as an FYI, I avoid doing things like soundmixing and editing in front of video clients like the plague.  Much easier to send them something to dissect than to have them micromanaging every click of the mouse
 

dubdisciple

markyznoHow did I manage to sound design and dub mix an entire horror feature within Sonar with K-Lite installed then thats got worldwide distribution and just won best feature at the British Horror Film Festival?

 
and?  congrats.  Nobody claimed it was IMPOSSIBLE to get good results that way.  Just warned of the possible pitfalls.  The British zombie film Colin was shot on a camcorder that is probably not worth $25 today but gained worldwide distribution.  I doubt cinematographers were dropping their cameras to grab on old mini-dv  cam because of such things.  i will be the first to say that you can get amazing results using far less than Sonar.  A dedicated person with skill can take a smartphone and freeware and make a damn good film. To answer your question (one that only you would know the answer to), I'm guessing that you worked your butt off despite any obstacles and focused on doing the best you could with what you have to work with.  Most of my current work is shot on DSLR.  The codec in DSLRs is horrible , it has poor latitude, moire issues and a host of other major flaws....but my clients love my work and they only see end product.   Yes, i can do sound design and mix for film in Sonar...but I honestly find it much easier to do it within other programs.  Even the Video Editor Vegas is better for that imo. 

You are always so wry with me, meh.
 
I just had no issues from my editor dropping in an MOV from FCP into my SONAR timeline and designing. Very few technical issues, however I would love for some more features of course to cater for work in our industry.
 
OMF's (always tricky) were trickier in Sonar than in PT, that was my only gripe.
 
I never had any frame drop issues, and as a rule of thumb I ALWAYS ask my editor to send me a hard embedded time code on the picture anyway (just to make sure)..
 
To be fair to Sonar, as a sound designer, I find the creative tools and ease of workflow far more intuitive to me than ANY other software I have used (when she behaves herself that is)
 
PT is the only area I have to go to but thats because of deliverables and that whole industry standard thing and theres not alot the Bakers can do about that :(
 
If you have an issue with importing video into Sonar then work better with your editor to get it right.
 
 

markyzno
 
OMF's (always tricky) were trickier in Sonar than in PT, that was my only gripe.
 
I never had any frame drop issues, and as a rule of thumb I ALWAYS ask my editor to send me a hard embedded time code on the picture anyway (just to make sure)..
 
To be fair to Sonar, as a sound designer, I find the creative tools and ease of workflow far more intuitive to me than ANY other software I have used (when she behaves herself that is)
 
PT is the only area I have to go to but thats because of deliverables and that whole industry standard thing and theres not alot the Bakers can do about that :(
 
If you have an issue with importing video into Sonar then work better with your editor to get it right.
 
 

Congrats on the film! very cool.
 
My point is, one shouldn't need to download and install "freeware" when Sonar should be fully capable. Every time I received files (typically QT), I had to convert them to .AVI with a .265 codec...worked okay but a real time waster every time you needed to convert. Plus in Cubase 7, it automatically detects the frame rate so there aren't any surprises with sync (for the video I receive from editors who can't be bothered burning the timecode).
 
Mark, have you ever exported a Sonar project to editors as an OMF, and opening correctly in Pro Tools on the other end? I always send in PT format (from PT itself), but it would cool if the OMF route worked.
 
Cheers!
 
 

Useless bloviation alert...
 
The way I see it, video is a bag of vipers - from a coding standpoint. There's a good reason that professional apps like Vegas still use video-for-windows (VfW) and or custom built-in codecs from outfits like MainConcept - timing, color-space, metadata, and containers are everything. VfW does very little beyond encode-a-frame/decode-a-frame - allowing an application to have complete control over the rest, (metadata, containerization, etc.). This solves a lot of problems 'getting it right'.
 
Even (commercial/professional) applications which forego VfW for DirectShow codecs generally provide their own DirectShow codecs. These codecs are usually designed to provide custom timing and meta-information which isn't normally available with system provided codecs. Even some playback only applications, i.e., PowerDvD, use their own complete graph of DirectShow components to guarantee an optimal experience. Basically, if you simply let DirectShow build a code/decode graph, or you manually build one by simply selecting the appropriate codec with the highest merit, you are still at the mercy of that codec. It likely does not have all the out-of-band and meta-data you need to provide to a precision video application.
 
Case in point:
 
For years, Avid and others required a conform on all video prior to use. Now, of course, they have a level of support for for various container formats and codecs. (Unfortunately, it opens the door to whining about why it doesn't support the latest x.xxx...) 
 
TIA