Jimbo,

That still doesn't justify why applications like Cubase, which also started out as a sequencing program, have video scoring features that rival even Pro Tools.  In fact, I believe all the other DAWs out there beat Sonar in this area, including Reaper.  So yours is a poor excuse to justify why Cakewalk has not updated SONAR's video support.  I find it strange that you would say something like this considering you yourself use SONAR for video.

Jose,

  I gave no excuses for anything.  i justified nothing. The argument that Protools is an industry standard and Sonar is not so Protools is better is comparing apples to oranges.    

Jose7822


Jimbo,

That still doesn't justify why applications like Cubase, which also started out as a sequencing program, have video scoring features that rival even Pro Tools.  In fact, I believe all the other DAWs out there beat Sonar in this area, including Reaper.  So yours is a poor excuse to justify why Cakewalk has not updated SONAR's video support.  I find it strange that you would say something like this considering you yourself use SONAR for video.

Re: Cubase 5.5 vs. PT9 video features, Cubase is -- in at least one way -- more advanced than PT9. I'm talking about PT9, not PT9HD/PT9CPTK2, which has even more video/film-related features, as does Cubase's big brother, Nuendo. We're not asking for that level of video support with Sonar... I don't imagine Cakewalk would spend resources to go after the post-production market... (although I'd be thrilled and if they did so). But Sonar definitely needs a big overhaul of the basics of video support. This thread has identified several areas, and I'm hoping Cake will bookmark this and some of the other good threads about this topic.

What amazes me is that some people -- even some people who work with video in their DAWs -- are simply not aware of how powerful some of the video features are in Cubase/Nuendo and PT9/PT9HD (or for that matter, Logic and DP), and aren't clammoring for those types of features in Sonar more often... It just goes to show that people will adapt themselves around a tool to try to do a job, rather than pick a tool designed for the task in the first place.

Some people will use a screwdriver as a hammer no matter what you tell them. And truth is, you CAN use a screwdriver as a hammer in a number of situations... and it works just fine... so in that sense, I say go for it if it works for them! I'm certainly not criticizing anyone who chooses to do that. And in the end, it's about the quality of the work anyway, so even most clients won't really care at the end of the day as long as they like the results. Heck, I bet you could build an entire house with only a screwdriver if you really put your mind to it (and it was a very, very good screwdriver).

But like it or not, there are some really useful video features -- a.k.a. TOOLS -- in other programs, that could really help you "build your house" and I'm sure Cakewalk realizes it's time to add those types of tools into Sonar very soon. I'm honestly looking forward to how they approach that in the next few iterations of Sonar.

There are cool tools in other programs that even fervent users of those programs don't know about... i.e. in Cubase, one example of subtle but powerful features that even many Cubase users aren't aware of, is that you can cut/edit a video clip and move it around... so you can literally adjust the clip frame-by-frame if you wanted to. I've done this myself with 23.976 HD footage where I had to adjust the length of a scene in the middle of several scenes on the fly, while on the phone with the producer, without having to load a whole new video clip. He was very surprised that Cubase could cut and edit a clip frame-by-frame. PT9 (standard) cannot do this, as far as I can tell so far (if it can, I haven't figured it out yet). However, PT9 also comes with plenty of other solid and useful video-related "tools" that Cake can look at for reference -- there is a reason why PT is used so much in post production. Nuendo and PT9HD (or PT9+CPTK2) add even more video features.

So when Cakewalk looks for industry examples of solid video features, I'm sure they've already *closely* examined Cubase, PT, PT9HD/PT9+CPTK2, Nuendo, Logic and DP, etc. -- or at least I hope they have. :)

At the very least Sonar needs the basics of current framerate support and some of the other critical issues mentioned in this thread.

Anyway, back to your normal programming. :)

You know what cracks me up when I read these threads -- even my own very wordy posts (haha, yeah, I know)? I often wonder if developers -- like the good guys at Cake -- ever feel we're ungrateful for all the great features they do put in.

I mean, here Cakewalk is, on the verge of releasing what looks like a really major product, which they have undoubtedly slaved over with blood and sweat (but hopefully no tears), and here were are "****in' and moanin'" (depends on how you look at it, but I'll put it that way for the sake of this post) about how we want x, y and z features.

Truth is, with all my own posts, sometimes I forget to say THANK YOU to the guys at Cakewalk for doing what they do! While most of us may agree in this thread that Cake has an obvious area for future upgrades re: video features, they've clearly set up a good foundation for Sonar's long-term success with the X1 overhauls...

