On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, marquitux caballero wrote: > THINGS... oh! and the editing will take 2 or 3 times more... if you edit > copying and pasting, maybe cinelerra is faster, but if you edit cuts at the > bit of the music, and need to dynamically try different clips in different > beats... forget it, download and crack premiere is faster for that user (and > cheaper actually).
Actually, almost all my editing is of music videos, where I want the cuts to happen on the beats. I go through and mark all the beats (really, every fourth beat in most songs) with labels first, and then it's easy to swap in a different clip and get it the right length. That's why I find drag'n'drop mode so frustrating - I need to change the length of a clip when I move it to a different bar of the song, and I can't do that accurately with drag'n'drop mode. Cinelerra's paradigm of editing based on the time, not on the clips, is what makes it possible to get the beat lined up properly when I switch a clip. My usual routine is to choose a clip in the viewer with in/out points longer than the time I want to fill, arm the track I want to change (if necessary; usually it's the same one I was already working on anyway), select the labels at the start and end of the time I want to fill, do a replace, and then cut off the excess. An "easier" command sequence based on clips instead of on time would not really be easier at all. I'd end up with a clip the wrong length and fighting with the interface to get it adjusted. That's what usually happens when I accidentally enter drag'n'drop mode. Having a musical beat to synchronize with makes time-based editing all the more important, not more cumbersome. It's not archaic so much as mature; old-style editors worked that way because it was, and remains, a sensible way to work. -- Matthew Skala [EMAIL PROTECTED] Embrace and defend. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/ _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list [email protected] https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
