Black Magic DaVinci Resolve

[smurfyou]

Originally Posted by Hugh-H

Hello,
If I read things correctly there can only be 100 live inputs out of the 7 Madi inputs and controller inputs. That immediately rules it out in our world.
Hugh

Where did you see this? That doesn't sound right but I've never needed more than 50.

Also curious what would you be feeding via MADI? Using the system as a console only?

[Vedat]

Originally Posted by AndrewAction

IMO open minds should already be working on how Avid can do it better than BM very soon.

Andrew

Hey Andrew (small world, didn't know you moderated here.. )

I think Avid's video and audio departments operate quite isolated from each other. It took a while for AAX to be adopted into MC even.

They do need a fresher look at the collaboration aspect, and hopefully this Resolve thing will speed things up.

But IMO, the resulting solution doesn't have to be an all-in-one package. Just a better integration is all is needed between the two apps.

[V5V]

Originally Posted by Vedat

[...] IMO, the resulting solution doesn't have to be an all-in-one package. Just a better integration is all is needed between the two apps.

I suspect Avid believes they have that in the form of Interplay. I hope I'm wrong, because I don't care for it all. I find it so counter-intuitive and cumbersome that I actually prefer AAF transfers.

[AndrewAction]

Originally Posted by Vedat

Hey Andrew (small world, didn't know you moderated here.. )

I think Avid's video and audio departments operate quite isolated from each other. It took a while for AAX to be adopted into MC even.

They do need a fresher look at the collaboration aspect, and hopefully this Resolve thing will speed things up.

But IMO, the resulting solution doesn't have to be an all-in-one package. Just a better integration is all is needed between the two apps.

Hi Vedat, great to see your experience and well reasoned approach to this issue here.
For me the two departments had always been isolated. For the first eight(?) years after Avid brought Digi I do not remember a single time that both MC and PT's required the same "blessed" Mac OS.

I do not care what the solution is! There just needs to be a concerted effort to find a working solution.

As an end user of both programs to me the simplest options would create an optional standalone Pro Tools "superlite" for MC. When adding this option to MC, it would allow the Editor to select standard MC audio OR Pro Tools audio for their projects. If using the Pro Tools option the MC editor should be able to export a Pro Tools session.
I would also remove the AVE from Pro Tools and have replace it with an optional MC "superlite" for Pro Tools (cuts only single layer video editing and locked TC synced video playback)

To me using linked separate stand alone options would open the ability for the video and audio departments to continue to developed and update versions without impacting on each other, whilst maintaining solid video and audio playback. These sorts of options should also simplify the whole Re-Conform process.

Andrew

[Bob Olhsson]

Having watched the speed and muscle memory of top pros working in post on each, I can see why Avid wouldn't have been in a hurry about making any changes to either one.

[AndrewAction]

Not sure how speed and muscle memory would be an issue with the suggestions I made Bob.
Both suggestions suggest adding optional stand alone programs where the differences take place under the hood, so no changes muscle memory or speed.

With your Video Preferences on Pro Tools you would choose to use the Standalone video program rather than Start AVE.
With MC you still need to patch source Audio to timeline your desired Audio tracks in exactly the same way you do now. The basic difference being that as the MC editor you could cut and edit the audio at a sample level rather than being locked using a minimum of one video frame length. (40 milliseconds for PAL)
Other PT's benefits like Aux Tracks for sub-masters, Sends .... etc can all taken care of with a MC Timeline template. The audio setup for the template could be supplied by the Audio Post person so it wont have speed or muscle memory issues for the working Editor.
The ability for a MC editor to export a Pro Tools session rather than fiddling around with AAF settings whilst hoping Audio Post is on the same wavelength would save not only time but also numerous headaches.

One would hope before Avid choose any path to improve the interactivity they would do it in consultation with numerous top working professionals from both Audio and Video Post.

Andrew

[Bob Olhsson]

What makes you think that Avid isn't in consultation with numerous top working professionals​ in both audio and video post? I can't imagine that isn't precisely why they have been so slow to make any changes.