kine321
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 438
- Joined: 2007/02/20 14:27:46
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/02 20:15:25
(permalink)
I don't normally comment in the Sonar forum, but, I feel like throwing a worthless nickel into the pot. I'm certain the video support that's desired would be a nice enhancement to Sonar for what I would presume to be a small pool of users!? Obviously, this wasn't the original [serious] intent of this application. It's a Digital- Audio-workstation first before it's anything else. The jet footage/video audio scoring that was mentioned, was mainly to showcase the performance of the 64 bit system (from what I can recall) than it was about the video related feature. Sometimes it's better to use dedicated tools for a particular job than trying to make an application into a Swiss army knife that tries to be everything in one. It seems to me, the more optional features you try to implement the more eventual bugs and crashes you're likely to have. This means even more resources having to be used to find and correct problems. Having a stable product for the purpose it's mainly built for... should be the main priority. At the end of the day, Sonar is a music production tool. I'm certain somewhere in a -video production- related product forum; someone is demanding DAW like support/ tools for a video editing program. 
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/02 23:03:46
(permalink)
Kine321,
I'm not sure if you've looked around you, and I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but I don't think people would be asking for improved video features in Sonar if it wasn't pretty much a standard in other Digital Audio Workstations. Just take a look at Cubase, Pro Tools, Digital Performer, Logic, Nuendo, etc. Not only that, but Cakewalk added these capabilities, including Surround Mixing, a LONG time ago, so these features have been there and not updated for a while now. I think Surround Mixing and video scoring were added by Cakewalk back in Sonar 4. We're now entering a new era with Sonar X1, so I think it's about time to have an update in these areas. If these were features you used, I'm POSITIVE you wouldn't be saying what you're saying right now ;-)
Take care!
Intel Q9400 2.66 GHz 8 GB of RAM @ 800 Mhz ATI Radeon HD 3650 Windows 7 Professional (SP1) x64 Cubase 6.03 x64 Sonar PE 8.5.3 x64 RME FireFace 400 Frontier Design Alpha Track Studio Logic VMK-188 Plus http://www.youtube.com/user/SonarHD
|
vintagevibe
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2446
- Joined: 2003/12/15 21:45:06
- Location: Atlanta, Ga
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/02 23:31:24
(permalink)
Jose7822
Kine321,
I'm not sure if you've looked around you, and I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but I don't think people would be asking for improved video features in Sonar if it wasn't pretty much a standard in other Digital Audio Workstations. Just take a look at Cubase, Pro Tools, Digital Performer, Logic, Nuendo, etc. Not only that, but Cakewalk added these capabilities, including Surround Mixing, a LONG time ago, so these features have been there and not updated for a while now. I think Surround Mixing and video scoring were added by Cakewalk back in Sonar 4. We're now entering a new era with Sonar X1, so I think it's about time to have an update in these areas. If these were features you used, I'm POSITIVE you wouldn't be saying what you're saying right now ;-)
Take care!
Well said. I group notation in with video because these are tools need to score to video. Scoring to video is a huge market. All of the major apps do this quite well but Sonar is at least 10 years behind because they have chosen to ignore them. In this regard Sonar is not a professional app.
|
sdog
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 27
- Joined: 2007/05/30 12:13:51
- Location: Denver, CO USA
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/03 00:26:22
(permalink)
vintagevibe
...Scoring to video is a huge market...
