David Cherniack
Forum Replies Created
-
In the linked acrobat file it mentions “new support for
OpenCL-based AMD GPUs on certain MacBook Pro computers”. I would guess that doesn’t mean Mac Pros…..David
AllinOneFilms.com -
David Cherniack
March 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm in reply to: At least FCPX knows how to count – Premiere apparently does not[Simon Ubsdell] ” For some odd reason not everybody else sees it that way. Funny, huh?”
Hilarious.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
David Cherniack
March 24, 2012 at 1:31 pm in reply to: At least FCPX knows how to count – Premiere apparently does not[Simon Ubsdell] “But don’t anybody tell me you haven’t ranted inappropriately from time to time ;-)”
I only rant appropriately :).
It wasn’t his 4-letter words I was taking exception to (as anyone who knows me would tell you), it was his overall behaviour – for which there are good 4 letter descriptors.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
David Cherniack
March 24, 2012 at 12:43 pm in reply to: At least FCPX knows how to count – Premiere apparently does not[Simon Ubsdell] “Hmmmmm, yeah. I’d say if you read the full details of what he wrote Jeffery managed to shame them into this concession though, wouldn’t you!??”
Shamed? Far from it. Adobe takes its shortcomings seriously. David McGavran has gone to extraordinary lengths to help out individual users having issues with their software. This is just another instance. If anything, reading Jeffery’s blogs on the issue, I’d say he’d be the last person on Earth I’d want to help out. Various four letter descriptors come to my mind. David, on the other hand, is a complete gentleman.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
David Cherniack
March 24, 2012 at 12:36 pm in reply to: At least FCPX knows how to count – Premiere apparently does not[Michael Phillips] “A description of the actual bug and circumstances in which it arises would be good to know in case there is a workaround that can be used in the meantime. God knows there are similar issues in every software package.”
I think David McGavran explains it succinctly. “QTChange uses a value for calculating frame rate and timecode of 23.98 (2398/100) instead of the expected 23.976 (23976/1000 or 24000/1001)”.
Other software packages that read QTChange files correctly must be aware of the 23.98 time base and reinterpret it to 23.976.
As for workarounds I haven’t tried it but there is a way to batch change the timebase of clips in PrPro.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
David Cherniack
March 24, 2012 at 12:11 pm in reply to: At least FCPX knows how to count – Premiere apparently does notAdobe’s response:
https://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2012/03/a-couple-of-timecode-issues.html
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
David Cherniack
March 23, 2012 at 5:18 pm in reply to: Why are you still here? (part 3 in a continuing series)[Steve Connor] ” “Well I know it’s not quite the same but Autodesk had an “FCPgate” of their own with Edit, only they chose not to replace it at the time!”
It’s far from the same thing. edit* had a small very share of the market. FCP was the dominant player everywhere (yes, I know, except Hollywood).
[Walter Soyka]“DRW and Herb seemed like they were just starting to calm down about this. You’re going to get them all riled up again!”
They only pretend they’ve calmed down. You have no idea what schemes of revenge were hatched against one Autodesk executive. Fortunately, none ever evolved past the level of thought crime.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
David Cherniack
March 23, 2012 at 3:44 pm in reply to: Why are you still here? (part 3 in a continuing series)[Richard Herd] “Have you read Horkeimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment?”
No, both the Western notion of Enlightenment and its critiques are not of great interest to me. I believe an individual can see reality clearly only when he strips his mind of all illusions, something the Enlightenment got only half right, the post-modernists believe is impossible and the Buddhists elevated to a practice during the thousand years that spanned the Common Era.
But we digress…
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
David Cherniack
March 23, 2012 at 3:16 pm in reply to: Why are you still here? (part 3 in a continuing series)[Steve Connor] “I think it’s a bit of a squeeze to call these discussions idealogical”
I didn’t. I called the thinking behind many of the posts ‘ideological’. Such thinking also contributes to sloppy (in one nameless case), frame-of- reference-shifting (in some others), rhetoric.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
David Cherniack
March 23, 2012 at 3:03 pm in reply to: Why are you still here? (part 3 in a continuing series)[Steve Connor] “Of course it is, I’m sure carpenters have long and varied discussions about what hammers they use, but and the end of the day it’s still just a hammer.”
And by insisting that it’s just a piece of software you’re indulging in ideological thinking, ignoring the data to the contrary, the hundreds of posts that discuss it as revolutionary, landscape changing, the future of the NLE, the virtues of magnetic vs fixed timelines….ad infinitum. The community of hammer users should be so prolific…
David
AllinOneFilms.com