This thread has been enlightening. I came on this forum searching for advice on whether I really needed an "AVID Approved" PC to move up to Pro. I've been running Xpress3.5 on a Dell for 5 years, and love/hate it. I love the workflow, but also refer to my suite not so affectionately as "my crash happy Avid". Because it does. A lot. Error messages all the time and if I drop five or six effects in a row without saving? ? Boom! Down it goes. So I'd hoped moving to Pro and a new system would solve my crashing woes. But I didn't want to buy an HP because I can build twice the system for what you'll pay for an HP "Avid approved" rig.

However, I also plan on moving from a Canon XL!s and Sony VX2000, to a JVC camera, and from what I gather here I would not have been happy with that decision with Avid. Unless I move to Media Composer.

So. . . I can spend $3K on an Avid approved system, and $5K on Media Composer. Or go out and buy a new Mac and FCP, and plop down all the money I saved on the the new JVC rig I want.

Decisions decisions. . . .

Thanks for making me an educated consumer, guys.

Jim

Just a note on the "Avid Approved" systems. It seems to get a bum wrap. But if you look at it honestly, Avid is upfront about specific hardware combinations that it specifically tests for. Though plenty of people are running fine on systems NOT ON THE LIST. Me included.

No one else will be that upfront.

Take a look at the thread regarding the "black frame" issues with Vegas. Someone posts a problem they are having, and others are quick to come back with "Not a software problem, it's working fine for me, must be a HARDWARE problem" -this from people who like to claim that Vegas will run flawlessly on 'anything'

Final Cut Pro ONLY operates on APPLE APPROVED systems. Period. Sure, they dont state that in their marketing, but Apple is selling a very specific HARDWARE/SOFTWARE platform that is smaller in choices than Avid offers. Try running FCP on a PC... too bad. You can move your AVID from your PC desktop toyour MAC laptop and the program ships with copies of both.

So yeah, AVID has it's issues, but so does everyone else. No ONE NLE is going to be the perfect solution to EVERY computer/camera combination. They all have a history of being 'first' to support something, and 'last' to adapt at something.

Our mission in these emails, is to explore the options that will work for US.

...running Xpress3.5 on a Dell..."my crash happy Avid"

Jim, your crashes might be a 'feature' of your PC computer. I have a host of complaints about Avid but none have anything to do with crashing - I am running on a dual G5 Mac. I used to be on a PC some 4-5 years ago and it was a crash after a crash. Now, it's truly a smooth sailing in that regard.

I realize that it is a tough switch, especially if you have invested in a high-end system and perhaps more PC-only software but, man, running a Mac made a HUGE difference for me. I never looked back...

However, I also plan on moving from a Canon XL!s and Sony VX2000, to a JVC camera, and from what I gather here I would not have been happy with that decision with Avid. Unless I move to Media Composer.

Jim

Which JVC camera are you moving to? GY HD 110 and 720p HDV?? Or are you staying in DV with the DV 5100?

So far as crashing goes, my systems on both my desktop and my notebook have been very stable, both Avid Xpress Pro and Avid Liquid. Very rarely do they crash. I have 2 year old Athon 64 running on XP SP2. Remember that Avid like at least 1 gig ram preferably 2 gig and a good graphics card, at least 256Mb Nvidia. Pretty much like any edit system.

It seems to me, with the 'discount upgrade' available from Xpress to MC, that Avid is actually planning on dropping XpressPro, or phasing it out if you will. IF the price point weren't so steep, I'd say it's a great idea. MC beats FCP, even without the adrenaline. But it's price point is too high above XpressPro.

My guess? In three years, there will be "Liquid" for the 'smaller, boutique and event' editors and MC for everybody else.


So did today's news about the plans to return Liquid to Pinnacle surprise anyone?

Ok, the Hp approved systems are expensive...way more than Dell, but for some reason the two HP computers i run Avid on actually convinced a friend of mine to return his Dell laptop. Why? Bad service(in norway) and constantly problems with hardware and the build quality on his dell laptop. For some reason i think the new Xw8400 system seems more well engineered than Dell 490 or 690, beeing and x-computer guy i know what i like...and HATE.

