When The Ellen DeGeneres Show started in 2002, it was standard-def and housed on the NBC lot. All the changes came six years later.
“The show was very excited to move to the Warner Bros. lot. It is such a great place to work,” explains Derek Westervelt, the show's executive in charge of production and senior producer. “After Telepictures designed and purchased a technical package we wanted, the studio built the facility from the ground up for us. And it is fantastic.”
Building a new facility coincided beautifully with the producers’ other interest: switching from standard definition to high definition, and from tape to tapeless. That path soon became a journey with a bump in the road and a happy destination.
Readying the new facility for season six, the systems integrator recommended moving from Avid to Apple Final Cut Pro in lieu of Avid. Previously, The Ellen DeGeneres Show had cut with Avid Meridiens, adding the Unity by season three to allow multiple editors to work on the show simultaneously. The thought of switching to another editing system was met with reluctance.
“Our editors were very familiar with Avid and it was such a stable, reliable system,” says Westervelt. “So there was a bit of concern from that point of view alone. Why change?”
As it turned out, says Westervelt, the new facility performed smoothly in many ways. “This complex was built top to bottom, with all the broadcast and post infrastructure,” he says. “We were in very good shape on the broadcast side.”
But stresses showed up in post-production. Once the new editing system was in place, it wasn’t long before everyone had second thoughts. “While Final Cut Pro was good in some ways, it became quickly apparent that it wasn’t the right application for us,” says Westervelt.
‘A Trying Season’
Senior editor Clark Burnett, who started on the show in season two as a freelancer and has been full-time for the last three seasons, says the transition from SD to HD, and from tape to tapeless, was “interesting.”
“We made it work, but it was a trying season,” he says. Because the editing team was so used to Avid Unity as a way to collaborate and share editing duties, it was a rude shock to lose that easy capability. “We were so used to working with a lot of last-minute needs,” says Burnett. “Last season, we couldn’t do that without workarounds — and there were tons of workarounds.”
Westervelt agrees. “The workarounds took additional time that became challenging,” he says. “We didn’t miss deadlines, but we scrambled hard to make it.”
Perhaps no one felt the pain more than Telepictures Productions Engineer Jason Schroeder, who worked through several round-the-clock shifts during the start-up period.
According to Schroeder, one of the problems was that the entire system didn't have enough storage capacity. “Front Porch Digital offered to work with us to achieve the results that were originally promised to the Ellen post department for their long-term data archive, and chose its DIVArchive as the solution,” says Schroeder. “Sitting between the applications and our IBM LTO-4 tape library, Front Porch delivered on their promise. [The DIVArchive] responds well within the system and does a fantastic job."
Re-evaluating Workflow
As everyone struggled through the season, Omneon and HP gave Schroeder the support needed to re-evaluate the workflow. The show's Omneon Spectrum media server could be paired with the Unity by using Marquis Broadcast’s Medway media-transfer and format-conversion software. “With this technology, the staff was looking at a very easy solution on how to integrate their previous gear with an Avid Unity,” says Schroeder. “Their efforts enabled the post department to salvage a majority of the media-asset-management infrastructure and focus entirely on delivering a robust edit solution.”
The Marquis transfer is extremely fast, says Schroeder. “It's so fast that it’s pretty much a real-time record transfer off the Omneon to the Unity,” he says. “Within anywhere from 10 seconds to a minute of the act finishing, the editors have it.” The Marquis transfer engines make the media available on the Unity first, and then the editors used DaletPlus for long-term management on the show’s near-line and LTO-4 data archives.
It wasn’t hard to figure out that, with Final Cut, the editors also needed more time to do tasks that had previously been seamless, even in the background. “When I was cutting on the [Final Cut] system and didn’t have to share, I had no problems with it,” says Burnett. “The moment we tried to treat it like a Unity, it didn’t work the way I was used to. I would have to create a new project and copy it into another system. The system just wasn’t a good fit for what we do here.”
“By the middle of season six, we knew we would come back to Avid,” says Westervelt. “It was a matter of how to do it."
Transitioning Back to Avid ... Slowly
How they did it was slowly. While season six was still in production, Avid brought in four edit bays. “We did a beta-test situation where every Friday we would cut one show on the Avids,” says editor Burnett. “We did our teaser as well. We did have issues, but Avid kept stepping up and dealing with them immediately.”
