FORUMS: list search recent posts

advanced audio

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
tony west
advanced audio
on May 5, 2012 at 6:19:59 pm

There is a great post on advanced audio on the Techniques forum.
I won't repost it because it's already over there.

I like watching Wohl, he's good and knows how to work the program.

I agree with him when he says that Apple wanted to "hide" a lot of the controls away and power in X

For those who would never know of, or work with the ringshifter they wouldn't have to look at it.

But maybe they did too good of a job hiding.

I think they "assumed" that pros would find these controls and unlock the door to some of it's power.


I think that was a bad assumption.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: advanced audio
on May 5, 2012 at 7:54:58 pm

[tony west] "I agree with him when he says that Apple wanted to "hide" a lot of the controls away and power in X

For those who would never know of, or work with the ringshifter they wouldn't have to look at it.

But maybe they did too good of a job hiding.

I think they "assumed" that pros would find these controls and unlock the door to some of it's power.


I think that was a bad assumption.
"



Tony, thanks for the heads up. I watched the video. None of that stuff was hidden from me, but I liked watching the demo. I'll just say what I said over on the other forum: It was an interesting look, and quite fair. The depth of filters is great, but the handling of multiple tracks is still so awkward. I liked seeing rolls in action, though. I also liked the way he summed the presentation up:

Its not identical to working in a proper audio system but it does provide a little of the control were used to.

I'd say that's a pretty fair analysis.


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: advanced audio
on May 5, 2012 at 10:35:11 pm

Tony West "For those who would never know of, or work with the ringshifter they wouldn't have to look at it.

But maybe they did too good of a job hiding."



I don't know what a 'ringshifter' is, but it sounds interesting- and if it's going to help improve the quality of my audio I'd rather it not be hidden from me...

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index


Chris Harlan
Re: advanced audio
on May 5, 2012 at 10:53:46 pm

[Greg Andonian] "I don't know what a 'ringshifter' is, but it sounds interesting- and if it's going to help improve the quality of my audio I'd rather it not be hidden from me...
"


I'm really not sure how often anyone would want to use a ringshifter filter in video. Maybe to help make alien or robot voices or sweeten some other sci-fi sfx. Though, I personally, would choose other filters. Certainly not to "improve the quality". Its part phaser and does something with the pitch. It offers a tinny, sort of decaying sound that has kind of a disco feeling for me. Its really aimed at sweetening instruments. But, hey--its a hoot that you can access it straight from the timeline instead of having to go to Soundtrack Pro. Now, if only there were a mixer, too.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: advanced audio
on May 5, 2012 at 11:33:42 pm

[Tony West] "For those who would never know of, or work with the ringshifter they wouldn't have to look at it.But maybe they did too good of a job hiding."
I don't know what a 'ringshifter' is, but it sounds interesting- and if it's going to help improve the quality of my audio I'd rather it not be hidden from me..."

I guess that is what Apple has called their ring modulator. It always helps to use pre existing definitions and naming conventions but, hey Apple doesn't have a big history there. Trust me it is an effect that deserves to be buried. It is a filter used in electronic music but has almost no application in video sound tracks, so it is just part of a package deal with Logic plugins.

I know this was just a quick demo but none of that is what I would classify as advanced. Two things stand out. One is the screen clutter and the other is the constant mousing. The ergonomics are poor.

Nice to see Roles in action. It does seem like a workable grouping concept. Years ago with DAWs like dSP, I had the ability to define fixed groupings like this and quickly decided it was much better to do temporary groupings as a way of shifting and manipulating. Temporary grouping was track based however but seemed more powerful and useful, particularly when wanting to shift blocks around of "unroled" material, like lets grab this scene and all audio but only the narration from halfway through the scene. Ironically this is what you can do by lassoing clips in FCP before a copy or move or delete etc. I still think this is more powerful and that Roles is better suited to bus routing type activity. If someone can see if that old style lassoing concept still works within X that would be nice info.

Finally a little point on the display of frequency under the parametric EQ. You want it to stay when you stop, not disappear after a few seconds, so you can see the area you are going to set filter frequency and Q. A nice idea and easy to improve I suspect.


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 12:10:29 am

Chris Harlan Maybe to help make alien or robot voices or sweeten some other sci-fi sfx.

