Chris Harlan
Forum Replies Created
-
[Bill Davis] “What’s wrong with that?
“A lot of it comes down to tone, Bill. The way I read your post, it seemed to me that you dropped on the OP like a ton of bricks. I was scratching my head as to why you did that, and was going to post something like Sandeep posted, but he got there first.
-
[Walter Soyka] “[Jeremy Garchow] “I am starting to feel like I have green antennae growing out of my forehead.”
It could be worse. You could be trapped on an ornament.”
Oh, now; don’t knock it until you’ve tried it. If you’re far enough up the tree, the view is incredible.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Chris, I am disappointed you aren’t trapped in an ornament yet.
“[Jeremy Garchow] “Chris, I am disappointed you aren’t trapped in an ornament yet.
“Hey, anything I can responsibly do to set myself up as a subject of ridicule for no other reason than your pure and unfettered enjoyment, will be done in short order. The image is uploading as I type this.
-
[Charlie Austin] “Good luck on your thing!
“Break a leg, you mean! I hope.
I think I’d like the skimmer, too. I do something like that in a timeline, now, but that seems like that would be lickity fast.
-
[Walter Soyka] ” is there any reason other than history why NLEs and DAWs are so separate? Is there a workflow or development reason why, say, Premiere can’t reasonably have Audition built in below V1 on the timeline?
“Of course, what do we mean by DAW? The term seems to have a certain flexibility. Is it as simple as a software multitrack recorder? Or does it also require sequencing abilities? To my mind, a true DAW requires both recording and sequencing, and many current DAWs started their lives as sequencers and only later incorporated recording and playback of audio files. Personally, I see Audition as a very nice multitrack recorder/editor, and see no reason why something like it could not be soldered onto Premiere. Whether its code, which goes back to Cool Edit, is at all compatible, I have no idea, but really, something very much like it is already there.
As I say, though, I see DAWs as being much more than that. The thing is that when editors generally think of DAWS, they are not thinking of the whole package, and in particular, they are not thinking of the features that make DAWs attractive to musicians and composers. Editors tend to only notice the sound file editing and recording functions of Logic, for instance, but not the underlying MIDI function, the ability to generate virtual instruments, the ability to control remote instruments, and all of the quantization and composition tools that composers and musicians find valuable.
I personally would love to see a true and complete hybrid, but I doubt many others really would. I’d love to be able to slap a virtual instrument like my Omnisphere into a track below sfx and lay down a pad, but how many people would that kind of complexity actually serve? Probably not many. When people talk about Logic becoming the audio component for X down the road, it occurs to me that they don’t have a full grasp on everything that Logic actually does, or who it best serves. ProTools is the same way; I’m amazed at the number of people who think it is just a fancy nonlinear multitrack deck.
-
I’ve got one of those coming up in about three weeks. I apparently enjoy doing them more than you do, since I still look forward to them a bit, but, of course, with a little fear and respect. The keywords DO sound enticing. I generally cut and paste between multiple timelines, but I can see how that might be faster. Break a leg with v.2.
-
Bill, thanks for saying all of that, and for clarifying your feelings.
[Bill Davis] “I still believe that everyone (myself totally included) underestimated how deeply difficult it would be to get an entire generation of editors to think in new concepts about some fundamental editing operations.
And I still see DEEP resistance to X expressed not in terms of how it DOES work, but in terms of how experienced editors think it SHOULD work based on their totally reasonable operating conditioning that provides a very real barrier to some of the new thinking.
“I agree with you that a whole lot of negativity about X comes from people not understanding how to use it, and I can see how that would be very frustrating if its a toolset that you’ve embraced and used, marvelously, to your advantage. So, yeah, no foul.
-
[Bill Davis] “Once again, I think the more people can break out of their desperate need to view the X interface in terms of how their former working patterns have conditioned them to expect operations to work – the better it will work for them.”
Bill, I was in agreement with you until you say crud like this.
-
[Charlie Austin] “[Chris Harlan] “Don’t use the software if your not interested in it, but don’t dis it simply because you can’t be bothered to make it work.”
I uh… oh, this topic is about Pr… never mind. 🙂
“Context is everything, Charlie. I would say the same thing to someone who is using one of the last several versions of X. It works for enough people that implying it is unstable or flakey without specifically saying what you mean, or bothering to find out why, seems to me a reflection of the user and not of the software.
-
[craig slattery] “Now he finds himself chained to Premier, just when FCPX and the future of editing got very exciting.”
Chained? How sad that you think that.