Anyway, THANKS, CAKE, for your hard work! You guys are almost to the launch date of X1! Huge Congrats on a product that looks great!

When the dust settles with X1, please don't forget these video features for the next round of updates... we don't mean to be greedy... so please don't feel too bad if we keep on coming up with things we want... it does make for a lovely upgrade cycle, doesn't it? ;)

eratu

Jose7822


Jimbo,

That still doesn't justify why applications like Cubase, which also started out as a sequencing program, have video scoring features that rival even Pro Tools.  In fact, I believe all the other DAWs out there beat Sonar in this area, including Reaper.  So yours is a poor excuse to justify why Cakewalk has not updated SONAR's video support.  I find it strange that you would say something like this considering you yourself use SONAR for video.

Re: Cubase 5.5 vs. PT9 video features, Cubase is -- in at least one way -- more advanced than PT9. I'm talking about PT9, not PT9HD/PT9CPTK2, which has even more video/film-related features, as does Cubase's big brother, Nuendo. We're not asking for that level of video support with Sonar... I don't imagine Cakewalk would spend resources to go after the post-production market... (although I'd be thrilled and if they did so). But Sonar definitely needs a big overhaul of the basics of video support. This thread has identified several areas, and I'm hoping Cake will bookmark this and some of the other good threads about this topic.

What amazes me is that some people -- even some people who work with video in their DAWs -- are simply not aware of how powerful some of the video features are in Cubase/Nuendo and PT9/PT9HD (or for that matter, Logic and DP), and aren't clammoring for those types of features in Sonar more often... It just goes to show that people will adapt themselves around a tool to try to do a job, rather than pick a tool designed for the task in the first place.

Some people will use a screwdriver as a hammer no matter what you tell them. And truth is, you CAN use a screwdriver as a hammer in a number of situations... and it works just fine... so in that sense, I say go for it if it works for them! I'm certainly not criticizing anyone who chooses to do that. And in the end, it's about the quality of the work anyway, so even most clients won't really care at the end of the day as long as they like the results. Heck, I bet you could build an entire house with only a screwdriver if you really put your mind to it (and it was a very, very good screwdriver).

But like it or not, there are some really useful video features -- a.k.a. TOOLS -- in other programs, that could really help you "build your house" and I'm sure Cakewalk realizes it's time to add those types of tools into Sonar very soon. I'm honestly looking forward to how they approach that in the next few iterations of Sonar.

There are cool tools in other programs that even fervent users of those programs don't know about... i.e. in Cubase, one example of subtle but powerful features that even many Cubase users aren't aware of, is that you can cut/edit a video clip and move it around... so you can literally adjust the clip frame-by-frame if you wanted to. I've done this myself with 23.976 HD footage where I had to adjust the length of a scene in the middle of several scenes on the fly, while on the phone with the producer, without having to load a whole new video clip. He was very surprised that Cubase could cut and edit a clip frame-by-frame. PT9 (standard) cannot do this, as far as I can tell so far (if it can, I haven't figured it out yet). However, PT9 also comes with plenty of other solid and useful video-related "tools" that Cake can look at for reference -- there is a reason why PT is used so much in post production. Nuendo and PT9HD (or PT9+CPTK2) add even more video features.

So when Cakewalk looks for industry examples of solid video features, I'm sure they've already *closely* examined Cubase, PT, PT9HD/PT9+CPTK2, Nuendo, Logic and DP, etc. -- or at least I hope they have. :)

At the very least Sonar needs the basics of current framerate support and some of the other critical issues mentioned in this thread.

Anyway, back to your normal programming. :)

Wow, where do I start? When you're talking of ProTools, are you referring to the LE version? I was thinking of getting one of the new Mbox minis just to fool around with and get my feet wet with Pro Tools 8 (or 9 if I spring for the upgrade). I tried looking into what it offered and/or didn't offer compared to SONAR as far as audio for video tools were concerned, but could find little information about it. Could you possibly shed a little light on the subject?
I also have the opportunity to get both Cubase 5 and Nuendo 5 for free (not through illegal file sharing) and will probably do so but until I finish my current scoring gig (which I will admit has not up to this point suffered from being produced in SONAR). What are your thoughts (pros/cons) on these programs as well? I've heard that Nuendo is the ultimate audio for video production software but am hesitant to start over from scratch with a new DAW. Still, I feel the switch is inevitable. I honestly don't think that Cakewalk has any plans to 'upgrade' their current and very limited audio for video "tools" and I use that tern extremely lightly, and just think that I'm tired of being told time and time again that changes are coming. 

eratu


You know what cracks me up when I read these threads -- even my own very wordy posts (haha, yeah, I know)? I often wonder if developers -- like the good guys at Cake -- ever feel we're ungrateful for all the great features they do put in.

