Jump to content


Samplitude Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by olamo

  1. "More than this"? I wonder if Eiriks idea could be handy in a post prod./dialogue situation as well? There is a constant struggle to isolate different aspects and sources from location recordings Ola
  2. Yes, please make VariVerb surround capable, RS 5.1 is unusable for several reasons ( low performance, cunmbersome setup routing etc) Please !! Ola
  3. Good to know, Greg! I have a copy of Samp 10 as well, but haven't used it for this kind of work yet.. Ola
  4. I'm a newbie with Sequoia and video. How would you handoff (exchange) files with someone working in a Mac-based environment with Final Cut Pro and using Sequoia for sweetening? Would we have to go through an additional step exporting to Quicktime and then converting to an AVI? BK Hi Bob, Usually, I receive quicktime exports from final cut with either photojpeg(75%) compression or H264 codecs. It works well in Sequoia, but I think Samplitude is somewhat crippled in this aspect - haven't used it for a while so don't remember. In Sequoia, I find that these mentioned formats to perform as good or better (read "more stable") than in Nuendo. None of them can compete with PT that eats everything in terms of video. One of my complaints is that Sequoia doesn't export to quicktime, but only AVI. So if you want to send previews back to the production it has to be converted to AVI. Usually, I send my mix back to Final Cut either rendered or as an OMF. And I agree with Nick - no one I know in this business needs the video recording option in a DAW. We need basic established features. I have a couple of request threads over at the Sequoia forum, if you guys take a look there you see what I mean Best, Ola
  5. Yeah, Greg.. I could do that, but then I have to recode/render all files I get into my studio as well. The source files have to be AVi as well - QT works fine as media link format, but the adjustments/cuts will not transfer because the surce file isn't avi. I have Nuendo and PT LE and end up doing the final merge there anyway. Or rather load the Sequoia mix into FInal cut. Cheers, Ola
  6. MEP is nice and cheap for consumer tasks, and I have used it myself to get my family holiday shots from a miniDV onto a DVD- V. But as you say Sebastian, MEP is IMO no way near the professional realm that Sequoia operates in. What many of us need from Sequoia is the ability to output clips with score/sound design in a container format ( and valid codec) to the major players Final Cut and Avid. I don't need another quasi video editor. For that I use Final Cut. Nothing wrong with having AVI as an option too, but it just isn't enough. One have to question what is the real purpose of the video features in Sequoia? I happen to believe this is for post production, as you also have similar features in Nuendo and Pro tools ( and not to forget pyramix). Sequoia should be no less than these competitors in this field, added to the many brilliant features that's already there. Cheers, Ola
  7. That's really odd.. depends on the codec/format being used of course. Should be able to shuffle around the video clips in Sequoia and export it back to the same format. Not the least: The fact that you cannot write your audio back to the QT or DV video file is completely ridiculous IMO. Instead you need to render to an AVI file Even 600$ Cubase and Logic can do that.. Ola
  8. Agreed. But vice versa anything that narrows the gap is not exactly what produces that result. I do. What is the problem with AVIs? It's a great container format. You can have just about the same codecs. I am afraid you are mixing up Quicktime Pro as an encoder solution with the container format./S No, not mixing anything up. It's about handling files to and from post facilities/production houses in a standard delivery format( and well used codec ) with a minimum of hassle.. QT (PhotoJPG codec) works great as a source in Sequoia, should be export format as well. In my world people are not using Vegas or Premiere, but almost exclusively Final Cut. Ola
  9. I did take the plunge, but I still think jcorbett has a very valid point here. And IMO Sequoia should be much more packed with high end video/post features than Samp to justify the price difference. That said, I also think Sequoia should be able to do export to quicktime and not only AVI. Who uses AVI these days? Ola
  10. Hello Sascha, Is it possible to buy the plugins online with the discount for Samp users? Cheers, Ola
  • Create New...