Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
APPLE FINAL CUT PRO:HomeFCP ForumFCP XFCPX TechniquesFCP TutorialsFC ServerBasics ForumPodcastFAQ

Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless

COW Forums : Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
Oliver PetersMotion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 12:44:10 pm

I find this an interesting question and I'm surprised it hasn't come up before that I'm aware of. The ProApps developers obviously believe that trackless is the way to go, yet they left Motion based on tracks. If you analyze FCP X, the timeline layout is more or less a node-based process tree placed on its side. Primary storyline, Secondary storyline and Connected clips are basically nodes with diffent values, much like serial and parallel nods in DaVinci Resolve. But a node tree makes sense in a compositor and not in an editor. Apple understands nodes because they own(ed) Shake and Color, both of which employed node trees. So if tracks are "good" in Motion (which many artists would question), why are they "bad" in FCP X? If the idea is to get rid of tracks, wouldn't it also have made sense to change Motion to a node-based compositor akin to Shake?

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Tom WolskyRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 1:40:07 pm

Probably an excellent idea and long overdue.

All the best,

Tom

"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press
Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2012 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 2:07:17 pm

[Oliver Peters] "So if tracks are "good" in Motion (which many artists would question), why are they "bad" in FCP X? If the idea is to get rid of tracks, wouldn't it also have made sense to change Motion to a node-based compositor akin to Shake?"

Perhaps they might, I get the feeling that Motion may still be in transition, the lack of roundtripping with FCPX makes no sense.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Rafael AmadorRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 2:29:54 pm

Some people will argue that these in MOTION are not TRACKS but LAYERS (?).
Difference between tracks and layers? That in a layer you can put just one clip, while in a layer you can place only one.
Personally I think they are the same: In a graphic application -where you normally work with few material- you can allow a layer per clip.
In an NLE that wouldn't be possible.

SHAKE, beside the nodes, do has Tracks.
The "Time view" allows to position in time the clips and trim them.




However the tracks DO NOT WORK AS LAYER (as do happens in FCP).
Being a clip on an upper tracks do not imply that they will show on top of the lower clip.
The compositing order is managed by the nodes.

What for me makes so much sense are nodes on a NLE.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

T.a. FranksRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 24, 2012 at 11:39:17 pm

Yes yes good old Shake, what a sad day when it was announced eol.
Having a node editor in Motion would, well give it more cool points over After Effects. Why Apple never ported a the nodes over to Motion is for me unanswerable. A must for compositing and you can keep the tracks for the timing as in Shake.
I have been spoking to a Adobe After Effects engineer at a Adobe party during the NAB and a node editor is not out of the question. His story is they have follow a request list for new features.
But I have been hoping for the nodes on every big update of Motion... and now we are on 5. I starting to lose hope. :o*

Remove the Layer tab and replace it with a Node tab! Unless they don't want get serious.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 24, 2012 at 11:47:04 pm

[T.a. Franks] "Remove the Layer tab and replace it with a Node tab! Unless they don't want get serious."

Unfortunately Motion was conceived as a motion graphics tool to be an editor-friendly companion to FCP. It was designed by the ex-Combustion designers with an eye towards improving on LiveType and not really becoming Shake or After Effects, for that matter.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 2:31:52 pm

A very interesting and thought-provoking argument.

But how sustainable is the notion that FCPX is in any real sense a nodal system? Granted, connected clips are kind of nodally connected, but only kind of, and really the idea doesn't extend much further, does it? There is no meaningful sense in which those connections involve the kind of process tree modality that we associate with nodal compositing workflows. Nothing is actually passed through the connection - and you can't interpose other types of nodes to change the value of the connection.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

Conversely I think Motion is and always has been a long, long way from being a nodal compositor. The layer/group compositing method is clearly in line with the completely non-nodal model of After Effects and the like, although I would say that in the way they have implemented Groups there is far more speed and flexibility (or at least the potential of that) than there is in AE.

Personally, I would be disappointed to see Motion move in the direction of a nodal model, even if such a thing were actually possible without starting again from scratch. The way it works at the moment, it's a very good and speedy motion graphics app (that also happens to be a great fit for the FCP environment both old and new). If it started trying to be a fully fledged Nuke/Shake type compositor, I reckon it would lose that edge.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 3:10:01 pm

[Oliver Peters] "If you analyze FCP X, the timeline layout is more or less a node-based process tree placed on its side. Primary storyline, Secondary storyline and Connected clips are basically nodes with diffent values, much like serial and parallel nods in DaVinci Resolve."

