firefly9000

Jimbo 88


Well Firefly,  I have my reasons and i would do the same working in Protools.  I have a way to prepare pic that makes my workflow fast.  Because I prefer working in Windows any QT file could be trouble...nothing to do with Sonar.

I do no fiddlin' I have my settings ready to go.  If you want to compose in Protools be my guest.  i want nothing to do with it.  You'll have to check out the screen cast  i will produce.   I have 10+ hours of picture to score between now and Feb 10th, so...i won't be able to get to it soon.  

I agree - I DON'T want to compose in PT - it is horrible for that... hence my post here in Sonar country. I own PT but hardly use it.
 
I'm curious though WHY do you say QT files could be trouble? Are you just referring to Sonar? In PT I never had any problems with them - big files too.
 
I guess your point is: IF you want to work in Sonar you have to suck it up and deal with the extra steps.
 
I'm starting to get that - but you can't tell me that this is standard normal procedure... Sonar should just work with QT directly, like PT and Logic. Having your "settings ready to go" does not erase the fact that you're making the workflow more convoluted. 
  
Are you telling me that if you could get Sonar to work with video like PT with no external applications or problems it would not make a difference to you?
 
But you said you have your reasons so I respect that. If they're not secret, could you please share? For me, I don't see any reason for complicating my workflow - but then again maybe you may open my eyes to something new. Always up for learning.
 
At the end of the day, if it works for you, more power to you. My post here was about seeing if I could mirror the ease of importing, working with and exporting video out of Sonar as it is in PT or Logic.
 
My workflow now mirrors pretty much what you do, but I would hardly call this a normal workflow.

I really don't have an answer for you, but for better or worse I tend to deal with what works as opposed to what does not.  I'm not a codecs guy or ever care to be,  so all I can tell you is that I have trouble with QT files (before I get to Sonar) and Vegas sorts it out for me. 
 
My workflow is not a secrect,  I have posted it many times over the years and why I do things I do.  I too, am always looking to get better.   So when I do have a free day I'll go into detail in a screencast and perhaps you and others can give me pointers on how to improve.  

Hi - I don't have any solutions for you - I just thought I would ask all to take a deep breath and relax, before the thread descends beyond being a posted question and set of replies to the post.

I myself have never relied on Sonar's video functionality, and have only done things with the thought to get the audio together in Sonar and then finish it all off by importing into in a video editing program, which will always have much better features for video than Sonar ever would be designed to do.  I had to deal with tape striping and all of that for so long way back when folks used 4-tracks and 8-tracks that I never really see that as much of hindrance to me, but again folks have their own notions as to what are reasonable things to have to do for work flow, and that's fine - however folks see that for themselves.

Perhaps though the Cakewalk folks would consider one or more feature requests for specific additional video functionality - maybe you can write some stuff up for them and submit the requests.

Bob Bone

Quicktime is a hot mess.... I detest it. It saddens me that it is relied upon for so much work. It's a useless container for other standard codecs. Why cant someone just send an h.264 MP4? Why do clients feel the need to use a stupid intermediate and gum up the works.

That being said.... Sonar needs better video support. Until it has said better support, re-encode the video to an avi for best performance.

firefly9000

Sure firefly...just as soon as you point me to some 'established' composers...

Then again, your post kinda begs the question: If you're a PT fanboi, whatever would you be doing here?

No studio is going to use the video output from PT either. There are too many media forms to release final product in - and PT is not the tool for that. Scoring is done before even final edits are complete. Final releases are done using specialized codecs designed for human-guided optimization on a scene for scene basis. And they cost big!

Not even MediaComposer is used for media releases. 


Even in PT, why ever would you want the performance hit with full up video, unless of course you're using HW acceleration boxes for video and audio. However if you're not using the new HDX boxes, you risk losing your fanboi permit, if not for visting Cakewalk forums alone.




Basically - nobody does full video in a midi-editor, and nobody needs a midi-editor for audio alone.


How 'bout 'dem apples, Cartman?

 
??? Whaaat??? :)
 
"How 'bout 'dem apples, Cartman?" - LOL, what apples dude?... I think you're in a different orchard. 
 
You really have not read my posts very well.
 
I'm far from being a PT fanboi - quite the opposite. The only thing I'm a fanboi of is things that work right.
 
Take a chill pill and relax man - life is short :) I NEVER said you need to do full video for use in video editing programs as the main video. That would be ridiculous. 
 
Ehhh - you might have gotten that had you read my post fully... but damm those pesky words and sentences, they're so hard to understand. Would have saved you half your post that makes no sense in relation to what I was saying.

PS: Most composers receive QT files and shuttle them back and forth between them and the director. If you're doing it in PT or Logic you it's a 2 step process with no need to involve other apps. 
 

It's really quite simple, as your post makes some assumptions about the audience here, and you also assumed that no one here would prefer that Sonar handle video better. What other reason would there be to point out that PT does so-and-so directly, and then begin to quibble with the advice given?


Most folks here are one-man-bands as far as media production goes...this means that they do the transcoding if necessary to make something palatable to Sonar. Conversely, an 'established' composer will likely have some moxy and input as to the media form they require and producers in turn provide it for them thus.


