Most common editing software?

[FadiYakoub]

What editing software are most film-makers using today?

[Dave Blackham]

FCP

Dave
UK

[Ramesh Jai]

Start a poll. I use FCP.

[Benjamin Rowland]

FCP and Avid. There are some other high-end systems that are a bit more rare.

[M Most]

What editing software are most film-makers using today?

For the vast majority of studio features, high end television series, and other pieces that are handled by established editors, Avid is dominant. Among indies and local broadcasters, Final Cut is probably the most widely used today.

[FadiYakoub]

Poll added!

[Randy Lee]

As interesting as some of the open-source and other editing programs seem, none really have the marketshare of Final Cut or Avid, or the capabilities and reliability of the other high-end systems (let alone features such as... support for Red Footage). If Apple doesn't get on the ball, Premiere might just give FCP a run for it's money with the system integration that Adobe has rolled out and improved upon recently. FCP seems to be the winner right now. Who knows what the future will bring us?

[Austin Glass]

I used to be Premiere back in the day, but a couple of years ago I switched to FCP, and haven't looked back.

[Bruce Allen]

I used to be Premiere back in the day, but a couple of years ago I switched to FCP, and haven't looked back.

Like you, except one extra step before and after... Ulead MediaStudio (1996) -> Premiere (1999) -> FCP (2000) -> Avid (2004).

EDIT: two posts down Logan just precisely summed up the reasons for why I use Avid...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Eren Ozkural]

Premiere 6.0--Pro 1----->Final Cut Pro HD--Studio2----->Premiere CS3--CS4
(as of January 2009)

Ive gotten to a stage where I can sort out pretty much any bug premiere can throw my way on a 30min-hour long edit. I love the inter connectivity you get with Production Premium. Coupled with a SCARLET, i feel very inspired...and isn't that what we want our tools to do? To inspire instead of hinder?

I do appreciate Final Cut aswell, my switch was only the result of my job but it turned out to be a happy one. Used to also use Media 100, found it very limited. Avid Express ive used on occasion but I am not very familiar with it so it feels sluggish.

[Robert Sanders]

Premiere (1996-2000) > Avid (2000-2001) > FCP (2001-Present)

[John Logan]

What editing software are most film-makers using today?

I think most people who cut actual film, or TV shows use mainly Avid.

Most everyone else uses FCP, but not necessarily for the right reasons, as cheaper is rarely better. It definitely seems to be the go to for Red, for now.

Everyone damn near forgot that Adobe existed until now, and as an editor, I kinda wish it stayed that way. Although Adobe has some seriously great looking things on the way, it's a p--- poor editing platform, at least in comparison to the other two.

Keep in mind I'm talking about all these platforms from a straight off-line edit standpoint, not how much they can do, but as an actual editing tool, and with that in mind, I'd say AVID still dominates high-end film making and television.

Hopefully Avid will get their notoriously slow to adapt asses in gear and come up with some more robust solutions for the Red, cause you can't get a better program when it comes to straight editing.

[Chris Newman]

Due to peer pressure, I am working on transitioning to FCP, but Vegas works so much better.

[Mike S. M.]

I used to use Premiere but gave up on it in the first version of Premiere Pro. I tried Avid but if you are an independent outfit Final Cut Studio can do much more. About the time I switched to FCS Avid's comparably priced application was Xpress Pro and that package couldn't touch FCS by a long mile. Now they have Media Composer to compete with FCS but it still can't touch FCS in terms of features and package completeness. I guess you would need one of the high end Avids for that. If you are an editor only I Avid makes sense, specially if you work for others, but Final Cut Pro can do just as well.

[Scott Roberts]

I use both, and prefer Premiere. Premiere's seamless integration with After Effects is a plus. I like the fact that FCP has different transfer modes. If you're doing a simple video where you're not looking to do heavy effects with AE, the transfer modes let you do some effects where Premiere can't.

[Clayton Talmon]

Started with EMC, then media 100 and now FCP with no change in sight. Very happy on FCP. Love the integration of Color and Motion.

[Jaime Vallés]

FCP has its quirks, but I still feel it does everything I need.

