I give up.....

And I will never give up;)

Thanks for your help=)

ok, how about this -> I have a proposition to make...

I will give you the 2 clips in question. According to you , it is impossible to visually sync them to each other, (since one clip would have to start at 1.xx frames into where the other one starts to achieve synchroniization...) - If I get those clips to sync with each other, will you give me a million dollars? - How sure are you of your "not possible" declaration now? ;)

please tell me how to "move your timeline Events in Vegas Pro in smaller steps than frames (what actually is possible) " ?

Has been told you several times now, works only for audio events and makes no sense at all for videoevents.

You can turn "Quantize to Frames" off in the Options menu which then will enable to move the rectangle drawing of an Event in a different way but - as said many times here - it will not move the video in smaller steps than given by the frame base. This has zero to do with synchronization (other than audio editing), it just lets the timeline view shining different.
Everyone working with mixed frame rate sources faces this a hundred times each editing day.

Anyway — in many cases it is usefull to share the appropriate Vegas Pro project file (in this particular case including the media), just in case there is some kind of misunderstanding.

Thanks for your help=)

So I guess that I am looking for a dynamic/variable framebase... -> before the program renders it to a constant framerate? hmm... possibly..

I wonder how the pros manage this task... custom code?- probably...

I will gladly upload the clips so you understand what I mean 100%... - as soon as I am done with this project;)

Thanks again to everybody=)

Other than maybe some unusual scinitific work, for normal film work at normal frame rates, ie 24, 25, 30, 60 fps, I would think there will be very few eyes that can tell the difference.

There is no such thing as a dynamic variable framebase. It is like a clock. A second is a second, nothing else. In Video a frame is a frame. Doesn't matter the frame rate, that only indicates how many frames are shown in a given interval. If you have a 60fps video, then frames are updated every 1/60th of a second. It still starts on a frame. Hollywood does not normally mix frame rates, that is why they can sync.

Now if you are saying that one scene starts at frame 00:00:00 and you want to sync a scene that starts in synch with the other one at 00:00:05 (5 being a frame) then just trim off the first 4 frames of the second scene. It has to be frames though. It cannot be less. Do not turn off Quantize to frames for Video, it will only cause problems for you later on.

There is no such thing as a dynamic variable framebase. It is like a clock.

No such thing as a dynamic variable framebase... Yet...;) People used to think that such a thing as flying or telephone or whatever was pure science fiction and an impossible feat... It will come.. some day;)

-There are clocks and there are clocks - they all have jitter, lag and other things... - even the chips in our cpus are not perfect - depends on the crystals and this and that ;) - lets not forget -. time is relative;)

Now if you are saying that one scene starts at frame 00:00:00 and you want to sync a scene that starts in synch with the other one at 00:00:05 (5 being a frame) then just trim off the first 4 frames of the second scene. It has to be frames though. It cannot be less. Do not turn off Quantize to frames for Video, it will only cause problems for you later on.

No problems here;)

yeah , I trimmed it as far as I could, but i need to work between the frames to make this sync..

@ eagle six, precise syncing was needed here - as you can tell by the "panic! - I need 100's of more microframes in a frame;)

Anywho Thanks everyone and all. - for the help, the lectures and and and =)

Have a nice weekend=)

"yeah , I trimmed it as far as I could, but i need to work between the frames to make this sync.."

Not going to happen. Good luck!

@EarthGuest I agree with you that what you want is possible to design and implement. Not everything in this world is possible, but what you would like to have, in my opinion, is within our current technology resources. However, I think it would take a massive change in CPU architecture design and independent parallel floating stream core processing. In the industry there has to be a payoff demand, and it appears there is only one request for this feature. An independent, with abnormal personal resources and gray matter packed between their ears, could possibly pull it off. With all due respect, perhaps that person is you.

The reality is, the industry currently has no need for it. They prevent needing this type of feature because they already have timecode sync. It's as simple as that. The industry already has the technology for inexpensive implementation of high speed WiFi send/receive to effectively reduce the need for cables to sync multiple cameras and that technology is within the prosumer range of cost effective implementation, either video or audio sync in relatively inexpensive cameras. But it still needs a driving force of more than an audience of 1 to demand it.

In this case, I do not think the perception of need, by one, will make this feature a reality for all. On the hand, no reason for us not to have a wish list.