Rich Kutnick

Joseph W. Bourke

Tim Kolb

John Rofrano

Jeremy Garchow

Wendy Allen

Simon Ubsdell

Steve Rhoden

Corel Design/Video Tools

ADD A NEW POST • CHANGE FORUM • SEARCH • SUBSCRIBE

Message from corel to adobe users by Ricardo Marty on May 17, 2013 at 6:26:05 pm
- Re: Message from corel to adobe PC users by Joseph W. Bourke on May 17, 2013 at 6:48:31 pm
  - Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by David Lawrence on May 17, 2013 at 7:32:38 pm
    - Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Aindreas Gallagher on May 17, 2013 at 7:54:09 pm
      - Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Tim Kolb on May 17, 2013 at 8:48:42 pm
    - Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Craig Seeman on May 17, 2013 at 8:24:33 pm
      - Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Aindreas Gallagher on May 17, 2013 at 8:31:57 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Simon Ubsdell on May 17, 2013 at 8:58:54 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Craig Seeman on May 17, 2013 at 9:17:24 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Simon Ubsdell on May 17, 2013 at 9:21:14 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Aindreas Gallagher on May 17, 2013 at 9:25:28 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Simon Ubsdell on May 17, 2013 at 9:51:59 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Aindreas Gallagher on May 17, 2013 at 10:20:37 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Sandeep Sajeev on May 17, 2013 at 10:54:20 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Aindreas Gallagher on May 17, 2013 at 11:37:02 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Simon Ubsdell on May 18, 2013 at 11:22:29 am
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Sandeep Sajeev on May 18, 2013 at 11:25:49 am
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by James Culbertson on May 18, 2013 at 4:04:46 am
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Simon Ubsdell on May 18, 2013 at 11:10:28 am
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Joseph W. Bourke on May 17, 2013 at 9:40:28 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Walter Soyka on May 21, 2013 at 5:48:20 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Simon Ubsdell on May 21, 2013 at 6:01:59 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Chris Harlan on May 21, 2013 at 6:48:18 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Simon Ubsdell on May 21, 2013 at 7:41:13 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Simon Ubsdell on May 21, 2013 at 6:02:55 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Simon Ubsdell on May 21, 2013 at 6:12:16 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Chris Harlan on May 21, 2013 at 6:39:19 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Jeremy Garchow on May 21, 2013 at 6:45:08 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Steve Connor on May 21, 2013 at 6:47:21 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Chris Harlan on May 21, 2013 at 7:45:56 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Simon Ubsdell on May 21, 2013 at 7:48:30 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Jeremy Garchow on May 21, 2013 at 9:52:38 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Chris Harlan on May 22, 2013 at 1:05:20 am
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Craig Seeman on May 17, 2013 at 9:09:57 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by David Lawrence on May 17, 2013 at 9:14:24 pm
      - Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by David Lawrence on May 17, 2013 at 9:08:14 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Sandeep Sajeev on May 17, 2013 at 9:16:40 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Simon Ubsdell on May 17, 2013 at 9:27:24 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Rich Rubasch on May 17, 2013 at 9:31:48 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Simon Ubsdell on May 17, 2013 at 9:39:22 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Aindreas Gallagher on May 17, 2013 at 9:52:25 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Chris Harlan on May 18, 2013 at 9:21:54 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Shawn Miller on May 17, 2013 at 10:50:56 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Chris Harlan on May 18, 2013 at 12:27:10 am
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Shawn Miller on May 18, 2013 at 5:44:47 am
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Simon Ubsdell on May 18, 2013 at 10:01:38 am
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Sandeep Sajeev on May 18, 2013 at 10:59:52 am
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Simon Ubsdell on May 18, 2013 at 11:18:14 am
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Aindreas Gallagher on May 18, 2013 at 12:42:16 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Simon Ubsdell on May 18, 2013 at 2:52:19 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Chris Harlan on May 18, 2013 at 6:13:33 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Gary Huff on May 18, 2013 at 7:18:26 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Simon Ubsdell on May 18, 2013 at 7:41:01 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Craig Seeman on May 18, 2013 at 8:22:23 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Simon Ubsdell on May 18, 2013 at 8:47:34 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Chris Harlan on May 18, 2013 at 9:15:24 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Craig Seeman on May 18, 2013 at 9:59:44 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Chris Harlan on May 19, 2013 at 6:54:44 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Gary Huff on May 18, 2013 at 4:56:14 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Simon Ubsdell on May 18, 2013 at 1:21:54 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Chris Harlan on May 18, 2013 at 7:33:24 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Simon Ubsdell on May 18, 2013 at 7:47:15 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Richard Herd on May 20, 2013 at 5:59:22 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Shawn Miller on May 19, 2013 at 7:47:21 am
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Simon Ubsdell on May 19, 2013 at 10:16:52 am
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Simon Ubsdell on May 19, 2013 at 11:14:49 am
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Simon Ubsdell on May 19, 2013 at 11:55:40 am
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Aindreas Gallagher on May 19, 2013 at 12:24:08 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Simon Ubsdell on May 19, 2013 at 5:01:30 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Shawn Miller on May 19, 2013 at 4:30:40 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Simon Ubsdell on May 19, 2013 at 4:59:53 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Shawn Miller on May 19, 2013 at 6:29:36 pm
        Re: Pixelmator & Motion - reframing the question by Simon Ubsdell on May 19, 2013 at 6:44:01 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Simon Ubsdell on May 18, 2013 at 10:59:04 am
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Shawn Miller on May 19, 2013 at 8:59:59 am
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Simon Ubsdell on May 19, 2013 at 10:35:29 am
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Shawn Miller on May 19, 2013 at 5:20:51 pm
        Re: Motion as a compositor by Simon Ubsdell on May 19, 2013 at 6:21:53 pm
        Re: Motion as a compositor by Shawn Miller on May 19, 2013 at 7:09:17 pm
        Re: Motion as a compositor by Simon Ubsdell on May 19, 2013 at 7:41:22 pm
        Re: Motion as a compositor by Shawn Miller on May 19, 2013 at 8:21:48 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Richard Herd on May 20, 2013 at 6:14:21 pm
        Re: Message from Pixelmator to Adobe Mac users by Gary Huff on May 18, 2013 at 4:57:34 pm
- Re: Message from corel to adobe users by Brandon Cordy on May 17, 2013 at 7:32:34 pm
  - Re: Message from corel to adobe users by Jeremy Garchow on May 18, 2013 at 1:16:01 pm
    - Re: Message from corel to adobe users by Simon Ubsdell on May 18, 2013 at 1:29:12 pm
      - Re: Message from corel to adobe users by Joseph W. Bourke on May 18, 2013 at 1:54:57 pm
      - Re: Message from corel to adobe users by Jeremy Garchow on May 18, 2013 at 2:58:21 pm
        Re: Message from corel to adobe users by Simon Ubsdell on May 18, 2013 at 3:04:35 pm
        Re: Message from corel to adobe users by Jeremy Garchow on May 18, 2013 at 3:09:48 pm

crazy conspiracy theory for CC by Mike Jeffs on May 14, 2013 at 11:25:31 pm
- Re: crazy conspiracy theory for CC by Frank Gothmann on May 15, 2013 at 12:00:07 am
  - Re: crazy conspiracy theory for CC by Chris Harlan on May 15, 2013 at 12:03:49 am
- Re: crazy conspiracy theory for CC by Shawn Miller on May 15, 2013 at 8:16:13 am
  - Re: crazy conspiracy theory for CC by Mike Jeffs on May 15, 2013 at 1:36:34 pm
    - Re: crazy conspiracy theory for CC by Shawn Miller on May 15, 2013 at 6:14:27 pm
- Re: crazy conspiracy theory for CC by Brandon Cordy on May 15, 2013 at 6:40:47 pm
  - Re: crazy conspiracy theory for CC by Shawn Miller on May 15, 2013 at 7:11:31 pm
    - Re: crazy conspiracy theory for CC by Jim Wiseman on May 15, 2013 at 7:33:45 pm
      - Re: crazy conspiracy theory for CC by Shawn Miller on May 15, 2013 at 7:57:53 pm