I mean, here Cakewalk is, on the verge of releasing what looks like a really major product, which they have undoubtedly slaved over with blood and sweat (but hopefully no tears), and here were are "****in' and moanin'" (depends on how you look at it, but I'll put it that way for the sake of this post) about how we want x, y and z features.

I don't know about that. Personally I don't feel that those of us who are feeling left out in the cold are being ungrateful. If we were ungrateful or disloyal we wouldn't be here ****in' and moanin'. We would have just been gone elsewhere a long time ago. I mean how many years and SONAR versions have we been asking for these changes that never come? And yet we stay. Unfortunately for me though, I think I'm at my breaking point. I've come to realize that I'm never going to get what I want from SONAR and am looking elsewhere with the heaviest of hearts. 
I honestly thought that this version would be the version that put SONAR on the map with the big boys. Instead they changed the GUI and the 'workflow'. Wow, that'll attract new customers.  I mean honestly what was the point of that? Many "old" customers who have been asking for very specific tools for years are feeling slighted and are now considering fleeing the coop, and new potential customers won't know the 'old' workflow and GUI so they won't care about the new one either? They say they can't do everything at once and that they have limited resources. I understand that, but here's a thought: Don't insist on putting out a new version every 12 months! How about waiting until you have something that can really blow the doors off the competition? 
Cakewalk likes to paint itself as this cutting edge company but they haven't really brought anything new to the table that makes the industry stand up and take notice. It's disappointing because for a second there, when they released the VStudio 700 it looked like they were trying to really push the "professional" aspect, but what professional is going to pay for $3000 for a unit to control a software program that can't provide some basic features that most of their competition has? So instead they focus on putting out mediocre consumer level products like the Vstudio 20 and the mobile studio canvas. It speaks volumes about where they're headed and I'm hearing the message loud and clear. 

Ok, now I'm ranting 'cause I'm tired. Sorry Cake, it's not all bad. In fact it's mostly good. Just another whiny, unsatisfied, and disappointed composer here who was hoping that X1 would be the one.

Jose7822

eratu


Anyway, THANKS, CAKE, for your hard work! You guys are almost to the launch date of X1! Huge Congrats on a product that looks great!

When the dust settles with X1, please don't forget these video features for the next round of updates... we don't mean to be greedy... so please don't feel too bad if we keep on coming up with things we want... it does make for a lovely upgrade cycle, doesn't it? ;)

+1000

As always, you're right about that Eratu.  I really look forward to start working using X1 and the new smart tool.

SONAR X1 does indeed look promising and I hope Cakewalk keeps heading in this direction, adding workflow features as they have so far.

+ another 1000

Monkey23

<snip>

And yet we stay. Unfortunately for me though, I think I'm at my breaking point. I've come to realize that I'm never going to get what I want from SONAR and am looking elsewhere with the heaviest of hearts.

<snip> 

A lot to process in your post.... I'll focus just on this...

There is no way you are going to find the "perfect" DAW app out there. They ALL have issues and holes in their feature sets. Or rather, they all have strengths. I know exactly how you feel because I've been there before, and instead of jumping ship, I just eventually realized I needed to select the right tools (note the plural form of the word) to get the job done.

Cakewalk is a business, and they have to focus on staying in business, just like anyone else. They're also good guys, and extremely talented... but not without limits like anyone else. So they have a business model and a profile of customers and a set of resources... so they have to make decisions about features. Somehow, they came up with their feature list and, honestly, I think it's a good move for Sonar X1...

Still, Sonar will never please everyone 100% of the time, and neither will Cubase, Reaper, Live, PT, etc... I can personally guarantee that, coming from the point of view of owning and using those apps (and others) as well.

