Avid MCXpress vs Premiere
Brad Campbell
I need some advice, I work in the Training department at a manufacturing
plant and we are looking at different non-linear systems. After allot of
research I am down to two systems - 1) Avid MCXpress with the Targa 2000
card running on a 300MHx Pentium II. 2)Adobe Premiere 4.2 or higher also
with the Targa 2000 card running on a 400MHz Pentium II. Everything else
about the systems is pretty much the same (HD size, memory, etc.). We need
something fairly easy to use (there will be multiple users) and stable.
Thanks,
Brad Campbell
John Stewart
I vote for MCXpress -- I have both, and each has strengths, but for
getting work done my choice is McXpress. Make sure your computer has
multiple SCSI drives (at least a 2 gig for the system and a couple of
big fast/wide drives for video) and Windows NT. Big chunks of memory
help too.
Mel Matsuoka
On Sun, 31 May 1998 20:46:46 -0400, "Brad Campbell" <jb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I need some advice, I work in the Training department at a manufacturing
>plant and we are looking at different non-linear systems. After allot of
>research I am down to two systems - 1) Avid MCXpress with the Targa 2000
>card running on a 300MHx Pentium II. 2)Adobe Premiere 4.2 or higher also
>with the Targa 2000 card running on a 400MHz Pentium II. Everything else
>about the systems is pretty much the same (HD size, memory, etc.). We need
>something fairly easy to use (there will be multiple users) and stable.
Stick with MCXpress if youre getting a Targa board. Premiere 4.2 just doesnt
work that great with the Targa (even an RTX), and you'll always have to render
the entire timeline if you want to see the results on an NTSC monitor. MCXpress,
on the other hand, plays back in realtime. And if you have the RTX board, you
get the added benefit of realtime dissolves, titles etc.
But i'd also seriously consider Speed Razor, by In-Sync. MCX is a bit expensive,
but Speed Razor is an excellent middle ground between Premiere and MCX. And
although its an excellent realtime /editor/, MCX isnt exactly what i'd call a
"stable" piece of software.
Aloha
____________________________________________________________________________
mel matsuoka Hawaiian Image Video Productions
Editor/Digital Media Dude http://www.hawaiianimage.com
mel@EATTHISSPAMFORDhawaiianimage+com
(Reply-to: line altered to foil spammers. Remove capital letters from the
above address & replace plus sign with a dot to reply via e-mail)
David hood
Brad
We are in the same boat here as far as considering various NLE packages and
have narrowed it down to either an MC Express/Targa 2000RTX or Speed
Razor/Matrox Digisuite system. We want the real time effects and need dual
stearm cards to do that. Both seem to perform at approximately the same
level at at very close to the same cost once you get past the sales hype and
misleading advertising. A United Media package on the Digisuite card also
made the final cut for evaluation purposes but Premiere was not even in the
running.
Our recommendation to our customer is going to be the MC Express system.
What it really boils down to after the various tradeoffs is that the MC
Express package comes from a very large, experienced company that has a well
proven track record in the NLE business. The Insync offering is just too
new and we've gotten conflicting stories about whether the Digisuite card is
even shipping. With so much vaporware out there today, we are not willing
to take any chances. The Targa also receives higher ratings in the only
independent evaluation we've found comparing the two cards. This evaluation
was in the May 98 issue of DV magazine.
David
Philip Nelson
Have you considered the Video Toaster/Flyer system? Real Time Dual
Stream Non-Linear for less than $8,000.00 (Turn-Key).
CIAO,
Philip Nelson
Brad Campbell wrote:
>
> I need some advice, I work in the Training department at a manufacturing
> plant and we are looking at different non-linear systems. After allot of
> research I am down to two systems - 1) Avid MCXpress with the Targa 2000
> card running on a 300MHx Pentium II. 2)Adobe Premiere 4.2 or higher also
> with the Targa 2000 card running on a 400MHz Pentium II. Everything else
> about the systems is pretty much the same (HD size, memory, etc.). We need
> something fairly easy to use (there will be multiple users) and stable.
>
> Thanks,
> Brad Campbell
Mel Matsuoka
On Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:11:34 -0400, "David hood" <David...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>Brad
>Our recommendation to our customer is going to be the MC Express system.
>What it really boils down to after the various tradeoffs is that the MC
>Express package comes from a very large, experienced company that has a well
>proven track record in the NLE business.
