Dude, I don't know about you. You sure break your neck for that newbie admiration and strokes. It's kind of weird if you ask me.

Just my impression.

=============================================================
This is not appropriate. Coming in here and throwing garbage, offending professionals, and spouting misinformation to newbies who are uninformed and trusting just doesn't cut it.

"What you just wrote is exactly what "I" call harmonic balance."

You can call it whatever you like, but dynamic range is the correct term, harmonic balance is another concept altogether. A harmonic of a wave is a component frequency of the signal that is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency. Harmonics refers to frequencies and dynamic range refers to amplitude.

"I don't know why there's always such a fuss here over semantics at the expense of knowledge."

Because it helps if we are all speaking a common language. If you use the term "focus" when you're really talking about white balance, then no one is going to know what your freakin talking about.

I'm not going to just stand by while you spew pure misinformation. The danger is that someone that knows less than you do might believe it and spread this nonsense as the truth.

This forum is not anyone's "personal playground", like many people, I have been here since 2002 trying to help as many forum members as I can and learn things here as well. If I truly know the answer to a question, I will post something, if I am the least bit unsure of the answer, I won't post anything. Someone else will usually have the correct answer and so far, that "someone else" hasn't been you.

I see gain as EV in camera parlance. EQ as HSL. I see everything as pictures, and communicate ideas and concepts in metaphors, to my chagrin.

Lord help me if I mention ppi or dpi instead of spi.

It's easy to pick me apart semantically, I readily admit that.


=========================================================
Because it helps if we are all speaking a common language. If you use the term "focus" when you're really talking about white balance, then no one is going to know what your freakin talking about.

communicate ideas and concepts in metaphors

There's a place for art in language. That's why Dog made novelists and poets.

Do you want your heart surgeon wading through metaphor when he reads the manual for the latest, greatest OR equipment? What style of writing would you prefer on the blueprints for that bridge over which your children will be riding the school bus every day?

In the technical world, if people have to guess what you mean, you are not communicating.

I read a post once, somewhere, not here, that Track Motion was a tool for PIP. And certainly the help menu displays PIP as the first example.

So if I think of it as a PIP tool, I get pigeonholed mentally.

Engineers look for practical use, content creators look for unpractical use. Engineers proof their work with math, art people proof their work with emotions and "feel".

I discovered later that Track motion is really a powerful concept that needs interpreting by each user based on their own concept of what it is, and written words can't fully describe it. It has no strict interpretation.

Now that it has a third "handle" it REALLY gets into the abstract, for the good though.

I've always thought of Track Motion and Pan/Crop as the same tool operating in different domains. Like "cityview" and "worldview".

"Engineers proof their work with math, art people proof their work with emotions and "feel"." Actually, Sound Engineers to producers proof their work with emotions and "feel" of the target listening market. The math is more on the producers profit margin. Of course, the recorded material has to be reproducible in an usable mass market media, so, some math maybe required! ;-)

I've been using conventional tools unconventionally since probably before you were born. In fact, I'd say that pretty much everyone here does that on a daily basis. You don't have the market cornered on creativity.

I've just seen your YouTube page and I take back everything I've said about you because I'm going to have to come up with a whole new set of comments to describe what I saw there.

http://www.youtube.com/user/budwzr

"Going Down The Bayou" is an exemplar of how not to use a camera.

Which gets back to a previous comment "It's really hard to get good footage". Taking the time to learn the terminology, then to understand the technology is step one in mastering any art form. The more technology based the artform is the more critical to success this is. I cannot think of any artform that is more deeply rooted in technology than the one we all here dabble in.

Bob.

I can't argue with that. I had a mob of people around me, no choice. I meant to edit that part but got lazy and just sent it out to YouTube.

Funny, that's the worst of the bunch, but got two 5 star ratings and lots more views. Haha, that's because it's Disney footage, I know.

==================================================
Going Down The Bayou" is an exemplar of how not to use a camera.

"Going Down The Bayou" is an exemplar of how not to use a camera.------ Farss, you found the words I was searching for. ;-) BUT as a tourist footage or newbie testing out ideals...... it's ok, because of its learning value. ;-)

I rarely applied "pro editing style" to home or sports video because of "over" presenting simple material vs home video expectations. I used to go overboard, camera motion tracking, etc really overkill. I did enjoy the challenge, but you shouldn't drive the F1 to buy groceries during a wintersnow storm.... unless your my crazy neighbor.

Does that mean a whole new round of insults?

P.S. You were right about the fades.

===============================================================
I've just seen your YouTube page and I take back everything I've said about you because I'm going to have to come up with a whole new set of comments to describe what I saw there.

"Does that mean a whole new round of insults?"

No, I think your "work" speaks for itself.