With that in mind, I'm surprised Apple didn't put it out in the open front-and-center. It sounds like it would be a great companion to the "Alien Lab" preset in the color corrector. ;)

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index


Carsten Orlt
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 2:21:08 am

Michael is a great presenter and it is a nice overview.

Always missing for me though is the biggest advance: Sample level audio editing all the time.

Being restricted to 1 frame at a time was always a big problem, specially once you done some editing in an DAW and saw how much more control you have there. Being able to this now inside the NLE is god send. All the plugins are nice but I leave that to the sound guys as most of them I do not understand anyway :-)


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 3:09:36 am

[Carsten Orlt] "Sample level audio editing all the time."

Totally agree.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 6:19:15 am

[Chris Harlan] "[Carsten Orlt] "Sample level audio editing all the time."

Totally agree."


Page 552 of FCPX User Guide
subframe A subframe has 1/80 the duration of a video frame and is thus a more precise unit of reference when editing audio at the sample level.



Return to posts index


Chris Harlan
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 6:36:58 am

[Craig Seeman] "[Chris Harlan] "[Carsten Orlt] "Sample level audio editing all the time."

Totally agree."

Page 552 of FCPX User Guide
subframe A subframe has 1/80 the duration of a video frame and is thus a more precise unit of reference when editing audio at the sample level.
"


No, its totally cool. I cut Carsten short when I quoted him. I'm agreeing with him that I think the sub-frame audio editing is bitchin'.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 7:09:41 am

[Carsten Orlt] "Being restricted to 1 frame at a time was always a big problem, specially once you done some editing in an DAW and saw how much more control you have there."

You've never been restricted to one frame if you know what you're doing. Here's an example of a sub-frame audio edit:



I've been using this technique for years. It's especially handy for dialogue cutting.

Don't get me wrong, FCPX does have more precise control, but it's simply incorrect to say that you're restricted to one frame. Sub-frame audio control has always been possible in Final Cut Pro via volume keyframes and it works well.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 7:21:23 am

[David Lawrence] "I've been using this technique for years. It's especially handy for dialogue cutting.
"


Dang! I almost never rubber-band with in FCP. I didn't know that existed. Whenever I have to get in there like that, I just send it to Soundtrack Pro. I'll have to try that during my remaining stay in FCPville.


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 7:48:07 am

[Chris Harlan] "Dang! I almost never rubber-band with in FCP. I didn't know that existed. Whenever I have to get in there like that, I just send it to Soundtrack Pro. I'll have to try that during my remaining stay in FCPville."

I'm telling ya Chris, you'll be amazed how much control you have with this technique.

My dialogue cutting sounds completely seamless. I can fabricate words with this method and you won't be able tell. I didn't start using SoundTrack Pro until just a couple years ago and even today, I only use it when I need to fix specific problems. Ninety percent of the time I can do everything I need with audio right in FCP.

Give it a try and let me know what you think.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 8:53:03 am

[David Lawrence] "Give it a try and let me know what you think."

Sounds good. I do an extreme amount of dialog cutting and replacing. Its a shame I didn't know about this earlier.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 9:46:01 am

[Chris Harlan] "Sounds good. I do an extreme amount of dialog cutting and replacing. Its a shame I didn't know about this earlier."

Here's another tip - you can scrub at a subframe level in the viewer by holding down the shift key. Here's an example:



Note that the time indicator is in-between frames. This lets you isolate the exact place in the waveform to keyframe.

I'm surprised more people don't know about these features. They're really good, especially for dialogue.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 12:40:51 pm

I do this a lot to clean up scratch VOs - you're killing a pop there aren't you? that setup - me knows well.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 6:17:34 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I do this a lot to clean up scratch VOs - you're killing a pop there aren't you? that setup - me knows well."

