Video "add-on" content...

If SB made a paid “add on” for video that made it possible to edit video, including adding some basic effects such as text, crossfade, picture in picture, split screen, swipe, fadeout, etc., AND the ability to EXPORT to popular formats, would you buy it? I would definitely pay $50 for it. Maybe more depending on the feature set.
They are already selling “expansions” beyond musical content (i.e. features) with the VST Connect and Cloud features.
Just curious how many people would dabble in the video stuff if you could make a decent video all within Cubase. :smiley:

I would probably buy it, yeah.

I have Sony Vegas and Final Cut Pro, so not much interest here, but for quick edits, it might be cool. Reaper has good video support, got that too.

It’s an absolutely terrible idea in practice. In an ideal world, yes, please give me a software that does anything I can ever think of.

But practically speaking: Steinberg already has users complain about important features not working, not to mention numerous annoying design choices that hamper workflows. Just what do you think happens to the complexity of the code and the requirements to support the software if you add “add-on” video editing/fx components!?

No offense, but it’s a terrible idea.

For anyone who wants to edit video there’s Blackmagic Design’s Davinci Resolve for FREE, which includes industry-leading color correction.

Dayum Lydiot you beat me to it… pretty much verbatim! lol

ta for the link to Davinci Resolve though… never heard of it and occasionally have to work on video… will check that out later… cheers geezer!

Ur welcome, dude :slight_smile:

Yeah, supposedly Davinci Resolve got a very big update at 12.5 compared to 12.0 (or whatever it was) and so it’s more viable as an editor now for professionals. For color correction it’s been industry standard for years, with control surfaces costing up to about $30,000 or so. The real deal. It’s actually insane that there’s a free version. Most of the limitations in the free version relates to either ultra-high-def or stereoscopic (3D) imagery, and possibly some denoising; in other words pretty specific high-end features.

Other than that Adobe Premiere is probably worth the money for anyone needing to edit every now and then.

NOTE: I just remembered that you may have to dedicate a separate gpu for image processing. So this would mean there’d be a need for two graphic cards in a system where there’s no (cpu-)integrated graphics…

I did see something about additional GPUs but haven’t even had time to install it today… It looks like some SERIOUS bit of kit from what i was reading earlier though… i have a mate who makes his living with video using Premiere and he’d not heard of it… he was pretty excited when i linked him up to it though… Even if i can’t get it running on my system i’ve lost nothing other than a few mins downloading… I have an Ivy bridge processor so that might be of help? I’ll do some research and testing when i have a bit more time…

I think it may need one GPU for the GUI and another for processing…

Yeah i have a separate GPU as well as onboard so thought i might give it a go… might work… might not… worth a punt though and nothing to loose…

While i do understand the concerns, i would like to say that ANY idea is a bad idea if we assume it will be implemented poorly or improperly. I dont totally disagree with the “its a bad idea” mindset though. I have even said myself in response to someones interest in having Cubase burn a selection of songs to a CD that we dont want to have Cubase do too much beyond what it is really meant to do. And there is a part of me that agrees that adding video editing, etc., violates this principle. But, after tinkering with the video track a little, i couldnt help but wish i could do a little more with it.
Anyway, i do appreciate the information about the other video making applications.
I will check into those. I made a very simple video last week with Windows Movie Maker.

This is an excellent idea !

Those who advise to use an editing software instead, are not getting the point at all.

What the OP is suggesting, and the main purpose in my opinion, would be to export a video with the sound or the music, with quick addition of basic texts or effects. Imagine working with a director and continuously sending to him excerpts of his movie including annotations about the details of the music you’ve done for it. Or making a quick video demo for your song with basic effects, titles etc etc …

It’s not a question of making the final video or movie !
(even if it could be feasible)

So, very useful, I’d definitely buy it.
I will already be very happy if we can only export untouched video + audio.

Besides, generally speaking, in my view, any new feature is a good idea ! :wink:

Yeah buddy, we’re getting the point.

It doesn’t matter if it’s the final video. If you add the functionality to overlay text/effects and then render then it’s just a workflow issue whether or not that’s the final. Besides, once you do, you can bet your butt that some will ask for more video-specific features. Once that door is unlocked some will want it wider and wider.

Well, you probably read my objection already, but I’ll rephrase it for better context:

I bought Nuendo 7 almost 11 months ago. 11 months. I did it because a “new feature” wasn’t just a good idea, but something I use all the time when I’m on PT (which is 80% of the time these days). Those VCAs STILL aren’t working. We’re coming up on a full year of me having paid for something that still doesn’t work.

I agree with you: “any new feature is a good idea” assuming it all works. It doesn’t though, that’s the point I’m making.

Sorry my dear, there is no need to use professional video editing software such as Avid, Premiere or BalckMagic or else, for the very basic video editing we’re talking about. That’s what made me say you’re not getting the point !
There’s a world of difference between a final video and a quick preview !

Sure, I’ll be the first in line. :wink:

That’s where our points of view really differ.
You’re basically pessimistic. You assume that new features mean new bugs. You’re probably right.
But hey… if Steinberg had always dedicated their time only fixing bugs instead of moving forward, we would still be at Cubase 3 !

I didn’t say there was such a need either, did I…!

So really I’m a realist, and you are the same it seems.

That’s an illogical conclusion.

It seemed to me :

And I don’t think those who would like basic video editing and export in Cubase would necessarily need color correction ! But if there is, all the better !

