bennychico11 said:
interesting, I didn't know that.
would you say the average video guy will take advantage of editing on the sample level...or because just do frames because they are more concerned about the video itself? I just can't tell you how many times I get stuff from video guys with pops at the end of audio regions (or clips or whatever you guys call them).
one more question while we're talking about it (sorry for hijacking the thread
)
I've really been wondering if the Avid Adrenalines dither on the digital output? I think I read somewhere that the software can handle 24 bit, but not the hardware....and if I'm mistaken on that, I'm still wondering if it dithers because we master to Digi Beta which I believe is 16 or 20, yes?
First I have to tell you that I grew up on the Wintel and Unix side of the tracks, and as such I have only about 2 hours of time on an Avid system, and that was whatever version of Avid was current in 1998 or 99. As such I not only don't know the answer to your second question, but am extremely unqualified to talk about specific details of the Avid operation at that level. Sorry.
But I do know enough about general capabilities of video editing and pro-level editing softwate to be fairly confident in saying that what I know about the abilities of the editors I have worked with can be extrapolated to the Avid sysems as well. Let's face it, there is little to nothing in capabilities that any other editor can do that the Avid can't; it is afterall to pro digital video editing what Google is search engines
. I used to work for D-Vision Systems and Discreet Logic as part of the engineering teem that was designing what was supposed to be to WindowsNT what Avid was to the Mac, and since have gone freelance on my own using everything on the Wintel side from Flint to Premiere to Vegas To Nuendo.There's nothng these guys can do capability-wise that Avid can't, I'm sure.
As far as your first question, I guess in my expereince that kind of depends on the project and how the workflow is laid out. In
general I'd say more often than not, video editors consider themselves video editors and leave the audio details to a seperate audio editor, because that's how things are laid out workflow-wise. And you know that old American work ethic; "why do yourself what you can pass off to someone else"
Also (again in general) video engineers and editors tend to be more interested in video and audio engneers and editors in audio. While on this board we may have, say, George Massenburg as an idol, your average video editor is more likely to have Martin Scorcese as their idol.
. As such they may not often "care" as much (that's more harsh-sounding than I mean it to be) about the little audio details as you or I would. But as I said, that's often not their job to worry about, either.
While still a bit rare, I like to think that an up-and-coming trend will be independant people like myself who fancy themselves "multimedia engineers" and who know and "care" enough about both the audio and video to attend to details both down to the individual video frame and the individual audio sample. On the plus side, it's the advent of PC and Mac-based editing that makes this more possible. On the minus side, it requires twice as much training and knowledge base, as well as broader interest.
And it will take a long while before the unions allow such consolidation of specialities in the union shops
. My guess is you probably won't find the Avid video guys at Harpo Studios wanting to attend to the audio like that any more than you'll find the electricians at your local convention center wanting to even touch a phone line
. That's not their jurisdiction.
G.