And why have perpetual licenses for anything? by Declan Smith on May 14, 2013 at 11:34:04 am
- Re: And why have perpetual licenses for anything? by Brandon Davidson on May 14, 2013 at 9:17:34 pm
  - Re: And why have perpetual licenses for anything? by Brett Sherman on May 15, 2013 at 1:01:29 pm
    - Re: And why have perpetual licenses for anything? by Joseph W. Bourke on May 15, 2013 at 3:21:29 pm
- Re: And why have perpetual licenses for anything? by Tim Kolb on May 14, 2013 at 12:33:50 pm
  - Re: And why have perpetual licenses for anything? by Brett Sherman on May 14, 2013 at 1:31:24 pm

Adobe CC by cabral steel on May 10, 2013 at 10:46:24 pm
- Re: Adobe CC by Roland R. Kahlenberg on May 11, 2013 at 9:10:10 am

Read what Corel is saying about Adobe by Richard Cardonna on May 9, 2013 at 9:21:20 pm
- Re: Read what Corel is saying about Adobe by David Lawrence on May 9, 2013 at 10:18:56 pm
  - Re: Read what Corel is saying about Adobe by Carl Sollenberger on May 9, 2013 at 10:58:04 pm

Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Richard Cardonna on May 9, 2013 at 3:32:52 pm
- Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Joseph W. Bourke on May 9, 2013 at 3:57:13 pm
  - Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Richard Cardonna on May 9, 2013 at 4:06:14 pm
    - Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Joseph W. Bourke on May 9, 2013 at 4:11:47 pm
      - Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Richard Cardonna on May 9, 2013 at 4:31:30 pm
        Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Tim Kolb on May 9, 2013 at 5:09:12 pm
        Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Craig Wall on May 14, 2013 at 5:37:14 am
        Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Tim Kolb on May 14, 2013 at 6:44:59 am
        Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Joseph W. Bourke on May 9, 2013 at 5:10:39 pm
    - Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Chris Harlan on May 9, 2013 at 5:59:03 pm
- Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by James Daugherty on May 9, 2013 at 4:23:33 pm
  - Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Tim Kolb on May 9, 2013 at 4:42:23 pm
    - Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Chris Harlan on May 9, 2013 at 5:48:41 pm
- Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Tim Kolb on May 9, 2013 at 4:24:34 pm
- Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Craig Seeman on May 9, 2013 at 4:27:01 pm
  - Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Tim Kolb on May 9, 2013 at 4:56:59 pm
  - Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Jim Wiseman on May 9, 2013 at 5:47:41 pm
    - Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Tim Kolb on May 9, 2013 at 5:59:05 pm
    - Re: Adobes subscription expectations = terrible future by Craig Seeman on May 9, 2013 at 6:31:39 pm

Creative Cloud going forward. by Aindreas Gallagher on May 8, 2013 at 3:58:16 pm
- Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Tim Kolb on May 8, 2013 at 5:33:11 pm
  - Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Tom Daigon on May 8, 2013 at 6:08:58 pm
    - Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Tim Kolb on May 8, 2013 at 6:22:25 pm
  - Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Chris Harlan on May 8, 2013 at 6:25:08 pm
    - Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Aindreas Gallagher on May 8, 2013 at 7:36:12 pm
      - Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Chris Harlan on May 8, 2013 at 7:47:36 pm
        Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Tim Kolb on May 8, 2013 at 7:49:54 pm
        Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Chris Harlan on May 8, 2013 at 7:57:44 pm
        Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Gary Huff on May 9, 2013 at 2:34:05 pm
        Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Ryan Holmes on May 9, 2013 at 3:04:03 pm
        Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Gary Huff on May 9, 2013 at 3:06:38 pm
        Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Tim Kolb on May 9, 2013 at 6:03:41 pm
        Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Ryan Holmes on May 10, 2013 at 2:36:30 am
- Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Ryan Holmes on May 8, 2013 at 8:11:54 pm
  - Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Peter Jay Gould on May 9, 2013 at 10:05:00 pm
    - Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Ryan Holmes on May 10, 2013 at 2:34:28 am
- Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Steve Brame on May 8, 2013 at 10:39:22 pm
  - Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by walter biscardi on May 8, 2013 at 10:41:37 pm
    - Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Shane Ross on May 8, 2013 at 11:35:03 pm
      - Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Tom Daigon on May 8, 2013 at 11:44:38 pm
    - Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Jim Wiseman on May 9, 2013 at 12:31:28 am
  - Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Tim Kolb on May 8, 2013 at 11:12:54 pm
    - Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Steve Brame on May 9, 2013 at 12:59:31 am
      - Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Tim Kolb on May 9, 2013 at 1:25:13 am
        Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Steve Brame on May 9, 2013 at 12:24:05 pm
        Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Tim Kolb on May 9, 2013 at 1:45:49 pm
        Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Gary Huff on May 9, 2013 at 2:41:40 pm
        Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Tim Kolb on May 9, 2013 at 6:28:36 pm
- Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Peter Wiley on May 9, 2013 at 12:36:18 am
- Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Peter Jay Gould on May 9, 2013 at 9:53:17 pm
  - Re: Creative Cloud going forward. by Tim Kolb on May 10, 2013 at 12:21:16 am

Corel and pinnacle 16 ultimate by Richard Cardonna on May 7, 2013 at 4:02:05 pm

Another acceptable solution model for Adobe CC by Morten Ranmar on May 7, 2013 at 6:45:57 am
- Re: Another acceptable solution model for Adobe CC by Peter Wiley on May 7, 2013 at 12:46:12 pm
  - Re: Another acceptable solution model for Adobe CC by Tim Kolb on May 7, 2013 at 1:31:32 pm
    - Re: Another acceptable solution model for Adobe CC by Peter Wiley on May 7, 2013 at 3:48:40 pm
      - Re: Another acceptable solution model for Adobe CC by Tim Kolb on May 7, 2013 at 7:59:54 pm
        Re: Another acceptable solution model for Adobe CC by Peter Wiley on May 9, 2013 at 1:44:15 pm
- Re: Another acceptable solution model for Adobe CC by Tom Daigon on May 7, 2013 at 2:48:15 pm

Service: Adaptor Studio by Dave Welch on Apr 24, 2013 at 11:40:52 pm

Service: Sarah Cahn by sarah cahn on Apr 22, 2013 at 8:56:26 pm

Service: PrudentVA by Syed Iqbal on Apr 14, 2013 at 10:10:29 am

News: Boris Soundbite Powered by Nexidia Wins StudioDaily Prime Award by Cow News Droid on Apr 10, 2013 at 5:03:02 pm

News: Boris FX Expands Real-Time Performance of Boris Continuum Complete by Cow News Droid on Apr 9, 2013 at 5:04:30 pm
- Re: News: Boris FX Expands Real-Time Performance of Boris Continuum Complete by Kirk Pitts on Apr 9, 2013 at 11:01:11 pm

News: Boris FX Showcases New VFX Browser for Boris Continuum Complete by Cow News Droid on Apr 8, 2013 at 5:15:25 pm

Service: John Lopez Photography by John Lopez on Apr 3, 2013 at 8:28:49 pm

Service: PlayBox Technology Limited by Todor Pavlov on Mar 27, 2013 at 11:38:43 am

