If video clips could be set to musical time, they could be kept synchronised with music even after tempo changes. At present in a project with multiple video clips, a change of tempo means all subsequent clips lose synchronisation. If clip starts were musical events, they would remain synchronised to other musical events.
don´t know, maybe it´s more a work for nuendo?
Currently, if you change tempo, all of the subsequent clip/cues lose sync. This would fix that simply (from the user’s perspective). This is a problem for composers. Nuendo is for post, where this issue would be less likely to arise.
did you´ve looked in the internet and in this forum around, if somebody got the same problem?
This isn’t a technical problem. Naturally objects that are not in musical time can’t be kept in sync with other objects that are in musical time when tempo changes. It’s fundamental to how Cubase works.
ya, so an issue of the programm. did you looled, if somebody got the same intention as you?
I say +1. This would be handy for working on multiple cues in certain situations.
Cubase seems designed to use only one video clip per project file.
I also hope the larger picture would be considered by the dev team to make improvements that would be useful in many different scenarios. It would be great to have the ability to for example, lock a section of the timeline to a time position, and be able to freely modify tempos before and after.
I don’t know what will happen when Steinberg abandons QuickTime, but (I don’t know the answer to this next question either 
), how accurate is QuickTime’s variable playback speed anyways? (I mean, would it be able to keep up with whatever tempo variations in Cubase’s Tempo Track?)
I think John is talking about the start times of segments, not slowing down the video per-se- n’st-ce-pas? Does that still require Quicktime to do the calcs?
Ah yes, I think you are right (I always overcomplicate things )
So, really, what we are asking is… Musical Timebase for the Video Track . That should be doable, I think 
.
Yeah, one would think. It’s a really good FR.
And I’m not sure if it’s true that you always over-complicate things, I mean, it depends on what you mean by over complicate- where do you put the threshold for that point where a thing becomes over complicated, and is it always the same? And what about reducing complexity to the point of oversimplifying? That’s important to have a look at too… 
Well, you’re not the only one. 
Once you have simplified to a certain degree, further simplifying can get quite… complicated 
rotf.