thank you all guys.
in fact all day i was talking to my editor trying to understand why he said that thing and finally concluded these
1. he started his career with avid because some one told him that avid is the standard and he has been working only on avid for the last few years. so he is more comfortable with it.
2. his job never allowed him to look beyond avid
3. as long as his work pays him, he is not interested to learn things outside avid.
not that iam finding fault in him but for a day he scared the hell out of me.

krishna.

I work for a research lab. At one point we had an opening for an engineer with firmware skills, so we started interviewing people.

One guy had worked on the firmware for the traffic lights in New York. They used cheap, now obsolete, hardware and tools. And that was all the guy knew about. They didn't pay him to learn anything else, so he didn't. In every area outside of his obsolete tools, the guy knew nothing.

To this day I consider him the worst candidate I ever interviewed, simply because of his aversion to learning.

I hope your editor friend doesn't find his Avid tools obsolete some day.

Sometimes you have to work with Luddites like that. As long as you do not have to share projects, I would secretly edit with Vegas and tell him I used Avid. He would never know from the result! (This is not legal advice ;)

A good editor masters as many tools as possible.

Most of the professional Avid editors I know, can also cut on Final Cut, Premiere, Media 100 and have even tried Vegas.

But they spend most of their time on AVID because that's what sitting in the industry suites. (Speaking of Film and Television here, not necessarily advertising and boutique productions houses.)

Having taught a few software classes myself I can see where this guy is coming from. Lots of people are apprehensive about change. Some even get a little hostile about it. I think as long as you keep an open mind about everything that's out there you're in a better position professionally.

I started with Avid and worked with a friend who had Vegas. Turns out Vegas fits me really well. I don't know why. There's no real reason for it. It just seemed when I edited with Avid I was fighting to find stuff and got frustrated quickly. I used Vegas for a two days and suddenly it was like paddling down stream. Things were where I expected them to be. Work flow was quicker and better.

An open mind is good thing.

The interesting thing to note, is that Sony HAS a broadcast editor/editing system. It's called Xpri. And it looks/functions VERY MUCH like Avid. They sell it as having 'the interface standard that you know and are comfortable with'.

Xpri as people knew it got discontinued... you can no longer get Xpri hardware. Xpri however is coming back as a software NLE as part of Sonaps or something like that. Sonaps is something like a ~$1 million solution for large news organizations.

Of course, a guy who admits at the outset he's never heard of Vegas isn't exactly in a position to declare those subtle differences make Vegas unfit.

My thoughts exactly, at this point any amature with one year of videoing should know most of the larger standard software.

But on the other hand, if he has access to an Avid editing suite that meets his needs, why would he care about Vegas?

Because even though I have the phone number for Pizza Hut, doesn't mean I would't atleast want to know about Dominoes. Who knows, I may like it better.

Ofcourse, I've heard, not experienced, that some educational institutions are program specific, i.e. you learn on one system. That may have been that techs learning that kept him from enjoying the euphoria that Vegas brings.

To some extent, editting Video is a very personal thing that you get to like the software you are used to to get the job done.

I decided to use Vegas, and have persisted (as an amateur) to learn it well. But my brother-in-law produces videos for corporates, etc, and he swears that Avid is the best. I realise he says this because he started on Avid, knows its ideosyncracies, etc.

I work in IT, and some programmers have an almost religious attachment to their text editors! Yet there if you look at the text editors, there is really not much between them; all have the same features, etc, maybe different keystrokes but basically the same.

These discussions are so silly. You never read a book and wonder what word processor was used; why should it be different for editing?

Emre, that should be framed and put up in edit suites world-wide :-)

The discussion was sparked by the original poster. That's why it was begun. The editor that the poster had to deal with, was certainly wrong that Vegas' output quality is not broadcast.

(Assuming the poster did not misquote the person)

It was apparent that the broadcast editor wanted to work with OMFI files.

That is something the poster will have to deal with.

Anyone who wants to deal with broadcast stations or film finishing suites, will wind up dealing with AVID ninety per cent of the time.

This is a reality. Doesn't matter what anyone thinks about AVID or Vegas or FCP or... you name it. The majority of television shows and films here in American are cut on Avid. Not sure about India... but it sounds like that might be true as well. Understanding that fact, when one has to go and work in a high end suite, is just something one has to do. Like going to another country. It's nice if they speak your language, but better if you speak the language of the suite you are 'visiting'.