Re: macbook air and fcpx- the new portable edit suite

Great post, Jeremy. I appreciate the thoughtful reply.

I think I finally understand why you and I have such a different POV on the value of tracks:

[Jeremy Garchow] "I don't think a magnetic timeline would make sense when working on the audio of a video based project as there's no reason for the timeline to fluctuate that much during a locked edit.

I think video editing and audio post are two totally different processes and therefore might require different interfaces, but if the software is smart enough, I don't see why tracks are totally necessary. Really, I'd leave that to the audio folks. "

That's our key difference, right there. I think of video editing and audio post as one and the same.

Even though my primary work involves video post-production services, I have a background in music and sound design and sound is the foundation for everything I post, whether a music video or documentary style interview. In effect, I use the NLE as both an NLE and a DAW in a fluid, back and forth process to create rhythm, pacing and beats with both picture and sound interchangeably. For me, it's all the same during the editorial phase.

Now I know your thoughts on FCP7's audio capabilities ;) and for the most part I agree. But here's an example --

On the project I just finished, I posted a four and a half minute segment cut from a ~1 hour interview with a single subject. The speaker is interesting and engaging, but his speaking style is full of pauses and tangential thoughts. His final ~4 minute actuality has close to 300 edits. I craft the pauses, add or pull breaths and even construct entirely new sentences to make him succinct and editorially on point. It sounds perfect. You accept it as his actual speech without question. This is pretty typical of the work I do.

I usually go thru this audio workflow before I even begin to think about picture. My efficiently is high because I checkerboard and use FCP7s timeline tools with surgical precision. Often, the difference of a single frame will make or break the transparency of a constructed acutality. If I need even more precision, I use volume curves to get sub-frame accuracy, or two frame audio dissolves with start, center, or end positioning. This gets me about 80-90% done with audio. I don't need the real-time effects at this point. After locking picture, I round trip to STP to do any final tweaks, sweetening and mix. Everything is organized because I've been organizing track layout as I go. It's fast and efficient because I've already done most of the work in FCP.

This is why I need tracks -- they are my scaffolding. I build on top of them and need them to be stable as I edit. Working on the trackless magnetic timeline (especially with audio) with everything rippling and moving up and down by itself whether I want it to or not, it feels like trying to build a house on quicksand!

For me, it's a very musical process, like scoring a symphony. That's why when I look at something like Shawn Federline's timeline, I don't see clutter, I see a musical score built on a common language that can easily be read, understood and shared across a range of applications and disciplines. And with audio especially, track arrangements, waveforms and clip patterns often make it possible to identify audio type instantly, just by looking. This at-a-glance feedback is a huge timesaver when sharing projects.

On the other hand, if I wasn't thinking in terms of audio, I can easily imagine why tracks might not seem so essential and even appear as clutter. As long as playback is correct and you can output what you need, what difference would the vertical positioning make? It wouldn't. Makes sense.

I think I finally get where you're coming from on tracks. Thank you! I hope this gives you a better understanding of my skepticism and problems with the trackless, ripple-only timeline.

[Jeremy Garchow] "FCPX still needs work, obviously, but under the surface I really appreciate what is trying to be done, and that is catalog and manage a massive amount of data, have it follow you through the post process, and then use it to your advantage on output. There is not one NLE that I know of on the market today that is attempting this inside the editor."

On this point we're in complete agreement. The database driven, metadata engine under the hood is impressive and filled with potential. It's why I'm investigating FCPX as a DAM even if I don't ultimately use it to cut.

That's the most frustrating thing about this whole debacle. All that power under the hood and no clear way for editors who work like me to take advantage of it. I hope Apple will address our needs in future updates but I'm not counting on it. Time will tell.

Anyway, thanks for an interesting conversation!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl