Re: Editing scenario

[Jeremy Garchow] "So, what if I search that clip in a text based function, which in and out point does it retrieve? From which keyword?"

I'd want it to feel almost physical. No doubt this is more throwback thinking, but people are fundamentally very good at spatial understanding, and good UX design exploits this (look at just about any other Apple UX for examples).

I'm arguing that dropping IOPs in place of selections was a poor decision. FCPX should not throw user data (IOP markings) away. It should leave them where the user put it. PIOPs should exist in the context the user makes them until the users decides to clear it or replace it (like how FCP7's PIOPs are not inherited across subclips or independent master clips relating to the same media).

Apple chose to make keyword ranges and favorites look and feel like clips from an editorial perspective. If an in and out is set from a keyword or favorite range, my intuition is that it should live on that "virtual clip." If it's set outside of those selections, it should live on the clip itself. (Perhaps Apple should come up with another way to indicate the relationship of ranges to their parent clips, but that's a discussion for another day.)

In other words, PIOPs should always be local. They should be children of the user-facing object they were created in. It's ok that they're not more global or data-centric, because they are not meant to be used that way. That's what favorites are for.


[Jeremy Garchow] "You cannot select a clip in the Browser without setting a range (you can skim a clip, but that doesn't require touching it), unless you select multiple clips. Perhaps, therein lies the problem."

True! It's kind of a zen question: is it the click away from a clip that removes the non-favorite marked range, or is it the click back into it?


[Jeremy Garchow] "At any rate, today, right now, if you want to use FCPX, and want to hold on to an in/out range, then favorites are what is needed."

Agreed. IOF is the new IO.

I'm not sure how I'm coming across to you, but I'm not trying to be a jerk. I understand that FCPX doesn't have traditional PIOPs, but it does have another mechanism for preserving IOPs, so the same editorial operations can still be accomplished.

I understand that the whole idea of PIOPs may not be as data-centric as the rest of FCPX's design. I also understand that people are different from machines, and I think that FCPX discounts the value in the pseudo-physical too quickly, both with respect to clips and with respect to the timeline. I'm asking if there's really a reason that they can't coexist.

I'm not arguing that we should pull any of the good features out of FCPX. I'm trying to figure out how some of the missing good ideas from traditional NLEs can be re-incorporated into the product without detracting from it.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events