Yes. Yes. Yes. vintagevibe is right. I don't really know anything about the market - I only have my instincts, but it seems to me that we are moving into the video age, where less audio is being listened to while staring at the living room wall and more audio is being listened to while staring at a moving picture. Pure listening will never go away, but Holy Sound Sync Batman, there's a lot of moving pictures out there. With so many moving pictures out there, there must be a large number of us that need fast, efficient, intuitive tools to create the audio that goes with those moving pictures. (whether that audio is music, dialog, or FX). Surely vintagevibe and Jose and I are not the only ones out there creating all that audio (if we are, they must be doing most of the work because I haven't really done all that much!!). kine321, your nickel isn't worthless, but I'm afraid I must also disagree with you. I don't think anyone is asking for Sonar to handle video editing tasks, only audio tasks, but an incredible amount of audio is built to be synchronized with a moving picture nowadays. The work that is required to build that audio belongs in a "Digital- Audio-workstation", not a separate app or a video editor. (Sorry. Had to be just a little snarky with the quotes there. I really mean no harm. I just have an uncontrollable streak of smartass in me.) This is precisely, exactly, what a "Digital Audio Workstation" should be: a tool to manipulate digital audio. This includes the monstrous huge amount of audio intended for picture synchronization. I don't know what Sonar's intention is. Perhaps you are right that it is only intended to be a "music production tool" and not a full-fledged Digital Audio Workstation, but I rather suspect it would like to be thought of as a DAW. Sorry if I was snarky, but now you have my worthless nickel.
Doug Gallob - Composer/Audio Engineer Aural Hygiene
|
RogerS
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 330
- Joined: 2009/10/22 20:19:12
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/03 01:44:18
(permalink)
Well, it seems that Seth has addressed the video issue as well as could be expected regarding unreleased products. I see X1 as an opportunity to add to the Sonar community, and folks who are curious might come and look at this particular forum. I hope they'll get a good impression of our community and Sonar in general.
post edited by RogerS - 2010/11/03 02:22:02
PE 8.5.3, Windows 7 Pro 64-bit, i7 920, GA-EX58-UD4P, 6gb Corsair DDR3, 2 x Barracuda 500gb, HIS Radeon GS-4670 Fanless 1gb DDR3, dual 24" monitors, Axiom 61, Korg Triton Pro, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, VG-99, Yamaha MSP5, Fostex PM0.5
|
kine321
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 438
- Joined: 2007/02/20 14:27:46
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/03 06:44:31
(permalink)
Fair comments! You guys are certainly entitled to the features you would like addressed. However, I think it's easy to lose focus with what a product is predominately meant to be. I use various programs which also includes various DAW'S based on each applications strong points and work-flow.
Let's face it... some programs are simply better for certain tasks. Some company's are better at certain features than others and this goes beyond just software. There are applications that have a proven track record for what Sonar lacks at the moment with video scoring, etc.
A number of industry professionals turn their noses up at pc's. Sonar doesn't support Mac, while a number of the competitive products you've mentioned **Jose 7822** does. I know certain ones are Mac only!
Steinberg/ Yamaha has addressed the needs of the professional with Nuendo for example and the price tag certainly reflects that. Personally, it seems logical to use the proven industry standards for such work if these are features you truly need to be implemented on a pro level.
Better yet... Maybe CW/ ROL. can make a special version such as Cubase vs Nuendo type of thing, for those who need Sonar to be more than it is presently.
Example: Studio x, Producer x, and Pro-Composer x. I don't like paying for features I don't particularly need especially when I have other programs better suited for the task. This simply creates bloatware and more files and entries being added to the registry and the rest of your computer for something that a number of folks probably won't use.
When you consider that REAPER only has a 4.9mb installer for 32bit windows while the 64bit version is 5.4mb... this is an eye opener. And don't forget, CW has been going after users of the Home Studio, Music Creator and Kinetic versions to upgrade to Sonar 8.5 for a minute. So what's my point about that? Well... it demonstrates to me, that Sonar isn't simply targeted for just pro usage. Anyone with special upgrade pricing can make the jump to Sonar 8.5 for far less than typical retail.
At the end of the day, Sonar is predominately allocated for music production. It's probably used by more home-studios than commercial ones!? Hopefully, you guys will get the updates you feel Sonar needs to be more rounded. Especially since CW does promote Sonar as an industry standard in their advertisements.
Good luck fellas!
|
n0rd
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 237
- Joined: 2010/11/02 02:18:00
- Location: Down Under (Australia)
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/03 06:54:50
(permalink)
|
noiseboy
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 419
- Joined: 2007/01/24 08:57:16
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/03 07:18:14
(permalink)
Actually the Nuendo thing is a bit of a red herring imho. I don't think Sonar could or should try to compete with Pyramix, Protools and Nuendo - that market is too niche and crowded. I think the vast majority of us baying for more video action mean for scoring, a la Logic or Cubase. To be honest, I don't think there's THAT much that needs sorting out....