Yep, exactly right. Simple, fast, and subframe precise. I thought everyone worked this way. Guess there's still a few advanced audio tricks in legacy for people to learn. ;)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 6:52:18 pm

[David Lawrence] "Yep, exactly right. Simple, fast, and subframe precise. I thought everyone worked this way. Guess there's still a few advanced audio tricks in legacy for people to learn. ;)
"


I'm sure there are still tricks for everybody to learn. That was what was so beautiful about pre-X. There are just so many different ways to do things. Wish I'd know about this one, though. I've been cleaning up >1/30 second audio in an external wave editor for years before I started with FCP. Of course, you can't alter or bend the pitch, or stretch a syllable, or add a tiny bit of verb, but this method would help me out about half the time I need to do this.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 6:53:53 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Of course, you can't alter or bend the pitch, or stretch a syllable, or add a tiny bit of verb, "

I would rather like to know how to do these things.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 7:45:53 am

You have even more possibilities in FCP7 by holding shift when setting in or out in the viewer. What happens though is that FCP7 shifts the audio samples to fit your selected subframe back into the 1 frame grid.

That's why I said for FCPx it is ALL the time and without workarounds. FCPx is true audio subframe editor ( not just volume control). Only restriction is when you edit audio which is linked to video. If you say shorten the outgoing audio to less than a frame before the last video frame, you can of course lengthen the audio of the incoming clip by that same amount. But you can't leave the incoming where it is and close the gab by moving the video and audio together and therefor subframe truncate the video. Which of course makes sense.

Hope I explained this in an understandable way :-)

Cheers
Carsten


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 10:05:27 am

[Carsten Orlt] "You have even more possibilities in FCP7 by holding shift when setting in or out in the viewer. What happens though is that FCP7 shifts the audio samples to fit your selected subframe back into the 1 frame grid."

This is not exactly right. Holding shift enables subframe scrubbing with the time indicator. This allows you to hear the waveform at a subframe level so you can precisely set keyframes.

Shift has no effect on In/Out points which must always line up with the frame. Shift also has no effect on the offset of the waveform. The audio object itself can only move in single frame increments. Frankly, this has never been an issue for me. With subframe volume control, I have all the precision I need to do anything I want.

FCPX definitely has some cool audio features, but I just can't get excited about subframe editing. I've been doing that in legacy for years just fine. ;)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 12:09:24 pm

Don't have FCP7 open right now but I think to remember that after you shift- scrub and then release and then set in the audio will adjust to go to exactly this point. But of course could be wrong.

Great that it works for you David.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 3:38:55 pm

don't you miss proper waveforms at all in FCPX? I detest those small, vector style interpretations of the waveform data. I find it like, you know - a mockery of a waveform in order to make something neat and pretty down at the bottom of the clip lozenge. It feels like form - single unit container, over function - usable centre point waveform?

And its no better in the inspector or when you break it out - its always just that stupid jumble of vector jags at the bottom of the audio lozenge.
Its a ludicrous step back from the usability in 7.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 6:33:47 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "don't you miss proper waveforms at all in FCPX? I detest those small, vector style interpretations of the waveform data."

Spot on. The FCPX waveform display is a joke. Utter garbage. Another example of the engineering mindset oversimplifying something it doesn't fully understand. At least have a preference for proper waveforms. Sheesh!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 6:45:19 pm

I know - its crazy isn't it? You get some people, I'm not even saying Carsten per se, coming on saying that this thing is the bright new dawn of a brave new age and so then, I'm like, you know -

"dude - the waveforms? did you notice the waveforms? because they are a horrible, horrible joke."

and then they just like, stare at me without blinking, and then they go - "you don't get it. luddite."

the waveforms, in an actual video audio editor. And they are just the worst horrible mess of a thing. I get depressed looking at them. zooming into those weird jagged vector simplifications of the underlying waveform.

I mean, how advanced are you going to get with that jumble of jagged crud down the bottom of the audio clip?

i swear, sometimes - the reality distortion field around the application - strrronng it is.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 6:53:59 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Aindreas Gallagher] "don't you miss proper waveforms at all in FCPX? I detest those small, vector style interpretations of the waveform data."

Spot on. The FCPX waveform display is a joke. Utter garbage. Another example of the engineering mindset oversimplifying something it doesn't fully understand. At least have a preference for proper waveforms. Sheesh!
"


I agree with that.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 10:57:24 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I agree with that."

uninteresting quote.

"...alter or bend the pitch, or stretch a syllable, or add a tiny bit of verb, "

the interesting quote.

forget agreeing with anything. I want to know how to do the above Harlan. Give it up man. I'm not joking. I currently have a communications bod failing to deliver on a nautical data communications system, verbally. I somehow feel the need to stretch syllables here my man.

