Re: Editing scenario - Why PIOPs might not be easy

[Walter Soyka] "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)?"

There's a big difference. Favorites are not really subclips, they are just further sorts of the master clip. They do not exist on their own like subclips do in FCP&, for example. Any information you tag on to any part of a clip anywhere on matter how you are sorted at the moment, will be displayed on that master clip. If you keyword only one favorited range, that keyword will show up when you sort by "all clips" as a range on the "master" clip. So if you marked an i/o range on multiple favorites of the same clip and FCPX could hold on to it, this means that multiple in/out ranges will show up on one clip. Is that necessary? I don't know. I don't think it is, but then again, I use favorites for some of this functionality. Look at this picture again, now imagine putting a range that FCPX could remember on all of them, then sorting back to "list view" and "all clips":


03_fcpx_sortedbyfaves.png

The Event system is very dynamic. I constantly sort between list and filmstrip view (even remapped the keyboard for 1 and 2) and if you have a range selected in a favorite or master clip, and choose the sort (by either list, favorites, or filmstrip) the range sticks with that clip through all those sorts. If you started assigning elements to just favorited or keyworded ranges, in my opinion, it would take away a powerful feature of X. Plus I think it would just start to get kinda messy. I think that using a combo of keyword ranges (if that's your thing) and favorites allows more sorting and retrieval in many different ways than a typical bin system. It does take some adjusting in learning how to use it. I am still learning.