The trick was not only introducing the new Avid system, but using it simultaneously with the existing editing system. That's when Schroeder did something rather unconventional: he swapped out the xSAN storage and put in a Unity. “One of the amazing benefits of Unity today, to Avid's credit, is that it's open to connecting with [other editing systems],” says Schroeder. “We took full advantage of that here. One of my technical challenges was to make sure the editors could finish season six while we were ramping up for season seven. The end result was awesome. I had FCP and Avid editors using the same SAN. Technically, Final Cut can't use the media that Avid creates, but the ability for both platforms to operate on the same SAN volume gave us an enormous amount of flexibility we never had."
By the end of season six, 10 Avid Media Composer Nitris DX systems had moved inside the show’s post-production facility. One of them is used in a unique way: it sits in the equipment room, and is used remotely by StudioCity, the company that produces the show’s promos. StudioCity editors are able to access the Avid with Apple Remote Desktop and a VPN connection, select their shots, and play out the HD clips directly over fiber, compressed using an Evertz JPEG-2000 card.
Plenty of Storage
The show’s new system also has plenty of storage: 64 TB of Avid Unity (online), 100 TB of HP EVA storage (nearline), and 400 TBs of IBM LTO-4 tape storage (deep archive). Considering that Season 6 started with only 16 TB of editing storage and barely 100 TB of LTO-4 tape storage, the post-production staff feels like it has arrived at a system that fits the model of what’s needed.
"Avid’s new campaign is about listening to customers,” says Schroeder, who reports that he’s logged no overtime yet this season. “It isn’t just a slogan. With Avid, they value communication very highly, and that speaks volumes about why we’re reinvesting in that company."
For the editors, the return to Avid editing systems provoked sighs of relief. “The new Avid is slick,” says Burnett. “This is going back to what everyone loved about the Meridiens. It’s a dependable, solid box.” He is also now enjoying the benefits of the tapeless workflow. “The one thing that’s amazing about tapeless is how I can bring back all the media,” he says. “Before, we would output it split four-channel track. I would digitize and cut it. Now all the media is there and it comes back quickly and slickly.”
Westervelt says it didn’t take long to get up to full speed again. “The Unity we have is very quick,” he says. “They can retrieve and shuffle their media effortlessly, so our problems there have been resolved.”
With season seven in its early days, Westervelt looks forward to expanding the show creatively. “We’re starting to branch out and do more live shots,” he says. “We’re exploring ways to do that in a more fun, accessible way. We’ve been doing sequences using Skype and Twitter to connect with the audience, and they love it."
“The show has a lot of components to it every day,” he says. “Some of them are regular—we’re a day-and-date show—we also have music acts, live remotes. Bringing those disparate elements together every day is a challenge. And Avid, in almost every way, makes that do-able for us. When we want to take that challenge to a new level, Avid is a ready tool to take what’s thrown at it.”
Comments (29)
1.
I concur. I've been editing on Avid for years & was asked to do a 1/2 hr per week show cutting on FCP. There's a lot I like about FCP but we had very mysterious problems with 3 bays connected to Xsan.
FCP is great for some things - but give me an Avid please for complicated, long form, or multiple output shows. Plus the new software really rocks. They just keep building on solid ground.
Posted by John on Thursday, September 24, 2009 @ 05:57 PM
2.
Who was the Systems Integrator?
Posted by Michael O'Connor on Thursday, September 24, 2009 @ 06:47 PM
3.
Sounds like someone has no clue how to use FCP. There's a very good reason it now owns just over 50% of the professional post-production market, and why broadcasters are jumping on it. Avid has slipped to such a low market share, it can't even be considered "standard" any longer. And TV shows left and right are switching from Avid to FCP. Funny how everyone who doesn't like FCP can only say "doesn't work like I'm used to." Well, DUH, it's not Avid. And Unity? Have you heard of the very affordable Final Cut Server? I have several clients using it and it's great. The article has uninformed, poorly integrated, no effort written all over it. So much for responsible journalism.
Posted by BenB on Friday, September 25, 2009 @ 07:04 AM
4.
FCP has the market share it does because it is so cheap. Most companies would prefer AVID, as it's clearly the technological leader, but the price puts people off. My thoughts are that if you want something done properly, be prepared to pay for it.
Posted by Sara on Friday, September 25, 2009 @ 10:31 AM
5.
Does "cheaper" ring a bell?
50% percent of the market?WOW.Where?In the U.S?
That´s...that´s...hum...well...marketing!
There is one thing where AVID cant beat FCP.
Apple is an amazing marketing machine.
