PC Audio Software for Film

H

hanguolaohu

Active member
Hi,

I've just hired a musician to compose some songs for my movie, but he doesn't have experience writing music to match picture. Because he works on a PC, we're having trouble finding a simple Audio editing software that allows you to watch real-time video simultaneously. Would Pro Tools be our best option? I was hoping that someone would know a good cheap PC alternative to Apple's Soundtrack or Logic. Also, the video is encoded in H.264 so hopefully the software would be compatible. Any info much appreciated.

Thanks,
Alexander
 
From what I understand with the 32bit version it will play H.264 but with the 64bit version it needs an update patch which I'm not sure if it has been released.
 
I used to use SAW, very nice. Protools of course works on Windows also. I think Nuendo is cross platform. And then you have all the MIDI apps that also do audio. And as mentioned Sonar. PT uses QT for playback so anything QT can play PT can. I just finished a film on H.264. THe one thing that was very important for audio anyway was setting the keyframes to every frame. Otherwise moving back in time was a real drag. So scrolling forward was smooth but scrowling back was slow and jerky. It's because only key frames have the whole picture. All the other frames only have the diferences. So going backward at the default (on QT in a Mac) one key frame every 24 frames, ment that the computer had to jump back to the last key frame and then read every frame from there to where you are to "build" the current frame.

Good luck
 
I used ProTools at the radio station I worked at and thought I'd never use anything else (once you've tried the best, you have no use for the rest...), but at home I've been using the Adobe bundles for all my video work and I scored my own short film using Audition, and surprise(!), I really like it.

The latest version doesn't come with any of Adobe's CS3 bundles (bastards), and isn't out yet (due in November, $350), but if you can wait, it has a full MIDI sequencer(!), drum machine, and an a bunch of tempo-independent royalty-free loop tracks, as well as a more intuitive mastering setup than ProTools.

Alternately, Adobe's Soundbooth (which comes with the CS3 bundles and is $200 separately) will also do video sync, and it gets the job done, I guess, but it's a more limited program and I rarely use it. (Anyone have a better opinion?)

Sure, ProTools is better, but the only versions worth getting are hardware-dependent, and it wasn't really made for video work. The new versions of Audition are now designed from the ground up for video folks.
 
The Noble Robot said:
... but at home I've been using the Adobe bundles for all my video work and I scored my own short film using Audition, and surprise(!), I really like it.

...Sure, ProTools is better, but the only versions worth getting are hardware-dependent, and it wasn't really made for video work. The new versions of Audition are now designed from the ground up for video folks.
Click to expand...

A few small points.

All Protools are hardware dependent, some are a bit more flexible than others but no versions works with hardware that is not made by Digi or a company Digi owns.

Be careful with Premiere Pro. There are some serious problems if you don't stay compleatly inside Adobe products. Like essentially usless AAF support and no OMF. It is VERY dificult to take a project in PP and send it to post on any other system. Hopefuly they will fix this at some point???

PT is used for 90+% of audio post on feature films in the US. It has under gone a number of version changes that were designed specifically for post. The original SoundTools was not designd for post but Digi bought a post app, whose name escapes me, and started a serious reworking for post duties around version 4 (they are now at 7.3). Digi is also moving in a big way onto mix stages with the Icon mix console. So I think your assesment of PT and post is a bit off.
 
Noiz2 said:
A few small points.

All Protools are hardware dependent,
Click to expand...

I was thinking of the cheap M-Box versions, which are little more than USB peripherals.

So I think your assesment of PT and post is a bit off.
Click to expand...
But I'm not talking about the high-end ProTools setups (I mean, Avid owns Digi now, so of course it's going to focus on film work). For the pros, PT is hands down the best software, but for Indie's on a budget, not so much.

For such a reasonable price, you can't beat Audition's quality or toolset. I mean, you can mix 5.1 audio natively in Audition, but you can't in the "affordable" versions of PT (with good reason, yes, but still).

And not only are you exaggerating Premiere's "problems" (it does support AAF, After Effects supports OMF, and the poster doesn't need to use OMF or AAF anyway) which is a topic for another date, but besides, Audition is not in any way dependent on Premiere. You can use Final Cut, Vegas, or whatever NLE you want and still work with Audition for audio (in fact, you should be already finished with your edit, right??).
 
You oviously haven't had to actually make the AAF export work. I just finished a mix on a doc done in PP and the editor went through hell to get me anything. He ended up going through Audition to Avid to get a working AAF. The part about PP was actually more to you than him since as you point out he shouldn't need it.

"finishe with your edit"??? what universe do you live in ;~) We started calling films "latched" instead of "locked" because nothing ever seems locked anymore.

You left off the M-Audio hardware, which is what I thought you were talking about. If by "hardware dependent" you mean cards in a slot then yes only the TDM systems require that. However all the Le systems require specific hardware, and you may think of it as a dongle but which ever pice of Digi hardware you need is the only audio interface you can use so to me that's pretty dependant.