People like you just amaze me, "I don't need to know what I'm doing, it's all about feel and emotion, I'm an artist! Screw the rules, I just touch a slider and see where it takes me!" And then you have the audacity to start threads here on the forum imploring SCS to sequester the professionals so "artists" like youself could have free run of the forum. You're a delusional piece of work. If you want credibility here, you're going to have to earn it like everyone else. In the meantime, your credibility with me is zero. There is no place to go but up.

Hey Erik, did you ever get your audio matched up?

"Hey Erik, did you ever get your audio matched up? " Did you look at rs170a's suggestion of using "room tone" or vegas' acoustics mirror -- a great tool.

"Hey Erik, did you ever get your audio matched up?"

Sorry guys...got caught up in watching how this thread would play out. I did get the the clips to match well enough using my futz with it, then futz with it some more technique. I appreciate all the input and still want to clarify the room tone suggestion. Was it that mixing a room tone clip with another audio clip effectively forces the room tone EQ upon the clip that you want to change?

As a complete aside, since were discussing audio in Vegas, does anyone know of a way to make an audio track in Vegas mono? What I've been doing is leaving the pan centered and then placing my mono source on it without any issues... except that I've noticed that I can't stack identical audio clips on different tracks in Vegas without getting some type of phasing error. That was a wordy sentence, but a technique I have used in other NLE's for boosting audio on a clip that was recorded too low, is to duplicate and stack the audio on top of each other on the timeline. Can't do that in Vegas without the phasing problem I mentioned.

Erik

"does anyone know of a way to make an audio track in Vegas mono"

Sure, R Click, Channels. Select L or R or combine.

If the level is too low add gain in the track header and a volume envelope. Say add 9dB in the header and set your volume envelope to -9dB. You're now back to unity but you can get 15dB (6 + 9 = 15)gain as needed using the volume envelope plus some nodes.

Bob.

"Sure, R Click, Channels. Select L or R or combine."

But Bob, isn't that just changing the clip to mono not the track itself?


"If the level is too low add gain in the track header and a volume envelope."

I generally have been leaving the headers at 0 because I don't like adjusting a header for one or two clips. It's easier for me but I'll keep your work flow in mind for the future.

Erik

"I've noticed that I can't stack identical audio clips on different tracks in Vegas without getting some type of phasing error." ??? Well this is new to me but I don't follow most of the audio postings. I just recently stacked a couple of identical tracks, using volume envelope to increase volume on specific words, no problem.

"But Bob, isn't that just changing the clip to mono not the track itself?"

Yes. The audio track reads whatever type of clip it has in it--stereo or mono. More flexibility that way.

Vegas does not support mono tracks as such.
Dual mono is the same though.
To increase level if you're really desperate use the Normalise switch in the clip's properties and a gain or fade envelope to turn it down if needed.

Bob.

Was it that mixing a room tone clip with another audio clip effectively forces the room tone EQ upon the clip that you want to change?

I'm not sure that I would use the word "force" but that's essentially what you're doing.
Ideally you would do the new recording (with the same mic in the same position please!!) in a quiet and dry room.
By dry, I mean a room that won't affect the recording.
After the new track is recorded, add the "room tone" that you recorded earlier to another track and adjust the level as required.
I had to do this a few months ago when guy I interviewed had to make some additions to what he said in the original interview.
I stuck the same lav on him, recorded him in a quiet room, added some room tone afterward and no one noticed the difference.

Mike

Let's separate some terms here.

"Room tone" is usually, the way most audio people use it, just an abstract term for how a room reverberates. A church has a huge "tone," while a closet has an almost imperceptible smearing of mid- and high-frequency content. To make a mix of wildly disparate recordings "sit" better, one approach may simply be to apply a similar room tone to the dryer track, using the wetter one as a template. If you have the time and inclination, you can capture an actual room tone by playing back a short sound (usually a sine sweep or a short burst of noise) in the physical room itself, and using a convolution reverb (someone mentioned Acoustic Mirror) to recreate it later in the studio.

The other thing suggested, recording 30 seconds of ambience, is simply to make the audio editing easier. It will serve as a baseline soundscape, upon which you then mount the speech, music or whatever you're keen on adding. This is not a "room tone" in the sense most people use it, it's simply an ambience recording. Very useful thing to have, though.

Another minor point: Recordings with too much reverberation (or "room tone" if you wish) make them sound somewhat amateur-like, since it's not what we're used to hearing on the teevee. The last thing you want to do is overly compress or limit such a signal -- it will boost the room more than the voice, which usually kills audibility. If you need to boost volume, simply increase the gain until you're in the -12 to -6 dB window.

Right-clicking and selecting "normalize" is another quick fix, but it's done on a per-event basis and may cause inconsistencies. I wrote a script called "Multi-Event Normalization" to address this specific issue.

I feel like Bill Murray, and you're Sgt. Hulka.

==================================================
You're a delusional piece of work. If you want credibility here, you're going to have to earn it like everyone else. In the meantime, your credibility with me is zero.