This IS the Avid L2: Re: [Avid-L2] Stuff I wish they'd fix

Friday, July 19, 2013

Re: [Avid-L2] Stuff I wish they'd fix

I love applying LUTs to log C Alexa files! Yay! i'd like to know if theres a spec sheet to give to DP's
so they can send us avid friendly luts from the set. thanks owen

On Jul 19, 2013, at 3:39 PM, "Job ter Burg (L2B)" <Job_L2@terburg.com> wrote:

> On 19 jul. 2013, at 09:06, pat_adc <pat@horridge.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > increasingly polished and capable tools
>
> I'm more pessimistic about this than you. I see the three A-companies spending most of their time catching up, rather than innovating. If they do innovate, they launch immature products or features. With Avid, statistically, you then have about 5% chance that the feature is ever developed beyond its .0 implementation.
>
> Script Based Editing stems from the 90's. Today, it still does not have 16x9 windows in the script.
> Change Lists were never developed since the 90's, even though the need for Change Lists is increasing.
> BWAV support is still as limited as it was 10 years ago, even though it is the de facto standard for production sound.
> SubCap, Find, Universal Mastering, ScriptSync, PhraseFind etc. were never completed, they are still at the level they were when originally introduced.
> v7 has Spanned Markers, FrameFlex and Target Masks, neither of which are fully functional, and there is no way to tell if they'll ever be fixed or finished.
>
> And that's just a few examples. They seem to tick the check box for a feature and move on, rather than properly thinking about what the underlying workflow problem or challenge the feature is supposed to help editors face.
>
> Some folks say these features are for a niche group, a group that cannot expect manufacturers to work on the stuff that only they need. Leaving this niche of high end professionals (for lack of a better desciption) without any choice, as all of the A-companies now focus on the middle end at the lowest cost, and only offer middle-of-the-road solutions that they have to market to generic users.
>
> I'd glady pay 5K for MC if they finally fixed and finished many of the features on my list. 999USD for a new MC license is great, but it does not raise more funds for R&D, I reckon.
>
> J
>
>

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