I've simply adjusted to this reality and no longer have a "heavy heart" about it. Getting the music done takes priority, right? I just use what I have to use. So I have no problems installing, say, Reaper, right next to Sonar and they happily work well and compliment each other. Why do we need to be so nervous about even admitting that? It's not a black and white world. There is NO POINT in being uni-DAW-centric anymore, unless you just don't feel comfortable learning more than one program or consider yourself -- gasp! -- a fanboy. ;) I respect if that's the way you feel... I have clients that can only deal with one program and want to keep things simple/consistent. One of my clients is also a close friend now, and he HATES the idea of using so many apps, so he chose to become brilliant at just one app... so I really get that philosophy if that's how you feel.

HOWEVER, if you can consider the possibilities of becoming poly-DAW-centric, you might find it covers more of the bases you need.

When X1 comes out, I plan on upgrading... of course! The new interface looks excellent and it serves up a hearty dose of workflow improvements that will save me the money it costs in terms of time on projects... what's not to like for $99? It's a done deal. Of course I want Cake to keep working hard... especially on video features right now. :)

When Reaper 4 comes out, I'll also upgrade... Reaper has saved me money and time just for its superb ripple-editing features alone. I can fly through dialog editing in Reaper, for example, FAR faster than Cubase, Sonar or PT any day of the week, combined. But I certainly won't write an orchestral arrangement with it.

And yes, I upgraded Cubase, PT, etc... for different reasons... different strengths. I'm NOT suggesting you go crazy and get all of them out there, but a combo of 2 of them can really cover a lot of ground, without giving up the things you like about one, and they're not that difficult to learn. (Although in all honesty, I continue to discover new things about each one of them, and only consider myself "fairly damn good" at using a couple of them).

Point is, every DAW has holes... in fact, that's probably not the best way to say it. Let me re-phrase it more positively. EVERY DAW HAS STRENGTHS. Sonar has its strengths, but so do the others. Do some homework, test things out, read the manuals, ask people who ACTUALLY USE THEM A LOT, and add to your toolset as needed. No need to feel down about it... then make music! :)

Monkey23


I should mention that I do not have any ill will towards cakewalk except for the fact that they seem to have led a lot of customers to believe that the features that they have been asking for "were coming" when in fact they were not, particularly in the scoring and notation department.

I also don't have any ill will -- mainly I have a lot of appreciation for their hard work. They are competing in a very tough market in a tough economy and I hope for their total success. I do know that they care deeply about their product and want to make it the best possible app on the market. But they do have constraints. :)

And I also do understand if someone chose to get upset at Cake -- their recent marketing blurb that pushes the scoring aspects of Sonar X1 can be considered by some to raise certain expectations... when Sonar X1 doesn't yet seem to have any new video/scoring features (according to public comments in this forum by Cake employees) -- so I can see how some people might be outright upset.  Personally, I wouldn't have minded if they waited 6 more months to release a Sonar X1 that had even more features enhanced as well... but I guess we'll see what happens in the months to come.

noiseboy


WORKING WITH VIDEO 3 - composing music for use in film / TV

Sonar can do this, but not as well as some of the opposition. 

Good summary. :) I think most in the thread would agree this is what we're asking for.

Relatively small changes would rectify this. 

I'm not sure we can say that. On the surface, I'd agree with you, but I'd leave that up to programmers who know the issues, not to mention how the internal plumbing of Sonar works. It could be very complex, for all we know, and it may require them to rework the video engine considerably, perhaps how video events work on the timeline in general, serious sync issues, etc... not to mention quality control, testing of codecs, real-world files, hardware, etc... It might not be as small or trivial as we think. If it were trivial, I think they would have already done it. Just sayin'.

Current market leaders in this field are Cubase and Logic (emphatically NOT protools)

As for market leaders, you might be right, but I'd add Digital Performer to the list due to some unique, superb tools (check out some of the really sweet video features in it if you're not already aware) and I'd have to disagree with you on Pro Tools 9 -- the core video support is more advanced than Sonar's, and the MIDI editing, while comparatively simple, is still very usable for a lot of people, not to mention more advanced notation/score editor. By default of its market penetration, I'd say PT9 might just have become one of the market leaders for people who want to write music to film by sheer numbers alone, in one week. However, I agree, it's far from ideal for that task.

RE: Scoring to video games in SONAR.