You’re saying news features are a “terrible idea” because it brings new bugs.
I say it’s probably true, but it’s worth it, and bugs are made to be fixed ! :smiley:

Just a little bit exaggerated to support my argument.
On the other hand, saying that adding new features is a bad idea because of bugs, doesn’t sound more logical to me. :wink:

Maybe this feature is a bad idea for you, because you probably don’t really need video in Cubase/Nuendo. I don’t know.

With respect TheMaestro… there are more than enough bugs in cubendo currently which need addressing… we really don’t need any more to add to the already extensive list, some of which have been ongoing for years now…
I think many, if not most of us would prefer uncle steiny got on top of those first and increased its efficiency system wise before adding even more bugs… imho of course :wink:

Get Nuendo?

If that’s too much for your needs there are a million Video Editors for free and upwards.

Leave Cubase Alone! :cry:

I only pointed out DaVinci Resolve as an alternative because it is a complete solution that is free. I have a hard time imagining anything a user that predominantly does audio would want that it doesn’t have. It exists already. And it’s free. That doesn’t mean there aren’t a gazillion other apps out there that does a lot less than that but still are adequate.

The point had nothing at all to do with the capacity of the app I suggested beyond it being sufficient for the functionality that was requested in this thread.

To you. Not to me. Perhaps you don’t make a living using the software, but I do. That’s why I don’t want to risk more and “dangerous” bugs. Steinberg is a company focused on audio, and not even that is working as it should, and you want to add more complex video functionality to the equation?

We simply disagree on that.

And that’s also not what I said I believe.

Different features have different potential implications for the software. The audio signal path is of course extremely important. With the VCA failure SB showed that when implementing a new feature that the competition has had for over a decade, and that is industry standard for post-production, it’ll take close to a year (if not more since it’s still not working) to get it to work. Ok? That’s a core element of the software, the signal path. Now, video, for Nuendo which is for post-production, is also a core piece of the code. It’s absolutely 100% essential it works flawlessly. Just like people like me can’t have an audio engine that for example renders too loud levels on export which would fail Quality Control when we deliver for broadcast we also can’t have video that doesn’t work 100%. It can’t drop frames. It can’t drift. It can’t crop. It can’t truncate etc. It needs to be entirely solid.

So, messing with that level of functionality should in my opinion happen rarely. They already have problems enough as it is. If there’s a new feature where you can quantize midi differently for example then go ahead and implement it. I think it has far less bad potentially negative effects.

I get paid for mixing post which includes video. So far the times I’ve been asked to change something in video it’s been by low-pay customers who didn’t know any better. That’s a segment of the market that’s pretty hard to navigate profitably. But should I care to do so there’s Resolve. So while it would be convenient to have basic video editing and rendering with added layers/effects I’d rather do that in a separate app, both being 100% solid.

I understand your point and it’s valid.
You can’t afford to deal with newly introduced bugs with the addition of a new feature.
But again I find you pessimistic. Any new feature won’t “necessarily” impact audio part of the software, and won’t necessarily take 1 or 2 years to function properly.

It’s not a about delivering videos to your clients for broadcast etc…
Once again we’re talking about fast and really basic and “light” video editing for “internal use”.
And it’s absolutely not a question of turning Cubase or Nuendo into a video editing program.

I already have a professional video editing program and all the tools I need for proper video output.
Exporting a quick video from the audio program you’re working on is a totally different approach and extremely time saver.

Cubase/Nuendo are vast, and you and me don’t use the program the same way, therefor we don’t have the same priorities and this explains our divergence. You mainly use audio and mixing part and I mainly use midi, score editor, video, and of course audio but probably not to the same degree as you.
As a result Steinberg always has to find compromises to satisfy all the users.

As you well know, anyway, Steinberg is always forced to implement major new features in order to entice people to purchase new versions. The users would be less tempted to pay for Cubase 9, 10, 11 … if they only consist of bug fixing updates and some minor new additions.

Depending on how severe the bug is relative to how useful the new feature is. I can use Nuendo 7 just fine as long as I avoid VCAs. The current implementation is both awful and dangerous. So I can’t touch it. But apart from that the software works. But there have been versions where things have been “slightly off” without people noticing, and that’s not a good thing.

Why are you stating the above? I didn’t say it necessarily would, did I? I said that given SB’s track record it’s better to not mess with new and tricky stuff that touches core functionality unless it’s needed. It’s not pessimism, it’s realism. I could call you a “dreamer”, but that doesn’t make you wrong, just like calling me a pessimist doesn’t make me wrong.

I never said it was. You seem to keep reading a bunch of stuff into what I write that isn’t there.

You have to consider what it takes - technically - to add titling and effects to the video and then render it. Is there any difference - technically - between “basic” effects and non-basic effects? As far as I understand it NLEs have plugins just like DAWs do. So you have the basic underlying video engine which allows for applying a plugin-effect to the video. Just like VST the host probably doesn’t care at all what the plugin does as long as it conforms to the plugin specification. So in other words; as soon as you implement ANY video plugin capability it doesn’t matter if that plugin effect is “basic” or not, and so the issue I’m pointing out has nothing to do with “light” or “internal use” or “basic”. It has to do with the fact that now we’re screwing around with the video track in realtime, in an app made for audio production.

But as I tried to point out, BOTH of us use BOTH video and audio, and if any part of the basic audio/video functionality is compromised we BOTH suffer IF we also have to deliver content to spec. I’m not resisting this idea because I don’t think I’d benefit, I think it would be absolutely fantastic to have it added assuming it’d work and wouldn’t break other stuff. But I think it’s likely it’d break other stuff. And since I can’t get (for example) Resolve to do what Nuendo can do, but I can get Resolve for free, the rational approach is to be very conservative with new additions. In my opinion.