I jest but - where do you go for that stuff? pro tools? logic? or even soundtrack pro? (which would be magic, because... I actually have that)

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: advanced audio
on May 7, 2012 at 1:43:10 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "...alter or bend the pitch, or stretch a syllable, or add a tiny bit of verb... where do you go for that stuff? pro tools? logic? or even soundtrack pro?"

LOL, I use Soundtrack Pro for that kind of thing but yeah, I also want to hear, Chris. Drop us some real advanced audio knowledge!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: advanced audio
on May 7, 2012 at 5:26:06 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I jest but - where do you go for that stuff? pro tools? logic? or even soundtrack pro? (which would be magic, because... I actually have that)
"


I'm not sure what you want, but I'll just blather. Actually, my favorite editor for years was Sound Forge, and if I end up back in the PC world I'll be looking forward to using that again. The first couple of years I was using FCP, I also owned a SpeedRazor with Digisuite, and I loved all of the Sonic Foundry products, though I don't think I've used anything but Acid loops since Sony bought them. I also used Sonar a lot, and Cool Edit a bit, which will be coming back to me in CS6 as Audition.

For the last Seven or Eight years I've been pretty much Mac Only. Sound Track Pro can do everything I listed, but I also do work in Logic and Digital Performer.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "alter or bend the pitch, or stretch a syllable, or add a tiny bit of verb,"

The reason I use these things is that I have to stick a lot of dialog together that was never meant to be together in order to get a thought that may have been several paragraphs long into a short declarative sentence. Sometimes the parts of the idea come from entirely different parts of the episode. Most of this can be done simply by micro editing. But, often enough, the intonation sounds forced and/or ill-matched. That's when a bit of stretching or pitch-shift on the end of a dominant consonant can make quite the difference. These are usually at moments when the actor's inflection implies a coming continuation of thought but you want a full stop or vice-versa. Slight elongation of a hard consonant and a slight shift down can give you a full stop where there is none. A slight shift up can single "more to come." A slight amount of verb can fuzz the joint and make it less visible. It's imperfect, and doesn't always work, but is worth a try before abandoning. Other things that I play with at this level are surgery on highly sibilant dialog--dropping words or phrases in between power 's's can use a little cover--and fixing dialog overlap with a similar closing syllable or hard consonant. You can't always save a great line after its been stepped on, but its good to try. For me, its really all about trying to make bits of dialog that were not meant to go together sound as natural as possible, as well as adding the occasional bit of dramatic augmentation.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: advanced audio
on May 7, 2012 at 10:21:14 am

that's a fab answer. And bolt your door, because I am coming to steal your brain.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: advanced audio
on May 7, 2012 at 5:39:24 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "that's a fab answer. And bolt your door, because I am coming to steal your brain.
"


genuinely terrifying

Steve Connor
"FCPX Professional"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: advanced audio
on May 7, 2012 at 10:01:29 pm

[Chris Harlan] "the actor's inflection implies "

You mean "intonation" not inflection. ;)(I'm a recovering linguist.)


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: advanced audio
on May 7, 2012 at 10:18:28 pm

[Richard Herd] "[Chris Harlan] "the actor's inflection implies "

You mean "intonation" not inflection. ;)(I'm a recovering linguist.)"


No. I mean "inflection," at least as the term is used in Theatre Arts as opposed, I suppose, to the field linguistics. Many field have overlapping jargon with, often, contrary meanings.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: advanced audio
on May 9, 2012 at 4:38:40 pm

You don't even know what you don't know. And I was trying to help be less obtuse.

PS I'm also an actor and we use the term correctly in both theatre, theater, film, and improv.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intonation_(linguistics)

There you go, now you know more than did yesterday.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: advanced audio
on May 9, 2012 at 5:39:46 pm

[Richard Herd] "You don't even know what you don't know. And I was trying to help be less obtuse.

PS I'm also an actor and we use the term correctly in both theatre, theater, film, and improv.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intonation_(linguistics)

There you go, now you know more than did yesterday.


"


Oh dude! Bazitch fight, eh? You are just gonna SCHOOL me, right? Really, you shouldn't get so snippy. And, if you are going to post such things you should take the time to do a little Googling to make sure you are actually right. Yes, I'm aware of the linguistics definition. And, I was an actor for quite a while, though my AFTRA card is long expired. I have a BA in Theatre. I also spent many years in pro workshops when I was younger, and even got to spend a semester in an intensive RSC workshop. I also took a number of Public Speaking classes, which used the same definition, because both disciplines take much of their structure from the classical study of Rhetoric.