Advice on this problem please... by Keith Christie on Mar 19, 2013 at 10:49:45 pm

desktop record? by edgar gillham on Mar 16, 2013 at 7:03:14 pm
- Re: desktop record? by John Rofrano on Mar 17, 2013 at 2:06:23 am
  - Re: desktop record? by edgar gillham on Mar 18, 2013 at 6:04:59 pm
    - Re: desktop record? by John Rofrano on Mar 19, 2013 at 10:49:33 am
      - Re: desktop record? by edgar gillham on Mar 19, 2013 at 5:12:46 pm
        Re: desktop record? by John Rofrano on Mar 20, 2013 at 10:23:13 am
        Re: desktop record? by edgar gillham on Mar 22, 2013 at 4:15:28 am
        Re: desktop record? by John Rofrano on Mar 22, 2013 at 11:11:57 am

Service: Plainsight Pictures by Bradley Stuckel on Mar 15, 2013 at 6:30:58 pm

Smart render for MPEG2 does not work by Libor Jendele on Mar 15, 2013 at 2:02:02 pm
- Re: Smart render for MPEG2 does not work by John Rofrano on Mar 16, 2013 at 11:39:46 am
  - Re: Smart render for MPEG2 does not work by Norman Black on Mar 16, 2013 at 11:55:52 pm
    - Re: Smart render for MPEG2 does not work by John Rofrano on Mar 17, 2013 at 1:48:37 am
      - Re: Smart render for MPEG2 does not work by Libor Jendele on Mar 18, 2013 at 8:37:11 am
        Re: Smart render for MPEG2 does not work by John Rofrano on Mar 18, 2013 at 10:48:05 am
        Re: Smart render for MPEG2 does not work by Libor Jendele on Mar 18, 2013 at 11:40:38 am

Service: 3d Artist John Hope by John Hope on Mar 4, 2013 at 10:11:12 pm

News: Cinerama Restores Films with Boris Continuum Complete’s Flicker Fixer by Cow News Droid on Feb 27, 2013 at 3:48:46 am

News: Boris FX Rolls Out New Boris Continuum Units Product Family by Cow News Droid on Feb 20, 2013 at 2:00:00 pm

Cineform codec missing by Nick White on Feb 19, 2013 at 8:58:10 am
- Re: Cineform codec missing by Steve Rhoden on Feb 19, 2013 at 11:11:00 am
  - Re: Cineform codec missing by Nick White on Feb 19, 2013 at 11:52:05 am
    - Re: Cineform codec missing by John Rofrano on Feb 19, 2013 at 12:19:27 pm
      - Re: Cineform codec missing by Nick White on Feb 19, 2013 at 1:17:17 pm
        Re: Cineform codec missing by Steve Rhoden on Feb 19, 2013 at 4:08:41 pm
        Re: Cineform codec missing by Nick White on Feb 19, 2013 at 11:41:52 pm
        Re: Cineform codec missing by Steve Rhoden on Feb 20, 2013 at 3:25:30 am
        Re: Cineform codec missing by John Rofrano on Feb 20, 2013 at 1:56:36 pm
        Re: Cineform codec missing by Nick White on Feb 20, 2013 at 11:27:58 pm
        Re: Cineform codec missing by John Rofrano on Feb 21, 2013 at 2:01:29 am
        Re: Cineform codec missing by Nick White on Feb 21, 2013 at 2:25:30 am
        Re: Cineform codec missing by John Rofrano on Feb 21, 2013 at 11:34:13 am
        Re: Cineform codec missing by John Rofrano on Feb 21, 2013 at 11:42:25 am
        Re: Cineform codec missing by Nick White on Feb 23, 2013 at 8:04:35 am
        Re: Cineform codec missing by John Rofrano on Feb 23, 2013 at 11:38:43 am
        Re: Cineform codec missing by Nick White on Feb 23, 2013 at 12:01:33 pm
        Re: Cineform codec missing by John Rofrano on Feb 24, 2013 at 12:15:30 pm
        Re: Cineform codec missing by Nick White on Feb 23, 2013 at 8:07:32 am
- Re: Cineform codec missing by Vernon Lancaster on Feb 20, 2013 at 8:44:29 pm
  - Re: Cineform codec missing by Steve Rhoden on Feb 20, 2013 at 9:10:45 pm
  - Re: Cineform codec missing by Nick White on Feb 20, 2013 at 11:28:54 pm
    - Re: Cineform codec missing by John Rofrano on Feb 21, 2013 at 2:03:57 am
      - Re: Cineform codec missing by Nick White on Feb 21, 2013 at 2:19:53 am
        Re: Cineform codec missing by John Rofrano on Feb 21, 2013 at 11:26:17 am
        Re: Cineform codec missing by Nick White on Feb 21, 2013 at 9:28:52 pm
    - Re: Cineform codec missing by Vernon Lancaster on Feb 21, 2013 at 10:09:58 am
      - Re: Cineform codec missing by Nick White on Feb 21, 2013 at 9:29:39 pm

Service: Chris Design Creator by simon lourde on Feb 16, 2013 at 5:04:35 pm

Service: Melded Media by Ben Hicks on Feb 12, 2013 at 6:18:03 pm

Painting/Drawing in After Effects: Better option than Brush tool? by Phil Johnston on Feb 11, 2013 at 6:54:25 am
- Re: Painting/Drawing in After Effects: Better option than Brush tool? by Tero Ahlfors on Feb 11, 2013 at 12:02:17 pm
- Re: Painting/Drawing in After Effects: Better option than Brush tool? by Joseph W. Bourke on Feb 11, 2013 at 2:58:57 pm
  - Re: Painting/Drawing in After Effects: Better option than Brush tool? by Phil Johnston on Feb 11, 2013 at 3:15:18 pm
    - Re: Painting/Drawing in After Effects: Better option than Brush tool? by Dave LaRonde on Feb 11, 2013 at 5:48:58 pm
      - Re: Painting/Drawing in After Effects: Better option than Brush tool? by Joseph W. Bourke on Feb 13, 2013 at 12:30:26 am

Sony AVC vs. Main Concept AVC by Rich Kutnick on Feb 8, 2013 at 5:43:23 pm
- Re: Sony AVC vs. Main Concept AVC by Steve Rhoden on Feb 8, 2013 at 8:55:24 pm
  - Re: Sony AVC vs. Main Concept AVC by Mike Thomas II on Feb 8, 2013 at 9:56:30 pm
    - Re: Sony AVC vs. Main Concept AVC by John Rofrano on Feb 9, 2013 at 12:44:01 am
      - Re: Sony AVC vs. Main Concept AVC by Steve Rhoden on Feb 9, 2013 at 2:32:07 am
      - Re: Sony AVC vs. Main Concept AVC by Rich Kutnick on Feb 9, 2013 at 4:43:56 pm
        Re: Sony AVC vs. Main Concept AVC by John Rofrano on Feb 9, 2013 at 6:39:41 pm
        Re: Sony AVC vs. Main Concept AVC by Rich Kutnick on Feb 9, 2013 at 10:13:13 pm
        Re: Sony AVC vs. Main Concept AVC by John Rofrano on Feb 10, 2013 at 2:58:23 am
        Re: Sony AVC vs. Main Concept AVC by Rich Kutnick on Feb 11, 2013 at 4:39:03 pm
        Re: Sony AVC vs. Main Concept AVC by John Rofrano on Feb 13, 2013 at 1:02:09 am
        Re: Sony AVC vs. Main Concept AVC by Rich Kutnick on Feb 18, 2013 at 2:41:52 pm
- Re: Sony AVC vs. Main Concept AVC by Stephen Mann on Feb 9, 2013 at 3:08:31 pm