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/03 07:21:56
(permalink)
Yeah, indeed. Better sync, better file format and codec support. Doesn't need much more than that.
|
noiseboy
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 419
- Joined: 2007/01/24 08:57:16
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/03 07:28:40
(permalink)
John T
Yeah, indeed. Better sync, better file format and codec support. Doesn't need much more than that.
Weeeeellll.... I'd add better cue points and video-following-edits. But even so...
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/03 08:29:55
(permalink)
Kine321, Like the other guys said, Sonar doesn't need to compete with Nuendo nor Pro Tools in the Post Production department. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned those two in the list. But Sonar already has the video scoring features needed to get the job done, it's just a PITA. It's not like Cakewalk never included any of these features in Sonar, and now we're asking for them either. There are professionals currently using Sonar for film and video games, and you can verify this in the following page (you may need to press F5 to refresh it): http://www.cakewalk.com/Artist/ And let's not forget about the professional composers who have already chimed in this thread :-) That said, I also agree that one needs to use the best tools to get the job done, and sadly Sonar is not the best tool out there for video scoring. It would make things much easier to work with one application than to work with several though. And if Cakewalk could get on board with updating the video scoring features, Sonar would be a GREAT tool for it.
Intel Q9400 2.66 GHz 8 GB of RAM @ 800 Mhz ATI Radeon HD 3650 Windows 7 Professional (SP1) x64 Cubase 6.03 x64 Sonar PE 8.5.3 x64 RME FireFace 400 Frontier Design Alpha Track Studio Logic VMK-188 Plus http://www.youtube.com/user/SonarHD
|
noiseboy
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 419
- Joined: 2007/01/24 08:57:16
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/03 09:08:22
(permalink)
Jose7822
Kine321,
Like the other guys said, Sonar doesn't need to compete with Nuendo nor Pro Tools in the Post Production department. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned those two in the list. But Sonar already has the video scoring features needed to get the job done, it's just a PITA. It's not like Cakewalk never included any of these features in Sonar, and now we're asking for them either. There are professionals currently using Sonar for film and video games, and you can verify this in the following page (you may need to press F5 to refresh it):
http://www.cakewalk.com/Artist/
And let's not forget about the professional composers who have already chimed in this thread :-) That said, I also agree that one needs to use the best tools to get the job done, and sadly Sonar is not the best tool out there for video scoring. It would make things much easier to work with one application than to work with several though. And if Cakewalk could get on board with updating the video scoring features, Sonar would be a GREAT tool for it.
Perfectly summarised, Jose!
|
sdog
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 27
- Joined: 2007/05/30 12:13:51
- Location: Denver, CO USA
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/03 10:49:22
(permalink)
Yes, some of the things we are asking for are not that complicated. Here's one very simple example, certainly not the most important, but illustrative:
When "pure audio" dudes move stuff around, all they need to worry about is whether or not it sounds good. When an "audio-for-picture" dude shuffles stuff around (which I can guarantee he needs to do often), it is usually by precise amounts measured in musical time and/or absolute time, which are related by the tempo map.
Actually, I suspect that this particular example is relevant to pure music dudes (and dudettes of course) as well:
Imagine that ticks had a constant relationship to beats (oh, wait. they do, mapped by the ticks/beat setting). Imagine further that beats have a constant relationship to measures (oh wait. they do, mapped by the meter map). Imagine a world where computers could calculate the number of "ticks per beat" faster than a human (oh wait. we already live in that world). Imagine a world where you could select a handful of items and use something like a "slide" dialog and move the items forward by an eighth note without having to calculate how many ticks were in an eighth note (oh wait. Reaper already does this, but they call it "nudge", they pack it into a 4.9 mB installer, and it doesn't seem to create bloatware).