To prove that, some people refer to any editing software as a "FCP". It´s not the fact that it doesnt work "like we are used to", its just low level in NLE standard, even in comparison with other brands.But it sure is high level in affordability and popularity.Im not trying to ignite a discussion, it´s just my opinion, based on literally 6 years of editing on both systems. By the way, have you ever tried working with avid?
greetings
Posted by branckx on Friday, September 25, 2009 @ 11:27 AM
6.
FCP hardly has 50% market share in the professional post production - well at least "real" professionals. Not sure if you have paid attention but year over year Media Composer continues to be the editing systems used by Oscar and Emmy winners. Stories like this show how long FCP lasts in a real professional setting. This is a common tale across studios and post houses in Hollywood.
Posted by Jake L on Friday, September 25, 2009 @ 11:55 AM
7.
Im sorry but you can't blurt out percentages without citing the information from where it was gathered from. 53% of all people know that. see how misleading it is?... now..
People cant just buy a mac with a prepackaged "fcp" deal and call themselves professional. Its no different than picking up a still camera and call yourself a photographer. The ability to story tell and make great educated relevant decisions makes you an editor. Avid or fcp, the editor makes the system into something usefull for the project at hand, some systems are more limited than others but I agree with JakeL and Branckx, avids are more expensive and fcp are more affordable, avids are more like clay while fcp is still a little less malleable than an avid system. Any one ever wonder why apple"s logo only has one bite? maybe people try the apple and decide its no good. its just my opinion. I've worked on just about all editing systems, and avid just seems to be the fastest more reliable thing out there to date.
Posted by Joe on Friday, September 25, 2009 @ 04:08 PM
8.
I haven't been in front of an FCP system long enough to offer any valid comparisons to Avid. But I think Apple can take credit for making Avid get off their collective rump and get back to responding to customers' needs and desires.
Posted by David Braswell on Friday, September 25, 2009 @ 05:43 PM
9.
As Ellen's Season 1's editor, I applaud you for your growth and Jason is brilliant -- so I know you are in good hands.
In my experience AVID is the only real world solution, and Unity the only reliable file server. Yes -- you can work around them, but given the cost financially and creatively, why would you? I've wasted too many sleepless nights and lost too much momentum cutting on shows with non-Unity servers -- they pay for themselves in a season. The server should not get in the way of critical creative workflow -- EVER. I love FCP at home, but never in a professional environment... I'll pass those jobs in a heartbeat.
Posted by Richard Arsenault on Friday, September 25, 2009 @ 07:40 PM
10.
FCP is a great tool. However, most of the editors who work in the trenches of professional film and television would rather have an Avid. When you have a broadcast deadline looming you need proven, reliable and dependable, not cheap. This is why systems like Smoke, Flame and Avid are expensive... and why these systems are used by the award winning films and television shows. Just read the credits... not the marketing hype. Apple can't even produce a 64-bit version of QuickTime... how can they be taken seriously in the "professional" world of post production?
Posted by Paul C. on Saturday, September 26, 2009 @ 05:40 PM
11.
I do understand why they went back to Avid. I love Final Cut and would never use Avid for my projects. But a show like Ellen needs 100% working gear. Shure FCP works but it hasn´t evolved since 2003. It´s still the same application that came from Mac OS 9. We use an Xsan at my work but you can´t work on the same project like you can with Avids Unity. Apple need to rewrite FCP for the modern workflow in broadcast and film. Some parts are coming thru, Log and Transfer in FCP is a completely new part. Same with Cinema Tools, complete rewrite. Motion and soundtrack use new tech that FCP still don´t have. I do think Apple is working on a brand new FCP, but still some time away for the market. Enormous task to rewrite/scratch a professional application like FCP. Can´t have any bugs, needs to me fast and optimized and change the way we edit for the better...
Posted by Christian on Monday, September 28, 2009 @ 06:10 AM
12.
What is this Marquis Broadcast tool that moves media from Omneon to Avid so quickly? Is this product widely used in the market? Has anyone heard of it before? Thanks...
Posted by doug on Monday, September 28, 2009 @ 02:06 PM
13.
To doug, I work in Avid professional services and know the Marquis guys well. Omneon actually OEM Marquis' Medway product and call it their Conform Tool. Essentially, Medway takes an AAF export from Avid, conforms and transcodes OP-Atom MXF media to Omneon friendly media (usually QT) and deposits in Omneon storage. The reverse happens when ingesting, convert QT into OP-Atom, deposit files on Unity, and check an AAF representation into Interplay using Web Services API. If a standalone solution is being used, the AAF is dragged into a bin, and the conform happens there. Website is www.marquisbroadcast.com
Posted by Paul on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 @ 02:18 AM
14.
