I'd bet on deadwood, or just cost-cutting since humans eat into the activity of amassing surplus money.

Perhaps that's 40 people in the job market who know something about coding an NLE, or maybe it's 40 people who don't know enough about coding an NLE.

They might well have some sort of non-compete clause in their contracts that'd keep them from moving to a similar project right away. Also, if the programmers are in Cupertino they might be more amenable to working somewhere closer to home. Madison is a ways away. Adobe and Autodesk are closer, as is Pixar. Although I don't really know if the two A's do their video-related development in the bay area, or even if Apple based it here.

Rob

If it takes 40+ people to code garbage like FCP do we really want those guys anywhere near Wisconsin? I think not. That is embarrassing if true.

This could give birth to a whole new line of jokes: How many _ _ _ _ does it take to develop FCP?

I would submit that however many developers Madison has on Vegas, they in fact need a few more.

"Amen" to that!

CT : - )

"Perhaps they think they've reached the pinnacle of the software,"

Haha! That is the best unintentional pun I've seen yet on this forum.

Yes except “retched” was spelt wrong

The 40 were in LA and Austin, and someone said they were contractors, not employees (not verified).

The code base in FCS is immense, reflecting that it has about 20x the functionality of Vegas, to cover all kinds of high-level professional needs that most Vegas users never worry about (because they can use outside geek tools to conform, for example).

Quite right it takes 20x longer in FCP

I can make a complete song in Cinescore or Acid in about 5 minutes, does that make me a musician?

Isn't FCP like "drag and drop" video editing?

Many things do take longer in FCP (or Avid or...) compared to Vegas.

So Vegas is far preferable.

But if you have to deal with formats or features that Vegas can't support, you have no choice. You use FCP or Avid, no matter how long it takes.

Some of the slowness of FCP especially is also made up for (for many users) through the availability of very powerful plug-ins that can save a roundtrip to After Effects or other outside tools.

Isn't FCP like "drag and drop" video editing?

Yes. Hollywood movies and TV shows are dragged and dropped into FCP every day.

[It was never meant to be an "easy-to-use" tool, only a professional tool where complexity was accepted. FCP use in Hollywood came out of Walter Murch's concern about the "monoculture" of Avid everywhere at the time, and he pushed a reluctant Apple to put in the capabilities he needed for big feature films. It's not too much to say that Apple was dragged and dropped, kicking and screaming, into this, as it was really way beyond what they thought they could do. Everything came together through a company called Digital Film Tree which blew Apple away with what they could do even without any significant factory support, and the rest is history.]

There is no NLE that is "best for everything." Just enjoy what you've got.

Vegas is a real champion in my book, and I get a lot of joy out of editing with it!

Yes. Hollywood movies and TV shows are dragged and dropped into FCP every day.

AFAIK, most Hollywood movies are still being edited on an Avid.

For offline editing, only cuts and dissolves get conformed into the online system. In offline you put together the story. Nothing fancy here. You might do quick and dirty effects so that people watching the offline cut get the idea... some systems (Avid) can transfer those over into the online system.
FCP is not designed to be a "professional" tool for TV shows and movies... you can tell by the way it does silly stuff in how it makes EDLs (e.g. does not default to the right kind of EDL, you can make duplicate reel names). But you can make it work.

For online editing/finishing, there are a number of different systems being used. A lot of commercials are finished on a Flame because you can do really high-quality work on it (it's like After Effects except faster)... but the workflow is not fast. For TV shows, movies, etc. you have Avid, FCP, Quantel, SGO Mistika, and a number of other systems. Avid does not have as deep a toolset as AE or Flame... neither does FCP.

2- A lot of shows are actually edited (the offline edit) on outdated/older version Avid systems.

3- Who cares what the "pros" do. Some "pro" tools are ridiculously expensive and aren't exactly stable, or give lower quality than what you can do on a desktop (HDCAM SR is compressed; the deck is six figures). Sometimes the workflow is not ideal... to conform an offline edit into the online system can take at least a few hours for a half-hour show. In Vegas, your time is zero from "offline" to "online".
But a lot of the equipment used does make sense for their workflow. An HDCAM SR deck is real-time, a hardware standards conversion box is real-time... so when they make copies for PAL and NTSC countries, it is in real-time. On a desktop software system, PAL <--> NTSC is not real-time.

