically, Avid transcodes everything it imports into DNxHD, either 8-bit or 10-bit. XDCAM files can beplaced directly on the timeline without transcoding , however, the timeline must be flattened/transcoded to output QT reference movies.

[Ervin Farkas]

I thought so.

How does this affect your editing? Can you still use Avid for quick edits, projects with fast turn around? I seriously considered Avid a couple of years ago but gave up on it for this very reason.

[Bill Ravens]

My workflow has always been to transcode all my native footage(either m2t or XDCAM EX) to the Cineform DI. I do this before ever importing to Avid at 10-bit because it provides: 1-a 10-bit DI codec, 2-The ability to do non-destructive color grading with FirstLight. Once this is accomplished, I can import(transcode) into Avid without the need to transcode any more. All my output is via QT reference, which is very much like a frameserver. If all my FX have been pre-rendered, QTref is almost instantaneous into whatever authoring application I choose.

This is a very repeatable, predictable, and dependable workflow. It works beautifully with MPEG_Streamclip, Procoder, Squeeze, Tmpgenc, and DVD Architect without the chronic luma distortions that so many other workflows seem to have. The only thing that would be more perfect is if the Avid would use the Cineform DI without transcoding. Well, I could wish, couldn't I?

[Peter Moretti]

Bill,

I guess I don't get why you'd want to do a first light in Cineform. Avid's CCing is also non-destructive and looks can be saved. Maybe there are certain looks in Cineform that are difficult to replicate in MC?

I'm sure there is a good reason for using Cineform w/ Avid, I'm just not able to figure out what it is. Care to shed anymore light on FirstLight? :)

[Bill Ravens]

Hi Peter...

there's some significant differences to using FirstLight, as opposed to CC within any NLE. FirstLight is designed to be a general "look" for a film. It does not use keyframes, so, changing the look of clips within a production is cumbersome with FirstLight. What it does do is provide for a generic look. Having said this, however, color/shadow/highlight manipulation in FirstLight is performed non-destructively on the 10-bit Cineform DI. Performance beats CCing within Avid, less grain, less banding, especially when raising shadow levels. The FirstLight application is evolving, so, a completeely defined workflow is still evolving.

As I said earlier, transcoding to the Cineform DI outside of Avid, saves me the step of transcoding/flattening video XDCAM files within Avid. Also, internal transcoding in Avid is quite a bit slower than transcoding with Cineform's HDLINK.

On a very generic level, I believe Cineform's DI to be the best, lossless codec on the market, bar none. It is the perfect archival, cross platform, digital intermediate available. Given the numbers of transfers between apps like After Effecs and Media Composer, I rely on Cineform to reliably deliver the best images possible. Even DNxHD has some serious luma problems with apps like AE.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

On a very generic level, I believe Cineform's DI to be the best, lossless codec on the market, bar none. It is the perfect archival, cross platform, digital intermediate available. Given the numbers of transfers between apps like After Effecs and Media Composer, I rely on Cineform to reliably deliver the best images possible. Even DNxHD has some serious luma problems with apps like AE.

This is a VERY interesting comment. Firstly, because Cineform is generally NOT lossless, and second because I've found it exceedingly difficult to use it for archival purposes because the codec is proprietary. And it costs money.

Now that DNxHD is an accepted SMPTE VC-3 standard codec, I feel that it is better for archival purposes, it is also 8 or 10 bit, cross-platform, it's free, and plays well with any editor I am aware of that can support 10-bit.

I don't use AE so I am curious what Luma issues you're seeing. I have noticed that the DNxHD codec allows for 2 different color spaces in encoding.

[Bill Ravens]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

This is a VERY interesting comment. Firstly, because Cineform is generally NOT lossless, and second because I've found it exceedingly difficult to use it for archival purposes because the codec is proprietary. And it costs money.


I don't use AE so I am curious what Luma issues you're seeing. I have noticed that the DNxHD codec allows for 2 different color spaces in encoding.

Perrone..
You'll have to excuse my poetic license. I KNOW Cineform isn't perfectly lossless, but, for all intents and purposes it is. In fact, it is more perfect than DNxHD...lol.

What's you're definition of "archival"? I don't give a hoot what other people archive with, this is for my records, only. I paid my money. Considering all the other options, the Cineform encoder is a deal.

Finally, I'm not about to enter a long drawn out argument with you, or anyone else for that matter, about the shortcomings of DNxHD. It works fine as long as one stays within the confines of Avid and Avid bundled software. I've done extensive tests with all the I/O options (RGB and 601/709) and none of them work properly with some codecs. This seems to be a generic problem in the biz. Cineform ALWAYS gives me the proper YUV/RGB conversions. The problem could well be with Quicktime, but, I really don't care. I use what works time after time after time. I don't have the time to troubleshoot these codecs that aren't converting properly between some apps. If it helps you to feel better, blame me and call it user error. It really doesn't matter to me.

[Ervin Farkas]

Interesting development in the discussion...

Bill, I wonder if you tested the Canopus codec and compared it to the others you mention.

If so, I would like to know how did it perform compared to DNxHD and CineForm.

Thanks,