Secondly, syncing a music track to video in a video editor, or another audio editor is, plainly, trivial. 


It is already acknowledged by most here that Sonar could use some improvements in the video department. The workarounds and workflows suggested here are what people do in response, and what is kindly suggested to others in response to queries.

No one suggested that the 'two-step' is the preferred way of doing things, sans Sonar video issues. On the other hand, many of us one-man-bands are quite handy with video editing and other tools, and so the 'two-step' is a non-issue: moot.

So, you see, making and using proxies is a fact of life in all phases of video production, including music scoring - and very few of us are so specialized that we can demand accommodation from the world around us.

I use the Shark007 codecs an am able to import just about any video format into X2.

X2 will import a video as long as a codec is on your system for it. 

Sonar was never meant to be a video editor but its a fine program for adding compositions to a video. Vegas is great as a video editor and works well with Sonar.  

The two programs compliment each other. On the other hand if you don't create your own videos you may not need Vegas. 

Right now Shart007 supports Windows 8 64 bit and its free.

Well, maybe I am being a bit grumpy here in this thread...


It's just the OP is clearly either a neophyte asking what is a strangely worded (but legitimate) question, or someone who knows better and is asking a leading question for which they already know no answer exists.

In internet terms, this is called a troll.

djtrailmixxx


Quicktime is a hot mess.... I detest it. It saddens me that it is relied upon for so much work. It's a useless container for other standard codecs. Why cant someone just send an h.264 MP4? Why do clients feel the need to use a stupid intermediate and gum up the works.

That being said.... Sonar needs better video support. Until it has said better support, re-encode the video to an avi for best performance.

I'm not a big fan of Quicktime either, but a lot of video people are. That's how I get most of my work unfortunately.
 
I have a question though: do you have problems with regular codecs also when changing the starting point?
 
 @John -
 
Same question as above: with the Shark 700, do you have problems when changing starting point of video?? I always seem to have problems.

If its video I use Vegas and no, no trouble with any editing function in Vegas. 

Sonar is not a video editor and would not be able to do any changes to the video.

The regular codecs in Windows are for the most part very limited. They are really for windows type videos and such so that one can use media player. They are not meant for handling all video formats. Vegas for example uses its own codecs. Sonar relies on what is installed in windows.

To work with video not only should one install the addon codecs but a good simple conversion program is required for anyone to have a well rounded video studio. 

Sonar likes an AVI file best but that is often not the format one is working with.

The other thing I find odd is that why the need for you to "edit the video". That should be done by the people that produced it. They should be able to incorporate your audio into their video.  They should sync it and place it where it belongs. This shouldn't be your job.

If you are doing your own video and audio than you have complete control. However you do need the right tools to get the job done. 

As outlined above the programs mentioned above will get the job done. 

It's really quite simple, as your post makes some assumptions about the audience here, and you also assumed that no one here would prefer that Sonar handle video better. What other reason would there be to point out that PT does so-and-so directly, and then begin to quibble with the advice given?


Most folks here are one-man-bands as far as media production goes...this means that they do the transcoding if necessary to make something palatable to Sonar. Conversely, an 'established' composer will likely have some moxy and input as to the media form they require and producers in turn provide it for them thus.


Secondly, syncing a music track to video in a video editor, or another audio editor is, plainly, trivial. 


It is already acknowledged by most here that Sonar could use some improvements in the video department. The workarounds and workflows suggested here are what people do in response, and what is kindly suggested to others in response to queries.

No one suggested that the 'two-step' is the preferred way of doing things, sans Sonar video issues. On the other hand, many of us one-man-bands are quite handy with video editing and other tools, and so the 'two-step' is a non-issue: moot.

So, you see, making and using proxies is a fact of life in all phases of video production, including music scoring - and very few of us are so specialized that we can demand accommodation from the world around us.
 

Huh? So your problem is that I ask about a Sonar issue on a Sonar forum? Imagine that.... and here I was thinking that forums could be used for support. Actually most forums are used for discussing problems - not locking step and singing praises...  
 
Once again, you have not read my OP. I didn't "quibble" with the advice given, I just clearly pointed out that this is my PRESENT workflow.
 
You could have just stated that "Dude, that's just the way it is - you have to deal with it".  
 
My friend, you are UPSET because of things you IMAGINE... You even say it yourself when you say "What other reason would there be to point out that PT does so-and-so directly, and then begin to quibble with the advice given? "
 
So you're just imagining why I posted? Try ASKING me first, before you accuse. The only reason I brought PT into the equation is to illustrate that a DAW CAN do video work without needing another 'bridge' application.
 
LOOK AT MY OP - WHERE IN IT DO YOU SEE PRO TOOLS MENTIONED????  NOWHERE...
 
So please chill out - read first - accuse later!
 
Or are you saying that we are BANNED from using other DAW names on this forum... and in that case WHO is the fanboi? 
 
And while we're at it - when you say "Conversely, an 'established' composer will likely have some moxy and input as to the media form they require and producers in turn provide it for them thus"... boy are you going to have a surprise when you find out WHERE on the food-chain composers reside in a movie or TV production :)  

There is no point in getting into a fight over inconsequential things on either side.

State facts and the rest will take care of itself.