Final Image Quality in Film, Avid vs. FCP

Question

Hello all,
I'm heading up post-production and editorial for an independent feature film in pre-production. There are some potential producers that are interested in the film, but they're saying that (from their experience) the films they've cut on Avid have turned out to be visually superior than those cut on Final Cut Pro.
Now, I have no specifics as to the exact post-production workflow for either of the films, but I feel as though this statement is incorrect, as it is my assumption that give the same post-production workflows, the image quality would be the exact same.
I, for one (as the editor attached to the project), am for using a Final Cut Pro workflow, specifically because I already have a system set up:
Mac Pro 2.66 GHz Quad
5.0 GBs RAM
Final Cut Pro 5.1.4
Kona LHe
Cal Digit HD444 6 TB RAID
Toshiba 26" HD Client Monitor
1402 Mackie Mixer
DSR-1500 DVCAM Deck via SDI and 422 machine control
Personally, I have no issue with editing on either system, as I am well versed in both Avid and Final Cut Pro. However, this is an independent feature, and saving money is key. So why cut on Avid and have to rent a bay when we could cut on mine for free?
As far as finishing is concerned, we're planning on cutting back to the original negative (using Cinema Tools as our aide).
Can anyone give me a possible reason for why cutting a feature-length on film in Final Cut Pro would not look as good if it were cut on Avid, assuming the post workflow is the EXACT same?
Thanks!
Mac Pro Quad 2.66 GHz / 5.0 Gigs RAM / GeForce 7300 GT / 2.0 TBs internal SATA   Mac OS X (10.4.9)  

Answer 1

Specifically, the producer in question noted that in
the past, when using FCP to cut a feature, they had
issues in the sound mix.
In my experience, I've never encountered a sound
mixer that's had a problem with an OMF export from a
FCP sequence when they create their ProTools
session.
Additionally, they pointed out that only Avid offline
projects would translate to a Da Vinci DI suite, and
FCP wouldn't work as well. Is there any truth to
this? I find this hard to believe...
It sounds as if your Producers don't truly understand the details of a post-production workflow for a professional film. They either only know the brands that they paid for, or they tried to unrealistically accomplish too much with too little resources and facilities on prior films, and hung their hats on the lesser of two evils. If the sound was edited, mixed, and somehow mastered on AVID or Final Cut only...without going into sound design/final mix/mastering in their respective stages and facilities...either one has an equal chance of sounding crappy...and that's a good chance. As long as the editor knows what he/she is doing and how to prepare their work for the next steps, a final mix/design can be just as good coming from a film edited on FCP as from AVID.
FCP offlines can translate just fine for AVID online/correction and what have you as long as this is planned for, researched, and understood from the outset. Basic things like knowing not to repeat frames if you're going back to film negative unless someone's willing to pay for the interpositives/dupes and such...apply if you're preparing for onlining. Same goes for sound and knowing that the final mix is where things will really take shape. the post supervisor needs to make sure that the editor and online/color correction facility (if different) are in perfect communication with eachother, and that the editor will know how to prepare and export their project to be compatable with the Davinci or whatever. The people who perform this work should generally be very open to your questions and attention, because it makes their job easier and more accurate when they're getting things well-prepared, rather than having to redo things that should be in place already. I've prepared simple EDL's which have worked fine for onlining and correction...but I made sure, step by step, that I was delivering what they needed, rather than just making it and shipping it out, and I was there with them for the whole process in case something was missing or confusing. Went without a hitch.
For sound design, I only do a basic edit during picture edit for sync work and music selection/editing/matching, or a rought mix that will approximate the final results, but I won't use that for the actual design except for perhaps a scratch reference. The rest...EFX, ambiences, foley, etc. is done in Pro Tools, and I can simply bring the project in to a mix house and open it on their system.
I guess you could hypothesize that there's a smaller, younger, and less-experienced pool of talent using primarily FCP than those using AVID, since AVID's been around longer and is still the "standard''. And a well-established, fully AVID-based in-the-can to on-the-screen facility will be more capable than a single FCP suite. But that's not FCP's fault. As long as we know the steps that have to be taken, FCP is fully capable of performing perfectly in its step on the ladder, and moving the project to the next.
So again, it seems like the producers are inaccurately attributing their disappointments to machines, instead of workflow and compatability that can and should be controlled by people who understand it. It's ususally the Post Supervisor's job to make sure of that. Of course, not every production will have the right budget for this, but the producers need to understand where the money for post goes and what things (along with the people, of course) need to be paid for in order to get the quality deserving of a professional feature film. That's the producer's job...at least one them.