[Tarek S. Kandil]

I have never done anything in film longer than 15 min, the rest is animation, I use AE from a-z.

I feel I'm missing out coz i never bounce back and forth between AE and NLE, but i'm stuck, ppl are saying i need that crossover, some ppl are saying if i found a way to edit in AE i should stick to it. R3D opening up in AE sounds good.

Tarek

Beaulieu 6008Pro, Beauleieu 1028XL60, Mac Pro 4 core 4GB, Adobe, Cubase, Reason, Paper and Pencil and Ink.

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

I've only ever used FCP, since I got into film about 4 years ago.

Can anyone explain to me the advantages of Avid over FCP? Forgetting about things like market share, Avid being preferred by the 'big boys' etc. etc.; just on a feature/interface etc. basis, what are the essential differences?

I asked an editor I met at a dinner party a few weeks ago and all he said was Avid is more reliable over long-form (ie. 30+ minutes) projects....

[HyderBilgrami]

Fcp ...

[Gunleik Groven]

Should have had multiple choices...

[Brad Hawkins]

Can anyone explain to me the advantages of Avid over FCP? Forgetting about things like market share, Avid being preferred by the 'big boys' etc. etc.; just on a feature/interface etc. basis, what are the essential differences?


For me, the #1 reason I prefer Avid is the way it handles trimming. I know that sounds like a really minute thing, but when cutting narrative work, I find that I spend a lot of time trimming and massaging cuts, so for me this is the make or break feature. I know that FCP (and I'm sure PPro as well) offer a trim feature, but I just haven't found anything that offers as elegant an interface as Avid's "lassoing" into a trim.

I suppose there are also benefits if you're on a big show with multiple editors sharing media over a Unity network. Avid Unity networks are expensive, but reliable.

I think that everyone should use the tool that they are most comfortable with. All of the options we have today are incredible compared to where we were 10 years ago (hell, even 5 years ago)!

I know that doesn't really answer your question, its just my 2 cents. :innocent:

[Tom Lowe]

Why is this in Cinematography?

Anyway, I'm Premiere Pro + AE.

[D'Arcy Foley-Dawson]

I know that doesn't really answer your question, its just my 2 cents. :innocent:

no it was helpful, thanks for sharing!

[DontStopMe]

started with WMM then went to ulead, then pinnacle studio (used vegas a little too), and now premiere pro CS3. Would love to try FCP but don't have a MAC and avid is just way out of my price range.

[Bruce Allen]

started with WMM then went to ulead, then pinnacle studio (used vegas a little too), and now premiere pro CS3. Would love to try FCP but don't have a MAC and avid is just way out of my price range.

Buy a used copy of Xpress Pro and upgrade to MC 3.0 for $500 + $100 transfer fee. Should get you there under $2000.

Do you need analog HD I/O to decks etc? If so, then yeah, Avid is way too expensive.



Can anyone explain to me the advantages of Avid over FCP? Forgetting about things like market share, Avid being preferred by the 'big boys' etc. etc.; just on a feature/interface etc. basis, what are the essential differences?

My impression is that FCP focuses on features, Avid focuses on usability.

Coming from FCP, here are the advantages I found (quick list):

1. Doing actual editing feels slightly more responsive. Trimming feels way better to me.
2. Multiple editors can read and write to the same project at the same time. Eg an assistant can be making selects etc while two editors both work on their own sequences. Everyone can have each others' bins loaded and see what the other person is doing too.
3. It has a space-conserving HD offline mode (DNxHD36) and everyone can read/write its files (Apple ProRes requires you to buy Final Cut Studio or use a read-only codec, Apple DVCPROHD codec has no PC version).
4. You have actual paint tools right in the editor (you can paint soft mattes, clone / blur, etc)
5. It can manage media better, manages the offline/online process very well.
6. It feels more stable, renders faster, etc.
7. It has less weird gamma brightness change issues, and works consistently with 10-bit footage. Does not have weird buried settings about Superwhites/etc. Does not have weird buried Quicktime gamma settings. Just works.
8. It makes better .OMF audio exports (useful when you are doing the sound mix on Pro Tools somewhere outside and usually paying by the hour), doing high end onlines on Quantel / Smoke / Avid DS & Symphony has been battle tested for years.
9. It has curves in the color corrector
10. It comes with both Mac and PC versions in the box. Super-fast and crash free on my $500 PC bought a years ago off Craigslist.
11. It allows for adjustment layers (eg you can have a video filter affect everything in the tracks below - very handy for whip blur / glow editing transitions, overall color correction, etc)
12. Can set your user interface colors to whatever you want. Corny, but actually it makes a big difference. FCP interface is a bit too bright and distracting for me. Distracts from the image you are editing.
13. Menus etc incredibly consistent across versions. I started with FCP 1.2 and am now pretty sick of everything moving around with each version.
14. Easier to keep complex project in sync. Most default operations do not pull things out of sync. Its scary to me when you do something simple like adjusting the speed of a layer in FCP and it merrily pulls everything on that video track out of sync by default.