This is a silly comparison. Final Cut was never built for the sort of environment that Avid excels in and Apple has never gone after that market in a serious way. Perhaps they don't want to, how many Ellen shows are there compared to independent videographers? Final Cut works for what it does and most people can make it fit their project needs. When it doesn't work quite right, for whatever reason, either you jump up to a "real professional" system or take your lumps and work with it. Why is there no Apple based broadcast server either? Fortunately most PC based servers now have software to accept FCP QuickTime files.
Posted by WH on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 @ 12:03 PM
15.
This article pretty much covers it. If your working alone FCP is fine, but if you need to collaborate it will kill you. I saw someone claim FCP is in 50% of the market. What market would that be? Not one major network, not broadcast or cable uses FCP. Their all Avid and now with Interplay being installed FCP has no chance. All Best Picture nominations have been cut on Avid for several years now. I can only think of one that was not, Cold Mountain, and the editor wrote a book that basically described how difficult it was using FCP.
Cost is about the same, by the time you’ve purchased everything you need to do HD on FCP you’ve spent close to the same as an Avid turnkey system. Then when you have a problem none of the 5 or 6 vendors that make up the system want to support it (that includes Apple).
I need to make deadlines and money; I won’t bank my career on a company who makes editing systems in their spare time.
Posted by Dennis Felton on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 @ 09:02 AM
16.
Worked as a Director/Editor on a series for 3 seasons on Avid. Our online took us a day and a half. We made the mistake of switching to FCP for season 4 to "Save Money". Our onlines expanded to 5 days! Show ran out of money 2/3's of the way through. The online guys liked FCP...but nobody else did, especially the accountants.
Posted by RickMx23 on Friday, October 2, 2009 @ 12:37 PM
17.
Reminds me of my entry in the Avid :30 Commercial Contest: www.kilby.tv/works.wmv
Unfortunately, I think NBC is replacing all Avids with FCP this year at all of the O&Os.
Posted by Ronn on Sunday, October 4, 2009 @ 12:11 PM
18.
I understand why they switched. FCP doesn't have a shared project environment comparable to avid. That doesn't mean FCP isn't capable of it. It is but you need to do your homework. Add to that fact that FCP doesn't have the same level of support available and you run into situations like the above. I personally am cutting a feature on AVID in a shared situation and cannot wait to get back on FCP. It takes us about 15-30 secs to open or close a bin. This is on a major 100 million dollar movie mind you.
I will work on either system. I prefer FCP. And all you folks whom pass on jobs because you aren't well versed in the tools are really shooting yourselves in the foot.
Posted by Alan Bell on Thursday, October 15, 2009 @ 03:17 PM
19.
What about using Apple's Final Cut Server solution? Doesn't that meet some of those needs that the Unity provides?
Posted by Ian Aberle on Thursday, October 15, 2009 @ 03:24 PM
20.
I learned NL editing on Avid but picked up FCP along the way and I think it comes down to preference. Avid and FCP are different and you can't treat them as the same thing. Anytime an inexperienced FCP editor starts a sentence with "On Avid I..." they're going to fail in FCP. You should be thinking "how do I achieve a certain result". As far as the technology, I've worked on Avid shows that ran perfectly. I've also worked on shows where server problems and bugs lead to days of downtime and missed deadlines. Sometimes people use lower end storage systems to save money, whether it's Avid or FCP, and that leads to problems. I have had the same experience with FCP. High end houses with properly built Xsans will run seamlessly. Throw in a TerraBlock or another cheap volume based storage solution and you get nothing but headaches. It could be possible that a lot of places using FCP are trying to save money to begin with and are opting for the cheaper and less efficient ancillary gear. I think what my long rant is amounting to is that I believe these issues don't necessarily stem from Avid vs. FCP, but rather Unity/Xsan vs. (cheap storage system). Avid vs. FCP is just a preference. As far as straight up - in the timeline - editing is concerned though, give me FCP any day. I have most certainly passed on jobs being cut on Avid in favor of one cut on FCP. After I got used to the ease of FCP, I just feel like I'm editing with boxing gloves on when I'm on an Avid.
Posted by JPNYC on Thursday, October 15, 2009 @ 03:35 PM
21.
You can't just force FCP into a situation where people are used to an Avid workflow and don't want to learn a new technique - that's the secret.
If you sit there and say "Well, Avid can do this and we did this THAT way with Avid" you're doomed to fail and eventually move back to Avid.
