NLEs, DAWs, Tracks and Audio-centric Workflows — Continuing the Conversation…

[Michael Gissing]

[Andrew Richards] “It’s an extra step, but tapeless video clips can be systematically renamed to suit what you’d like to see.”

I also do color grading so I never advise any editor to change file names during L&T as it breaks the workflow to relink original RED media or generally confuses an offline/ online workflow. That’s why I would prefer the meta data descriptor to be transferred via OMF (as an option).

[Andrew Richards]

[Michael Gissing] “I also do color grading so I never advise any editor to change file names during L&T as it breaks the workflow to relink original RED media or generally confuses an offline/ online workflow. That’s why I would prefer the meta data descriptor to be transferred via OMF (as an option).”

Ah. Does OMF support that kind of thing? I tried skimming it out of the OMF spec but couldn’t suss it out. FCPXML certainly does with roles.

Best,
Andy

[David Lawrence]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “Is there a short summary – that thread you link to is very long and meandering with lots of cross-topics. I couldn’t find what might be the start of this.”

Franz — thanks, yeah that other thread was way too long and way off topic. The sub-thread started with a question I asked Jeremy. I asked if he thought the magnetic timeline would make sense for a DAW. His answer was a lightbulb moment for me. I finally understood why we think of tracks in an NLE so differently.

Here’s a link to my reply:

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/16840

This lead to a great conversation that’s worth digging thru if you can find the thread. It really deserved its own topic so I moved it up here.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Michael Gissing]

[Andrew Richards] “Does OMF support that kind of thing?”

No. It is up to the software generating the OMF to do that. OMF just deals with clip names.

[Chris Harlan]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “It has been my long sad lament that editing software is primarily viewed as a visual realm (by both designers and users). (Already in this thread it’s been shunted in that direction.)
“

It’s funny, Franz. It really depends, I think, on whether you come from television or film. Television gets used quite a bit differently, and amongst many television producers, writers, and editors I believe there is a general recognition that audio is often the stronger component.

[Chris Harlan]

Great conversation, you guys. I’m just trying to catch up now.

[Michael Gissing]

[David Lawrence] “Also, you spoke about the role of tracks. I’m also curious what you think about ripple-mode for edits. From your POV as an audio post specialist, could you do your job if your tools only operated in ripple mode?”

I will have a look at the software linked but in terms of ripple edit I have never used it, although it is an available option on the Fairlight. Sound post is about a fixed timeline so ripple editing is useless.

Similarly when I use FCP for online conform I also never use ripple edit as the timeline duration and sync is all locked. I do use ripple when I (very occasionally) edit video but it should be a toggle option in my opinion

[Michael Gissing]

[David Lawrence] “Also, you spoke about the role of tracks. I’m also curious what you think about ripple-mode for edits. From your POV as an audio post speshialist, could you do your job if your tools only operated in ripple mode?”

I will have a look at the software linked but in terms of ripple edit I have never used it, although it is an available option on the Fairlight. Sound post is about a fixed timeline so ripple editing is useless.

Similarly when I use FCP for online conform I also never use ripple edit as the timeline duration and sync is all locked. I do use ripple when I (very occasionally) edit video

[Andrew Richards]

[David Lawrence] “I guess it depends on how we define “editorial intent”. I would argue that editorial intent is explicit and intrinsic to spacial positioning in the timeline. When I look at a timeline I read editorial intent like a musician reading sheet music.”

Yes, you know the intent. Your collaborators know your intent based on conventions you share. But the software doesn’t know anything more than that clip is on that track from that timecode value to that other timecode value.

[David Lawrence] “The idea that the software might understand the edit is interesting, but I’m hard pressed to think of any examples where it would be useful. Can you describe an example of the potential value?”

Well no, I said I have no ideas for how capturing all this explicit intent might be exploited for additional functionality. Maybe I’m way off and all they wanted to do was simplify rearranging chunks of an edit compared to how you’d do it with the arrow tool in FCP7.

I’ve got a few good ideas for roles metadata, but no epiphanies for connected clip relationships. Maybe something to do with flexibility in how the timeline is visualized (my old saw)? Nothing much springs to mind for me either.

Best,
Andy

[Bill Davis]

I know I’m going to get yelled at for this, but so be it.

I came out of audio (radio actually) and didn’t transition to video work until long after I’d spent time doing basic multi-track audio work, not for music, but for spot work in broadcast.

During that part of my career, the quality and precision of sound editing was EVERYTHING to me. I obsessed over signal to noise ratio and wept tears when ping-poinging tracks added a few db of hiss to a complex mix.

And I tried to carry that audio obsessiveness along with me when I started working primarily in video – but I found I simply could not do it. And I’ve always wondered why. The best answer I can come up with is the layered complexities of visual work made it critically important that I keep my attention on the visuals and accept a standard for audio that was less than what I was accustomed to when it was my primary concern. I hated this reality, but I found I had not choice but to accept it.

I came to see that most of my audiences were engaged in the visual realm first and foremost – and that the soundtrack – while absolutely essential to the experience and clearly the vehicle that carried MOST of the communication heavy lifting in every project I did – did NOT need to be absolutely pristine in order to satisfy the audience. It needed to reach a solid, professional standard – and anything that damaged intelligibility was anethma, but an audience engaged in the visuals simply did not DEMAND the same level of audio precision that they did in audio only production.

I’m NOT for one second saying that sound is not critical to the video experience. It obviously is among the MOST critical aspects. But I also believe that when it accompanies picture, the fact that the audience is presented with a complex mix of visual and sound, their processing of the audio information gets less of their “concentration” than it would otherwise.

I’ve seen this time and time again in production. People will watch a movie on DVD coming out of a cheap korean combo DVD-TV set and be every bit as “engaged” as they are sitting in a Dolby 5.1 surround theater.

I suspect this reality is why audio gets the contemptible treatment it often does in too many video productions.

Again, please, I’m NOT arguing for poor audio quality standards at all. I’m saying that audio for video has NEVER been equal to standalone audio. I’ve never been on a movie set where someone is running every mic into a Grace pre-amp and attempting to push for music industry studio audio standards – and think there’s a reason.

So to think that an audio for video system should start with a DAW approach and simply build a video layer on top of that is a poor idea to my thinking. It would be excellent for those with a sound obsession, but not for the general market.

Quality directors like Walter Murch have certainly come out of sound. But a whole lot more of them have started with sensitivities to other parts of the movie making process. Sensitivity to acting, to classical storytelling, and perhaps sadly to pyrotechnic techniques have been equal or even more common ways for successful directors to cut their teeth.

Sound deserves every ounce of care and craft that can be brought to it. But to put it at the dead center of the requirements list for an NLE is, IMO, not the best path to general success. If so, I suspect that VEGAS and FCP would have swapped market share long ago.

For what it’s worth.

(stopping to put my flak jacket on)

I believe this is because most video work is done at a consumption level below “archival” requirements. While a feature film will potentially last for decades, most visual content has a much shorter functional life.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor