Richard Herd
Forum Replies Created
-
[Rory Taylor] “It doesn’t show the external Audio.”
The audio side of X is a bit tricky. What happens when you click the audio and then in the inspector show all the details? Usually, you can see all the tracks and which ones are checked.
When you make the compound clip, you’ll want to select everything that will be the compound clip. You will need to shift-click select the video and the on-board mic, plus additional audio channels — everything! that is going to be in the cc.
-
The timeline of some embodiments includes a primary lane (also called “spine”) as well as one or more secondary lanes (also called “anchor lanes”). The spine represents a primary sequence of media, which, in some embodiments, does not have any gaps. When a clip is deleted or removed from the timeline, the media-editing applications automatically closes the gap created in place of the clip. The clips in the anchor lanes are anchored to a particular position along the spine (or along a different anchor lane). Anchor lanes may be used for compositing (e.g., removing portions of one video and showing a different video in those portions), B-roll cuts (i.e., cutting away from the primary video to a different video whose clip is in the anchor lane), audio clips, or other composite presentation techniques
***
Thou shalt not confuse thy tags in XML.
***
What’s really happening? It’s going to sound silly to say, but right now if the spine (aka primary) is deleted then so is the anchor lane (aka secondary) to which the spine is attached. It appears to me that that will no longer be the case. If you delete the spine, the anchor lane will stay in place. This is a fix, imo, to compete with normal editing. In every other NLE I’ve used, there was no spine or lane.
Instead–the way we are all used to–if you delete the clip on track 1, track 2 stays in place. X does not do that. We’ve been using a work around, a simple one, you hit CMD-uparrow to make a spine into a lane, or you hit CMD-downarrow to make lane into a spine.
***
I can’t believe anyone would read this far. Seems to me this is for developers coding XML and not for video editors, per se.
***
I found a cool technique for color correction. I end up multi clicking every other track and select it as CMD-uparrow, then forming an entire compound out of all that. Wallah! Tracks! The benefit to this is, the color correction and audio is applied en mass to the CC, not to individual clips. That is, when open the compound clip, gap clips are auto-created and are alpha channels. It is a very fast way to work.
-
Try turning the sync’d clips into compound clips. (Then keyword the cc.)
-
p. 10: A container that schedules elements sequentially in time
-
[Clint Wardlow] “a bitch of a time making a quicktime file that plays decently as a Withoutabox online screener”
Actually that’s a real pain in the @$$. I used “H.264 LAN streaming” and it worked pretty well after I added compression markers where necessary. The running time was 12 minutes. I used a slower bit rate for a 23 minute short (that no one seems to want to screen). That longer movie takes forever to load in withoutabox too, so I’m suggesting to you to also send DVDs because you can’t be certain that the film screener will wait long enough for the movie to load.
-
[Bill Davis] “An accessible, separate workspace that is task specific for audio. And heck, maybe one for Color as well. “
YES! I ain’t a programmer, but it would seem they only need a GUI.
-
They’ve been saying that since 1998. I recall copy writing gig when we had a marketing dept debate on whether to use “show room” or “showroom.”
-
Good question, actually. There’s a book called “Before You Shoot.” https://www.amazon.com/Before-You-Shoot-Budget-Production/dp/0918828171
And aicp.com has some useful budget forms.
-
[Michael Phillips] “probably due to the fact that these are dictionary based conversions”
A former linguist here… it has to do with a thing called allophones. Computers just stink at phonology and guessing the underlying representation.
Here’s an example: Hold your tongue between your fingers and say a sentence to a person; then, say it to a computer. The human can get it. The computer can’t. It has to do with a human trait of inductive reasoning, guessing the meaning.
OR try this one: tap a pencil and say a sentence. The human can filter out the pencil and concentrate on the language, but the computer can’t.
Computers don’t do very well with similar contrastive pairs, like s/z p/b. But it’s really good with the differences between sibilants and ejaculates and fricatives. So it’s almost as if someone needs to invent a new LUI — language user interface. I tried once, but it ain’t going to work because I sounded like an idioted talking to my computer. It was all “b f d t.”
-
Yeah, but Mark, you’re awesome.
Back in my younger and more formidable years, I wrote coverage for a producer. I have a script to read, if you wanna exchange a few pages.