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

[Andrew Richards]

[Chris Harlan] “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.”

A wise man once told me that people don’t watch TV, they listen to it. He referred me to the sometimes sloppy visual continuity in sitcoms that rely more on audio timing to get a laugh.

Best,
Andy

[Michael Gissing]

[David Lawrence] ”
https://www.audiofile-engineering.com/waveeditor/“

Interesting although they do make a big claim by saying they are “introducing the concept of Layers”. I will download the demo and see if they are just layering Fx processing to a clip or actually using effects to mix multiple audio layers. I suspect from the limited description on the web site that they may not be doing what I was describing.

Thanks for the link. If nothing else it looks like a useful tool for integrating VTS plugins in a Mac.

[Andrew Richards]

[Bill Davis] “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. “

Yeah, but they are getting a crappy image on that thing too. Story and characters are what the audience connects with, not signal to noise ratios or gradients with no visible banding. You’re touching on a long-standing meme in which fine quality is lost on the consumer, much to our collective chagrin. Where’s Terence Curren? He has a lot to say on that matter.

Best,
Andy

[Michael Gissing]

[Bill Davis] “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”

Although DAWs predeceded NLEs, they were always designed differently and for good reason, mostly being that sound post is a skill set outside most editors experience so the job was always going to a DAW to be finished, so the focus has rightly been on video.

What I don’t get however is why NLEs didn’t look at the problems that DAWs solved years ago. My particular interest is why clip collision and ergonomics of using dedicated controllers never made it into NLEs like FCP.

[David Lawrence]

[Michael Gissing] “Thanks for the link. If nothing else it looks like a useful tool for integrating VTS plugins in a Mac.”

You’re welcome. It seemed quite powerful from playing with the demo. The price is right, but it was more learning curve than I had time for. Curious what you’ll think.

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

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Thanks David.

Wow. I have lots to say. I’ll try to be as brief as I can an focus on the main issue that has been with me since the introduction of the new software. Keep in mind that I haven’t used FCPX (and please correct if my understandings of the software are wrong).

Lots of bells ringing but I’ll start by picking up on this:

[Andrew Richards]
“Story and characters are what the audience connects with.”

Maybe it is for the type of material you work with. This might even be true for most editing in general (though I doubt it). But the question at hand is – should tools be designed around that model?

The main issue is precisely those words floating in this thread (and I think in previous ones too): “Editorial intent”.

In order for a designer to start designing around my “editorial intent”, they have to start making a lot of assumptions about what editing is – or more specifically what kind of editing I want to do. In other words, they have to start designing around more formulaic models of what editing is. I think the long term implications of this are clear – taken to its conclusion, this will mean more formulaic editing and less creative approaches. (The irony here is interesting to me).

In short, FCPX seems to assume:
– that I have a “primary through-line” against which I am judging and adding other things
– that this is, mostly, a “storyline” of some sort

This seems to be developed for and work best with the most formulaic of work (using as three of the best examples of this):
– music video type productions, where music dictates the edit
– interview with b-roll type formulations
– dialog with cut-away type formulations

(A more thorough bit would examine the assumptions of an “open timeline” … anyone else want to jump on that?)

Strictly speaking, I think the only intent that can be assumed is that an editor will wish to put sound and image together in time. All else beyond that starts to get … a bit messed up.

I think that’s all I have time for right now …

Franz.

[Chris Harlan]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “Strictly speaking, I think the only intent that can be assumed is that an editor will wish to put sound and image together in time. All else beyond that starts to get … a bit messed up.
“

Yup.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Michael Gissing] “That’s why I would prefer the meta data descriptor to be transferred via OMF (as an option).”

I have no idea, but would OMF support this? Meaning, could I send both the “ClipName” and “UserclipName” to OMF somehow? I think it would be easy to write the translation, but OMF would have to support multiple clip naming fields. Or maybe you get an OMF and an XML of metadata.

[Bill Davis]

It seems to me that this thread has been largely a look at the “foundational thinking” behind the entire idea of the NLE interface.

Which reminds me of how Walter Murch set out to include similar foundational thinking with “In the Blink of an Eye” – examining some of what our brains do as they “edit” our experiences.

So what are the essential differences in function between sight and sound in humans?

Obviously humans developed many skills for species survival – but can they be prioritized? Is there a hierarchy to our senses? And if so, does that inform us about how we should weight content in our editing work?

It seems to me that danger has often been HEARD first (particularly since sound, unlike sight is essentially omni-directional), but the next, instinctive step is to use sight to analyze the threat potential.

When we see threats first, we listen, but having already identified that threat, we don’t listen so acutely because we already know much about the nature of the threat.

If we hear first, we universally look if we are able.

We value visual recognition over auditory because it gives us superior information about the world.

So it seems to me, as video artists, we follow this pattern when it makes sense. We value the visual information stream ahead of the auditory one – simultaneously understanding that the picture of a bear in the woods will always be incomplete if we can’t judge if she’s growling.

Interesting stuff.

“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

[Bill Davis]

Michael,

While I heartily agree with your (sound post is a skill set outside most editors experience) what I find most fascinating is how little regard outsiders typically have for ANY skill set outside their own in this era.

I’m working more and more with still photographers who are coming into video since their DSLRs allow them to shoot motion work along with their stills.

Exactly like sound oriented people are aghast at how “devalued” their skills are in some video production situations, the still folks, while appropriately placing GREAT value on skills similar to their existing ones (lighting and composition) often can’t get their heads around the complexities of sub-disciplines like directing actors, blocking for motion, camera movement and scene pacing – and are MOST challenged when they have to approach totally alien disciplines such as sound for picture.

In the best possible world, everyone will respect everyone’s expertise – neither dismissing nor elevating the importance of quality talent in any area. But it’s also going to be a part of the modern producers job to understand when “enough is enough” in pursuing perfection, since the market is making stern judgements on what can be accomplished given today’s stressed to breaking budgets.

“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