I'm probably being dense, but I'm not following here. Could you explain this again for me?


[Oliver Peters] "So if tracks are "good" in Motion (which many artists would question), why are they "bad" in FCP X? If the idea is to get rid of tracks, wouldn't it also have made sense to change Motion to a node-based compositor akin to Shake?"

Interesting question, Oliver. Opinion and speculation to follow.

I'd suggest that while Motion composites, it's not a compositor. It's a titler and graphics animator first: a full-motion sketchpad. Compositing in Motion is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

I don't think of Motion as tracked so much as layered. Nodes are great for complex compositing, but a layered timeline is far more accessible for animation and simple composites, because it builds on metaphors that users will already be familiar with from Photoshop or their NLE.

Setting nodes and layer/track distinctions aside for now, I do think there's a good and practical reason why FCPX and Motion might handle their timelines differently.

NLEs are designed to handle sequences of shots. Within FCPX, the notion of relative time in the magnetic timeline, although controversial, at least makes sense: it makes editorial about managing the relationship between shots, not the shots' absolute positions in time.

Apps like Motion (and AE, Shake, Nuke, and Fusion) are fundamentally designed to handle shots, not sequences. In an application designed to work on single shots, absolute time and relative time are the same. Think of the underlying shot as a single-element primary storyline. Without multiple shots to manage, there can be no relationships between shots. There's less of an imperative for magnetism if all your elements are fundamentally tied to one underlying shot, which itself ought to be changing in the NLE, not in mograph/animation/compositing.

One could certainly make the argument that individual mograph elements would be treated properly as separate shots, so magnetism would be beneficial; however, I'd see that as an argument to integrate Motion entirely into FCPX, rather than rebuilding FCPX's editorial capabilities into Motion.

Back to nodes, here's an interesting sidebar: you can see a lot of what's going on under the hood with Motion inside of Apple's Quartz Composer, a node-based visual programming system that ships with the developer tools.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 6:15:34 pm

Fun and fascinating discussion.

I've been doing a lot of talking to and trying to help other editors in my town understand the changes to X (25 or so showed up in my studio last week with barely 48 hours notice!) and one thing I run up against again and again is the the ease of the discussion with other editors nearly always is predicated on whether the person I'm discussing things with is trying to understand X "in context" to Legacy - or whether they can drop their pre-conceptions and approach it with an open mind.

Time and time again, I see them want to start their editing "in the timeline" - because that's all they've ever done before.

It's hard to get them to think of "two-stage" editing via first the event browser and then the timeline.

Same with magnetism. If you see it exclusively in context of how it operates with discrete clips in your "timeline", it annoys many. But if they "graduate" to thinking of managing and refining pre-edited clip collections - the magnetism opens up new ways to think about working with group assemblies rather than simply stringing discrete elements (clips) into linear sequences.

I honestly think the folks who have the most trouble with X are those that still can't break out of expecting it to be Legacy 2012.

Honestly, the most important thing I've done in those meeting is to re-assure editors that the real skills of editing remain the same, regardless of the rules, tools, and techniques codified in the NLE. The ideas you express are the key. Regardless of the tools used express them.

FWIW.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 6:51:30 pm

[Walter Soyka] "NLEs are designed to handle sequences of shots. Within FCPX, the notion of relative time in the magnetic timeline, although controversial, at least makes sense: it makes editorial about managing the relationship between shots, not the shots' absolute positions in time."

[Bill Davis] "If you see it exclusively in context of how it operates with discrete clips in your "timeline", it annoys many. But if they "graduate" to thinking of managing and refining pre-edited clip collections - the magnetism opens up new ways to think about working with group assemblies rather than simply stringing discrete elements (clips) into linear sequences."

Did we just agree again?

I think the key difference between FCPX and Motion (as it pertains to magnetism) is what their timelines are for.

FCPX is built to manage the arrangement of many clips in time holistically. Motion, on the other hand, is geared for discrete clips. It's built for individual titles, effects, and transitions.

Magnetism in Motion wouldn't make much sense to me, because magnetism addresses a challenge (managing many clips in time) that doesn't -- and shouldn't -- exist in Motion.

Adding magnetism to Motion would create dangerous functional overlap with FCPX. It would encourage editorial in Motion, and that would encourage terrible and inscrutable workflows -- imagine stepping through an edit in FCPX, then having to jump into Motion to change an edit made within a Motion project, then jump back to FCPX to see it in context. It's a far more elegant design to allow Motion to remain shot-oriented so that it can be used on elements within FCPX, rather than alongside 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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 7:40:22 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Adding magnetism to Motion would create dangerous functional overlap with FCPX. It would encourage editorial in Motion, and that would encourage terrible and inscrutable workflows -- imagine stepping through an edit in FCPX, then having to jump into Motion to change an edit made within a Motion project, then jump back to FCPX to see it in context. It's a far more elegant design to allow Motion to remain shot-oriented so that it can be used on elements within FCPX, rather than alongside it.
"


Once again, I agree with you completely, Walter. (we're getting dangerously close to making this a habit!)

This arrangement of Motion as linked to, providing services to, and working as a secondary linked sub-application to the editing base in FCP-X makes big-time sense. You can totally ignore it and just use the links in titling that are built between them - or you can expand your cross use - as and when (and as much as you need to) - while much of the complexity of Motion stays sequestered from bothering anyone who wants some of the advantages, but none of the stress of climbing up its learning curve.

Actually, one of the most puzzling things to me was how Motion 5 (with it's massive internal complexity and nearly bewildering array of controls, choices, and settings) was being offered in a form that people could easily mistake as a "cheap extra add-on" to FCP-X for a trivial $49.95.

But as with the "reverse sticker shock" that accompanies Apple lowering the price of "Final Cut Pro" to $299, the initial reaction (they must have dumbed this thing down to the iMovie level) turns out to have been a massive miss-read. It just reflected the astonishing leverage of the app store in essentially removing the entire supply chain between the company and consumer delivery. It had nothing to do with the value of the software at all.

Click here -I give you copy of my complex bit arrangement - you get my money instantly - turns out to be an astonishingly transformative profit model - and one people seem to enjoy participating in if the 25 Billionth App Sale pending this week amply demonstrates.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if those clever folk at Apple might make MORE per sale on X at $299 then they actually did on Legacy at $999 given how many pockets were removed from the process by eliminating all the trucks, warehouses, distribution centers, and drivers needed to move cardboard boxes of "stuff" around the world.

Imagine that. We're getting "better" for way cheaper. Because the whole game of delivering IP has changed.

Bodes well for the future, I think. But the barrier is definitely NOT going to be software cost any longer. It's a reality we all have to adjust to.

There will be more editors. And more Motion Graphics creators. The distinctions will decreasingly going to be "functional proficiency" within the tool, but rather demonstrable expertise at creating value with it and very likely the spread of one's reputation.

Interesting times.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 8:50:06 pm

[Bill Davis] "Time and time again, I see them want to start their editing "in the timeline" - because that's all they've ever done before."

I'm intrigued to see that you think that "editing in the timeline" is not recommended for FCPX.

To my mind, and I really, really like editing in the timeline (!), it seems that FCPX is extremely well suited to this - better even than FCP Legacy, which is vastly superior in this respect to Media Composer.

[Bill Davis] "
It's hard to get them to think of "two-stage" editing via first the event browser and then the timeline."


I'm also not sure that editing is ever best conceived as a "two stage process" - shouldn't it always be a fluid interplay between sourcing the material for the edit and actually making the edits?

I wonder if you aren't being seduced by the (relative) novelty of the Event Browser into elevating "organization" to a more more important role in the hierarchy than it needs to have or deserves.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bill DavisRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 9:19:15 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'm intrigued to see that you think that "editing in the timeline" is not recommended for FCPX.

To my mind, and I really, really like editing in the timeline (!), it seems that FCPX is extremely well suited to this - better even than FCP Legacy, which is vastly superior in this respect to Media Composer.
"


Hold on. I'm not in any way saying that "editing in the timeline is not recommended". There's a timeline (primary storyline) surrounded with editing tools (including the precision editor) for precisely this reason.