Sony Vegas Software & support Is CRAP, its 1 year and I can't even un-cripple it! by Michael Najarian on Feb 7, 2013 at 12:13:24 am
- Re: Sony Vegas Software & support Is CRAP, its 1 year and I can't even un-cripple it! by Steve Rhoden on Feb 7, 2013 at 3:28:16 am
  - Re: Sony Vegas Software & support Is CRAP, its 1 year and I can't even un-cripple it! by Gabriel Solomon on Feb 7, 2013 at 4:59:55 am
    - Re: Sony Vegas Software & support Is CRAP, its 1 year and I can't even un-cripple it! by Michael Najarian on Feb 7, 2013 at 7:49:32 am
      - Re: Sony Vegas Software & support Is CRAP, its 1 year and I can't even un-cripple it! by Jay Allen on Feb 7, 2013 at 3:03:03 pm
        Re: Sony Vegas Software & support Is CRAP, its 1 year and I can't even un-cripple it! by Michael Najarian on Feb 7, 2013 at 5:32:54 pm
        vegas isn't crap.. if you don't complicate your system.. by TJ McCormick on Feb 9, 2013 at 7:39:48 am
        Re: vegas isn't crap.. if you don't complicate your system.. by TJ McCormick on Feb 9, 2013 at 9:32:30 am
        Re: vegas isn't crap.. if you don't complicate your system.. by Michael Najarian on Feb 9, 2013 at 10:54:26 pm
        Re: vegas isn't crap.. if you don't complicate your system.. by TJ McCormick on Feb 10, 2013 at 5:50:09 am
        Re: vegas isn't crap.. if you don't complicate your system.. by Mike Kujbida on Feb 9, 2013 at 1:59:57 pm
        Re: vegas isn't crap.. if you don't complicate your system.. by TJ McCormick on Feb 10, 2013 at 5:55:43 am
        Re: vegas isn't crap.. if you don't complicate your system.. by TJ McCormick on Feb 10, 2013 at 7:34:09 am
        Re: vegas isn't crap.. if you don't complicate your system.. by Mike Kujbida on Feb 10, 2013 at 4:40:15 pm
        Re: vegas isn't crap.. if you don't complicate your system.. by Michael Najarian on Feb 9, 2013 at 10:35:39 pm
        Re: vegas isn't crap.. if you don't complicate your system.. by Michael Najarian on Feb 9, 2013 at 11:02:40 pm
- Re: Sony Vegas Software & support Is CRAP, its 1 year and I can't even un-cripple it! by Michael Najarian on Feb 9, 2013 at 10:46:07 pm
  - Re: Sony Vegas Software & support Is CRAP, its 1 year and I can't even un-cripple it! by mike calla on Feb 14, 2013 at 3:39:05 pm
    - Re: Sony Vegas Software & support Is CRAP, its 1 year and I can't even un-cripple it! by Michael Najarian on Feb 15, 2013 at 1:57:18 pm
      - Re: Sony Vegas Software & support Is CRAP, its 1 year and I can't even un-cripple it! by John Hancock on Apr 7, 2013 at 10:06:17 am
        Re: Sony Vegas Software & support Is CRAP, its 1 year and I can't even un-cripple it! by Michael Najarian on Apr 7, 2013 at 3:27:03 pm
        Re: Sony Vegas Software & support Is CRAP, its 1 year and I can't even un-cripple it! by TJ McCormick on Apr 7, 2013 at 8:45:59 pm
        Re: Sony Vegas Software & support Is CRAP, its 1 year and I can't even un-cripple it! by John Hancock on Apr 7, 2013 at 9:25:10 pm
        Re: Sony Vegas Software & support Is CRAP, its 1 year and I can't even un-cripple it! by Michael Najarian on Apr 7, 2013 at 11:35:09 pm

Using Screen Shots by larry estavan on Jan 26, 2013 at 8:29:21 pm
- Re: Using Screen Shots by Graham Bernard on Jan 27, 2013 at 8:45:38 am

Is Media 100 Dead? by jeremy Rowell on Jan 11, 2013 at 10:55:50 pm
- Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Michael Slowe on Jan 13, 2013 at 2:03:53 am
  - Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by jeremy Rowell on Jan 13, 2013 at 11:12:03 pm
    - Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Michael Hanish on Jan 16, 2013 at 12:51:48 pm
      - Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by jeremy Rowell on Jan 16, 2013 at 7:12:07 pm
        Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Marcus Warren on Jan 17, 2013 at 5:12:42 am
        Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Michael Slowe on Jan 17, 2013 at 11:13:50 pm
  - Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Jaeson Koszarsky on Jan 23, 2013 at 5:27:07 pm
    - Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Jaeson Koszarsky on Jan 23, 2013 at 7:01:52 pm
    - Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Frank Cann on Jan 29, 2013 at 10:32:28 pm
      - Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Jaeson Koszarsky on Jan 29, 2013 at 10:40:34 pm
- Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Bernhard Grininger on Jan 17, 2013 at 5:55:44 pm
  - Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Nick Lammers on Jan 22, 2013 at 2:55:28 pm
    - Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by jeremy Rowell on Jan 22, 2013 at 5:49:58 pm
      - Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Michael Slowe on Jan 25, 2013 at 2:23:05 pm
        Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Nick Lammers on Jan 25, 2013 at 3:13:38 pm
        Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by jeremy Rowell on Jan 25, 2013 at 8:47:22 pm
- Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Jack Shepard on Jan 23, 2013 at 7:49:42 pm
  - Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Jim Wiseman on Jan 25, 2013 at 6:43:20 pm
    - Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Marcus Warren on Feb 11, 2013 at 1:35:46 am
      - Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Michael Slowe on Feb 12, 2013 at 12:10:35 pm
      - Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Jim Wiseman on Feb 12, 2013 at 6:58:06 pm
        Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by olof ekbergh on Feb 17, 2013 at 2:40:35 am
        Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Michael Slowe on Feb 17, 2013 at 11:06:37 am
        Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by olof ekbergh on Feb 17, 2013 at 2:49:18 pm
        Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Michael Slowe on Feb 19, 2013 at 10:45:17 am
        Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Maxwell Federman on Apr 15, 2013 at 2:05:25 pm
        Re: Is Media 100 Dead? by Maxwell Federman on Apr 15, 2013 at 2:24:29 pm

News: Boris Continuum Complete 8 FxPlug Now Available for Apple Final Cut Pro X by Cow News Droid on Jan 8, 2013 at 3:14:05 am

Service: RD Studios by John Cave on Dec 31, 2012 at 8:00:44 pm

Service: Design Diary Events & Media (P) Ltd. by Editor Deepu on Dec 8, 2012 at 11:17:19 am

How to edit video files on iPhone 5 with video editor for mac by jessicatian nitian on Dec 4, 2012 at 5:56:45 am

Better Sound by Pete Cotellese on Nov 28, 2012 at 2:55:32 am
- Re: Better Sound by Dave Haynie on Nov 28, 2012 at 12:56:51 pm
  - Re: Better Sound by Pete Cotellese on Nov 30, 2012 at 2:34:42 am

News: Boris FX Announces Boris Continuum Complete 8 FxPlug by Cow News Droid on Nov 27, 2012 at 9:35:10 am

Service: Kevin Phillips Illustration by Kevin Phillips on Nov 11, 2012 at 7:17:52 pm

Understanding T shirt designer widget by Taimoor Yousaf on Nov 8, 2012 at 12:08:42 am

