interesting test: Avid vs final cut pro

[The village idiot]

The other day at work we ended up doing a test between Avid Xpress DV pro and Final Cut pro. We needed to digitize a tape to DV, and edit it, then put it back out to tape. We were using a G4, a Laird Telemedia Blue Flame media converter, and a SVHS and Beta SP deck. The source was the SVHS deck, and output was BetaSP (don't ask). So we first used the Avid software to import, edit and output to the BetaSP deck, and upon looking at the tape playback, we saw major mosquito (sp?) noise in the video. Went back to the computer, and sure enough, major noise at the computer too. So then we decided to try FCP to see how well it might handle the problem, since it too was installed on that machine. Video had less noise on the computer, and far less noise after output to tape. I don't know if FCP is using any smoothing before it exports as DV, or if it just uses a better DV codec, but it was visibly better looking than the AVid output. Might be because Avid must convert the video to its "special" OMFI format, then convert back to DV to export. 2 conversions can't be real good for the quality.

Now to tell you the truth, this was not a surprise. Never been a big fan of Avid, and now even less thrilled.

Just thought some of you might like to know this.

[Cornucopia]

That's like saying "Premiere must be better than Vegas because Premiere's Sorenson looks better than the AVI used in Vegas."

Both FCP and AVID XpressDVPro are Editing applications. They both use DV codecs to compress captured footage, but the determination of the codec is quite variable in FCP, and more limited in AVID. Up till now (and I mean NOW like your post) AVID's codec's have been VERY well recieved and the standard Apple QT DV codec much less so--even though it has steadily improved.
However, I would wonder if other footage (something more appropriate like something already in DV format like a DV camera) would exhibit the same variation you mention. Or maybe giving it a better source than SVHS.
I know you said not to ask about BetaSP, but I'm going to anyway. Sounds to me like you didn't have the correct connectors on the SVHS deck and so daisy-chained it through to Beta deck so you could use connectors that would work with the Laird. This certainly isn't the best reference to use for a side-by-side comparison. And, isn't the Laird doing the compression? (Maybe I'm thinking of a different model version)

Back to editors...I'd much rather compare editing functionality and capability. Personally, I'm very impressed with FCP and think that the popularity of it is the reason AVID started to get off their butts and make some afforable stuff--they're trying to play catch up in the Prosumer arena. But when you throw around the word AVID, it sound like you're talking about their whole line. Sorry, but there's a HUGE difference between FCP's capability and, say, MediaComposer with Adrenaline.
I got a test drive of it in October and don't want to look back. SWEET! Of course, it's "Apples" and Oranges, both in terms of user market/application, and cost.

Why can't they both co-exist well, competing and forcing their respective prices down and improving performance and helping us users?

BTW, OMF is a container format, much like Quicktime itself. This won't affect how it looks.

Scott

[Cornucopia]

just wanted you to know, I'm not disagreeing with you, per se, but I think you could/should come up with a fairer test arrangement.

[The village idiot]

However, I would wonder if other footage (something more appropriate like something already in DV format like a DV camera) would exhibit the same variation you mention. Or maybe giving it a better source than SVHS.

Haven't tried that yet, but it is on the list. Even the DV source material as displayed in the Avid XpressDVpro looks like it has a lot of noise in the video even when it is a DV source shot with a "decent" camera (JVC GY-DV5000U).

I know you said not to ask about BetaSP, but I'm going to anyway. Sounds to me like you didn't have the correct connectors on the SVHS deck and so daisy-chained it through to Beta deck so you could use connectors that would work with the Laird.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried! The source was SVHS because that was what the source was on, the output was BetaSP because that was what we needed for playback since the truck we were using didn't have SVHS (thankfully). Transfer to and from the Laird was Betacam component, because we could, and it looked better than composite each way (yes some SVHS decks have Y, R-Y, B-Y component). While not ideal, it was the same source into 2 different applications, with the same output, and the cheaper editor looked better. Wish we had the pinnacle card to try uncompressed analog source with FCP and compare that to our older Avid Xpress systems with the ABVB and Janus cards with the AVR 77 compression option (about 9K with educational discount a few years ago).

Sorry, but there's a HUGE difference between FCP's capability and, say, MediaComposer with Adrenaline.

NO shit! I wasn't comparing a 25K Avid or even a 10,000 dollar low end old analog/SDI Xpress system to FCP, but showing that you can get a lot more for your money with a $2500 Mac with FCP, if you are going to run a Mac anyway. But hell, if you want to spend 25K on a machine or maybe 50K go ahead, they have their advantages, those advantages are getting much fewer are farther between though. Less that 10K will get you a Mac, with SDI and component analog, and it handles uncompressed video (an expensive option for low end AVIDs). Oh yeah, make sure you buy the Avid service plan too, those drives are F'in expensive when they go, keep track of the sales receipt because the drive itself carries a long warranty from IBM/Hitachi.

BTW, I'm not a Mac fanatic like you might think, I prefer x86 machines. This was a no bias, no BS test that just happened to occur. Had the XpressDV output looked good, we never would have tried FCP since there was a bit of a time crunch going.

Once upon a time, AVID was King. Now for the lower end market, there are more affordable choices, that present more options. There is no doubt that the highest end of the Avid line is still something to desire, but notice that some decent motion pictures are being edited on Macs with FCP. I've worked with Avid Composer NT (now Symphony Composer) and Xpress NT (those would be the old x86 versions ) and seen what they look like with analog in and out, as well as SDI in and out. Very nice with no noticeable artifacts in the video, even from DVCpro tapes. But I am very disappointed with this Xpress DV3.5, and XpressDVpro with DV in and out. And we haven't even talked about the user interface differences yet. Check the comments for the Avid freeDV software (which has nearly the same Avid user interface) in the tools section for what someone who works with the high end Avids has to say about that.

[The village idiot]

I guess I should add that it wasn't the exact same source between the Avid and FCP. The tape had one more playback pass on it when it was sent to FCP. Otherwise, identical inputs, and outputs were used for this comparison. How much more fair could it be? Same content, same source, same converter, same connections, same output, same computer, same monitor, same tapes, no adjustments made to either deck.

[Cornucopia]

It would be interesting to try capping with one app, and importing the file into the other app (and vice-versa), just to see if there are any differences.

Could you put up some screens of the two, to show the comparison here?

BTW, I figured out the BCSP/SVHS setup correctly after I posted, but didn't repost as it was already in the wee hours.

Scott