If you had bothered to look a little harder, you'd have found that my usage is fairly common.

Here are a whole bunch of different usages. Mine is def. 16: http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/inflection

Or, try this one: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/inflection_2

Or, how about this WiseGeek article on Elocution: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-elocution.htm

Here's a little history for you. Note that "Inflections" are one of the seven basic principles of Elocution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elocution

Hey, here's another one. My usage is def 1: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inflection

But wait! There's more--The specific kind of inflection I was referring to is actually know as "Circumflex inflection." You can find out about that here: http://www.ehow.com/info_10012295_inflection-speech.html

Hey! Check out the definitions on these Theatre Arts flash cards: http://quizlet.com/2339413/theater-exam-terms-flash-cards/

And, how 'bout this online Speech Class: http://www.nosweatpublicspeaking.com/verbal-communication-2-inflection/

OR, the Broadcast Handbook that shows you a nifty shorthand for actually scripting inflection: http://books.google.com/books?id=_EriWkTePLsC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=Circumf...


Dude, I have no problem with differing POVs or debating what is appropriate terminology, but I'm not crazy about all the condescending "you don't know what you don't know," and the blithe "There you go, now you know more than did yesterday." Its unbecoming.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: advanced audio
on May 9, 2012 at 6:19:22 pm

[Richard Herd] "There you go, now you know" bla, bla, bla.

Oh, and try this article by this guy: http://www.robertcohendrama.com/articles-reviews/rev-english-secret.html

He's got a pretty decent resume. http://www.robertcohendrama.com/bio/



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: advanced audio
on May 9, 2012 at 7:46:32 pm

[Richard Herd] "And I was trying to help be less obtuse. "

And, one last thing. I'm not arguing against you use of "intonation." In fact, one of my Profs. preferred it. Of course, he taught the class in IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet), so he had quite the linguistics leaning. I just object to your rather heavy-handed rejection of my usage without bothering to ask yourself in there might actually be a place for it. Obtuse? Really?


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: advanced audio
on May 7, 2012 at 3:07:46 am

Aindreas Gallagher "don't you miss proper waveforms at all in FCPX? I detest those small, vector style interpretations of the waveform."

I agree 100%. I much prefer the standard way where all the audio is in one part of the timeline, and all the video is in another. I don't mess with the video section of the clip nearly as much as the audio, so it's nice to have it out of the way.

I will say, though- one thing I DO LIKE about X's waveforms, is how they dynamically change on-the-fly when you adjust the levels or keyframe them, and how they turn yellow then red when you raise the level too high. There's a lot of instant feedback there that you don't get in other NLEs.

But yeah, other than that it's garbage.

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: advanced audio
on May 7, 2012 at 6:22:50 am

Just confirmed this behavior in FCP7 as expected.

Shift scrub in viewer to go subframe - release on the point you want the audio to start - set in point - FCP 7 shifts the samples back into the 1 frame grid so your selected subframe location starts on a frame now.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: advanced audio
on May 7, 2012 at 7:43:40 am

[Carsten Orlt] "Shift scrub in viewer to go subframe - release on the point you want the audio to start - set in point - FCP 7 shifts the samples back into the 1 frame grid so your selected subframe location starts on a frame now."

Aha! Now I get it.

You're absolutely right! Never knew you could do that. That is very cool! Thanks Carsten! :)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: advanced audio
on May 6, 2012 at 10:18:21 am

Yeah, sub-frame audio editing is nice to have- which is why Adobe added it to Premiere Pro... In 2003. ;)



______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index

Alex Hawkins
Re: advanced audio
on May 7, 2012 at 12:07:34 am

[Greg Andonian] "Yeah, sub-frame audio editing is nice to have- which is why Adobe added it to Premiere Pro... In 2003. ;)"

Indeed. Another one of those small, insignificant features of Premiere Pro that has stayed hidden amongst the unopened program of the Creative Suite.

Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: advanced audio
on May 7, 2012 at 2:52:21 pm

Quite, but not unopened for much longer.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]