Things I miss from FCP are:

1. Load Red quicktimes right to the timeline without transcode for quick cuts on set
2. More modern keyframe system. Nice if you're animating a lot of layers moving around on the screen at once.
3. Right-clicking on a layer and setting a transfer mode (with Avid you have to apply as an effect using 3rd-party filter)
4. Cheap, high quality HD input / output hardware. FCP deck control is a pain compared to Avid (and I know people who end up having to rent a $500/day deck for an extra day because of FCP unreliability) so it doesn't help you as much as you think, but it's still a huge savings. And it's great that the AJA and Blackmagic cards you buy for FCP work with other apps such as After Effects etc.
5. Great value & integration with DVD Studio Pro, Color & Soundtrack (killer feature for DIY folks like us - if they get Color working reliably in FCS 3 or make Motion not suck I will take another look at FCP for finishing).
6. Being able to dive into the capture folder and double-click Quicktimes in the Finder. Avid captures everything to one folder and manages using an internal database AND you can't view everything easily in Quicktime. Avid's system works very well in that you don't lose stuff as easily, but it's obviously more designed around an Avid Unity (where you create/deleta partitions for each project on a server) than the individual user going to their own cheap internal drive / RAID for multiple projects.
7. It's easier to time-remap graphics files with Alpha channels, plus you can match frame.
8. Built-in secondary Hue-Sat-Luma color selections in the color corrector (Avid you have to use 3rd party tools or two layers and a SpectraMatte)
9. Can work with many different hardware controllers for mixing, etc. Avid don't support modern interfaces (Mackie Control Pro, Euphonix Artist Series, not supported, current JL Cooper support confusing). They don't even support the Digi 003 hardware controller, made by their frikkin' sister company. FCP has also caught up in the keyboard shortcuts and customizability IMHO.
10. can capture HD on a laptop
11. certain things (audio sync) more intuitive to me. Like the flexibility in coloring layers on the timeline.
12. some nice third-party tools (background importer, Graeme Nattress plugins, etc)
13. vast cheap labor slave pool talent base for assistants (although they usually are not as skilled as Avid ones, there is such a glut of them that you can even pay the talented ones less :devil:)
14. all the bugs (NOT!)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[BigLu]

1997 Grassvalley editing with Abekes A53 oops wrong system


NLE
1997-1998 began with VIDEO CUBE and TURBO CUBE those systems were actually very powerful and have features FCP still does not touch today.

1998 Beta program of FCP ver 0.8 first national tv show on air. It was all screwed up back then.
Still working with FCP in 2008

In all that mess worked with Media 100, premier, and vegas.

[Zach Zoller]

With Final Cut since the beginning.

