Chris Harlan
Forum Replies Created
-
Yeah, I’m pretty thrilled with TBolt.
-
[Neil Goodman] “i dont think those salaries are accurate at all either. $ 53,000 for an editor in L.A.?
come on now.
“I know that’s the median, but they seem low to me too. Maybe, part-time freelance figures into it as well.
-
[Oliver Peters] “With Apple buying Beats, maybe we’ll get the new and improved Dr. Dre mixing panel and music editing module in FCP X. ;-)”
With lots and lots and lots of bass added to anything you might be working on.
-
Hey!
Luckily, I’ve just been so busy that its hard to post, but I HAVE been reading along.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “[Chris Harlan] ” I tend to begin the edit at clip level and finish at track level, but at each step there is some crossover.”
Chris,
How much volume graphing are you doing with the track mixer (it sounds like you do more with the clip mixer) – and don’t you find it problematic if there are edit changes and you’ve got automation written to tracks?
Franz”
I don’t do volume graphing. My work is short and precise, with a lot of minuscule dialog edits that require hand-coddling–cutting sub-clauses out of sentences, gabbing pronouns from other parts of the production, combing two sentences that appear twenty minutes apart into one shorter, more meaningful expression. Though I’m always tempted to automate, I find that it gets in the way more than not, and, from years of practice, I’m relatively fast–I don’t need to think as much about what I’m doing.
As to the automation for the later arena–that mostly happens after Studio or network approval, so there aren’t a billion changes, if any.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Chris,
I’d be interested to hear the how and why if you have general principles about using one or the other.
Also, would a simple mode toggle work in theory?
Franz.
“Hey Franz!
In general, its something like this. I like using the clip mixer to edit dialog. I find it more effective to slice words and syllables and adjust the volume of the clip. I’ll also use this on individual sfx, especially if I have a few clumped together.
I then tend to use the track editor for music and mix, especially with subs. Say I have four tracks of sfx. At a clip level I will mix them relative to each other, and then use track level to mix subs of dialog, VO, sfx and music. I tend to begin the edit at clip level and finish at track level, but at each step there is some crossover
-
[Dennis Radeke] “When lots of FCP7 type users and Avid users cried out for an audio mixer they were used to, we delivered the Clip Mixer. “
And I totally dig it, btw! I find a mix of both approaches both unique and very, very useful.
-
[alban egger] “n competition with Adobe they don’t need to hurry to bring features, since Adobe tries to catch up with FCPX and not the other way round.”
Oh, now; that’s just goofball. Pure and simple.
-
Ever see one of those suckers fly across the room on rewind after somebody forgot to lock the capstan? It could take a head off. Well, not really, but would have hurt a whole lot.
-
Hey Andy!
I don’t think you don’t get it; I think maybe you just don’t like it. As I said, I think its a matter of taste, but what I’m pointing at–and what I think most people are pointing at–is Avid’s entire approach to trimming–the notion of the mode, and the way the entire mode functions as a cohesive unit. When I first started getting back into Avid, I found the mode concept annoying. I much preferred FCP Legend’s freeform approach. But the whole mode concept has grown on me–that I can stay in mode and use multiple approaches on multiple edits, that there are so many focused ways to trim, and so much info about the trimming. I enjoy it and appreciate it. It fits me.