BudWzr,
look under the downloads tab at the top of the screen... then drop down to development kits...
I think that might be what you're looking for. . .

Until that time... Earl J.

A nice feature would be to be able to "double click loads into trimmer". You can do that in "project media" but not from within media manager.

Thanks, Marc

> A nice feature would be to be able to "double click loads into trimmer".

Yes . . been there . .

Grazie

I'm kicking around the whole concept of how to index things that are "ethereal", rather than part numbers or invoices.

Should descriptors like sultry, sexy, or jazzy sax be hardwired? Or roll your own?

Do more tags better define something? Or cause confusion.

Can tags be composited to form unique ID's.

Can unique ID's form genres?

It's a lot to soak in and dream about. I'm envisioning a "media bin on steroids" like what SCS calls 3D Track Motion, "Track Motion on steroids".

What you're pondering is exactly what we've been wrestling with in our history office over the last 18 months or so...
Traditionally, librarians, historians, and archivists support fixed vocabularies for finding aids and descriptive indexing ... while the Google generation would rather have wide open full-text searching to locate every possible combination of each term ...
The former technique narrows the focus and brings the item sought quickly to the front - only if you understand the fixed vocabularies and most efficient searching techniques...
The latter technique widens the search and brings back almost every possible combination to peruse at one's leisure - only if one has the time to individually scan 1,308,437 result items...

In our case, we're building a hybrid of sorts ... a very broad-based fixed vocabulary for the anal-retentive among us as well as the ability for the librarians and historians to add more specific metadata as they desire to help focus the topic more specifically of each item we collect and digitize...

It's not an overnight process ... we're building much of the vocabulary now and finalizing the actual workflow of each item.

All that to simply say that a good media manager would have a simple fixed vocabulary to start for the beginners and also include additional advanced features so the more familiar a user becomes with the process and technique, the more specific they can finesse it for their own purposes and workflow ... no?

Until that time... Earl J.

Right! If I want to locate a "Desert Landscape" still, that's a piece of cake, but to find a "Peppy Dance" loop.....hahahahahaha. And "percussion"

Definitely the user has to create custom tags.

Myself what I do on Google, is instead of searching "weed killer", I go for "systemic herbicide". I found that using arcane jargon gets me to the specialized "pro" stuff right away, and then I can work my way broader if necessary, but I doubt many people think like that.

The thing about custom tags though is that they introduce "user input data", and this has to be defended against. The biggest headache is mispelling (<like this).

I think the "fixed" attributes should be "Mood", "Tempo", and "Intensity", with a 1-3 scale each. That would give each piece of music 9 variables, and these are understood implicitly and queried for very fast.

Every musical loop on the planet can fit into these tags, and the end-user makes the decision based on their own preconceived notions.

Then custom tags like "funky", "lounge", etc. can be added but all queries must contain at least the core three. That way results aren't all over the place.

The three core attributes would be like a choke or limiter.

My most pressing need is to organize my loops, I have way too many, and I like to mix from different genres and styles.

If these "core 3" queries are dynamic and always the dataset user tags run against, it would be lightning fast. In other words, by limiting the dataset to be searched, the user's tags would be highly "targetive".

On the other hand, I could be FOS.