[Zach Zoller]

and iMovie of course. jk jk jk jk

[David Swan]

Avid MC.
Which is daft, as I'm just an amateur enthusiast but....
I started with Pinnacle studio (Excuse me while I vommit :sick: ) and experimented with FreeDV, and liked the way it worked. After Studio :sick: froze for the umpteenth time I decided it was either XpressDV or a Strait-Jacket.
So I coughed up the £500 or so for XDV 4.5. When Avid EOL'd XDV. and I wanted to edit HDV, I coughed up again (With much heart and bank balance serching) and upgraded to XPro. Stayed with that until Avid EOL'd that as well, and I wanted 720/25p for my HVX, so upgraded to MC 3 (A no-brainer). In total, over about 4 years it's cost me less than £1300 :biggrin: .
Having said all that, if I was starting now, with Scarlet round the corner I would probably go for FCS, and may even do so yet anyway (I hate Adobe with a passion :angry03: )
David

[Dan Hudgins]

I developed our in house uncompressed DI system for feature film post production (mostly from 35mm film scans using a DIY scanner and my DANCINES.EXE (tm)), the multitrack sound mixing part is as good as is needed, the high bit color depth image path is as good as needed, the sound to image sync in the mix file is as good as possable (sample accurate), it automaticly blops the sound at edits, the color correction is better than anything that can be done with film printers, it is a conversion of traditional film editing and mixing to a digital dust-less magfilm-less "freeish" workflow.

Its there if anyone wants to help "Beta Test" it I can give you support by e-mail.

I would point out that you can do a rough edit with FCP or Avid and just enter the cut points into my editlist to match the edits, and the Aggregate command should be able to match edit frame types, even compressed ones, other than TIF if you do the color correction/resize in some other program.

My hope was that there would be some people who would like to make a Digital post that was as good as any made by the best studios, I don't see why a low budget film must look or sound low budget, at least where you can avoid it.

Now that studios are lowering their standards, and "filmmakers" are using tools that may not be as good as what was once considered major studio level, is there standard for theatrical release?

[Loren White]

I started at age 14 on some weird Sony Movie magic software.. basic cut and transition type of thing..

then I did premiere, and then FCP.. which are almost 100% identical in terms of UI and short cut keys etc... then AVID is just clunky.. having to switch workspaces constantly, etc. I'll use it, but don't prefer it.

I think premieres new r3d native thing is going to put it at the top for a while. FCP guys can move to premiere for r3d work no problem, they are identical.
Also, Core i7 machines are out for PC/Windows etc, that matched with native r3d and premiere... major seller.

[Roberto Lequeux]

I delved in AVID and FCP, I cut in Vegas, but I will likely end up going FCS for Scarlet.

[Vigen Vartanov]

I thing that on RedUser winner will be FC , but in realy Film World it will be Avid.
And also in some case more easy to found cracked Premier and youse it on your old pc , that buy Mac , and ther found FC :)

[Hrvoje Simic]

Vegas + Premiere > FCP

[Robert Sanders]

Anyone ever edit on Lightworks back in the day?

[Roberto Lequeux]

Vegas + Premiere > FCP

Vegas and Premiere used together better than FCP?

Are you using Vegas and Premiere together? I must be misunderstanding.

[Liam Hall]

Anyone ever edit on Lightworks back in the day?

Yep:)

And Avid and Ediflex and Steenbeck and Moviola and...

Been using FCP since V2. It's by no means perfect but it kicks every other system's butt.

I loved my Lightworks - didn't like the cost of hard drives back then though, I once paid £9000 for a 3 gig drive - ouch!

[Christian Munoz D]

-Media 100-Avid-Quantel (+/- '80s-1999)
-Avid (+/- 1999-2005)
-Avid Media Composer -Premier Pro (+/- 2005-2008)
-Final Cut Studio - Premier Pro (2008)

-Future = I dont know.... Maybe back to Avid if they will have better Red support.

[Hrvoje Simic]

Vegas and Premiere used together better than FCP?

Are you using Vegas and Premiere together? I must be misunderstanding.

Heh heh you are :-)

Used Vegas and Premiere during same period at different facilities, moved to FCP.

[Matthew Greene]

Offline on 3/4" or Avid, online on Linear Tape suite, Quantel Editbox & Henry 1990-97
Video Toaster & Toaster Flyer NLE 1990-97 (personal rig)
Steenbeck, Linear Tape suites, Avid & Premiere 97-98
Premiere, plus a bit of Final Cut & Media Composer 1999-2008 (personal rigs)
On certain occasions I go back to Quantel and Avids for some projects.

