No, you were very clear. I was just thinking you were talking about the same thing I was thinking about and you weren't. And I totally misunderstood what you were saying. No biggie. Looks like we were agreeing in the most difficult way.
On Feb 29, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Terence Curren wrote:
> I knew there was a miscommunication somewhere. I need to work on being clearer in writing.
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Jay Mahavier <jay_mahavier@...> wrote:
>>
>> Then I guess I miss understood your original response to the original post. The conversation was about 1 frame event. So when you were saying that the in and out were the same TC in tape editing it totally didn't make sense. I did not understand that you were talking about the out TC of the out going event and the in TC of the incoming event. I thought you were talking about the in TC and out TC of the same event being the same TC.
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> On Feb 29, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Terence Curren wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Jay Mahavier <jay_mahavier@> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <<The out TC in tape based editing has always been exclusive >>
>>>
>>> Exactly. But that doesn't match the visual way of counting frames which is what you do with film. When you make a splice, you don't count the end of that shot as the next frame of film.
>>>
>>> It's two different ways of thinking and I am not arguing one is better than the other. My only point was that going from one way of thinking to the other way is difficult for many making the transition.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment