Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
soundhound82

What if audio post company does not have the software?

Recommended Posts

Davinci Resolve, the post production coloring suite software, now has the capability to edit video content. Let us assume one is editing a feature film in Davinci Resolve with all the dialogue tracks, foley, sound effects and film music score matched up nicely to the relevant areas with the video track, what if one then moves the locked edit to an audio post production facility would there not be a problem if the facility does not use Resolve in their pipeline? What if the post production facility only have access to Avid or Premiere, how would they be able to watch the film and at the same time perform their professional post production audio enhancements to all the audio files in the Resolve locked edit film if the facility does not have a copy of Resolve? What is the industry practice or industry standard in terms of after one has a locked edit (video and dialogue tracks all synced) done in Premiere for example? Does that person take the Premiere file of the entire film and give it to the Audio post production company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are probably as many different workflows as there are individual users, but...

 

 

The common standard, which you probably know, is to have the pix editors render out a single final video in a standard format (.mov, .mp4, etc) with 2 pop/flash or universal leader and their idea of a temp mix. If there are missing graphics or efx, then they're marked and slugged, but since picture is locked* there can't be any changes that would affect location of other elements. This picture file is what the client watches while you're working on audio post.

 

At least if you do that, you don't have to worry about running pix in Resolve.

 

Pix also usually renders out an AAF or OMF with matching pop and handles, which you import into your DAW. Last I checked, that's not directly possible in Resolve.

 

But there are workaround tutorials on the Web, where Resole renders audio files and an XML, which is then bridged to an AAF through some other video app (like PPro or FCP). AFAIK, AATranslator doesn't speak Resolve yet... but that could be changing.

 

It's not as smooth as using some other video apps. I suppose there's also a workflow where you run Resolve and your DAW simultaneously in your audio suite, lock the DAW to video by putting SMPTE on one of Resolve's audio tracks...

 

----

* -- "Locked" picture. Right. Have you ever seen that mythical beast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently the audio post conversation cannot start until the picture dept figures out how to make an export of their audio usable by the sound dept., as well as a picture file.  This transition/transformation is what Black Magic is aiming to eliminate by suggesting that all depts. of the post of a project do their work on their app.  It's an interesting idea, but Resolve is not "there" yet for this.  Resolve can export an AAF, I have yet to experiment with this but it seems possible.  That would be how the audio post people would get the film, along with a video file in a codec that suits them, as that is the current standard for picture>audio turnovers at the moment.  I get Premiere projects all the time for audio post, and don't have Premiere on my systems.  One current situation that might demand an audio post person or facility getting a copy of the app used for cutting picture (to alleviate turnover problems) has to do with projects cut in FCX.  The turnover from that app (using the X2Pro 3rd party utility)  has often been very problematic (esp in the hands of inexperienced editors), so if one was planning to do a large amount of audio post work on projects cut in FCX one might well decide to buy the app and the utility and deal with the turnover in-house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Philip Perkins said:

This transition/transformation is what Black Magic is aiming to eliminate by suggesting that all depts. of the post of a project do their work on their app.  It's an interesting idea.

 I have been expecting Avid to this with Media Composer and Pro Tools eversince they aquired Digidesign, but for some reason they haven’t done it - yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too.  A fundamental difference in code and coding method (after all this time)?  The Avid coders refusal to be constrained by the needs of an audio app?  Marketing, and an idea that audio people don't want a lot of picture gak in their app and vice versa?   Adobe Audition is basically Premiere without the picture edit functions, so I guess that's what the marketers think works best for their bottom line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shudder to think how this combined audio/video application would be implemented... Trying to make an application that would combine two very different worlds and work methods into one process would, in my opinion, inevitably infuriate either audio- or video users (or both). It would have to incorporate all the different processes developed over decades, but squeezed into one single GUI and methodology. Avid once had the Audiovision, which looked like an early attempt to make a combined audio- and video workstation, but in reality it was little more that a Media Composer with some glued on ADR tools. It never really took off, and I suspect that one of the (many) reasons was that sound people not necessarily want to be pushed into editing audio like video; they are two very different processes.

 

I think that Blackmagic attempt to make this combined application could go well, in that it would be a great (free) tool, that could incorporate both video and audio, but it is also a risky move. Resolve was primarily made as a video conform/grading/finishing tool, and if this core functionality is in any way compromised or cluttered with rarely used editing features, it will scare away high end users. And I am absolutely sure, that it would attract a sizeable segment of prosumer users, but it will not be attractive to high end audio/video editors. And, as the Final Cut Pro 7/X transition disaster showed, users can abandon an otherwise established platform almost overnight if their workflows are disrupted and neglected.