[Hank Devos]

Buy a used copy of Xpress Pro and upgrade to MC 3.0 for $500 + $100 transfer fee. Should get you there under $2000.

Do you need analog HD I/O to decks etc? If so, then yeah, Avid is way too expensive.



My impression is that FCP focuses on features, Avid focuses on usability.

Coming from FCP, here are the advantages I found (quick list):

1. Doing actual editing feels slightly more responsive. Trimming feels way better to me.
2. Multiple editors can read and write to the same project at the same time. Eg an assistant can be making selects etc while two editors both work on their own sequences. Everyone can have each others' bins loaded and see what the other person is doing too.
3. It has a space-conserving HD offline mode (DNxHD36) and everyone can read/write its files (Apple ProRes requires you to buy Final Cut Studio or use a read-only codec, Apple DVCPROHD codec has no PC version).
4. You have actual paint tools right in the editor (you can paint soft mattes, clone / blur, etc)
5. It can manage media better, manages the offline/online process very well.
6. It feels more stable, renders faster, etc.
7. It has less weird gamma brightness change issues, and works consistently with 10-bit footage. Does not have weird buried settings about Superwhites/etc. Does not have weird buried Quicktime gamma settings. Just works.
8. It makes better .OMF audio exports (useful when you are doing the sound mix on Pro Tools somewhere outside and usually paying by the hour), doing high end onlines on Quantel / Smoke / Avid DS & Symphony has been battle tested for years.
9. It has curves in the color corrector
10. It comes with both Mac and PC versions in the box. Super-fast and crash free on my $500 PC bought a years ago off Craigslist.
11. It allows for adjustment layers (eg you can have a video filter affect everything in the tracks below - very handy for whip blur / glow editing transitions, overall color correction, etc)
12. Can set your user interface colors to whatever you want. Corny, but actually it makes a big difference. FCP interface is a bit too bright and distracting for me. Distracts from the image you are editing.
13. Menus etc incredibly consistent across versions. I started with FCP 1.2 and am now pretty sick of everything moving around with each version.
14. Easier to keep complex project in sync. Most default operations do not pull things out of sync. Its scary to me when you do something simple like adjusting the speed of a layer in FCP and it merrily pulls everything on that video track out of sync by default.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

You forgot the part where the AVID interface is Bass Ackwards.. and is generally retarded.

Absolutely the least intuitive piece of software I've ever used.. though I think AVID is starting to agree with me these days.

I wouldn't mind using AVID if the interface wasn't such a clusterfuck.

[A. Bastaki]

Premiere 6 (hated it) .. Premiere CS 1.0, 1.5 & AE (loved em), Premiere CS 2,3,4 & AE... just love Adobe stuff.

Though I also used Final Cut Pro, then came along FCS, FCS 2.0..

Currently.. it's FCS 2.0 with AE, soudtrack pro for editing, and soundbooth to finesse. Used color on a project.. swore to never use it again. Color Finesse and AE are my bitches.

Now the only thing that is holding me back from using Adobe Creative Suite 4.. and I have it laying on my table btw.. is REDCINE. I can't change ISO & WBalance, in CS4.

With Ibloom's Ap. and FCP.. i can easily edit in fcp.. then go back to Redcine to adjust WB and ISO levels, then export the sequence from Red Cine... because RC seems to handle exports the best. Images that come out of RC are just astounding.

I wish there was like a RAW importer with all the bells and whistles of RC for Adobe premiere/AE. I'd really like to use the new soundbooth to edit.. cause adobe sw just rocks. Ps, Ai, AE, Sb, Lr, & Encore for Blu-ray.

[Matthew Greene]

Hahahha, I hated Premiere 6 too, I just dealt with it because it supported some awesome realtime hardware (at the time).

Akube, are you saying that Redcine won't run on Vista 64-bit? I've had CS4 sitting on my desk since it was released and was about to reformat my system. I guess a dual boot config (XP & Vista 64) is an option but a bit annoying.

[Charles Angus]

just love Adobe stuff.

I knew there must be people who like Adobe interfaces. I use AE and PS for some things because they're the best, but I contemplate destruction every time I foray into the Adobe world.