My question was somewhat tongue in cheek. But seriously, what could they do in Avid or FCPX that couldn't be done in the company family's SVP? I really would like to know the answer to that question. Tongue removed from cheek.

Interesting question indeed.

Like musicvid10 says, most 'big studios' probably use what is considered 'industry standard'.

That would probably make them feel 'safe'.
The production studios probably stick with stable software releases too (for a long time) instead of updating their system with every update release. If it works then don't fix it. After all the editing skill is most important.

Unlike smaller companies, I don't think they want to take any risk fighting new bugs that may come with their new software that may crash their system. We are talking about 100-200 million dollar projects. They want to deliver in time.

Also something that is getting more common is that edits/compositions especially post production work is given out to smaller companies. Sometimes even to those we never heard about before. On the other hand, every famous company started somewhere.

So who knows if Vegas is there somewhere in the production pipeline.
Also sometimes all new software and tools are created to meet creative needs, like for movies like Gravity, Star wars etc.

You could also check out what they use at Lucas Ranch/Skywalker studio, they even have a virtual tour: http://www.skysound.com/about_techtour.html

I am looking forward to visit it in the near future.

Anyway, I am curious to the answers of others here who might know more about this subject.

VMP

Many times the product will be in the credits. I have seen Avid credited many times in movies.

I doubt "Sony Pictures" has much if anything to do with it.

I think it comes down to the editor which the producers and director choose. The editors preference is what probably matters.

Here is a link to a talk about the production of, the girl with the dragon tattoo, which was Sony by the speakers words. The speaker is the founder of the post production company that worked the film.

They used Final Cut Pro to cut/edit the film from ProRes proxies. They then used Premiere to conform to DPX output from the original RED raw sources. The speaker says they did this because Final Cut could not do what they needed.

So why not use Premiere to start with? My thinking was that the editor preferred Final Cut. Even if you know both programs, if your efficiency is better with one, then go with that barring some specific technical reason(s) not to.

>>>>>I doubt "Sony Pictures" has much if anything to do with it.

Exactly. The film industry is made up of freelancers, every feature has a freelance editor from the get go and he would usually decide what his tool of preference would be. In some cases, the chosen acquisition format might dictate certain things, like shooting on a Sony F65 in 4k might alter the workflow and dealing with a particular codec might preclude an editor from using certain software, but probably not, a film hires an editor because of his editing skills and he will be accomodated if at all possible. I think that Avid's Media Composer is still far and away the defacto standard for big budget feature films. Most big name editors have used it for years and the varied and complex workflows that exist in delivering a film are constantly changing and Avid is still the only company that is out there addressing the needs of this relatively small group of pros on a daily basis.

Beyond the editors' preferences, collaborative capabilities are high on the features list.

Is that would SCS is trying to do with "cloud" features in 13?

to dxdy "beyond...would SCS do with the cloud?" - well very hard to second guess - but I would assume that the cloud opportunity that you hear SCS expressing interests in is largely about distributed web projects. They cite the weather channel supported by cable distribution and web compliment as a perfect example.

So this is roughly a web collaboration outline - you are one of a number of small independent sources contributing to a web presence for some entity- you do a little edit on VegasPro ( maybe your video project is under one minute finished runtime) and submit while others are editing of Premiere, and FCPX. All of the good work enters the web as final presentation links. Just a guess about the market they are seeking at this time.

Interesting that this question produced so much discussion.

So, other than personal preferences determining choice of NLE, are there things that you could do in Avid, or FCPX, or Premiere that couldn't be done in SVP? And conversely, are there things you can do in SVP that you couldn't do in the other NLEs?

Along similar lines, I'm guessing if you went to the Ford factory parking lot, you wouldn't likely see too many Chevys

One of the biggest advantages of other systems is having multiple timelines open within a program. Allowing you to quickly edit variations and preview them.

Adhering to industry standards as far as EDLs and other exchange formats so you can collaborate with others not only editing, but color grading, effx, etc.