What Avid do when the test systems is also for example how the pcie/x slots are connected to the system bus, whats sharing bandwith with what. Probaly not important for every user, but it means that you know that hooking up say scsi or sas external storage will not cause problems when for instance capturing. Ofcourse this is more important to the high end nitris og media composer adrenaline user than the small Xpress guy.

So as i see it, it's either the HP systems or Applem wether to Avid or not I see now as a personal issue if you look at the editing part. I'm all Avid at least for a few more years, love how fast you can edit in Avid.

And so far, now crash or "stupid" happend to Xpress on my Xw8400(single 3ghz cpu and 2gb ram, 1,3tb internal HW raid5 for media).

Thanks for all the responses. I've learned more surfing this group in the last 6 months then just about any other resource.

What camera am I looking at? I've been looking at the JVC GY-HD200. At the very least I'd move to a Panasonic HVX200 what with all the reviews I see in the industry and Indie rags. But even without the JVC issues I have read about in this forum with Avid, I hear there are issues with P2 users with AvidXpress as well. I had a filmmaker buddy use Avid XpressPro for a feature and he said dealing with the P2 cards with Avid was a nightmare. And he was a former FCP user that moved to Avid because of the image factor that Avid gives, of pretty much- "if you're a filmmaker don't use that loser FCP, use what Hollywood uses." He bought into that and regretted it. Now, guess who helped convince him to switch to Avid? Duhhh. You guessed it. Me.

I do a lot of racing and aircraft work so I want the 60p on the JVC200 and the HVX200 that I can't get on the GY-HD110. Fabulous slow motion is high on my needs list. And being able to hook into an SDI and getting true HD is appealing too. Though P2s will allow me greater mobility on the race track, or in the air. I won't be lugging a PC with me in a B17, now will I?

One of the biggest things that has left a bad taste in my mouth with Avid is something as simple as this shutting off your auto updates with Microsoft. So I can't keep my system up to date without my Avid opening up twenty movie clip frames and then locking up my PC? (anyone remember THAT nightmare a few years ago?) And my hesitation with moving to Mac was based on how it used to be that Avid was Mac based, and then it switched. Then it was worse- it wasn't long ago that you had to wait 6 months for the Mac versions after the PC versions were released. Is that not how it was?

I often work with other free-lancers on bigger gigs, but it is hard enough to find Xpress users to team up with on projects. What will it be like if I am using Media Composer? Finding FCP users is as easy as finding fat people in Walmart.

I think I will heed the Apple advice- I need a new system anyway, so why not move to Apple? And if I try FCP and later decide I want Media Composer after all it will run on the Mac, right? Whereas I can't run FCP HD on a PC?

Thanks again for the replies.

Jim

Jim,

as I mentioned before, I have been on a Mac for 4 years and never looked back. My opinion. As for auto updates, well, you do need to switch those off and ONLY update when Avid authorizes that particular OS/Avid combination. That is the same on Windows and Apple.

The other advantage of the Mac is (as you mentioned) the fact that you can run both FCP and Avid on the same machine (only not at the same time). I do it all the time, running mostly Avid but also sometimes using FCP, especially with material originated from JVC HDV sources.

Now to the camera. IMO, the JVC system had truly GREAT potential but JVC blew it. No need to list all the issues, there were just way too many. Also, as we are moving along, the world is progressing (albeit slowly) to 1080p. JVC's 720 is just too low a resolution for the long run.

The Panasonic P2 system has its flaws too, I for one don't like the camera, its VF and LCD but also the bulky ergonomy. This, of course, is quite personal. The cost of P2 cards is fairly high and there are issues with the workflow.

