I am a long time Pro Tools user (since v4.3) and have been getting more involved with MC over the last 5 years (since v5).
I see the background transcoding in v7 as a positive development. I think the next step here is for Avid to create an option where instead of using MC as a background transcoder, you can launch a separate app whose sole purpose is to use all of your cores for transcoding. Is it more appealing to distribute a large swath of media across 16 MC systems and have each one transcoding a small amount overnight? Or is it more appealing to have fewer systems running at maximum capacity to transcode the same media in a few hours?
People are making comments about finishing tools such as Resolve, Symphony not being on-par with other finishing tools, etc. The facility I work at has a SCRATCH. If MC with Symphony option becomes a great finisher, it has the potential to cannibalize the work we would send to our SCRATCH suite. That doesn't make business sense. What would be more helpful is if there was a way to do round tripping with SCRATCH where you wouldn't have to render your effects to still see them in MC with Symphony option on the return trip. Playback (read) only of what the colorist has done in SCRATCH without having to render would be nice.
It would also be nice if MC eliminated the "sample accurate edit" problem when importing AAFs from Pro Tools. Some people do want a workflow where they start at audio and then go to video. The "sample accurate edit" problem, essentially decoupling the audio sample rate from the video frame rate in the timeline, needs to be solved. Maybe Avid could solve the resolution independence problem while they are at it?
I think the ACA has hope for addressing our concerns. Since the first official meeting is at NAB, I'm thinking we will know by IBC if the ACA initiative is working as advertised (or not).
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (21) |
No comments:
Post a Comment