[Mark Raudonis]

[jerry wise] “i always thought they should have called it “skip frame” time code because thats what it is.”

No. It should be called “drop number”, ’cause that’s what it does! No frames are skipped, dropped, or changed. It’s just the numbering that’s different.

Me to newbie assistant editor>>> “When you’re done with outputting the sequence, be sure to clean up all of the dropped frames from the Drop Frame timecode.” Get’s ’em every time!

Bottom line: If you’re taking a paycheck to edit, you should know this stuff.

Mark

[Mark Raudonis]

Learned a new term today: Diagetic.

Diegetic sound
Sound whose source is visible on the screen or whose source is implied to be present by the action of the film:

voices of characters
sounds made by objects in the story
music represented as coming from instruments in the story space ( = source music)
Diegetic sound is any sound presented as originated from source within the film’s world
Digetic sound can be either on screen or off screen depending on whatever its source is within the frame or outside the frame.

Another term for diegetic sound is actual sound

Diegesis is a Greek word for “recounted story”
The film’s diegesis is the total world of the story action

to Non-diegetic sound

Non-diegetic sound

Sound whose source is neither visible on the screen nor has been implied to be present in the action:

narrator’s commentary
sound effects which is added for the dramatic effect
mood music
Non-diegetic sound is represented as coming from the a source outside story space.
The distinction between diegetic or non-diegetic sound depends on our understanding of the conventions of film viewing and listening. We know of that certain sounds are represented as coming from the story world, while others are represented as coming from outside the space of the story events. A play with diegetic and non-diegetic conventions can be used to create ambiguity (horror), or to surprise the audience (comedy).

Another term for non-diegetic sound is commentary sound.

to Diegetic sound

How to create this? Uh… it’s called EQ, Reverb, and volume, mixed in with a bit of “room tone”. Spatial location using your 5.1 mix also helps. If you want to go old school, try actually recording the music played back on set from a boom box. That will give you a reference point to try to match in the mix.

Good luck.

Mark

[Mark Raudonis]

[Heidi Dove] “I created the multi-clip but the viewer will only show four camera angles on the screen at a time.”

Go to “View”, look down almost to the bottom of the menu, go to “Multiclip Layout”, select “multiclip 9 up”. You can choose to see as many as 16 up at time.

Enjoy.

Mark

[Mark Raudonis]

[Craig Fitzsimmons] “Dose anyone know a device which will able us both to use the same drive at the same time.”

Yes. It’s called “X-SAN”. That’s Apple’s solution. It’s probably more expensive than you’re willing to pay, and it requires a fair amount of IT knowledge to run.

There are also plenty of other less expensive solutions available. Google is your friend.

Mark

[Mark Raudonis]

Moved on to AVID 6 and ISIS 5000 shared storage.

The deeper I get into our shared storage workflow, the more confident I am that
I made the right choice. Here we are more than one year later, and nothing that
I’ve seen from X so far has made me question my decision to go back to Avid.

mark

[Mark Raudonis]

[Rich Rubasch] “I don’t think I would ever rely on mixing multiple formats, or more than two anyway, in a single project timeline.
“

Rich… Rich… Rich…

I’m glad you feel that way. However, for many people a common format is just not practical. Or possible.
Or even desirable!

If you’re coming from a FCP environment where the freedom to mix and match formats, resolutions, frame rates, and other details (Still size for example), then the inflexibility of the AVID approach is perceived as a negative. Throw into that mix the need to use an “off-line to on-line” workflow and you have a recipe for disaster.

AVID would benefit from a long hard look at their competition. The world is becoming MORE splintered, and much LESS cohesive. Expecting a user to transcode everything to a “friendly” format is NOT forward thinking. Yes, I DO expect a lot from my NLE, but this isn’t 1992 and others have proven the “Swiss army knife” approach to timeline editing IS possible.

Just my opinion.

mark

[Mark Raudonis]

Steve,

Very well done! Very powerful story. Very worthy cause.

Thanks for sharing.

Mark

[Mark Raudonis]

Literally, “The Real World” on MTV.

Mari

[Mark Raudonis]

[Carsten Orlt] “That is my story. What is yours?
“

My story has a different ending.

In my world (The Real World), there are many people all contributing to the story. It’s as if everyone in Starbucks is all working on the same screenplay on their laptops at the same time! The key is collaboration, and so far, “X” has NOT demonstrated this as a priority. FCP 7 is a proven entity in this area. Does”X” even work in a shared storage, workgroup environment, with multiple editors all working on the same material?

So, say all you want about simplicity and “stay the course”, but for me, and anyone else in a similar situation, “X” is not currently up to the task.

Mark

[Mark Raudonis]

Craig,

I know you know better than that.

An ISIS is a big bit bucket. If Avid went away tomorrow, I’d still have a big bit bucket to play with.

There are plenty of parts available in the supply chain to keep me up and running until the next “new thing” comes along.

I’m NOT worried. Why are you trying so hard to spread FUD?

Mark