Claims of "5.1" are pointless unles your mixing in a properly set up surround room and if your spending those kinds of bucks then PT TDM doesn't look so expensive. If your not mixing in a tned room then your just playing with your self because it will never translate. You can get by with stereo in lesser rooms and there is really no "good" reason for any body with a budget under a few million (who's not doing a game) to work in surround, contrary to current marketing hype. However you can work in 5.1 if you need to with Le. I know a lot of folks who do it all the time (for games). It's not as easy and it isn't really designed for it but it is certainly doable.
Also PT was doing films long befor Avid had a hand in it. Avid bought Digi last year... year before. I was cutting features on PT in 96, and I was far away from the cutting edge. 92-94 I think was about the time that PT started taking over, and around 95-96 they had most of the market. Audio Vision (I remembered the name) was bought by Digi before 97, because people were bitching about it. So they have been focusing on post for about ten years or atleast eight years before Avid bought them.

And if he's working with film or video OMF and AAF are an issue, though your right he may be able to get by with out.

BUT, I'm not knocking Audition. I haven't used it and it sounds like it would do what he needs. Don't know what it costs, PT can be had with interface for around $300.

The only (poss big) plus I can see for PT is compatability with post sound folks. Just about any music studio or pro working in post will be able to open your session. It doesn't sound like that would be a huge concern to you (the poster) but it might be. In the end it's all tools. Define what you need to do and pick whatever best fits that need and is within you budget. For me that's PT but that is me and the buisiness I'm in. I was on SAW before (PC) and liked it a lot. I only went to PT because of work, and I only went to Mac because at the time PT only ran on the Mac. I'm not evangelical about either.
 
You have said some incorect things, I'm correcting the information. It's not a pissing contest, I don't win anything. If it were a pissing contest we would be arguing opinions, I'm only correcting facts. I mean it's not that hard probably 5 min with Google and you could pull up the same info on PT, I just happened to live it.

I don't care if you don't use PT or if you do use Audition. I just want people using, or not , for real and valid reasons. Not because of one factions advertising hype, or because of some of the pile of misinformation that gets spread by overzelous proponents of brand X. I also chime in on folks going off on PT claiming it's the most fantastic bla bla bla. In fact there is another thread in this section where I'm recomending against PT (for production audio) because the claims of stability were not in touch with the experience of my self and a lot of other heavy users.
 
The Noble Robot said:
Then what's with the pissing contest.. why are you arguing with me? :huh:
Click to expand...


I sort of responde only on the PT part but I guess you might be getting touchy about PP.
I've done post on three projects now that were cut on PP. Two of three liked PP and the last hated it, or I should say thought it was OK till export time and trying to interact with other people on diferent systems. He has sworn he will never touch it again no matter what. But he came out of Avid and was only using PP because at the time it was the only app (on the PC - FCP would have worked on a Mac) that supported the camera that he had decided to shoot with.
However ALL had serious problems with export to audio post. The first two ended up pulling out handles on every edit and bouncing whole tracks at a time. The last project needte to have the ability to conform to changes and so needed an OMF or AAF. He could not get the AAF to work and acording to the documentation the AAF is only suposed to work going to Avid, but that didn't work for him because there was no way in PP to export an audio only AAF and to do the full one ment he would have to transcode every clip going into the Avid. THis was a doc and he was looking at over 50 hrs of footage that would have taken 100-150 hrs to transcode, and that wasn't an option. Hence the long proscess I mentioned earlier.
Now maybe there is a way to get it to work but I kind of doubt it. He is an experienced editor and does beta testing for a number of pieces of software so he's pretty swift about such things and the only third party app that dealt with the issue (automatic Duck) droped PP from the list of supported apps (and supposedly they really never got it right).

I suspect that inside it's suite PP works great and the issue is only with going outside. FCP had a bit of the same issue. It did do OMF but you lost all automation info, wich really sucked. I also suspect that if PP is used more in shows that go to a real audio post some of the "play well with others" issues will get fixed. The lates FCP has fixed a lot of those kinds of issues.

So as I sort of said I'm not knocking PP. But I think it's important to have it out there what some of the limitations are. If your doing a film and you are going to do a real audio post (ie your going to have a sound person really work on it) then the ods are that your going to be using someone who is using Protools, and if that's the case you need to know ahead of time that your going to have to jump through some hoops to get them what they need.

I have dealt with many NLE's and DAW's and they all have limitations and things they just don't do. They all are perfect for some situations. If it's the right tool for your job use it, if it's not get a diferent tool.

Cheers
SK
 
Noiz2 said:
However ALL had serious problems with export to audio post.
Click to expand...

Well, I haven't. So while I'm sure your stories are true, my experience kinda makes you wrong... but wait, why the hell are you still talking about Premiere, anyway?? This topic has nothing to do with PP. As for "correcting misinformation" no one mentioned Premiere until you incorrectly implied that it was tied to Audition. That might not have been what you meant, but that needed correcting.
the pile of misinformation that gets spread by overzelous proponents of brand X
Click to expand...
Did you not read, in my first post on the matter, that PT is the best mixing software available (it's personally what I'm more experienced with and what I'd prefer to use)? So what info of mine did you need to correct, by the way?

If your doing a film and you are going to do a real audio post (ie your going to have a sound person really work on it)
Click to expand...
Wow. A little condescending, are we?

In fact there is another thread in this section where I'm recomending against PT
Click to expand...
Gold star for you! :laugh:

Bottom line: the guy was looking for a cheap, easy solution with the most features per dollar spent, for a person who has never scored music for a film and doesn't seem to have a lot of time.

ProTools is not his best option under those parameters. Period. I think you would agree with me there. Audition might be a good choice, but so might Soundbooth, and so might something even cheaper and simpler(!). That's the "(mis)information" I gave that inspired you to sound off on Premiere for some reason...

:2vrolijk_08:
 
Last edited:
OK we have gone a bit astray.

"Well, I haven't. So while I'm sure your stories are true, my experience kinda makes you wrong... but wait, why the hell are you still talking about Premiere, anyway?? This topic has nothing to do with PP. As for "correcting misinformation" no one mentioned Premiere until you incorrectly implied that it was tied to Audition. That might not have been what you meant, but that needed correcting."

Actually you mentioned the Adobe suite and cutting picture. That would be PP. It is tied to Audion inthat it's in the same suite that you brought up. We shouldn't be going on about it your right. I don't think that your experience is "wrong" but I'm not sure what your exporting into. I was pretty clear about the work flow that was causing problems and that if it's not your work flow you might not have a problem.
I guess my point was (and I didn't explain it properly) that going from PP to Protools is (or rather has been in my experience) a problem and you should know that up front rather than have a surprise in post.



"Did you not read, in my first post on the matter, that PT is the best mixing software available (it's personally what I'm more experienced with and what I'd prefer to use)? So what info of mine did you need to correct, by the way?"

That PT didn't work with video untill you got to TDM. That PT didn't work well for post till Avid bought them. That you can't do surround in Le. I would have to look back to name more but that's what I can think of off the bat. And I don't think PT is the "best" mixing app around. I like it as an editor but it has a way to go as a mixer. But it is the industry standard at this time.


"Wow. A little condescending, are we?"

??? Don't think so. You can't do a real audio post with out doing one. Maybe it came off that way? A lot of projects don't need a real audio post. I have done a number of projects that didn't have a real audio post. I'm not using "real" as a status thing, just as a definition. A real audio post involves editors and dedicated systems and a mix in a tuned room. It can be done at a small studio or on a large mix stage. It is the only way to get that "big picture Hollywood" sound. Doc's almost never have a real audio post, neither do many TV projects, few wedding videos, etc. I don't mean anything bad about it. But if your doing a narative film it can be a great help to have a real audio post.

"Gold star for you! :laugh:"

I take'em where I can get'em.

"Bottom line: the guy was looking for a cheap, easy solution with the most features per dollar spent, for a person who has never scored music for a film and doesn't seem to have a lot of time.

ProTools is not his best option under those parameters. Period. I think you would agree with me there. Audition might be a good choice, but so might Soundbooth, and so might something even cheaper and simpler(!). That's the "(mis)information" I gave that inspired you to sound off on Premiere for some reason..."

I didn't mean to imply that your opinion was the misinformation and the detour into PP was my fault. I was actualy meaning to alert you to the eport problem that I had experienced because I assumed ( poss. incorectly) from your post that you were using PP. I really and truly wasn't trying to go off on PP.

As to PT V.S. other editors... I'm not compleatly in agreement in that as I said before I don't think it's so cut and dryed. I think you have to asses your needs before deciding what is the best fit. I don't know all the apps but PT doesn't have that steap a learning curve for doing basic editing. And it doesn't cost that much to get into. The one thing I would take into account is how experienced a picture editor you (generic you) are. STP (a Mac app) is very picture editor friendly but PT isn't particularly. PT doesn't work much like a NLE and that would be an issue if I were a picture editor who wanted a sound app.

Anyway, lets call a truce. I didn't mean to discount your info and opinions or seem condesending.
 
That PT didn't work with video untill you got to TDM.
Click to expand...
I never mentioned PT with TDM, only that LE isn't for video (although you can still do it, I guess). That's a fact.

That PT didn't work well for post till Avid bought them.
Click to expand...
No, I said that, irrespective of how the "Pro" ProTools versions were in the past (which I make no comment on), it makes sense that Avid wouldn't ignore that aspect ion the future.

That you can't do surround in Le.
Click to expand...
No, that you can't do surround in LE natively. You said so yourself in another post.

You can't do a real audio post with out doing one.
Click to expand...
No, I meant "[if] your going to have a sound person really work on it." That was condescending. But after your reply, I'm sure you didn't mean it. No worries.

Anyway, lets call a truce.
Click to expand...
Sounds good :smile:. You seem to know your stuff, and it's not like we're really in disagreement about anything here :cheesy::cheesy::cheesy:
 
Noiz2 said:
I used to use SAW, very nice.
Good luck
Click to expand...

Why did you give it up? I still use Sawstudio and I think its about the best and most reliable software out there to mix midi, serious multitrack recording and video all at the same time and with great accuracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top