Because of meter maps, this problem of adding more musical time (beside ticks and measures) to the "slide" dialog is not trivial, but it's not rocket science either. The cakewalk developers are sharp as tacks and well capable of solving this problem without creating bloatware.
This is just one stupid little usability example, but I have to imagine that a change like this would be valuable to "just regular musicians" as well as to us scoring types.
Most of the things we "audio-for-picture" guys need are really pretty fundamental to digital audio manipulation and definitely belong in a competent DAW.
I'm just sayin'....
I'd like that DAW to be Sonar because I like Sonar.
Doug Gallob - Composer/Audio Engineer Aural Hygiene
|
eratu
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2856
- Joined: 2007/01/27 22:08:32
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/03 12:59:53
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby jacksop 2016/05/31 15:10:15
sdog
When an "audio-for-picture" dude shuffles stuff around (which I can guarantee he needs to do often), it is usually by precise amounts measured in musical time and/or absolute time, which are related by the tempo map.
He also needs to shuffle things around snapped to frames with the correct framerate to create/edit precise frame hits. :) (er-hem, yet another call for proper 23.976 support ;) -- gotta get that in there every chance I can. )
|
Treppenwitz
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 124
- Joined: 2004/08/25 02:18:31
- Location: Seattle, WA
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/05 19:15:32
(permalink)
eratu
sdog
When an "audio-for-picture" dude shuffles stuff around (which I can guarantee he needs to do often), it is usually by precise amounts measured in musical time and/or absolute time, which are related by the tempo map.
He also needs to shuffle things around snapped to frames with the correct framerate to create/edit precise frame hits. :) (er-hem, yet another call for proper 23.976 support ;) -- gotta get that in there every chance I can. )
Ugh. If there is no support for 23.976 framerates this time, I will be very disappointed. That has to be one of the simplest things they could code to throw us a bone and make this a more modern DAW for post-production.
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/05 19:36:55
(permalink)
kine321
I'm certain the video support that's desired would be a nice enhancement to Sonar for what I would presume to be a small pool of users!? Obviously, this wasn't the original [serious] intent of this application. It's a Digital-Audio-workstation first before it's anything else.
Yes but we are talking about doing Audio stuff. Just to picture.
The jet footage/video audio scoring that was mentioned, was mainly to showcase the performance of the 64 bit system (from what I can recall) than it was about the video related feature. Sometimes it's better to use dedicated tools for a particular job than trying to make an application into a Swiss army knife that tries to be everything in one.
So why does one find Pro Tools in the biggest music studios as well as the biggest Post studios? Probably because it is all about Audio. Not that I expect Sonar to compete directly with PT|HD in the post world for the foreseeable future but there are quite a few relatively simple features that could be added. It seems to me, the more optional features you try to implement the more eventual bugs and crashes you're likely to have. This means even more resources having to be used to find and correct problems. Having a stable product for the purpose it's mainly built for... should be the main priority. At the end of the day, Sonar is a music production tool.
That includes scoring to picture IMO. I'm certain somewhere in a -video production- related product forum; someone is demanding DAW like support/ tools for a video editing program.
You mean like Avid just having added an audio plugin suite to their video editing software?  Anyway, I think the vast majority of improvements requested for post or composing to picture would benefit all users. They are mainly workflow improvements. Something Cakewalk have shown they are keen on improving! And although the post or composing to picture market might be relatively small, it is also a market where, relatively speaking, there is still some money and budgets. Not an unimportant point! UnderTow
|
noiseboy
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 419
- Joined: 2007/01/24 08:57:16
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/06 05:08:28
(permalink)
I've noticed that there is a lot of confusion about this whole area. Some people go as far as thinking people are clamouring for Sonar to become a video editor (which would be the worst idea in the history of software development).
The biggest confusion is in the difference between software that can dub film / tv programmes (Protools, Nuendo, Pyramix) and those that are suited to scoring music for film / tv (Logic, Cubase). I think actually the former is a herculean task - in theory it's just adding a few features, but in practice it's a massive deal. Sonar is absolutely light years away from being such a DAW... but that's ok, cos it's not designed to be. Also, this market is relatively small and tied up. The three big DAWS (plus a few also-rans such as Fairlight and even the ancient Audiofile which is still used in some theaters) dominate the market that exists. And small video productions won't even get a dub, all the sound work will be done in the video editing software, so there's not even a market at the bottom end. The result - this would be a dead-end route for Sonar, IMHO.