Service: Karoll William Pérez Zambrano - Freelance by Karoll William Pérez Zambrano on Nov 7, 2012 at 7:13:45 pm

Problem importing eps to CINEMA4D by Miguel Franco on Oct 26, 2012 at 3:31:52 pm

Service: Vera Dementchouk by Vera Dementchouk on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:48:40 pm

Service: Nadia N'jiba - Freelance by Nadia N'jiba on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:22:55 am
- Re: Nadia N'jiba - Freelance by doua hussain on Feb 19, 2013 at 12:20:03 am

Can't Capture Video In Vegas Pro 11 or 12 by Jim Prisby on Oct 21, 2012 at 4:57:53 pm
- Re: Can't Capture Video In Vegas Pro 11 or 12 by John Rofrano on Oct 21, 2012 at 7:33:23 pm
  - Re: Can't Capture Video In Vegas Pro 11 or 12 by Jim Prisby on Oct 22, 2012 at 1:38:25 am
    - Re: Can't Capture Video In Vegas Pro 11 or 12 by John Rofrano on Oct 22, 2012 at 10:50:07 am

FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Aindreas Gallagher on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:00:13 pm
- Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Marcus Moore on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:38:30 pm
  - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Aindreas Gallagher on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:52:28 pm
    - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Marcus Moore on Oct 20, 2012 at 12:31:51 am
  - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Walter Soyka on Oct 20, 2012 at 2:03:39 pm
    - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Oliver Peters on Oct 20, 2012 at 3:34:09 pm
    - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Aindreas Gallagher on Oct 20, 2012 at 4:01:48 pm
      - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Bill Davis on Oct 20, 2012 at 8:23:04 pm
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Oliver Peters on Oct 20, 2012 at 8:44:14 pm
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Bill Davis on Oct 20, 2012 at 9:41:45 pm
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Oliver Peters on Oct 20, 2012 at 10:11:37 pm
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by massimo verona on Oct 23, 2012 at 6:17:19 am
    - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Marcus Moore on Oct 20, 2012 at 6:25:43 pm
- Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Don Scioli on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:52:03 pm
- Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Bill Davis on Oct 19, 2012 at 11:59:30 pm
  - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Aindreas Gallagher on Oct 20, 2012 at 12:05:43 am
    - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Bill Davis on Oct 20, 2012 at 12:46:59 am
      - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by David Powell on Oct 20, 2012 at 2:07:52 am
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Steve Connor on Oct 20, 2012 at 7:15:47 am
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by David Powell on Oct 20, 2012 at 7:49:41 am
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by David Lawrence on Oct 20, 2012 at 8:48:17 am
      - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Nathan Adam on Oct 20, 2012 at 2:13:45 am
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Dave Jenkins on Oct 20, 2012 at 3:50:45 am
      - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Greg Andonian on Oct 20, 2012 at 4:13:18 am
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Bill Davis on Oct 20, 2012 at 4:47:44 am
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Herb Sevush on Oct 20, 2012 at 5:55:08 pm
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Bill Davis on Oct 20, 2012 at 8:33:38 pm
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Herb Sevush on Oct 20, 2012 at 10:09:56 pm
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, - answering Herb about the Multicam project in the other thread. by Bill Davis on Oct 20, 2012 at 10:55:23 pm
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, - answering Herb about the Multicam project in the other thread. by Herb Sevush on Oct 21, 2012 at 3:34:31 am
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, - answering Herb about the Multicam project in the other thread. by Bill Davis on Oct 21, 2012 at 4:27:02 am
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, - answering Herb about the Multicam project in the other thread. by Herb Sevush on Oct 21, 2012 at 3:58:52 pm
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, - answering Herb about the Multicam project in the other thread. by Bill Davis on Oct 21, 2012 at 8:14:04 pm
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, - answering Herb about the Multicam project in the other thread. by Herb Sevush on Oct 21, 2012 at 10:55:33 pm
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, - answering Herb about the Multicam project in the other thread. by Bill Davis on Oct 22, 2012 at 1:14:44 am
- Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Bob Woodhead on Oct 20, 2012 at 3:50:32 am
  - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Bret Williams on Oct 20, 2012 at 5:52:19 am
- Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Bret Williams on Oct 20, 2012 at 5:39:03 am
  - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Dennis Radeke on Oct 20, 2012 at 12:59:22 pm
    - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Bret Williams on Oct 22, 2012 at 7:41:13 am
  - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Herb Sevush on Oct 20, 2012 at 6:01:11 pm
    - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Bret Williams on Oct 22, 2012 at 7:31:04 am
      - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Herb Sevush on Oct 22, 2012 at 2:01:35 pm
  - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Gary Huff on Oct 21, 2012 at 2:21:18 pm
    - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by alban egger on Oct 21, 2012 at 2:58:11 pm
      - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Bret Williams on Oct 22, 2012 at 7:23:52 am
- Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Steve Connor on Oct 20, 2012 at 8:00:41 am
  - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Oliver Peters on Oct 20, 2012 at 2:11:30 pm
    - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Aindreas Gallagher on Oct 20, 2012 at 3:51:45 pm
      - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Jim Giberti on Oct 20, 2012 at 11:12:54 pm
      - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Shane Ross on Oct 21, 2012 at 12:27:41 am
        Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Aindreas Gallagher on Oct 21, 2012 at 3:51:52 pm
- Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by craig slattery on Oct 20, 2012 at 11:01:48 pm
  - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Jim Giberti on Oct 20, 2012 at 11:18:36 pm
    - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Baz Leffler on Oct 21, 2012 at 1:21:08 am
      - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Jim Giberti on Oct 21, 2012 at 1:30:49 am
      - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Herb Sevush on Oct 21, 2012 at 3:11:28 am
      - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Bill Davis on Oct 21, 2012 at 4:31:35 am
      - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by alban egger on Oct 21, 2012 at 8:21:58 am
- Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by alban egger on Oct 21, 2012 at 6:12:06 am
  - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Aindreas Gallagher on Oct 21, 2012 at 4:02:11 pm
- Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by Mitch Ives on Oct 23, 2012 at 11:29:13 am
  - Re: FCPX is so completely weird, it makes Motion look sane. And no one will hire you by the hour for either of them. by joachim hoge on Oct 24, 2012 at 7:00:17 am

Unacceptable rendering quality by Terry Stephens on Oct 15, 2012 at 2:20:29 pm
- Re: Unacceptable rendering quality by Alan Lorence on Oct 15, 2012 at 2:37:54 pm
  - Re: Unacceptable rendering quality by Terry Stephens on Oct 15, 2012 at 3:54:16 pm
    - Re: Unacceptable rendering quality by Alan Lorence on Oct 15, 2012 at 3:58:02 pm
      - Re: Unacceptable rendering quality by Terry Stephens on Oct 15, 2012 at 4:54:06 pm
        Re: Unacceptable rendering quality by Alan Lorence on Oct 15, 2012 at 6:31:43 pm
        Re: Unacceptable rendering quality by Terry Stephens on Oct 15, 2012 at 6:50:48 pm

Service: Elhaq Film & Design Haqi, R. Jamison by Ronnie Haqi Jamison on Oct 10, 2012 at 6:49:52 pm