AFAIK, most Hollywood movies are still being edited on an Avid.

Walter Murch prefers FCP, after earning Oscars for editing on four different editing platforms.
Many others also, but Avid is certainly in majority.
Still, there are Hollywood movies and TV shows worked on in FCP every day, which is all I said.

Avid is making a bit of a comeback on TV shows, thanks to having the best media management, and Avid working hard to make nice with their customers again (that took a long time for them to figure out...).

For offline editing, only cuts and dissolves get conformed into the online system.

When I said "conform" I meant other things besides what you mentioned here (because thanks to faster computers, offline is less necessary than it used to be). For example, changing the frame rate interpretation of clips. That and many other things are very easy to do in FCP with Cinema Tools.

Lots more than cuts and dissolves can make it to online, that just depends on how the team wants to do it.
FCP can do it with a media swap-out like Gearshift with Vegas, with full effects capability including plug-ins of course.

Flame has been a God-send for high end effects work (Smoke is for finishing), but its days are numbered as far less expensive workstations are getting faster and the software more powerful. We may see a $15K Flame software-only version soon, just like happened with the new "Smack" (Smoke on Mac).

Avid does not have as deep a toolset as AE or Flame... neither does FCP.

AE and Flame are lousy for editing, but they're not meant to be used for it either.

FCP today has phenomenal high end plug-ins (FurnaceCore, Tinderbox, GenArts Sapphire, Digital Film Tools/Tiffen DFX, Imagineer Mocha, etc....) that allow higher end editors to do effects work that used to go to Flame artists.

Avid does have some of these in AVX versions (often at much higher prices), but their market is primarily where different people handle the effects, so it's not been a priority.


Wh[o] cares what the "pros" do.

That was my final point.

Sorry, I am arguing here when there is no good reason for that.

>>>A lot of shows are actually edited (the offline edit) on outdated/older version Avid systems.<<<

Exactly. 90% of those supposedly edited on FCP movies are actually edited on AVID.
They take a laptop on location which has FCP installed so they can see some quick shots/edits, but when they get back into the studio and when it's time to get serious it's all AVID.
Apple just makes up those "edited on FCP" " ads even when FCP was only used on location by a caterer to edit some home movies to show to his kids.

Exactly. 90% of those supposedly edited on FCP movies are actually edited on AVID.

Priceless.. ;)

Cliff Etzel
Solo VJ : Web Designer
bluprojekt | SoloVJ Blog
--------
Desktop: OS: Win7 x64 | CPU: Q6600 | Mobo: Intel DG33TL | 8GB G.Skill Dual Channel RAM | Boot/Apps Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Audio Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Video: WD Black 2x750GB (1.5TB) Raid 0 | Render Drive: WD Black 640GB 7200RPM | Vid Card: nVidia GeForce GT 220 1GB

Laptop: Dell Latitude D620 | C2D 2.0Ghz | 4GB G.Skill RAM | OS: Win7 x64 | Primary HD: WD 320GB 7200RPM | Video HD: WD 250GB 7200RPM

Priceless as in funny, but not true.

The only Avid product seen by many Oscar winners is ProTools for the audio.

In the vast majority of Hollywood movies, numerous tools are used, and the top editors don't think all that much about exactly which tools they're using as long as the tools will do the job.

Walter Murch for example is just now editing a Hollywood movie in Media Composer 2.7 (which is four versions behind the latest MC 4). Why? Because he was brought in after the project had already been set up in MC 2.7, so it was less hassle to just continue with that rather than transferring everything to his favorite, Final Cut Pro.

And I'm not pro FCP/anti-Avid.

For the last six years I've been saying in this forum that nothing beats Avid for what I call "elbow-editing," by which I mean allowing me to be in the flow while editing, with no distracting waits or clunky UI choices. This is not by accident, it has always been one of their top priorities.