 

That being said, I think that Resolve is a marvellous tool, and that Blackmagic should be praised for having a vision about creating a completely integrated product range of relatively cheap hard-and software. But, apart from the grading/finishing components, still a work in process and not necessarily ever a great editing tool.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are wrong about Audiovision, at least as far as USA users went.  I knew several users of it, saw it in action many times close up and to this day it has features that ProTools users have been asking for ever since and have never gotten.  It was a very powerful tool, and there was a lot of screaming among experienced sound editors when Avid killed it, and there still is.  It was complex and VERY expensive, but for the time it was the shit.

 

Black Magic bought the audio part of Fairlight and seems intent on making an all-in-one app.  I wish them luck.  At this point their best market may be outside of normal established audio post facilities and users, since those folks are very unlikely to abandon their PT systems and the interop with other users that goes with it, even if the new app is shown to be superior.  No one has time for a change of app, or wants to have time, unless the economics turn in its direction and the industry follows suit very quickly. 

 

The FCP7 >> FCX debacle was clearly planned and anticipated by Apple: they basically didn't care that they were cutting loose a lot of pro users.  Apple has the money to code and make anything it wants to: they could have made an FCP8 that continued the same user interface, fixed problems in FCP7 and moved onward into new features.  Instead they made an app for beginners and occasional users--easy, low-learning curve, and as far as professionals go, unfinished.  They knew exactly what they were doing, and I'd put money on FCX outselling FCP thus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Philip Perkins said:

You are wrong about Audiovision, at least as far as USA users went.  I knew several users of it, saw it in action many times close up and to this day it has features that ProTools users have been asking for ever since and have never gotten.  It was a very powerful tool, and there was a lot of screaming among experienced sound editors when Avid killed it, and there still is.  It was complex and VERY expensive, but for the time it was the shit.

 

Hear Hear! It was infuriating as an Audiovision user (as well as other early era systems) HOPING that standard Audiovision features might be adopted elsewhere, and especially onto Protools over many years and updates. I pity two poor US PT reps stuck taking a lift with myself and editor colleagues several years back at Shepperton - initially happy that we were cutting on Protools then mistakingly asking what we'd like to see added or changed.

 

I'm still waiting for bins - sadly, now trying to explain to anyone even in the industry what a 'bin' is or was is already almost resigned to failure.  (Wait - they still have them IN BLOODY AVID !?!)

 

As an aside, I met two Proctor and Gamble folk on an international trip the other day and being on my way back from my own trip had my own Gillette razor in my bag - a perfectly serviceable 1950s model which they said they'd only come across in their 'Gillette museum'.

 

Jez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Immoral Mr Teas said:

 

Hear Hear! It was infuriating as an Audiovision user (as well as other early era systems) HOPING that standard Audiovision features might be adopted elsewhere, and especially onto Protools over many years and updates. I pity two poor US PT reps stuck taking a lift with myself and editor colleagues several years back at Shepperton - initially happy that we were cutting on Protools then mistakingly asking what we'd like to see added or changed.

 

I'm still waiting for bins - sadly, now trying to explain to anyone even in the industry what a 'bin' is or was is already almost resigned to failure.  (Wait - they still have them IN BLOODY AVID !?!)

 

As an aside, I met two Proctor and Gamble folk on an international trip the other day and being on my way back from my own trip had my own Gillette razor in my bag - a perfectly serviceable 1950s model which they said they'd only come across in their 'Gillette museum'.

 

Jez

I (as a primarily video post person) actually liked Audiovision, so it warms my heart that it was used and considered a useful tool by many...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I downloaded the demo of the latest resolve a month or so ago and was experimenting with it just a little bit, but never had the chance to get into the audio side of thing (I didn't need to since I'm running a bunch of other things like Premiere, Pro Tools, Audition...). I haven't had the time to sit down and learn Resolve fully, but it looks intriguing. I've never used fairlight, so I was interested in at least in learning the audio side of resolve. I'm always up for learning new things. If it really does everything they claim and does them well I could see incorporating that into my workflow for the videos that I do, but I'll admit the stuff I do is VERY simple compared to a TV show or feature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×