Re: [Avid-L2] crowdsourcing an answer

To be completely honest, the reason I wanted this done was because I am writing a book and was thinking that the statistic would be easily had. So the book answers the question of why. The answer to the question of the statistics of these feature film and prime time TV guys is supposed to answer the what. The book is mostly about workflow and the technical aspects. I agree that the tool is not always chosen by the editor. Often it's the studio, director, producer or post-supervisor picking the tool.

Thanks for any help that has been or will be given in trying to flesh out the lists. If not, I already did the last three years and for the purpose of a single sentence out of 100,000 words, I'm fine just using the statistics I already came up with on the Emmy's and Oscars for the last three years, which is all Avid except two Lightworks. No other NLEs in sight.

Steve

On Jul 15, 2013, at 2:32 AM, Job ter Burg (L2B) <Job_L2@terburg.com> wrote:

>
> On 15 jul. 2013, at 01:12, Jeff Kreines @ Kinetta <jeff@kinetta.com> wrote:
>
> > Does it matter except to marketers?
>
> I was just trying to help out Steve. He's made a point of wanting to complete this list, rather than having us debate the premise.
>
> Also, I feel there's almost too little debate about what people use and why. NLE's have been developed for some time, then for the past 10 or 12 years, we have seen a lot of changes in workflow, but not a lot of actual editing innovation in the NLE world. By that I mean new ways to sort, track, organize footage and compose sequences. Stuff like ScriptSync, and then preferably developed past its current state (which is a bit cumbersome). We have seen the NLE become a commodity, with an industry focus on jack-of-all-trades products, but no one really seems to care about making changes to the way we work. Save for FCPX, perhaps.
>
> Avid is always slowly catching up. Same goes for Adobe, that have been working really hard, and successfully, to make Premiere less unattractive. Lightworks is being reinvented and rebuilt.
>
> > At this point, it's a tool chosen by the editor.
>
> Not really, not always. Yes, a lot of us have a lot of choice. But when you are not a top-25 editor on a studio feature, you may very well not have a choice. I heard a story of a well-known Oscar-winning British editor who was being told by the producers that he had to cut on Avid, even though he insisted on using Lightworks (he knew how to work both). Turned out that the producers wanted him to work on Avid so that if at any point they wanted to get rid of the editor (shit happens all the time), they could fly in most any other editor and immediately continue the work.
>
> Looking at the various annual ACE equipment survey lists also shows choice not everyone has a choice.
>
> So if you look at Steve's list, it is interesting that there are quite a few shows in there that were cut on Lightworks, by editors that are so well-established that their position is obviously not to be questioned, so they can surely pick their own tool of choice.
>
> On a smaller scale, I'm seeing the same thing happen. Established editors can push for their own tool of choice, whereas less established ones oftentimes will have to fit in a given workflow, without the power to amend that workflow - even if they do know better.
>
> J
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Avid-L2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Avid-L2-digest@yahoogroups.com
Avid-L2-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Avid-L2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/