Re: Editing scenario - Why PIOPs might not be easy

Jeremy, earlier in this thread, I wrote the following:

[Walter Soyka] "I'd want it to feel almost physical... 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."


What do you think of that? Shouldn't IOPs marked on a favorite be attached to the favorite, not the clip itself (like how IOPs on FCP7 subclips don't flow back upstream to the master clip, nor do clips in the master flow downstream to the subclip)?

Or how about another, more data-centric view that may fit better with the FCPX no-physicality, drive-by-data idea and still provide many of the "scratch use" benefits of PIOPs? What if FCPX remembered the last 10 or 20 ranges (or some other user-defined number) that you set in a special "Recent Ranges" item in the browser, almost like levels of Undo? It's not persistent, but it seems that most folks don't need true persistence -- they just want IOPs to survive a click away from a clip and let them flip through a few other clips. Of course, this approach has its dangers as well...

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