by Nightowl » Mon Jul 14, 2003 11:30 pm
alternatefutures - all I'm saying is that until you've used the software and seen the results, of which I've dealt with XPress and FCP, and witnessed tests regarding Vegas (which will never be a fully capable of managing a frame specific EDL), FCP was the quickest and resulted in the best quality. For the money, it is the most complete, hassle free system FOR CUTTING FILM.
I was a little tired last night, so I'll back up. I was talking about two completely different processes which are both popular today.
And just so everyone's clear, I did state several times in the last half of my post that that particular post had absolutely nothing to do with AMVs or straight to video projects. I was simply pointing out that Macs, with certain hardware not provided by Apple, still have a distinct edge in a very profitible community. It was initially a response to what Black Monarch said that fell apart as I fell asleep.
I think it got posted because my forehead hit the keyboard.
Anyway, back to the two processes. First, there's the classic EDL method of cutting film. We're talking about negative cutting, not 24p. If you're cutting 24p you're working with digital content to begin with and it's a helluva lot easier to sync up ratios with a format that never leaves the digital domain. With film, it has to be precise or else your negative cutter could, quite possibly, cut into even a single frame because the EDL was off. Adobe never got that quite right. Vegas and XPress simply aren't build to handle it. Those are video editors. And I'm not talking about finding the original film prints of anime in order to make an AMV, I'm talking about producing a feature length film from start to finish.
Because 24p hasn't quite toppled film as of yet, due in part to how disgusting the last two Star Wars films looked, we still must edit using EDLs in the film industry. In editing, the system that dominated was Avid.
Now, we have FCP. It's more efficient and it's far more accurate when - yes, I said when - it's teamed with the right hardware. I haven't touched Premiere Pro yet, and I won't make a comment about it one way or the other because I honestly have no idea how it will work. I refuse to get excited over a piece of software I've yet to test drive. It's like saying "Shit, dude! That new brush uses hair off Seabiscuit, so I hear! It's gonna rock your world!" Nothing can be proven or disproven until its release into the world. Even then, I doubt I'll try it, in which case, I'll have no reason to bash it, as I would have never used it.
Moving on.
The second process would be shooting on digital video and printing to film. Once again, an uncompressed Aurora print to film simply looked better than anything to come from a PC. There were many PC methods that crushed several Mac methods, but there was a definite champion. And all the specs in all the world couldn't possibly predict what something will look like when you're printing back to film. This print to film process does include an original scan of 35mm motion picture film that is then composited and reprinted back to film. There was an advantage using the Aurora based Mac. It was fucking gorgeous. That's why I bought the damned system, it looks incredible.
My original post was intended as a "hey guys, look, Macs aren't being replaced any time soon" type thing. Hell, I take no side, I just know what looks good. I do use PCs and Macs together, they both have their places in the world. For instance, I would never, in my wildest dreams, attempt to do CG on my Mac. Wait, take that back, I did attempt it, and it was painful. I also won't use a 24fps uncompressed editing station to compose an AMV. I will more than likely never compress anything on the Mac station. But still, that system and it's one purpose - to compose FILMS - has gotten me more work than any other system in my studio.
At the end of the day, whatever looks best and pays the rent is what I'll continue to go with. The real world is not made of specs, there is no black and white, and I'm going to sleep because I've talked way too much. I hope I clarified myself a bit... sorry for the... er... whatever the hell the previous post was.
Once again, this post had absolutely nothing to do with AMVs. Go on with your business, and ignore the arrogant filmmaker.
-N