dubdisciple
StepDad..I know people who don't consider smoking crack risky.

DubDad...We're talking playback in Sonar here. No one's recommending encoding your video files using open source third party codecs in Vegas, Premiere, etc. Take a breath (minus the crack ;-)

Anything can be risky on a computer depending on skillset/computer awareness and familiarity. I don't particularly find a problem with codec-packs that are designed allow you to enable disable particular individual codecs within the pack, especially for one-off purposes. These systems are designed not to interfere with existing codecs - they do not override existing codec merit unless you want it to. Certainly, some people can abuse them, and some may be overconfident of their abilities.
 
A lot of folks coming to video from music and audio may have perceptions about how video should perform within an application. One thing to note is that you are not a video editor, and are not responsible for the video and its audio, only for providing a music soundtrack. Generally, you provide a synced music track, and the video editor adds that to his video project. You, the composer, only need video is as a reference for your score. This means you should be able to take the provided reference video and create a low resolution dub of it for yourself that is more suitable for use within an audio application. Using HD video within a DAW is simply wasting available CPU resources that will not be available to the DAW for audio use. It makes much more sense to create a low resolution dub for scoring duty.
 
Sometimes, clients may ask for you to create a video with the music track embedded. This should be considered as a minor duty and for the client's reference only. A low resolution copy similar to what was used for scoring should be appropriate. You aren't being paid as a audio mixer for video, it's not your responsibility, but there's no harm in giving your interpretation.
 
If the client is asking you for a high definition copy with the intention to use it for final distribution - you have moved beyond scoring and into audio (for video) production. This is beyond the scoring bailiwick - but it is an opportunity to make more money. However, it does mean that you should then transfer your rendered music track to a proper Video Editor system along with the client supplied video. The DAW is not the place to create finalized video. Learning more about video editing is useful skill set .
 
 

Just to further clarify (and this was mentioned in another thread by Ryan Munnis),  improved video support is important to us and not low priority. However, it's also a big change that requires thought and care. We want to get it right much the way we did ARA and VST3. Both of those features also required a lot of thought and care. We hope to share more news soon on video once we feel we can publicly talk about it. But just wanted to say again, it's on our minds.

SuperG...I actually am a video editor and like you I have no desire to bring  HD video into Sonar.  total waste to me.  I don't score films, but I can understand the issues those that do have with Sonar video.  For high end work precision is required.  For my purposes a frame or two  off is not going to make much difference but some of Sonars issues could be a problem for others.

dubdisciple
SuperG...I actually am a video editor and like you I have no desire to bring  HD video into Sonar.  total waste to me.  I don't score films, but I can understand the issues those that do have with Sonar video.  For high end work precision is required.  For my purposes a frame or two  off is not going to make much difference but some of Sonars issues could be a problem for others.

Understand. It's extremely important to use audio sampling rates that are compatible with video frame rates. I wouldn't think music would be a big deal if off by a frame, it's not hard to fix in a video editor. Foley work is where I would think where critical timing arises - foley clips are nearly always referenced by frames for editing purposes. 
 
My intent with the post is simply to alert folks that some decent forethought is needed when dealing with video in an audio context - that's all.
 

I understand.  My purpose was to let people like myself who use Sonar but also do video editing know that these codecs have been known to reek havoc with video editing systems.

dubdisciple
SuperG...I actually am a video editor and like you I have no desire to bring  HD video into Sonar.  total waste to me.  I don't score films, but I can understand the issues those that do have with Sonar video.  For high end work precision is required.  For my purposes a frame or two  off is not going to make much difference but some of Sonars issues could be a problem for others.

While I agree that using full uncompressed HD within Sonar and outputting final video masters are outside the scope of a DAW (and I have no problem with that), I must say that being able to *reliably* work with higher resolution video (say 1920x1080 H264) and output that video to a client monitor at a decent resolution (via Matrox card or similar) is a very important feature for people doing work to picture.
Obviously what your computer can handle depends on the power of your system, but if you have the appropriate video card/ram/CPU, why not have the option to work with higher resolution stuff and be able to play it back for clients without having to explain why the picture looks terrible on a 55" monitor...
One can dream! ;)

jscomposer

dubdisciple
Although K-lite is among the safer codec packs to install  in terms of not containing known malware, it is an awful idea if you do any serious video editing.  Some of the codecs install conflict with existing codecs in several popular video editing/compositing software.  Many have found out the hard way that their render times go up and quality goes down because these codecs were assembled for mostly watching and copying stolen movies with little regard for professional creation of such things.  To make matters worse, some elements are difficult to remove if you discover there is a conflict.  If you mostly watch movies and do very light video editing, I'm sure it will be fine.

Exactly....avoid these types of downloads like the plague. Anyone who uses their DAW for serious work should never go down that road (been there, done that, got the t-shirt), let alone surf the net. There's no way you can use those codecs on a pro level. And regardless of the codecs on your system, Sonar does NOT like certain formats...Quicktime and MPEG's comes to mind

How 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?
 
 

While I agree that using full uncompressed HD within Sonar and outputting final video masters are outside the scope of a DAW (and I have no problem with that), I must say that being able to *reliably* work with higher resolution video (say 1920x1080 H264) and output that video to a client monitor at a decent resolution (via Matrox card or similar) is a very important feature for people doing work to picture.

 
True. However, with this we're now moving into a larger systems issue with many variables. Like freezing tracks within a Daw, you'd likely be better off displaying your work, or work-in-progress, bounced down with FX baked in. This way, you wouldn't have worry about audio resources affect your playback. The same issues faced by Sonar are faced by, say, ProTools HD Native. Basically, this is requiring you to balance the application's performance to get an acceptable level of real-time output; whether editing music or showing off for clients, different contexts have different application needs.
 
I don't suppose most studios do a dog and pony show during the compositional phase unless it's just to view live tracking of musicians. Likely, customers might want to view during the mix stage. I will suppose that most studios that can accommodate customer visits are going to have, well, really nice studios (i.e. a whole lotta money), and may be using physical consoles and/or DSP cards to do mixing and FX which leaves the computer free - they may also be using custom video processor cards with built-in codecs and so on, and the software to run them.
 
There probably will be a day when we can 'do it all' in the box, but that isn't this moment, and we will probably have moved on to something even greater by then; we will all be clamoring to do all that 'in the box', too.

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.