However, scoring to picture... that's totally different. There are huge numbers of solo-composers working on film, tv, games, internet productions. Further, there is no technical reason for them to invest in a particular standard, since they are self contained. All they need to do is work to the common video formats, work with audio and midi and produce mixes and / or stems. It's simply a case of providing some basic tools that they need... and then being the best DAW out there!
I think the debates on this and the other thread are focused on the right things - video and notation. I can't pretend to be an expert in notation as I simply don't use it. I take Brandon's point that it is a very big job to improve this area. I wonder if a focus on improving 3rd party integration would be more productive? As to video, most of the features are pretty simple. The one new conceptual area which would be tricky, I think, would be the ability to set up independent regions on the timeline that can be locked to absolute time. But these things are clearly within Sonar's grasp, and wouldn't be overreaching from it's core purpose of music production, simply because it IS music production - just with pictures that roll along in time!
|
alexisrael
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 130
- Joined: 2009/10/07 10:53:56
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/12 15:25:49
(permalink)
My first not-voiced feature-request for Sonar X1 was making Dolby encoding available as an export feature. A week ago, however, I bought Power Director 8 from Cyberlink which nicely encoded my 5.1 surround WAVE mix made in Sonar 8.5 Producer in two video formats. (I do it as a hobby, and do not intent to move into professional video editing)
post edited by alexisrael - 2010/11/12 15:32:54
|
vintagevibe
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2446
- Joined: 2003/12/15 21:45:06
- Location: Atlanta, Ga
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/12 19:19:08
(permalink)
noiseboy
I've noticed that there is a lot of confusion about this whole area. Some people go as far as thinking people are clamouring for Sonar to become a video editor (which would be the worst idea in the history of software development).
You see the same confusion when you talk about notation. People think you want Sonar to have the function of Sibelius. It gets old explaining it.
|
mudgel
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12010
- Joined: 2004/08/13 00:56:05
- Location: Linton Victoria (Near Ballarat)
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/12 22:14:05
(permalink)
Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]
We all wanted to provide enhancements to video and it was discussed at length. But realistically we have limited resources (as most companies do) and, in a way, have to kind of work on things in chunks or at least from a logical development standpoint. Video support will see improvement, but it won't be in the initial release of SONAR X1.
Cakewalk have often held back a major feature from the inital release of a new version and included it in the first point release with bug fixes. Is that what Brendon means when he says the above? Only speculation but brandon is known for dropping some hints from time to time. All by accident of corse.
Mike V. (MUDGEL) STUDIO: Win 10 Pro x64, SPlat & CbB x64, PC: ASUS Z370-A, INTEL i7 8700k, 32GIG DDR4 2400, OC 4.7Ghz. Storage: 7 TB SATA III, 750GiG SSD & Samsung 500 Gig 960 EVO NVMe M.2. Monitors: Adam A7X, JBL 10” Sub. Audio I/O & DSP Server: DIGIGRID IOS & IOX. Screen: Raven MTi + 43" HD 4K TV Monitor. Keyboard Controller: Native Instruments Komplete Kontrol S88.
|
noiseboy
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 419
- Joined: 2007/01/24 08:57:16
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/13 02:40:49
(permalink)
Vintagevibe - could you summarise what you think the most essential notation improvements are? (I'm guessing better 3rd party integration is among them!)
Mudgel - it's SO tanatalisingly close to what we need to hear, isn't it? If I obsess over the phrasing, it does infer that it will come in a later release of X1, but I suspect I'm reading too much into it... it does seems to me that Brandon's hands are tied and he can't say anything more explicit one way or another.
