[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Shane Ross] “that’s only feature film and TV editors… It represents the 2% that is in features and broadcast.”

[Neil Goodman] “… i dont think those salaries are accurate at all either.”

[Chris Harlan] “… they seem low to me too.”

Edit: corrected per post below.

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/film-and-video-editors-and-camera-operators.htm#tab-7

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Chris Harlan] ” I’m relatively fast–I don’t need to think as much about what I’m doing.”

Chris,

Good to see you in the forum.

Franz.

[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.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Chris Harlan] ” I find a mix of both approaches both unique and very, very useful.”

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.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Dennis Radeke] “Premiere Pro’s … is a tracks-based (ala ProTools or audio DAW) mixer.”

Dennis,

In ProTools, to take one example, volume graphing (and other automation) moves with clips.

Franz.

Edit: To be clear, I’m not against 2 modes of mixer, but firstly I don’t see how this was modeled after ProTools; secondly, I don’t understand why there are two slightly different graphic and function implementations. It seems to me a simple “mode toggle” on the mixer would be more elegant.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Richard Herd] “I recall being very skeptical about About apple implementing PIOPs.”

Richard,

This is a great example.

There was a desire for a certain kind of functionality. The implementation – the details – mattered a lot. Some have said in this forum that PIOP are a poorly implemented feature.

That kind of assessment can only be made once it’s no longer pretend – particularly when you’re charting through a “new paradigm”.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Jeremy Garchow] “FCP Legend’s audio mixing was … legendary… especially the ASCII audio filters with exactly zero real time feedback or measurement.”

Jeremy,

I have a list of issues with FCPs audio capabilities; I suspect you already know many of them.

I’m not sure which filters you’re referring to but some of them have real time feedback on parameters.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Walter Soyka] “… how would you mix 11 simultaneous sources at the same time in the real world, with only 10 fingers or only 8 faders in a bank”

Walter,

A mixer is (among other things) a kind of spacial organization, and an opening for multiple inputs for those who go beyond mouse and keyboard.

You can do it all with one fader but that’s a lot of extra clicking about or switching. Multiple faders allow simultaneous adjustments if you wish. I haven’t used more than two at once – but I have moved from fader to fader. I’m surprised by some of the pearl-clutching reaction to using faders for mixing – it’s great to be able to watch and listen and adjust simultaneously.

I’ll re-iterate that I’m interested to see a role-based mixer. I’m just skeptical about it’s implementation, and frankly skeptical that Apple will even bother with it.

[Walter Soyka] “Would you consider a track mixer and a clip mixer to be different things?”

I’m not warm to Adobe’s distinction (or implementation in two panels) if that is what you mean.

[Walter Soyka] ” I also would naively think that a DAW and an NLE could have good reason to be different.”

That seems to be a common sentiment here, but no one has explained why.

Here’s my feeling – NLEs are tools for arranging and refining audio and image in time. That’s a broad capability and there are specialized needs – motion graphics, colour, audio (to name 3 examples) all require specialized tools and the sophistication of those subsets is one of the ways NLEs are evaluated, and as I mentioned at the beginning, there are probably few who think a mixer is an important feature.

Some will argue that the features they don’t use are “superfluous” – that’s an ongoing characteristic of discussions here.

But when colour correction (for example) starts to get integrated into an NLE, there are certain people who immediately grasp that as a simplification of workflow and opportunity for more refined work. Others will simply think that “goes beyond” what an NLE is (or should be).

Part of what I react to is the idea that some users seem to embrace Apple’s “new way of doing things” in X, and then hold to very rigid distinctions of what an NLE should be (ie. video focused). I find that remarkably closed-minded. Hearing is one of (at least) 2 senses being shaped by any timeline.

This discussion began (for me) because Marcus said that beyond better use of roles he couldn’t see any advantages to tracks. There are other advantages to tracks, of course, but the audio mixer is a big one. A role mixer may address that, but then we’re talking about pretend software again aren’t we?

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

… any answer on this?

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Jeremy Garchow] “In all my years of attending ProTools sessions, very very rarely do I see the engineer hot mix audio post.”

Jeremy,

Pretty much all I see in mixing theatres is live automation control via faders. This includes some live automation of effects parameters on rare occasion.

Also, though I almost never finish sound mixes for picture on my system, I much prefer to have the automation surfaces there to do (temp) mixing. When I don’t have one, I’m constantly using the software faders.

When I watch colourists with control surfaces, they’re using their hands and reacting immediately to what they see on screen and scopes. It’s the same principle. But then not everyone uses dedicated hardware control for colour either.

Franz.