Avid was big on providing film cut lists, but that is probably minimal now.

one word, collaboration.

if you can't hand over your project to a colourist, muso, fx engineer, graphic designer, etc., WITHOUT transcoding, lossing info, gaining info, or any other 'problem' then you're nle i a non-starter.

vegas has been a non-starter from the beginning - brilliant for the indie, but a nightmare for collaboration.

i doubt the cloud will have any real effect - what's needed is the ability to spit-out industry standard edl's, etc.,

+1 ushere.

I have experienced this.

I have been asked if I could finish a project which was made with final cut and Avid as well.

Couldn't import the project into Vegas, the import function did not work.
There are many threads about it on this forum.

Industry standard Collaboration option would be great for Vegas. Something to note SCS!

Another thing would be the timecode issue which is discussed here: http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=891017


VMP

Many times the product will be in the credits. I have seen Avid credited many times in movies.

I've never noticed this before, but I just finished watching an episode of the old TV Series "Young Indiana Jones" on Netflix streaming video, and sure enough, in the credits for "Editing Systems" it lists "EDITDROID Avid Technologies".

As noted Sony Pictures is in the business of making big budget movies.
These productions involved 100s of people and that's not counting the cast. These productions have departments with heads of departments.
One department is editorial and the editor, sub editors and assistant editors do one thing, edit. They don't do colour grading, mix audio, compositing, graphics, VFX or CGI. Each of those crafts is another department's task.
So, when people here say, [I]I tried using Avid MC and man, just a simple dissolve is really tedious.[/I] it's totally irrelevant to this conversation. What's missing in Vegas is not just support for Timecode and EDLs, there's also the backend support for asset management, movies generate a massive amount of assets and Avid also have a solution for managing that as well as providing the tools the editors need to cut shots together quickly. Avid do have competition in this marketplace but it certainly doesn't come from SCS or even Apple. Trying to get FCP to play nicely with an Avid Unity system proved to be a nightmare even for episodic TV production.

Bob.

Additionally, not all Post of their product is done in-house - the only one I worked on, all Post was done here in Australia; I know for sure the editor used Avid; far as I know, that was the Editor's choice.

Just like other has mentioned, mostly Avid.

Videoguys.com posted a blog some days ago about sneak peek at Oscar winning film's timeline:
http://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/video-editing-timelines-from-gravity-kick-ass-2-network-tv-shows-and-more/
*uh, a word in link is censored here: change that *** with "a s s" without space.

Just a thought: if VegasPro wants to be upgraded to this level of production, how about having a new higher-version with all of these capabilities?
say, 'VegasPro Collaboration' or 'VegasPro Enterprise' etc....

Well, it seems everybody is kind of dreamin' with their plans for SCS - please reread my earlier post in this thread. In order to be practical in the marketplace and to be practical about a whole host of issues, technical and artistic - ranting about Vegas being brought into competition with Avid is so much dreamin' on.

No, SCS has it figured out pretty well, they know what market, they may have a crack at, and they are making the effort to do just that.
Now that being said, yes,then, SCS should work on timecode a bit more, and they should continue collaboration exchanges with FCP-X and Premiere.

" in the company family's SVP?"

Sony Pictures is in the family with Sony Creative Software about as close as a second cousin twice removed by marriage. Sony Corporation owns a LOT of companies, many who may not even know the others in the tent exist.

As others have said, there's hundreds of independent contractors used on any major movie - very few actually work for "the company". Wisely, the director, producer and even the DP do not dictate the tools to be used. They simply contract for a result. Unlike the corporate world where the tools are far more important than the ability to produce the desired output.

I lost a bid on a large corporate project for a series of web videos. Their RFQ specified that the editing ***HAD*** to be done on Avid equipment, even though the final product was a frackin' YouTube video. In hindsight, I should have said, "sure, I use Avid" and delivered Avid DNxHD files and the client would never have known otherwise.

I recently closed the books on an indie video and the director was thrilled with the SFX I delivered to him using nothing but Vegas. He couldn't have cared less what editing software I used.

Am I rambling again?