I think there's only one logical course of action for me - wait and see. If another DAW has a more attractive package before Cakewalk delivers the goods, then c'est la vie.
|
Dark Bard
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4
- Joined: 2008/06/04 16:57:26
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/16 19:09:30
(permalink)
My heretofore unaddressed niggle involves using video for projection in a live / backing tracks setting. I've used Sonar in song list mode for 5 years playing premixed stems of songs. The soft synths load like a champ between songs. The lyric "teleprompter" is a fantastic bonus, as well!
If Cakewalk would only fix the video projection bug I've been persistently whining about for four years! I dutifully ask developers at the NAMM show every year and they promise me that in the NEXT release it'll be resolved. Sonar beautifully loads project synced video (ideal for projection) on the "second monitor" (the projection video content send). The bug that makes this feature essentially useless is that after EVERY song the video window automatically resizes to a smaller default setting. Unless performer want audiences watching mouse moves to re-expand window at the beginning of every song it's unusable; (excepting intended use for only one song). This seemingly simple bug fix wasn't addressed in 8.5 and thus far no mention of this fix for the initial X1 release. Sigh.
People generally aren't using Sonar for video editing but they ARE looking for backing tracks solutions for live settings. IMHO, that's a grossly underserved segment of the market that Sonar should be capitalizing on.
|
submarin
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 260
- Joined: 2008/12/16 09:36:47
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/17 10:34:15
(permalink)
kine321
Fair comments! You guys are certainly entitled to the features you would like addressed. However, I think it's easy to lose focus with what a product is predominately meant to be. I use various programs which also includes various DAW'S based on each applications strong points and work-flow.
Let's face it... some programs are simply better for certain tasks. Some company's are better at certain features than others and this goes beyond just software. There are applications that have a proven track record for what Sonar lacks at the moment with video scoring, etc.
A number of industry professionals turn their noses up at pc's. Sonar doesn't support Mac, while a number of the competitive products you've mentioned **Jose 7822** does. I know certain ones are Mac only!
Steinberg/ Yamaha has addressed the needs of the professional with Nuendo for example and the price tag certainly reflects that. Personally, it seems logical to use the proven industry standards for such work if these are features you truly need to be implemented on a pro level.
Better yet... Maybe CW/ ROL. can make a special version such as Cubase vs Nuendo type of thing, for those who need Sonar to be more than it is presently.
Example: Studio x, Producer x, and Pro-Composer x. I don't like paying for features I don't particularly need especially when I have other programs better suited for the task. This simply creates bloatware and more files and entries being added to the registry and the rest of your computer for something that a number of folks probably won't use.
When you consider that REAPER only has a 4.9mb installer for 32bit windows while the 64bit version is 5.4mb... this is an eye opener. And don't forget, CW has been going after users of the Home Studio, Music Creator and Kinetic versions to upgrade to Sonar 8.5 for a minute. So what's my point about that? Well... it demonstrates to me, that Sonar isn't simply targeted for just pro usage. Anyone with special upgrade pricing can make the jump to Sonar 8.5 for far less than typical retail.
At the end of the day, Sonar is predominately allocated for music production. It's probably used by more home-studios than commercial ones!? Hopefully, you guys will get the updates you feel Sonar needs to be more rounded. Especially since CW does promote Sonar as an industry standard in their advertisements.
Good luck fellas!
Yes, and Reaper just got an major overhaul in terms of Video, an own codec container which opens any format and rendering options for video etc, and still has a wight of 5MB.. My 2 ct´s, I think just like the other guys, that the future lies in Multimedia, music and picture, look at the industry, recordsales are almost gone. Producers have to find new working fields..
cheers
i7 4770, 32 GB Ram, W8.1 64bit, RME Digiface, 3x RME Adi DS, Uad2 Quad, , Sonar Platinum, Cubase 8 pro, Reaper , Ableton Live www.m2-productions.com
|
gordonrussell76
Max Output Level: -56.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1879
- Joined: 2006/12/15 05:28:08
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/19 07:26:12
(permalink)
How many professional video editors do you knwo that use a PC?
Very small amount.
Sonar appeals to people who want to make and record music on a PC, generally the entire AV world including composers is on MAC.
