Apparently it has something to do with pulling the bits of video with the offending audio off an isis server and not wanting to generate a bunch of new files converting everything and of course ‘it works fine in pro tools’. I just want to get on with the job and not have to argue.
Dave
Dave, I understand very well…
But still I´d insist of getting it right from the source. If we give up on this what is next?
Next time they make us convert the video also to correct format. They just give us what´s easiest for them.
Next they give us just the project and we have to do all the exports.
I don´t like this path although these are worst case scenarious.
We loose time, money and who´s responsibility it is if something is wrong after conversions etc…
That is already the case. On our last project, they refused to give us a ProRes becuase the files are too big, and they make one H264 for all parties concerned.
And we have to deliver our all premixes, intermediate stuff, also on a H264 video, so they can look/listen at it anywhere without having to deal with “adding audio to the video”.
We loose time, money and who´s responsibility it is if something is wrong after conversions etc…
There are no shortcuts, easy paths and faster procedures in post Production.
The problem just get shifted/moved/shoved in to someone else.
And since sh** floats downhill …
(There even was a time when sh** rolled downhill, but that is also a long time ago …)
Fredo
The main problem is that it works in pro tools. I work freelance picking up the over flow work for a company that also has an in house audio suite running pro tools. I insist on running Nuendo because I believe its to be far better (quicker and more efficient etc) than pro tools but it gets very tough making that argument when I have to go back to the editors and get them to redo exports for me that worked fine in the pro tools suite. Unfortunately Nuendo is still in the position that if pro tools can do it Nuendo needs to do it better.
Dave
I too think this needs to be addressed.
“Insisting” it be correct at the source is all very well, but it doesn’t take into account accidental errors. And video editing apps deal with mixed sample rate audio seamlessly. An editor might not even know theres a problem being sent down the line.
There’s no reason Nuendo shouldn’t be a gate keeper for us. Lawd knows there’s enough other problems for us poor post people to worry about!
Heiner:
I know I’m sounding like an old fart now, but that has slipped in recent years, as the technical skills of SOME newer colleagues leave somewhat to be desired, let’s say…
Yes, we’re old farts now - I’ve been farting for more than 30 years since it was mag stock and sample rate meant how fast you could try every beer on tap before last call. Current software built on our backs usually just magically works, leaving most new users oblivious to pitfalls. Then when it does happen, it’s hard to “retrain” users to look out for potential problems because they never had to experience the pain of them happening everyday. But I wouldn’t go back to “the good old days” for anything.
I haven’t installed the latest update (7.1.0) for Nuendo yet, I am on 7.0.40. But does anybody know if the “AAF with multiple sample rates” - issue has been fixed in it? I can’t find any reference to that in the version info. And in my opinion it is an issue that MUST be addressed in an upcoming update. I still receive AAF’s from editors with multiple sample rates which are not imported correctly. For this reason I have ProTools as well to import the AAF, and then export it as AAF to Nuendo.
Can anybody at Steinberg tell us if, and when this issue will be fixed??