Quote:
And how did you like the seminar?
|
The highlights of the seminar, for me, were...
Reel 1, 52:02 - Scott Wood says, "It can be stamped one way, it can be recorded one way but stamped another. ...We have been doing a fair amount of work at Digi gathering location recorder files from different companies and recording the way that they do work."
Which is the perfect segue to...
Reel 2, 48:13 - Glen(sp?) from Zaxcom says, "The biggest favor you can do this industry is to make sure that the sample rate stamped on the file represents the file's recorded frequency, not the frequency someone is going to play it at. That causes almost all the problems in post production. Make that a mandate."
So, how about it, Digidesign? Will Pro Tools HD v7.2 bear the fruit of the labor Scott Wood refers to? Will you implement Glen's plea?
Reel 2, 42:04 - Glen makes the statement, confirmed by someone in the crowd, that AVID/Digidesign only supports 8 channel polyphonic BWF files. If the standard calls for more than 8 channels, how about fully implementing the standard? If its Zaxcom that is out of line, relative to the standard, by recording 10 channels, then remind them of that. Glen then says, "I would like to work with you guys and implement that as seamlessly as possible." Scott then immediately says, "This is the future." Well, I'm not affected by this, but others obviously are, so hopefully the future of Pro Tools (HD v7.2?) addresses these points for those that are affected by them.
I heard the word
workaround one too many times, in my opinion. How about some solutions instead of workarounds?
Since I do not work on films, this might be less of a concern than it seems to me, but with the number
23.976 used so much in the seminar, it begs this question. Will NAB 2006 be the event where Digidesign releases a SYNC I/O that can resolve to tri-level sync? If you look at the PowerPoint slides that
AVID had, three of the four workflows have a Sound Edit/Mix step where
23.976 is the rate. Maybe it is in AVID's best interest to help speedup (no pun intended) the development of a SYNC I/O that will resolve to tri-level sync? After all, its in their chart that in some cases we should be resolved to that. Maybe they don't know that we can't do that now? That would be scary.