Seriously--this is a user-to-user forum, so lamenting about a bug or a lack of feature here is not likely going to garner many results. Instead, submit a feature request here: Adobe - Feature Request/Bug Report Form
Colin - User to user? I thought I was reaching out to every user that is looking for more professional features.
I've filed several feature requests but Adobe hasn't responded to me or by offering the feature.
Makes me wonder if they're listening. I'd hoped I could get more interested users to make the same feature request.
Kind of like a grassroots movement. Besides, I'm sure Adobe monitors this forum.
I spend an awful lot of time editing. If "lamenting" on a users forum helps me (and other hard working pro editors)
get a tool to make our jobs a little easier & more accurate then I'll lament where ever I can.
Avid, Sony, Grass Valley & FCP thought the feature was important enouugh to make it avaliable.
You don't have to buy or use the tool but don't give me a hard time for trying to get Adobe's attention.
I got your attention. I'm getting results already.
I resent the statement that I'm "giving you a hard time" about it, and I'm a bit startled that my suggestion was construed as being antagonistc. I'm just trying to assist you in being a more effective instrument of change.
I do believe Adobe is listening; we've already seen improvements and features that are the result of our feedback. However, the only truly effective ear we can scream into, as users, is the feature request/bug report form I linked to. Since you didn't mention that you had requested this feature already, I thought it prudent to direct you to that ear.
For the record, I don't think this is a bad idea at all, and I understand the desire to rally the troops to also request it. However, I think you should be aware that you probably will not inspire the revolution you hope to here on the forum. I'm not saying that to persuade you not to do it, but everyone has their own "pets" that they campaign for...
Anyway, good luck.
> Makes me wonder if they're listening.
Yes. We're listening. Especially to feature requests that are made the way that Colin suggested.
Here's a post that I wrote about this for After Effects, but the same is true for Premiere Pro:
The reason that I can say with such confidence that we pay attention to things submitted that way is that I'm the person who reads and processes all of the submissions for After Effects. And I work very closely with the folks who do it for Premiere Pro.
As Colin said, this is a forum for users to talk with users. Some Adobe employees do help out here, but we may not see every thread or every message on every thread.
Collin - I didn't mean to offend, I'm sorry. But don't be so thin skinned.
Seems I made my point & got Adobe's (Todd_Kopriva )attention.
I'll see what he has to say on the subject.
Thanks for the good luck & helping me "light up" the Adobe switchboard"
But don't be so thin skinned.
a tool to make our jobs a little easier & more accurate
Well...I might give you 'easier', but for my own somewhat anal self, you just can't get any more 'accurate' than keyframes.
I've often wondered how anyone could possibly work with something so inaccurate as a mixer. I know the pros in Hollywood do it. I've seen them do it, watched them mix sounds for film. I've just always thought, "man that is really an inaccurate way to do things, moving the slider by ear like that". I'd much rather be really precise and set the volume to exactly the level I want using keyframes.
Thats because audio is an "ear /listening" feeling-thing Jim . Not sure where "accuracy" comes into audio!
The audio engineers I work with do the mix thru the desk (automation) then go in and do the tweaks with "key frames" if necessary but thats kind of rare.
My only comment on the request from the OP is that pro audio is usually mixed in a DAW and not an NLE.
Doesnt make the request a bad one at all ....but I kind of feel that Editors cut images and audio engineers "engineer" audio.
Both specialist and separate skills requiring software and hardware specific to each. eg . ProTools , Audition etc against FCP, PPRO, Avid etc...
The Editor these days seems to need to be an editor, a compositer, a colorist, a sound engineer, a specialist in Photoshop /Illustrator, an IT geek, know every CODEC invented.... and also get the drinks for the client and tell great jokes.....
Where will it end?
I'm also a stickler for details (to my own detriment) AND I'm from the school of thought where good audio will save bad video (George Lucas).
Since I edit other peoples projects I have no control of their camera work & audio recording. But with the right tools I've made more then one
silk purse from sows ears. Probably saved a few guys from being sued. Usually not an easy job. I'm just hoping for tools to help save time.
The keyframes can be used for very fine tuning but realtime hardware can't be beat for general mixing.
An audio mixer is like any other tool. It takes time & practice to get good at it. It helps to have a well intended mentor teaching you the ropes.
It also takes a while to develop an to hear small nuances.
Even a basic tool like a hammer takes a while to where you rarely bend a nail & stop hitting your thumb.
Anyhow, like I said before....all the other major NLEs offer the feature. I can't imaging it being too much of a challenge for the wizards at
Adobe (that's a compliment, not sarcasm) to write an update so an inexpensive control surface can control timeline audio.
Personally, I'd like to see the Zoom R16 as one of the compatible mixers. It can double as an 8 track recorder (SD card).
Not sure where "accuracy" comes into audio!
Well, like I said, that just my own quirk showing through. When I reposition something with the Motion effect, I want it at 400, not 397.8. If I want a little less volume, I want it at -3dB, not -2.9 dB. These footloose and fancy free editors who do things by 'feel' just drive me nuts, the young whippersnappers.
Not sure where "accuracy" comes into audio!
OK...since "accuracy" seems to be a relevant concept, I suppose it was the wrong choice of words.
But, now that you've mentioned it, raising or lowering volume on the timeline by dragging a key frame
can be a bit frustrating. Why is 0 or almost any specific number next to impossible to find? Or why can't
you type in a specific number? Huh, it appears I have another feature request to ask the San Jose Genies
(sounds like a sports team) to manifest.
Jakeman3 - Torrance, CA
I want it at -3dB, not -2.9 dB.
That might just be the difference between "Gold and Silver" as we used to say when we used to try for awards!
Chiming in a bit late on this one, but I cannot agree more that there should be a proper hardware control surface for PP.
Prior to moving over to CS3/4, I had edited on a Canopus Edius system, which can talk to the BCF2000 mentioned by the original poster.
In my naivety, I had assumed that PP would simply 'work' with this mixer (hadn't realised that it required some work on behalf of the NLE to integrate). So i now have a mixer 'gathering dust' whilst I fight with less than idea software control levels.
Absolutely, mixing is something that should be done 'by ear', that's sort of the point of mixing really.
I suppose I should send my request through the proper channels, but I'm simply amazed that CS5 (with so much going for it) has overlooked something so fundamental in the pro NLE world.
Wouldn't it be great if someone at Adobe could pick this up today, and post a solution within the next 2 weeks (I can dream).
Back to my fiddly mouse operated audio mixer.....