This may be true with Avid's Macintosh products, but as far as thier NT editing
products go (which currently only comprises of MCXPress 1.51), Avid has ANYTHING
but a "proven track record". Quite frankly, they suck, both technically /and/
customer-relations wise. While MCX-NT may be the second best/fastest NLE on the
NT platform (beaten only by Discreet Logic edit*), DON'T believe all the
positive hype that you read about MCX-NT in the trade journals. MCX-NT 1.51 is
truly beta-test quality software (read: serious bugs and incomplete features).
I've gone through this before, but to refresh everyones memory, MCX-NT:
-- Does NOT support VITC timecode, either for logging, digitizing or
batch-digitizing. If your source material doesnt have
LTC, you're hosed. A serious limitation, especially considering
that the VITC bits are being pumped thru the same RS-422 cable
that the LTC is being read from.
-- Lacks deck controls or preview functions on the print-to-tape tool.
This means that not only do you have to manually cue up your tape
(if you are doing a matchframe insert in the middle of a program),
you also have to cross your fingers that the edit will matchframe
properly. It's all or nothing. There is also an undocumented bug
(confirmed repeatedly by the users on the Avid BBS) which causes
audio to "pop" when using print to tape under certain conditions.
-- Does NOT support drop-frame in the timeline. A MAJOR pain in the
ass when you are editing long-form programs which are intended
for broadcast. It's unfathomable that a professional product,
with the Avid brandname, would lack this capability.
-- Renders "motion effects", such as slow-mo's, reversals, strobes,
and even freeze-frames (!) as single-fields only...picture quality
will go to hell whenever you use one of these effects. I cant think
of ANY valid excuse that Avid can give for this limitation,
particularly with the freeze-frame effect!
-- Will NOT "autosegment" clips upon batch digitizing. So if you
initially digitize a long clip at offline resolution (say,
60kb/frame), and then later go back to redigitize it at online
resolution (330k/frame), MCX will laugh in your face, because that
very clip, which digitizes with no problem at 60k/frame, will exceed
2 gigabytes when redigitized at 330k/frame. MCX can ONLY autosegment
the initial capture. This makes offlining with MCX generally useless
for many applications.
-- Forces you to re-render effects unneccessarily. For example, If you
take a clip and make a slo-mo'ed subclip of it (which requires an
initial rendering in order to create the subclip), and you drop it
into the timeline, you'd assume (since youve already rendered the
clip as a slo-motion subclip) that you can dissolve into that subclip
without rendering, right? Well, the guys at Avid-NT apparantly dont
find much value in this notion. So if you drop the slomo clip into
the timeline, add a dissolve to the head of the slowmo clip, and then
render the dissolve, the slomo'ed subclip in effect "un-renders"
itself, and you have to re-render the slomo again--even though THERE
ALREADY IS A PRE-RENDER of the slowmo on the harddrive. Pure and
utter nonsense.
-- Is downright sluggish. You think Microsoft Office is bloated? Wait
till you use MCX-NT. The longer your project is (even if its only
10 minutes long), the slower the responsiveness of the interface
becomes. It's not unusual at all to wait up to 10-15 seconds for
a control panel (such as the transition editor) to appear when
you activate it. This happens even on our Dual Pentium-Pro 200
machine with 128 megs of RAM and a 4x4gig Barracuda stripeset.
The realtime effects with the RTX board are nice (especially
the realtime alpha-keyer...which is a real timesaver), but there is
point where you must render most of your realtime effects in the
timeline, because the program turns into mollasses if you have
placed a lot of realtime effects.
-- Is incapable of exporting videoclips in AVI format (except for
Truevision MJPEG AVI) without loss of A/V sync on longer clips.
It will export the video portion at 29.97 fps, yet exports the audio
portion at 30 non-drop! So much for the claim in thier recent NAB
pressrelease that MCX is geared more towards "multimedia
professionals" rather than professional video-post applications
(another load of crap from Avid). Because of this, MCX is
effectively useless for anyone wanting to use it for editing material
destined for CD-Rom/WWW etc.
I could go on, but you get the point. Don't get me wrong, I dont mean to be an
"MCX basher" at all. For the most part, it's a great system for quick editing
with your clients looking over your shoulder, and it has served us very well in
the 18 months we've had it. However, the video press has YET to call attention
to the glaring deficiencies in the product. If any of these "reviewers" actually
used the system every day, they probably wouldnt give it as much unconditional
praise. MCX-NT is still not ready for primetime, IMHO, and is nowhere near the
quality of the Macintosh product of the same name-which I suppose explains
Avid's recent renaming of the Macintosh MCXpress product to simply "Avid
XPress", though it would have made more sense to drop the "MC" from MCXpress-NT,
being that it has absolutely NOTHING in common with the Media Composer family.