Yes you could argue that SOnar should be attempting to change that, however if they had made Sonar super wonderful for Video in Versions 7 and 8 vs improving stability adn the audio engine I think a lot more of there current customers woudl have been much more unimpressed.
Not saying they shoudl not improve video, but i can understand why its not a priority.
ANyway who says one ap should do it all. I will be upgrading to X1 because i like the way Sonar works, and the Skylight thing is actually somethign i suggested about 2 years ago, so they do listen. However i will still be buying Protools 9 becuase large chunks of the people i will be working with will have that.
Does that mean Sonar x1 is a failure, no, i still personally believe that if you wiped history and realeased X1 and PT9 on an unsuspecting market with no experience that on features and ability X1 would win the highest market share. However thats not the world we live in.
G
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/19 09:32:04
(permalink)
gordonrussell76
How many professional video editors do you knwo that use a PC?
Very small amount.
99% of the ones I know are using Avid on PCs. UnderTow
|
gordonrussell76
Max Output Level: -56.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1879
- Joined: 2006/12/15 05:28:08
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/19 09:56:17
(permalink)
Well i stand corrected
Still think that Vid and Audio are different beasts, and personally am not that bothered.
However if the majority of Sonar users are composing for picture then i take it all back.
G
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/19 10:08:06
(permalink)
It seems like there's still confusion about what this thread is about, oh well.
Intel Q9400 2.66 GHz 8 GB of RAM @ 800 Mhz ATI Radeon HD 3650 Windows 7 Professional (SP1) x64 Cubase 6.03 x64 Sonar PE 8.5.3 x64 RME FireFace 400 Frontier Design Alpha Track Studio Logic VMK-188 Plus http://www.youtube.com/user/SonarHD
|
noiseboy
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 419
- Joined: 2007/01/24 08:57:16
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/20 04:20:35
(permalink)
We don't have that head-banging-against-a-brick-wall smilie, do we?!
I agree with the argument that working-to-picture is on the increase, as conventional sales decline there is more perceived work online and in film / TV. I doubt it will ever be a majority of Sonar users, but sizeable minority is certainly fair. A Sonar-owning friend of mine did his first short film the other day, and suddenly needed to work with video for the first time. It happens...
And yes, totally off-topic but most of the editors I know work on PCs using Avid. I know FCP is on the increase, of course, but it's a huge myth that all the creative industries are on macs.
|
eratu
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2856
- Joined: 2007/01/27 22:08:32
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/20 14:14:44
(permalink)
Not that it matters, but virtually all the people I know in film use FCP, although I do sense frustration out there with Apple, which seems like a fairly new development regarding the FCP people I know. They all used to be satisfied with FCP, but I'm hearing a bit of grumbling lately. One person I know switched from Avid to FCP, but is thinking of changing again if the next iteration of FCP doesn't have certain features he needs. He says that FCP has stagnated. As for Vegas? I only know one filmmaker that uses Vegas nowadays, even though it's an excellent app.
No matter the source of the video/film content, we still need big improvements to the video file support in Sonar, and I'm looking forward to what the Cakemeisters come up with in the next iteration. As it stands, the support is rudimentary at best, so they surely know the importance of upgrading these critical features.
|
Jimbo 88
Max Output Level: -57 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1828
- Joined: 2007/03/19 12:27:17
- Location: Elmhurst, Illinois USA
- Status: offline
Re:Working with video in X1
2010/11/20 14:48:10
(permalink)
Just an FYI for Undertow and others....
Protools is the industry standard for mixing and working with Picture because it started out as an AUDIO mixing program. Digi Design bought it and entrenched it with Avid editing programs. That is how it got to where it is.
Sonar started out as a midi sequencing program. Twelve Tone created "Cakewalk" because it was an easy to learn music sequencing program. Audio was added later and it eventually became SONAR by Cakewalk .
Sonar is NOT entrenched like Protools because it is a lesser product, but because it served a different purpose. All the "protools does this, protools does that" is non-sense. Protools is really, really bad at doing a lot of things SONAR does well.
|