DVD Architect no longer in development? by Mark Krueger on Oct 5, 2012 at 10:16:56 pm
- Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by Steve Rhoden on Oct 6, 2012 at 12:52:52 am
  - Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by John Rofrano on Oct 6, 2012 at 12:33:23 pm
    - Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by Ken Mitchell on Oct 6, 2012 at 6:42:00 pm
      - Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by Steve Rhoden on Oct 6, 2012 at 9:17:11 pm
        Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by Graham Bernard on Oct 6, 2012 at 10:04:17 pm
        Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by Steve Rhoden on Oct 6, 2012 at 11:36:03 pm
        Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by Mark Krueger on Oct 7, 2012 at 1:35:40 am
        Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by John Rofrano on Oct 7, 2012 at 1:32:42 pm
        Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by Graham Bernard on Oct 7, 2012 at 1:44:38 pm
        Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by Nigel O'Neill on Oct 6, 2012 at 11:34:49 pm
        Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by Gilles Gagnon on Oct 7, 2012 at 3:29:06 am
        Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by Steve Rhoden on Oct 7, 2012 at 5:16:46 am
        Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by Nigel O'Neill on Oct 7, 2012 at 5:24:59 am
      - Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by Stephen Mann on Oct 7, 2012 at 7:43:33 pm
- Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by Dave Haynie on Oct 7, 2012 at 6:54:12 pm
  - Re: DVD Architect no longer in development? by Matt Smitherz on Oct 9, 2012 at 12:55:30 am

Illustrator CS6 to CorelDraw 11 best workflow by Katya Austin on Oct 4, 2012 at 6:51:11 pm
- Re: Illustrator CS6 to CorelDraw 11 best workflow by Vincent Rosati on Oct 5, 2012 at 2:43:18 am
  - Re: Illustrator CS6 to CorelDraw 11 best workflow by Katya Austin on Oct 5, 2012 at 3:29:35 am

Service: Mauro Sodano by Mauro Sodano on Sep 27, 2012 at 4:38:49 pm

Service: Designs by Garrison by Abbey Garrison on Sep 13, 2012 at 1:33:03 pm

News: Boris FX Announces Final Effects Complete 7 AE at IBC 2012 by Cow News Droid on Sep 10, 2012 at 3:17:14 am

News: Blackmagic Design Receives Certification for its Thunderbolt™ Video Solutions for PCs by Cow News Droid on Sep 8, 2012 at 12:15:36 am
- Re: News: Blackmagic Design Receives Certification for its Thunderbolt™ Video Solutions for PCs by João Santos on Sep 14, 2012 at 9:19:07 am

Tedious track based editing by craig slattery on Sep 7, 2012 at 11:58:35 pm
- Re: Tedious track based editing by H Spencer Young on Sep 8, 2012 at 12:23:07 am
  - Re: Tedious track based editing by Michael Gissing on Sep 8, 2012 at 12:32:40 am
    - Re: Tedious track based editing by craig slattery on Sep 8, 2012 at 1:01:19 am
      - Re: Tedious track based editing by Rafael Amador on Sep 8, 2012 at 2:27:39 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by andy lewis on Sep 8, 2012 at 5:13:52 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Mark Dobson on Sep 8, 2012 at 7:14:33 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 10, 2012 at 7:07:35 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Steve Connor on Sep 10, 2012 at 7:54:09 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 10, 2012 at 11:15:45 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by craig slattery on Sep 10, 2012 at 9:13:28 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Chris Harlan on Sep 10, 2012 at 2:42:14 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by craig slattery on Sep 10, 2012 at 2:57:57 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Chris Harlan on Sep 10, 2012 at 3:33:22 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by craig slattery on Sep 8, 2012 at 8:25:02 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by craig slattery on Sep 8, 2012 at 7:41:50 am
- Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 8, 2012 at 7:58:27 am
  - Re: Tedious track based editing by andy lewis on Sep 8, 2012 at 8:24:45 am
    - Re: Tedious track based editing by Mark Dobson on Sep 8, 2012 at 8:58:47 am
    - Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 8, 2012 at 4:40:38 pm
      - Re: Tedious track based editing by Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 8, 2012 at 5:45:47 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 8, 2012 at 6:46:01 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Dominic Deacon on Sep 8, 2012 at 10:35:04 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 8, 2012 at 11:02:33 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Chris Harlan on Sep 8, 2012 at 11:09:04 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 8, 2012 at 11:05:14 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Michael Aranyshev on Sep 10, 2012 at 8:49:40 pm
  - Re: Tedious track based editing by craig slattery on Sep 8, 2012 at 8:26:54 am
    - Re: Tedious track based editing by Herb Sevush on Sep 8, 2012 at 10:43:54 pm
      - Re: Tedious track based editing by Jim Giberti on Sep 10, 2012 at 2:00:04 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Cherniack on Sep 10, 2012 at 2:10:45 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Chris Harlan on Sep 10, 2012 at 4:05:35 am
    - Re: Tedious track based editing by Chris Harlan on Sep 8, 2012 at 11:08:12 pm
  - Re: Tedious track based editing by Michael Sanders on Sep 8, 2012 at 8:37:21 am
    - Re: Tedious track based editing by Andy Field on Sep 8, 2012 at 9:26:38 am
      - Re: Tedious track based editing by Michael Sanders on Sep 8, 2012 at 9:28:09 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Michael Sanders on Sep 8, 2012 at 9:28:58 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Rafael Amador on Sep 8, 2012 at 10:45:58 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by craig slattery on Sep 8, 2012 at 12:23:40 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by craig slattery on Sep 8, 2012 at 12:35:23 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Bob Woodhead on Sep 8, 2012 at 12:53:35 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by craig slattery on Sep 8, 2012 at 1:15:26 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Rafael Amador on Sep 8, 2012 at 2:03:16 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Aindreas Gallagher on Sep 8, 2012 at 2:21:16 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by craig slattery on Sep 8, 2012 at 6:59:19 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by tony west on Sep 8, 2012 at 3:29:05 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 9, 2012 at 3:42:23 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by tony west on Sep 9, 2012 at 12:13:52 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 9, 2012 at 2:12:58 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 9, 2012 at 5:33:50 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 9, 2012 at 3:18:42 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 9, 2012 at 4:39:52 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Andy Field on Sep 9, 2012 at 11:47:40 pm
  - Re: Tedious track based editing by Aindreas Gallagher on Sep 8, 2012 at 2:20:13 pm
- Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 8, 2012 at 5:53:11 pm
  - Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 9, 2012 at 2:46:35 am
    - Re: Tedious track based editing by tony west on Sep 9, 2012 at 12:33:39 pm
    - Re: Tedious track based editing by Richard Cardonna on Sep 9, 2012 at 1:04:39 pm
      - Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 9, 2012 at 1:35:25 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Richard Cardonna on Sep 9, 2012 at 2:17:14 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 9, 2012 at 6:58:22 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 10, 2012 at 4:06:23 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 10, 2012 at 12:40:07 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 10, 2012 at 1:20:00 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 10, 2012 at 3:07:23 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 10, 2012 at 5:48:11 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 10, 2012 at 6:18:44 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 10, 2012 at 6:35:49 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 10, 2012 at 7:11:23 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 10, 2012 at 8:20:51 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 10, 2012 at 8:33:51 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 10, 2012 at 8:59:08 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Steve Connor on Sep 10, 2012 at 9:13:45 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Steve Connor on Sep 10, 2012 at 9:15:57 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 10, 2012 at 9:24:49 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Steve Connor on Sep 10, 2012 at 9:29:55 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 10, 2012 at 10:24:49 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 10, 2012 at 10:41:01 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 10, 2012 at 10:53:47 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 10, 2012 at 11:30:02 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 10, 2012 at 10:56:35 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 10, 2012 at 11:21:08 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 11, 2012 at 12:22:52 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Aindreas Gallagher on Sep 11, 2012 at 12:47:02 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 11, 2012 at 12:57:52 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Aindreas Gallagher on Sep 11, 2012 at 1:03:55 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Steve Connor on Sep 11, 2012 at 6:39:57 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by craig slattery on Sep 11, 2012 at 8:40:19 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 10, 2012 at 11:05:46 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 10, 2012 at 5:54:50 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 10, 2012 at 6:06:10 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 10, 2012 at 6:14:19 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Aindreas Gallagher on Sep 11, 2012 at 12:58:56 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 11, 2012 at 1:58:09 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:08:56 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 11, 2012 at 4:54:25 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 11, 2012 at 5:48:35 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 11, 2012 at 6:16:53 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Steve Connor on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:00:27 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:13:36 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:19:25 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Steve Connor on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:26:42 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 11, 2012 at 8:01:20 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 11, 2012 at 10:29:13 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:00:32 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:59:55 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 12, 2012 at 12:39:54 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 12, 2012 at 12:53:05 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 11, 2012 at 10:44:45 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:01:23 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:32:23 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 11, 2012 at 8:03:38 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Steve Connor on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:23:14 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 11, 2012 at 9:05:59 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 11, 2012 at 10:48:59 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 12, 2012 at 12:03:55 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships by David Lawrence on Sep 12, 2012 at 1:19:17 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 12, 2012 at 1:40:59 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships by David Lawrence on Sep 12, 2012 at 9:26:42 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships by Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 12, 2012 at 9:39:14 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships by David Lawrence on Sep 12, 2012 at 10:14:02 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships by Walter Soyka on Sep 14, 2012 at 1:41:17 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships by David Lawrence on Sep 14, 2012 at 7:40:31 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships by Steve Connor on Sep 14, 2012 at 7:49:37 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships by David Lawrence on Sep 15, 2012 at 1:04:50 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 14, 2012 at 1:53:56 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 14, 2012 at 6:44:48 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 14, 2012 at 7:53:25 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 14, 2012 at 8:04:16 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 14, 2012 at 8:37:09 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Aindreas Gallagher on Sep 14, 2012 at 11:40:26 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 15, 2012 at 1:44:47 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Steve Connor on Sep 15, 2012 at 11:17:37 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Steve Connor on Sep 11, 2012 at 6:51:22 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:05:48 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Steve Connor on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:32:26 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:53:53 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Steve Connor on Sep 11, 2012 at 8:00:56 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 11, 2012 at 8:10:26 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by tony west on Sep 11, 2012 at 1:47:35 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 11, 2012 at 2:35:39 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by tony west on Sep 11, 2012 at 3:00:13 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 11, 2012 at 3:51:27 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Herb Sevush on Sep 11, 2012 at 4:53:58 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 11, 2012 at 5:01:09 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Herb Sevush on Sep 11, 2012 at 5:07:28 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 11, 2012 at 5:40:26 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Herb Sevush on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:08:17 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Walter Soyka on Sep 11, 2012 at 4:28:03 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 11, 2012 at 4:08:09 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 11, 2012 at 4:17:56 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 11, 2012 at 2:41:41 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by tony west on Sep 11, 2012 at 2:55:48 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 11, 2012 at 4:20:05 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 11, 2012 at 4:54:46 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 11, 2012 at 9:33:34 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 11, 2012 at 10:23:58 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:17:24 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:58:47 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by tony west on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:07:24 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by David Lawrence on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:18:27 am
        Re: Tedious track based editing by tony west on Sep 12, 2012 at 1:17:14 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 12, 2012 at 1:33:15 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 12, 2012 at 2:20:55 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 12, 2012 at 2:41:07 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 12, 2012 at 3:08:43 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 12, 2012 at 3:28:01 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 12, 2012 at 3:43:03 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 12, 2012 at 3:57:30 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 12, 2012 at 3:59:09 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:00:32 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:07:51 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:25:13 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:09:36 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Herb Sevush on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:15:48 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:36:59 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Herb Sevush on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:50:56 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:58:38 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Herb Sevush on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:16:41 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 12, 2012 at 6:38:50 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Herb Sevush on Sep 12, 2012 at 6:43:39 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 12, 2012 at 6:51:53 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Herb Sevush on Sep 12, 2012 at 7:49:19 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 12, 2012 at 7:20:57 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:20:51 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:12:02 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Herb Sevush on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:26:49 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:36:34 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:45:13 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:51:25 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Franz Bieberkopf on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:59:42 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 12, 2012 at 6:20:30 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:22:51 pm
        RE: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:43:27 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Herb Sevush on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:00:11 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:42:51 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Herb Sevush on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:56:09 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 12, 2012 at 2:39:15 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Oliver Peters on Sep 12, 2012 at 6:31:41 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Craig Seeman on Sep 12, 2012 at 6:42:41 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Jeremy Garchow on Sep 12, 2012 at 6:44:53 pm
        Re: Tedious track based editing by Chris Harlan on Sep 12, 2012 at 8:14:47 pm

