That makes perfect sense for your use. Given I'm just receiving final full length stems the only sample accurate edit is at the end if there is any. Perhaps bouncing a track to the protools equivalent of an audio mixdown/submix track and exporting that for the client. That would eliminate the internal frame accurate edits and would allow the track to contain any processing/EQ the mixer might be adding to the VO/Dialogue track. In my world we never edit first in ProTools but start in Avid and give it to ProTools.
With your workflow do any of the audio effects that might be applied to a dialogue/Vo track carry properly back into Avid MC?
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <jonathansabrams@...> wrote:
>
> ---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <bigfish@> wrote:
> I'm curious what issues you have with sample accurate edits. Our mixers just end there stems on a frame boundary and I don't get them when I import back to Avid from the protools aaf. Occasionally they forget and I have a sample accurate edit at the end of the stems which I usually delete the hanging frame. Not a big deal in my work flow.
>
> Now if you are talking about sample accurate audio editing or at least sub frame audio editing in MC that's a different story. Could you elaborate as to what problem there is with the sample accurate edit. Or am I misunderstanding what you are describing?
>
>
>
> The workflow I am referring to has been used in animation projects. I have seen clients who will want to record the voices for their animation first. Pro Tools is used for this and it works brilliantly.
>
>
> The problem arises when the client asks for an AAF of what was recorded and edited in Pro Tools. If the engineer is editing out breaths, etc. then it is difficult at best to have every single edit be on a frame boundary. If all the client wanted was this final audio edit from Pro Tools, maybe these sample accurate edits would not be a problem. Unfortunately, what the client wants is the audio edit from Pro Tools and the continued ability to edit the audio in their NLE. Why they want this ability I do not know. What I do know is that the client gets what the client wants, unless it is not technically possible. With MC, it's not technically possible, unless every single edit in the Pro Tools session is on a frame boundary, which is impractical for the reasons I noted above.
>
>
> Thus, if MC had sample accurate audio editing or at least sub frame audio editing, this problem would be eliminated or reduced. As you know, this is a different story. It's one of the interoperability features that Avid should work on.
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (37) |
No comments:
Post a Comment