>The Insync offering is just too
>new and we've gotten conflicting stories about whether the Digisuite card is
>even shipping. With so much vaporware out there today, we are not willing
>to take any chances. The Targa also receives higher ratings in the only
>independent evaluation we've found comparing the two cards. This evaluation
>was in the May 98 issue of DV magazine.
I agree with your assessment of the Targa boards. They are fantastic. I also
agree with your assessment of the Digisuite too. But i dont recall the original
poster requiring a realtime option. I would say that Speed Razor would be a much
more feasible route for him, not only for the great price/performance/feature
ratio, but also for the impeccable customer service that In-Sync provides. They
are truly caring of their customer base, and is always asking for thier input
and ideas about the product. In fact, in the 2 short months that we were users
of Speed Razor (we were waiting for MCX 1.5 to be released), I was simply blown
away by how the SpeedRazor software engineers wouldcontribute regularly to the
SR mailinglist and respond to users questions and ask for suggestions.
Avid's NT division, on the other hand, couldn't give a rats ass about its users.
They really have no concept of customer-relations or support. It took them
nearly a year to release a patch which fixed audio sync problems that plagued
MCX 1.5. And we didnt even know about the 1.51 upgrade until someone on the Avid
BBS casually mentioned that they were using "MCX 1.51", and it took nearly a
month for Avid to send us this ".01" upgrade to us via SNAILMAIL on a DOUBLE
CDROM! This really shows how out of touch Avid is. In-Sync, OTOH, has a clue,
and would have posted the patch on its website.
Again, I sound like im bashing MCX-NT, but im more a frustrated user than
anything. MCX-NT really has the potential to be a truly asskicking product, but
they are treating it (and by association, its users) like a bastard child. I
would suggest to the original poster that he gets an in-depth, hands on demo of
both systems, and make up his mind based on that.
DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT use magazine reviews or third-person testimonials as a
basis for your decision.
Burt Johnson
In article <357c5b5b...@news.bringmetheheadofeddievedder.org>,
melo...@nospam.gov wrote:
> This may be true with Avid's Macintosh products, but as far as thier NT
editing
> products go (which currently only comprises of MCXPress 1.51), Avid has
ANYTHING
> but a "proven track record". Quite frankly, they suck, both technically /and/
> customer-relations wise. While MCX-NT may be the second best/fastest NLE
on the
> NT platform (beaten only by Discreet Logic edit*), DON'T believe all the
> positive hype that you read about MCX-NT in the trade journals. MCX-NT 1.51 is
> truly beta-test quality software (read: serious bugs and incomplete features).
Well, I don't really have any direct experience with the MCXPress, but...
I believe that it is a direct decendent of the MediaSuite Pro they used to
sell. (If that is wrong, ignore everything else in this message, and
please let me know of the error...)
Assuming that is true, I _did_ have experience with the MSP. Trying to
think of a single word to describe it in a public place, the best I came
up with was JUNK.
The MSP software was truly beta quality at best. I was able to crash it a
myriad of ways. I documented them and sent them to Avid. When the next
release came out, I found 4 ways to crash it in the first 2 hours (I am
_not_ exagerating here!). There was also a long list of other
(non-crashing) problems that I found in my first half-day of editing.
I had several heated discussions with the Avid president and VP of
Engineering about the problems. I commented how good their Composer line
was and how I had assumed the same quality would exist in the MSP line
when I bought it. They said they were completely different divisions,
using completely different staff and procedures.
Eventually they gave me a pretty favorable upgrade to a Media Composer,
and I have been elated with their stuff ever since. My experience with
the MSP would lead me to be pretty cautious about any new low-end editor
(ala MCXPress) they came out with though...
--
Burt Johnson (bu...@mindstorm-inc.com)
MindStorm Productions, Inc.
http://www.mindstorm-inc.com
h...@havid.com
>I believe that it is a direct decendent of the MediaSuite Pro they used to
>sell. (If that is wrong, ignore everything else in this message, and
>please let me know of the error...)
>
>Assuming that is true, I _did_ have experience with the MSP. Trying to
>think of a single word to describe it in a public place, the best I came
>up with was JUNK.
>
>The MSP software was truly beta quality at best. I was able to crash it a
>myriad of ways. I documented them and sent them to Avid. When the next
>release came out, I found 4 ways to crash it in the first 2 hours (I am
>_not_ exagerating here!). There was also a long list of other
>(non-crashing) problems that I found in my first half-day of editing.
>
>I had several heated discussions with the Avid president and VP of
>Engineering about the problems. I commented how good their Composer line
>was and how I had assumed the same quality would exist in the MSP line
>when I bought it. They said they were completely different divisions,
>using completely different staff and procedures.
>
>Eventually they gave me a pretty favorable upgrade to a Media Composer,
>and I have been elated with their stuff ever since. My experience with
>the MSP would lead me to be pretty cautious about any new low-end editor
>(ala MCXPress) they came out with though...
Doesn't the MC in MCXPress stand for Media composer?
Burt Johnson
> Doesn't the MC in MCXPress stand for Media composer?
Yes, but that is just marketing. I believe that the MCXPress is a low-end
editor, designed for corporate video and one-man video shops. This is the
same target market that MediaSuite Pro (MSP) had, and I think the lineage
comes from MSP rather than Composer.
However, I repeat that I have read about MCXPress, but have never actually
used one myself. My warning should be taken with that grain of salt. My
bad experience with Avid was with the MSP, while I have had very _good_
experience with them and my Composer.
Mel Matsuoka
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 12:19:04 -0800, bu...@mindstorm-inc.com (Burt Johnson) wrote:
>In article <357c5b5b...@news.bringmetheheadofeddievedder.org>,
>melo...@nospam.gov wrote:
>
>> This may be true with Avid's Macintosh products, but as far as thier NT
>editing
>> products go (which currently only comprises of MCXPress 1.51), Avid has
>ANYTHING
>> but a "proven track record". Quite frankly, they suck, both technically /and/
>> customer-relations wise. While MCX-NT may be the second best/fastest NLE
>on the
>> NT platform (beaten only by Discreet Logic edit*), DON'T believe all the
>> positive hype that you read about MCX-NT in the trade journals. MCX-NT 1.51 is
>> truly beta-test quality software (read: serious bugs and incomplete features).
>
>Well, I don't really have any direct experience with the MCXPress, but...
>
>I believe that it is a direct decendent of the MediaSuite Pro they used to
>sell. (If that is wrong, ignore everything else in this message, and
>please let me know of the error...)
It is not entirely correct. MCXpress-NT 1.x is based on the codebase of the now
defunct "Avid RealImpact" product, which was a low-end MediaSuite Pro-esque
offering for the NT platform. Of course, Avid did nothing to let potential
MCX-NT customers know this sordid legacy, which continues to haunt the product
to this day. Avid is really guilty of deceptive advertising, imho (even New
Media Magazine has said this...one of the ONLY industry magazines which has the
balls to explicitly criticize Avid for deceptive MCX-NT marketing). Could you
imagine if Adobe sold and marketed a cross-platform release of a product called
"Photoshop 4.0", yet the NT customers got a repackaged version of Paintshop Pro
instead? Well, Avid has done exactly that with MCXPress-NT. They gave it the
same version number as the Mac product, and hyped features that didnt exist in
its "platform-neutral" marketing and advertising. There is ZERO in common
between the Mac and PC versions--in its interface, features, and performance
(you cant even exchange files between the two systems reliably).
There have been some rumblings on the Avid BBS about some of the users
organizing a class-action lawsuit against Avid for its deceptive advertising
techniques. I'd hate for it to have to come down to that, but until Avid speaks
up, there doesnt seem to be much recourse.
>Assuming that is true, I _did_ have experience with the MSP. Trying to
>think of a single word to describe it in a public place, the best I came
>up with was JUNK.
Which was probably the reason Avid discontinued the product. I fear the same
fate may be in store for MCX-NT after the 1.6 upgrade. I wouldnt have any
problem with this if Avid was porting an NT version of XPress and releasing it
in tandem with the forthcoming Avid Symphony product (which looks pretty damned
kickass from the specsheets alone...too bad we dont have $200,000 to purchase
it).
Burt Johnson
In article <357f4d81...@news.bringmetheheadofeddievedder.org>,
melo...@nospam.gov wrote:
> Avid did nothing to let potential
> MCX-NT customers know this sordid legacy, which continues to haunt the product
> to this day. Avid is really guilty of deceptive advertising, imho (even New
> Media Magazine has said this
Well, I guess that means at least part of what I said is true. To wit,
this product does not stand on Avid's standing in the Composer line from
the Mac.
thanks for clarifying the history. I think I have actually heard that
before, but had forgotten it. I do know that Avid has never produced a low
end system worth the packaging it came in until now (I can't speak
directly for the MCXPress, though it appears to be continuing that
legacy).