Most modern video games, especially the blockbuster ones like COD, are done at 60 fps.  Even though SONAR doesn't support this frame rate, one can still manage to work on such video games using 30 fps.  Of course, this will NOT give you frame accurate audio editing, so it ends up being a mere work-around and that's the problem.  You see, that word (work-around) is what I would like Cakewalk to remove from their vocabulary.  There are too many work-arounds in SONAR, and you will notice this every time someone asks "how can I do this in SONAR?"  Person responds: "well, you can't really do it that way, but there's a work-around".  There's no way Sean Murray scored the music for Black Ops in SONAR without work-arounds like using 30 fps instead of 60 fps (unless the bakers added this in X1) or using other HD video formats other than QuickTime (unless he's using the 32 bit version of SONAR), etc.  That's why I find it a bit deceptive to advertise SONAR as a video game scoring tool, not to mention that Sean Murray scored the entire soundtrack in SONAR X1 which is not even out yet, when it still lacks some of the basic features we're discussing here.  Not saying it's not possible, but it is somewhat pushing the limits of credibility a little.  I'd like to know more about his work-flow using SONAR as a scoring tool, beyond what he says in the Cakewalk interview.  For example, which video files was the game developer giving him and how far in the process was SONAR involved?

noiseboy


It's still really obvious that there is SO much confusion over this whole area.  Maybe my thread titles wasn't specific enough!  Let me summarise again the three types of "working with video", and which we're talking about here:

WORKING WITH VIDEO 1 - editing video

Sonar can't do this, and should never try.  Use Avid or Final Cut Pro instead.

WORKING WITH VIDEO 2 - an audio post production tool for film / TV (for mixing dialogue, sound effects and music)

Sonar can't really do this, and probably should never try.  Use Protools, Nuendo or Pyramix instead (especially the latter imho).

WORKING WITH VIDEO 3 - composing music for use in film / TV

Sonar can do this, but not as well as some of the opposition.  Relatively small changes would rectify this.  Current market leaders in this field are Cubase and Logic (emphatically NOT protools)

I don't think anyone is confused about what we're talking about here. We're all talking about your #3.

John T


Scoring for games is really nothing like scoring for video. Frame rate is more or less irrelevant, for one thing. There's no way of predicting what's going to be happening in the game to any degree of precision.

This is true, but there are still places where you need to have hits at specific points (i.e. while navigating menus).
 
Most of it is making music that loops and transitions well, so you're right in that regard.
 
 

noiseboy

Monkey23

noiseboy


It's still really obvious that there is SO much confusion over this whole area.  Maybe my thread titles wasn't specific enough!  Let me summarise again the three types of "working with video", and which we're talking about here:

WORKING WITH VIDEO 1 - editing video

Sonar can't do this, and should never try.  Use Avid or Final Cut Pro instead.

WORKING WITH VIDEO 2 - an audio post production tool for film / TV (for mixing dialogue, sound effects and music)

Sonar can't really do this, and probably should never try.  Use Protools, Nuendo or Pyramix instead (especially the latter imho).

WORKING WITH VIDEO 3 - composing music for use in film / TV

Sonar can do this, but not as well as some of the opposition.  Relatively small changes would rectify this.  Current market leaders in this field are Cubase and Logic (emphatically NOT protools)

I don't think anyone is confused about what we're talking about here. We're all talking about your #3.

Believe me, there have been many, many confused people on this and the other scoring thread!


The fact that people STILL go on about how "Sonar will never compete with Protools so give it up with video" shows to me how little is understood.

I understand what you're saying. I think what I'm trying to say is that those of who seeking better audio for video implementation in SONAR are clear about what we're talking about. It's those that wish we shut up and stop complaining about it who are confused. I think we're ruining their X1 bliss.

John T


Um, no, not quite. Things that have to hit at specific times would be triggered by the game engine, sort of like a sampler being triggered. Especially things like menu navigation, which are entirely dependent on user input. The composer isn't doing anything time sensitive at all in that regard.

Sometimes you have to do something more tied-in for a video intro or similar, but that's very much the exception. Generally, you're more working with sequences that can loop and trasition fairly invisibly according to cues from the game system.

It's very much its own thing, and really not like scoring for video at all. Apart from the "being able to compose and record music" element, the technical skill sets required are pretty different.

I see.  That makes total sense.
 
However, most big games, if not all, do have intros so that would definitely be a place for cues where frame accuracy is important.  Like I said earlier, you could probably get by using 30 fps, since SONAR doesn't support 60 fps, but that is still a work-around and this is the point I'm trying to make.  Nonetheless, thanks for clarifying things for me.  I appreciate that :-)