Service: Ihabfx by Ihab El-Meniawi on Aug 20, 2012 at 11:23:35 am

Sony Vegas Vector Import by Andrew Wnek on Aug 10, 2012 at 5:34:44 pm
- Re: Sony Vegas Vector Import by Matt Crowley on Aug 10, 2012 at 7:18:21 pm
- Re: Sony Vegas Vector Import by Andrew Lenczycki on Aug 10, 2012 at 7:31:38 pm
  - Re: Sony Vegas Vector Import by Andrew Thompson on Aug 23, 2012 at 1:51:19 pm

News: Touch the Future of Education at SIGGRAPH 2012 by Cow News Droid on Aug 2, 2012 at 9:53:58 pm

Why did Avid sold its video line products? by Kamil Papiez on Jul 17, 2012 at 2:25:14 pm
- Re: Why did Avid sold its video line products? by Richard Sanchez on Jul 17, 2012 at 3:33:28 pm
- Re: Why did Avid sold its video line products? by Michael Phillips on Jul 17, 2012 at 3:42:42 pm

Service: ikikoi motion design by Lee Daley on Jul 17, 2012 at 12:01:34 am

More effect BCC filters for Graffiti by Bart Molen on Jul 13, 2012 at 1:17:57 am
- Re: More effect BCC filters for Graffiti by peter mcauley on Jul 13, 2012 at 12:40:10 pm
  - Re: More effect BCC filters for Graffiti by Bart Molen on Jul 13, 2012 at 5:29:01 pm

News: New Wacom Cintiqs Paint a Pretty Picture by Cow News Droid on Jul 10, 2012 at 9:00:16 pm

Conversion 8mm tapes to computer/DVD by Wendy Allen on Jul 5, 2012 at 12:21:40 am
- Re: Conversion 8mm tapes to computer/DVD by dyno media on Jul 6, 2012 at 3:57:06 am

