Avid is listening

[Buccanears]

http://community.avid.com/blogs/avid...lifeblood.aspx

A while back I had the opportunity to chat with Gary for 10 mins or so. I aired my concerns and since then we now have PT9.x.x which has been so far, so good. Now we have FCP X and MC 5.x to deal with and for soundies, I haven't seen too much that is new in terms of interop. Avid have a great chance at finally getting things right between picture editing apps and Pro Tools. What are your concerns?

[Frank Kruse]

Originally Posted by Buccanears

Avid have a great chance at finally getting things right between picture editing apps and Pro Tools. What are your concerns?

Hm, so what DO they need to "get right" in terms of interop? OMF/AAF has been around for over a decade and is used every day. For me the least concern is about interop issues.

MC to PT workflow is working fine. FCP to PT is a whole other story.

What we really need are improvements for post people within PT.
Bins, clip editor, object based DSP, asset management, sequence handling, project and user management, anything that makes PT less linear and away from the "open reel machine"-emulator concept it started off many years ago. Most of these things were officially announced almost 15 years ago and still haven´t surfaced while the MC gets more and more sound editing and mixing features implemented.
In many ways MC is actually far ahead of PT even from a sound editor´s POV.

The ideascale website is full of suggestions. (almost 2000 ideas while 4 are "in review" and another 5 are "in progress" but the ones with the most votes are not even "in review".)

[allstaar]

My only concern for the future is that stability not suffer for the sake of features.

[laki]

Frank, I agree with you 100%. But I also think that interop with the AVid world would be most welcome.

I just spent a day re-conforming a 90 minute show that I had fully mixed and got hacked to bits by the client. While changes were tracked with change notes and an EDL it was still pretty cumbersome. In this particular instance, all the scenes on the show were completely intact only 10 seconds at a time. They pretty much scrambled the episode. No new media.

Wouldn't it be nice if PT and MC used the same type of sequence format so that when one makes a change, it gets easily reflected on the other. Automation and all.We shouldn't need an intermediary format (AAF, OMF) to get from one to the other.

I've never used it, but doesn't FCP and Soundtrack do something like that?

I still want my bins, clip editor, etc. that I was promised when I ditched my AudioVision 13 years ago.

[C]

Originally Posted by laki

Frank, I agree with you 100%. But I also think that interop with the AVid world would be most welcome.

I just spent a day re-conforming a 90 minute show that I had fully mixed and got hacked to bits by the client. While changes were tracked with change notes and an EDL it was still pretty cumbersome. In this particular instance, all the scenes on the show were completely intact only 10 seconds at a time. They pretty much scrambled the episode. No new media.

Wouldn't it be nice if PT and MC used the same type of sequence format so that when one makes a change, it gets easily reflected on the other. Automation and all.We shouldn't need an intermediary format (AAF, OMF) to get from one to the other.

I've never used it, but doesn't FCP and Soundtrack do something like that?

I still want my bins, clip editor, etc. that I was promised when I ditched my AudioVision 13 years ago.

I've never used it, but doesn't FCP and Soundtrack do something like that?

It does have something like this unfortunately getting STP to stay open for long enough to check updates is an exercise in futility. Buggy and unstable and as of FCPX appears to have been EOL'd.

It might seem like a stretch but trust this Avid. They know what they are doing.

[Chief Technician]

Originally Posted by allstaar

My only concern for the future is that stability not suffer for the sake of features.

I have been asking AVID to do this for years. As of Pro Tools v8.0.1, they HAVE done this. The bug fix releases have been a great help. They finally came around to admitting that there are bugs and they do need fixing and while they haven't fixed every bug I have ever reported, they are trying and listening, and that is all I can ask for. For this, I say "Thank You AVID!"

Now if only Mojo DX would work with Pro Tools, and I don't mean as a Satellite, I mean installed in the same Mac Pro as my HD cards. This is the biggest hurdle they have to overcome. There are certain situations where the DeckLink HD Extreme 3D or a Satellite are not an option. For those situations, Mojo DX support (like Mojo SDI) is the only true option, and it doesn't exist!

Oh, and I will say that I had an email exchange with Gary Greenfield a few years back. While what I asked him (AVID) to do has not come to fruition, part of the essence of that conversation did.