Avid has been through a lot of ups and downs over the years, both in products and in customer service. Right now they're on a roll, and I hope they stay that way to keep FCP honest, in the same way FCP made Avid honest again after years of treating customers like they were cable company subscribers.

Every NLE is a compromise.

I wish I had an NLE with Avid's fluidity in cutting, FCP's vast plug-in universe (and access to Motion for motion graphics using behaviors which saves a LOT of time), and Vegas' DAW paradigm to use when possible.

Either one of these could do it (and they may possibly do it this year...).

eusx and GlennChan are more correct that coursedesign in the use of FCP in "real" production. FCP is the cheap "seat" option if you need massive numbers of "wannbe editors"(working free or for min) to cut chips/takes and "labeled" for the real "editor" of film. Films with no "real" Hollywood money can find FCP "houses" cost workable. I, in 2003, thought that vegas could fit in that work mode well with small and medium budget projects and not piss-off the "elite" set of editors, I was a little day dreaming. ;-)

If you're making the point that 90% of indie editors are using FCP, I have to agree with you.

The difference in the cost of a "seat" isn't even 0.1% of the total budget for a Hollywood feature film at any level.

And Walter Murch couldn't care less about the cost of his "seat," he just wants what he has been preferring for the last 6-7 years: FCP.

So that's his choice. It doesn't mean that everyone else has to come running to get the same setup.

Better to spend the money on learning HOW he edits, preferably sitting with him in person.

That has helped my editing immeasurably.

Vegas is lacking in features for collaborative work, as that is not their target market.

Fine, enjoy it! The DAW paradigm makes it a real pleasure to work with.

The only problem now is Vegas has become unusable for me and many others.

Unstable for the most part - trying to be everything to everyone is it's Achilles heel. SCS really needs to pony up and create a hardware compatibility list known to work with Vegas Pro without issues like Avid has for it's software offerings.

I was an advocate for Vegas since version 7, but I can't in all good conscience recommend it to anyone these days. I keep it on my workstations purely to access past projects which I'm slowly transitioning over to Edius. VP9.0D is long overdue and I'm not the only one making noise about the dissatisfaction I have with it. I visit here every so often hoping to see an announcement that a revision has been released that will persuade me to come back - so far - no go. Edius is my bread & butter these days without a SINGLE issue.

Vegas is a great concept in one man army video/film production - too bad it fails to deliver - at least for me. It's my belief that SCS is now only doing 3 updates per version cycle - I'm guessing there will be an announcement at NAB for Vegas Pro 10 before version 9 ever gets fixed.

Like Bill Raven's, I've all but given up on Vegas truly delivering on the "Pro" app it claims to be.

Someone at SCS PLEEEASE prove me wrong!!!

Cliff Etzel
Solo VJ : Web Designer
bluprojekt | SoloVJ Blog
--------
Desktop: OS: Win7 x64 | CPU: Q6600 | Mobo: Intel DG33TL | 8GB G.Skill Dual Channel RAM | Boot/Apps Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Audio Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Video: WD Black 2x750GB (1.5TB) Raid 0 | Render Drive: WD Black 640GB 7200RPM | Vid Card: nVidia GeForce GT 220 1GB

Laptop: Dell Latitude D620 | C2D 2.0Ghz | 4GB G.Skill RAM | OS: Win7 x64 | Primary HD: WD 320GB 7200RPM | Video HD: WD 250GB 7200RPM

I doubt that many of vegas users care about the Hollywood issues but......
I was going to pass........ but...

"And Walter Murch couldn't care less about the cost of his "seat,"" Walter is better know for his "sound" work in the past and pushing Apple FCP in the chant rooms and forums. Name any current big name Directors or executive producers that have produce any US500M+ us market that uses Walter services for "film editing" in the last 4 years.

Personally, just because Walter pushes Apple doesn't validate FCP nor does it means Walter's now a lost cause. ;-)

Name any executive producer(current and working) that doesn't weight cost of "seat-staff-production" in the film budget, especially at the end.

Sadly 2D/3D graphics designers / editors, supporting editing staff, sound designers ;-) etc are the underpaid and under recognized individuals that help make a good film great. ;-)

"And I'm not pro FCP/anti-Avid. "

Baloney.