If, on the other hand, you are willing to take the time to open your mind, the transition is much less painful and quite often more successful.
Finally, while you CAN cut a feature film on FCP, I don't believe Apple has ever actively gone after that market, so to say that Avids are so much better because features are cut on it is somewhat of a straw man, especially as I doubt those best picture films are cut on the same type of systems being used for the Ellen show.
Posted by Bill on Thursday, October 15, 2009 @ 03:37 PM
22.
I appreciate all of the experience that the Avid users have and yes there are certain things that it does very well. There are also certain things that it does not do very well or at all. The common thread amongst many of the comments though seems to be the issue of time. Time can directly be co-related to experience and training. Think of this analogy. You can drive a car, but can you drive a race car? Certainly you can. Both have the same fundamentals but experience and training dictates how you handle the race car. I have been a professional Final Cut Pro user for 10 years and have also cut with Avid for around 5 years. My experience is primarily with Final Cut Pro. If put into a situation where I had to edit on Avid with material that I had perviously been working with Final Cut I would comment in exactly the same way.
Posted by Darrin on Thursday, October 15, 2009 @ 03:52 PM
23.
I have worked both platforms professionally. And these guys are correct. FCP is great for a home editor. Cheap and effective with cheap storage, but it is a disaster in a multi user setting. You can make it work but you have to have solid Tech's and AE's to set it up and constantly monitor where projects are stored, media is placed, etc. etc. etc. AVID and Unity, just have it down. It works. Even when the AE screws something up.
Don't get me wrong. FCP can work in a multi-user environment. Reelz Channel had it figured it out pretty well. But it took them over 2 years to figure it out, and it was still time consuming and clunky to have to constantly be saving new projects. You have to basically use projects like bins. It is NOT productive.
As a freelance editor, I will always lean toward AVID jobs before FCP, plus the day rate is about $200/day higher on the AVID versus FCP.
Posted by paul on Thursday, October 15, 2009 @ 06:17 PM
24.
I think , is not a matter what soft, it;s a matter of what you want to do and your end of work time, colaboration in the field is an avid issue, doing more than just post is an fcp issue, both work great but is your mind who decide with wich one you will have peace in your around the clock work
Posted by RAMON AGUAYO on Thursday, October 15, 2009 @ 07:01 PM
25.
You notice that the senior editor on the show said that "...it just wasn't for us" which is way short of saying FCP sucks and is pretty telling. FCP is the standard at this point which is what brought it to the Ellen show in the first place and it's why they weren't willing to make any real disparaging comments about it now. They may find in 6 months that the grass really isn't greener because of other issues or feel like they could have waited a bit longer when the 64-bit FCS gets released in the next couple of months and they wouldn't want go and bash the other company publicly now and potentially make things awkward later. It's definitely more of a preference thing.
Posted by Butch on Friday, October 16, 2009 @ 01:00 PM
26.
We just finished Where The Wild Things Are using FCP. We had up to 6 editors (leads, assistants, VFX, sound) working on various aspects of the cut, and we didn't have a problem with management. We just talked to one another. Old fashion? Perhaps, but we were very happy with how FCP performed for us over the 3 years that we were on the show. If set up correctly with properly trained users, FCP works. It's coming down to personal preference and I think the best news is that Apple and Avid are competing which is great for the users. On our show, at the end of the day, the studio and producers were happy that they didn't have to rent 6 Avid systems for 3 years, and the lead editor wants to use FCP on his next show. As an assistant, you cut your job prospects down a lot by knowing just one.
Posted by Erik Jessen on Sunday, October 18, 2009 @ 12:56 PM
27.
Its clear that the editors and technical support tried to force a square peg in a round hole. Three cable networks and years of experience with FCP prove to me that they could have easily accomplished their task with FInal Cut Pro, Final Cut Studio, Quantum StorNext, and a Quantum i2000. The vendors listed simple don't have the technical expertise to get the system to integrate. We have 14 FCP edit systems working together without a hitch. Poor Ellen all that money wasted.
Posted by James Peebles on Monday, October 19, 2009 @ 03:40 PM
28.
Sounds like Apple should sell a few turnkey solutions like Avid does; complete systems ready to go.
Posted by Matt Guest on Monday, October 19, 2009 @ 04:38 PM
29.
I currently work with both AVID and FCP, and can honestly say that for flexibility and reliability, AVID has FCP beat. Short projects are fine for FCP, but for the big jobs, I can trust AVID.
Posted by Codey Livingood on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 06:18 PM
Post your comments below