For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Jeremy Garchow on Jul 2, 2012 at 3:04:14 pm
- Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Craig Seeman on Jul 2, 2012 at 3:38:48 pm
  - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Gary Huff on Jul 2, 2012 at 4:16:34 pm
    - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Lance Bachelder on Jul 2, 2012 at 4:24:42 pm
      - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Craig Seeman on Jul 2, 2012 at 4:28:52 pm
  - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Andrew Kimery on Jul 2, 2012 at 4:27:40 pm
    - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Craig Seeman on Jul 2, 2012 at 4:30:39 pm
      - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Gary Huff on Jul 2, 2012 at 4:39:35 pm
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Craig Seeman on Jul 2, 2012 at 4:47:06 pm
      - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by ted irving on Sep 12, 2012 at 7:46:17 pm
  - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Gary Hazen on Jul 2, 2012 at 4:36:55 pm
    - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Craig Seeman on Jul 2, 2012 at 4:43:32 pm
    - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Tim Wilson on Jul 2, 2012 at 4:43:41 pm
      - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Craig Seeman on Jul 2, 2012 at 5:02:26 pm
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Chris Harlan on Jul 2, 2012 at 5:37:50 pm
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Gary Huff on Jul 2, 2012 at 7:06:52 pm
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Tim Wilson on Jul 2, 2012 at 7:13:28 pm
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells off consumer line by Jeremy Garchow on Jul 2, 2012 at 7:41:07 pm
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells off consumer line by Tim Wilson on Jul 3, 2012 at 4:49:47 am
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells off consumer line by Jeremy Garchow on Jul 3, 2012 at 4:18:57 pm
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells off consumer line by Tim Wilson on Jul 3, 2012 at 7:09:51 pm
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Chris Harlan on Jul 3, 2012 at 5:45:36 am
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Tim Wilson on Jul 3, 2012 at 5:45:23 pm
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Jeremy Garchow on Jul 3, 2012 at 6:26:06 pm
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Tim Wilson on Jul 3, 2012 at 6:37:06 pm
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Craig Seeman on Jul 3, 2012 at 6:40:22 pm
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Ian Liuzzi-Fedun on Jul 5, 2012 at 4:23:36 am
      - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells off consumer line by Jeremy Garchow on Jul 2, 2012 at 5:08:31 pm
- Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Craig Seeman on Jul 2, 2012 at 8:15:16 pm
  - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells off consumer line by Jeremy Garchow on Jul 2, 2012 at 9:12:42 pm
    - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells off consumer line by Craig Seeman on Jul 2, 2012 at 10:03:18 pm
      - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells off consumer line by Lance Bachelder on Jul 2, 2012 at 11:21:10 pm
- Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Viktor Kamenický on Jul 3, 2012 at 12:29:52 am
  - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Michael Gissing on Jul 3, 2012 at 1:17:59 am
    - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Craig Seeman on Jul 3, 2012 at 1:22:53 am
    - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Jeremy Garchow on Jul 3, 2012 at 1:43:43 am
      - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Michael Gissing on Jul 3, 2012 at 1:57:17 am
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Craig Seeman on Jul 3, 2012 at 2:20:03 am
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Jeremy Garchow on Jul 3, 2012 at 2:38:51 am
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Eric Santiago on Jul 3, 2012 at 3:23:39 am
        Hey, and raise your hand... by Tim Wilson on Jul 3, 2012 at 4:55:02 am
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Benjamin Mullins on Jul 3, 2012 at 3:14:42 pm
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Craig Seeman on Jul 3, 2012 at 4:06:07 pm
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Benjamin Mullins on Jul 4, 2012 at 2:43:04 pm
        Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Craig Seeman on Jul 4, 2012 at 3:16:09 pm
- Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Craig Seeman on Jul 4, 2012 at 3:45:00 pm
  - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Greg Lee on Jul 5, 2012 at 12:22:31 am
    - Re: For Craig Seeman: Avid sells of consumer line by Michael Gissing on Jul 5, 2012 at 1:07:31 am

Service: Munish yadav - Freelacer by Munish yadav on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:46:35 pm

Adobe CS 6 by Aaliya Shaikh on Jun 17, 2012 at 2:04:10 pm
- Re: Adobe CS 6 by Rakhee Chitale on Jun 25, 2012 at 5:29:55 am
  - Re: Adobe CS 6 by Kamaljeet Singh on Jun 26, 2012 at 8:20:51 am
    - Re: Adobe CS 6 by Kamaljeet Singh on Jun 27, 2012 at 6:10:34 am
- Re: Adobe CS 6 by Siddharth Rohra on Jun 28, 2012 at 7:36:34 am
- Re: Adobe CS 6 by Swati Popat on Jun 29, 2012 at 10:36:50 am
- Re: Adobe CS 6 by Swati Popat on Jul 4, 2012 at 6:44:40 am
  - Re: Adobe CS 6 by Swati Popat on Jul 11, 2012 at 8:42:27 am

Tutorial: Premiere Pro CS6 Techniques: 49 Color THREE The Vectorscope by Andrew Devis on Jun 15, 2012 at 5:12:16 pm
- Re: Premiere Pro CS6 Techniques: 49 Color THREE The Vectorscope by Oscar Richard on Aug 12, 2012 at 10:58:03 am
- Re: Premiere Pro CS6 Techniques: 49 Color THREE The Vectorscope by Andrew Devis on Aug 12, 2012 at 4:07:06 pm

News: proDAD ships Heroglyph V4 Pro Video Title & Trailer Animation Solution by Cow News Droid on Jun 6, 2012 at 2:18:16 am

Could Adobe Flash be used together Vegas Pro 11? by Carlos Silva on Jun 2, 2012 at 5:41:51 pm
- Re: Could Adobe Flash be used together Vegas Pro 11? by Steve Rhoden on Jun 2, 2012 at 6:54:21 pm
  - Re: Could Adobe Flash be used together Vegas Pro 11? by Carlos Silva on Jun 2, 2012 at 8:39:24 pm
    - Re: Could Adobe Flash be used together Vegas Pro 11? by Steve Rhoden on Jun 2, 2012 at 9:46:17 pm
      - Re: Could Adobe Flash be used together Vegas Pro 11? by Carlos Silva on Jun 2, 2012 at 10:43:24 pm
        Re: Could Adobe Flash be used together Vegas Pro 11? by Steve Rhoden on Jun 2, 2012 at 11:28:00 pm
        Re: Could Adobe Flash be used together Vegas Pro 11? by Carlos Silva on Jun 3, 2012 at 5:32:12 pm
        Re: Could Adobe Flash be used together Vegas Pro 11? by Steve Rhoden on Jun 4, 2012 at 1:55:37 am

Service: Stephen Ketchum by Stephen Ketchum on May 29, 2012 at 12:17:07 am

Unparenting Layers by Pawel Sobolewski on May 8, 2012 at 7:37:30 pm
- Re: Unparenting Layers by Dave LaRonde on May 9, 2012 at 7:41:17 pm
  - Re: Unparenting Layers by Pawel Sobolewski on May 10, 2012 at 9:40:22 am
  - corel draw tutorials by aremu segun on Jun 21, 2012 at 11:53:56 am
    - Re: corel draw tutorials by Dave LaRonde on Jun 21, 2012 at 2:22:56 pm

Removing "fog or haze" caused by humidity from video by Wilberto Alamo on May 31, 2011 at 3:09:06 am
- Re: Removing "fog or haze" caused by humidity from video by David Roth Weiss on May 31, 2011 at 3:22:56 am
- Re: Removing "fog or haze" caused by humidity from video by Greg Ondera on May 31, 2011 at 6:37:15 am
  - Re: Removing "fog or haze" caused by humidity from video by Steve Eisen on May 31, 2011 at 12:30:17 pm
    - Re: Removing "fog or haze" caused by humidity from video by chris moore on Aug 14, 2012 at 8:14:36 pm

CONTOURS by aldrin maningas on Apr 25, 2008 at 5:11:16 am
- Re: CONTOURS by Richard Harrington on Apr 25, 2008 at 1:31:23 pm
  - Re: CONTOURS by aldrin maningas on Apr 26, 2008 at 12:37:23 am
    - Re: CONTOURS by Thie Thomsen on Apr 14, 2009 at 11:17:08 am
      - Re: CONTOURS by dina kalo on Jan 23, 2013 at 12:34:25 pm
        Re: CONTOURS by Atiqur Sumon on May 8, 2013 at 5:35:46 am

ADD A NEW POST • SEARCH • CHANGE FORUM