I had found it interesting that no one had mentioned Avid yet. In our
program, we made the switch to Avid (just as FCPX was introduced) mainly
because FCPX was largely being rejected by most post houses and we wanted
to make sure our students had *some* kind of industry standard software

Our first choice was Premiere, but as of now Adobe's pricing structure for
Creative Cloud in academic labs is beyond prohibitive. We simply could not
negotiate a deal with them that we could afford. It's outrageous, really.

So we went with Avid. Mostly, it's been fine, but I find that it's not
ideal for more experimental work or work that involves lots of different
kinds of media. We spend a lot of time with the learning curve of the
software, and not as much time as I'd like with the conceptual aspect of
creative work. And, frankly, we've had a nightmare set of problems getting
it to work in our Mac labs together with our intranet. So it's not ideal,
but until Adobe makes its educational pricing for labs reasonable, it's
what we got.


On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Adam Hyman <a...@lafilmforum.org> wrote:

>  One view: I work in the television industry.  I think if everyone is
> starting fresh, you should teach them at least two editing systems, and
> Avid should be one, if they are interested in working in the professional
> world.  Avid & Premiere, or Avid and at least one FCP version.
> I think FCP X is fine for anyone who hasn’t already become accustomed to
> anything else, but most people who have already become proficient in FCP 7
> resent the changes.  I actually haven’t ever learned either.  (I really
> should learn FCP7 because I have it and could then edit with it.)
> I think it does affect whether you are doing separate onlines or not.  But
> for students who might not know any system yet, they could just as well
> learn FCP X and Avid.
> I don’t know any company that has gone to FCP X yet, but I don’t know
> every company.  And if they are just going to do their own films and are
> not interested in Hollywood or professional gigs, and they are learning
> from scratch, then it doesn’t really matter.  Students will adapt to the
> flaws of any particular system.
> But professionally...My current company is on Avid; the last company I
> worked at was on FCP 7 and converted to Avid while I was there.  Adobe
> going to all online will make it prohibitively expensive to people just out
> of school, more likely)  But students who are interested in working “in the
> industry” will find much more work available if they know After Effects and
> Photoshop.  And if they are learning those, might as well learn Premiere.
> So teach them Avid, Premiere, and FCP.  :-)
> On 4/18/14 6:48 AM, "Jason Halprin" <jihalp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think I'd like to second what Scot has said here: "it depends on what
> you're trying to teach."
> Over the last three years, I've taught at three different schools and have
> instructed with FCP 7, FCPX, and Premiere. I've had good results using all
> three, and I've had unimaginative, lazy projects in all three.
> With FCP X, I definitley had to design some assignment that demanded
> students explore the different interfaces, and specifically that they mix
> sound and tweak the presets on all of the effects. After doing this,
> however, I saw video newbies grow very quickly in terms of their comfort
> with the program, and they started thinking in terms of how to generate the
> images in their imagination, and not in terms of what the program was
> capable of doing. I don't mean to imply that this was universal amongst the
> students, but that creative, engaged students were able to gain a
> substantial mastery of the program in a short time.
> That being said, the interface still seems like it perhaps has a limit in
> terms of a "pro" workflow - one in which separate programs and technicians
> are utilized for sound design and VFX. Sound controls are probably the most
> perplexing part of FCPX. Although you can utilize ALL of the plugins from
> Logic and access their interfaces from within FCPX, there is not a true
> mixing panel - meaning I can apply compression, EQ, reverb, etc, but I
> can't really do a final mix. And, to add insult to injury, without a 3rd
> party program, you can't bounce to ProTools (or even Logic) to accomplish
> this. However, there are some clunky workarounds such as utilizing the
> "roles" function.
> OK, after that long explanation of some specifics, if I were rebooting the
> workflow of a program, and area specialization was part of department's
> pedagogy, I would choose Premiere. I don't think my Intro students have had
> substantial trouble learning it, it interfaces with other programs
> seamlessly, and most of the advantages of FCPX (real-time rendering,
> variety of plugins, ability to generate your own VFX) are there - or at
> least nearly there. FCPX is trying to be an almost All-In-One program,
> where you never have to utilize anything else in the creation of your
> video. Premiere is an editing program, with built in limitations designed
> for leaving higher level functions to other programs - much like FCP 7 was.
> -Jason Halprin
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Jennifer Proctor
Assistant Professor, Journalism and Screen Studies
Department of Language, Culture, and Communication
University of Michigan-Dearborn

*http://www.umd.umich.edu/jss/ <http://www.umd.umich.edu/jss/>*
FrameWorks mailing list

Reply via email to