In my opinion, the best low cost system at the moment is XDCAM HD, and in particular, the upcoming SONY camera XDCAM EX. Take a look here:

http://www.sonybiz.net/biz/view/ShowContent.action?site=biz_en_GB&contentId=1187079468902&parentFlexibleHub=1166605171707

It uses the new PCICIA cards that are non-proprietary and will be cheaper than P2. The workflow is virtually identical to the disk-based XDCAM workflow, which works well with Avid (and probably FCP - I just haven't worked with it on FCP yet, perhaps someone else can share their experience). As far as I understand, the camera is supposed to ship this fall, perhaps as soon as in October. I should also mention, that unlike the JVC or Panasonic, it uses 1/2" chips, hence offering better low light sensitivity and shallower DOF.

Oh yeah, a disclaimer is in order: I don't work for Sony (but this camera and system has me quite excited...:-)

Jiri

[QUOTE=Stephen Knapp;732605]So did today's news about the plans to return Liquid to Pinnacle surprise anyone?[/QUOTE

Is this true and if so where can I read it?

Posted twice by mistake ... sorry

JVC's 720 is just too low a resolution for the long run.

In my opinion, the best low cost system at the moment is XDCAM HD, and in particular, the upcoming SONY camera XDCAM EX.


For some reason many broadcasters in Europe think that 720p50 is a better broadcast format than 1080i50, so the resolution race is on again...but for us sports people rather 720p than 1080i. And 1080p is just to bandwidth intense at the moment to be a real alternative.

What's best depends on your needs, one problem for Sony and the xdcam is that it's still long goop and the compression is a bit hard. Of course you have the xdcam ex that removes the point of xdcam being slower than p2 on the larger projects/eng work, but the P2 system is a system that is much more proven and tested than the ex. But again, "best" is a very relative word we're still shooting all SD for news and so on in Norway...and many European countries and will be for few years.

As far as I know, some European broadcasters haven't even decided on their HD format. And yes, 720p might be in some ways better than 1080i but certainly not 1080p. Also, we are comparing apples and oranges here; for broadcast the issue is bandwith vs. quality but for acquisition it's always quality first because in the real world you rarely deliver in the same format you shoot in.

The truth is that the EX system is not tested at all - yet. However, its 'brother' XDCAM HD has been in the production pipeline for a while and it works like a charm. I personally edited three episodes on Discovery-Times series almost two years ago and the process was flawless! Now Sony says that the EX is using the same codecs and even Avid moderators seem to agree that it's likely going to work the same way as disk-based XDCAM. You can even use the new upcoming USB XDCAM HD drive that will record the material from the card onto an XDCAM disk - essentially making it the same as if it originated in an XDCAM (disk) camera.

As for P2 being 'a proven format', that's a matter of opinion. In either case, the cards are proprietary, therefore, expensive but also limited in speed. Newer computers aren't even compatible with the P2 card format. In addition, the HVX200 camera uses an SD set of chips and upconverts the signal to HD through pixel shifting. There have been some tests published on-line that clearly indicate that while the footage looks very good, when compared to other cameras it is 'softer'.

Sony has proved that their 'long GOP' is not a problem, I am yet to see any compression artefacts.

Ultimately, Christian is right though, because in the end it's what works for the user's needs and what best integrates into their existing pipeline.

Gee thanks Jiri, just as soon as I wittled down my list to two, you gotta throw a wrench in my decision making machine, heh heh. Yeah, I had heard the ooos and ahhhs all the way to Atlanta from Las Vegas about the new Sony.

I admit I agree with the ergonomics comment about the Panasonic. I shoot with a SONY VX2000 as well as my trusty XL1s. Though I dig the picture, I sure hate that handheld rig at times. When I am shooting some web ENG stuff I sometimes find myself standing next to a HVX200 shooter. Who will often look at me and my comfy shoulder held XL1s rig with almost with a tear in their eye as they stand there holding the hefty VX200 in their right hand, left hand trying to steady the quickly tiring right arm. Makes me think tewice. Yes, I know you can get a brace add-on, but still . . .

Looks as if I have more research to do. But since I plan to plop down $2,500 on a Mac this month, I will have to wait on the new camera for another month or two, so I have some time.

Thanks again, all.

Jim