I'm saying that in Legacy it was the ONLY place you could edit. Now in X, you can also do basic functional editing (clip selection, rejection, basic trimming, etc) in the Event Browser - and if you choose to do so, then all the decisions you make there are available for use thereafter in as many projects as you like.

It's fundamental different thinking than was available in Legacy. Knowing when to edit in the EB and when to edit in the TL is a new choice you get to make. But you don't have to make it. But you should realize that if you DO make that choice, you're leaving a lot of value on the table.

[Simon Ubsdell] "'m also not sure that editing is ever best conceived as a "two stage process" - shouldn't it always be a fluid interplay between sourcing the material for the edit and actually making the edits?

I wonder if you aren't being seduced by the (relative) novelty of the Event Browser into elevating "organization" to a more more important role in the hierarchy than it needs to have or deserves.
"


Honestly, Simon. Editing as ALWAYS been a "two stage process." Making a note like Take 1 had the old sign, don't use it - take 3 was great!" is nothing more or less than the first stage of two-stage editing that DW Griffith probably used. In X, the ability to "pre-sort" - Favorite and Reject - tag with keywords, is nothing more or less than the process of reducing clutter and assembling "selects" that we've always used. The event browser in X just happens to give us a whole lot more power and flexibility.

I've used the example before of how I import long raw narrations into X. Use the range tool to mark the good takes, and if I do that with some care, I can just drag everything tagged as a FAVORITE to my timeline and essentially my initial "edit" of my voiceover is done. I'm left with nothing I don't want. I can become more "precise" on the timeline if I need to. But the fact of the matter is that this process has taught me that I can "edit" time based material perfectly well in the Event Browser. So all that's left is for me to decide when that level of editing is enough.

We can all think of lots of typical stuff where that's all the editing that a person needs. For instance, making window dubs for client review. They don't need precision, they just need the dreck removed and a timecode burn applied to the rest. If you do ALL the work in the EB and just use the timeline as an assembly point that work sticks and when the client asked you to make 5 projects (like spots) out of the pool of scenes in the EB - the rough edit decisions you did are alive and well and waiting to form the basis of your "final cut."

Once again, it's seeing how a new tool - used in a new way - might make things easier.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless (now OT: organization in FCPX vs FCP7)
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 9:43:16 pm

[Bill Davis] "I'm saying that in Legacy it was the ONLY place you could edit. Now in X, you can also do basic functional editing (clip selection, rejection, basic trimming, etc) in the Event Browser"

I disagree, Bill. Wasn't all of this functionality available in FCP Classic's browser, with its persistent in and out points, bins, subclips, markers, good column, comment fields, and labels?


[Bill Davis] "We can all think of lots of typical stuff where that's all the editing that a person needs. For instance, making window dubs for client review. They don't need precision, they just need the dreck removed and a timecode burn applied to the rest. If you do ALL the work in the EB and just use the timeline as an assembly point that work sticks and when the client asked you to make 5 projects (like spots) out of the pool of scenes in the EB - the rough edit decisions you did are alive and well and waiting to form the basis of your "final cut." Once again, it's seeing how a new tool - used in a new way - might make things easier."

I would have done exactly what you described entirely in the Browser (well, in conjunction with the Viewer) in FCP7.

I know you've been working with FCPX for a while now. Can you think of another everyday example that was dramatically easier (organizationally) in FCPX which would have been nightmarishly difficult in FCP7? I believe that FCPX has great advantages here in theory, but I'm curious as to what they are in practice.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Michael GissingRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless (now OT: organization in FCPX vs FCP7)
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 10:44:33 pm

I would love to give you a race Bill, to select, fit and mix a voice over track. With a tool like Fairlight I can sort, select, trim, globally adjust levels, apply EQ and fit to a guide narration all in the timeline at a speed that would surprise. I can also stack alternate takes in preference order on the one track so the director can audition in place during the mix.

I know you have often thrown the V/O example up as an advantage of FCPX methodology but I can't see how it is as efficient as doing the same job in a DAW like Fairlight. To me it isn't an example of why the FCPX magnetic methodology is superior. Whilst it may confer some advantage over other NLEs, it still fails in my mind to justify the awkwardness of handling multi tracked audio that Jeremy was talking about in another thread.

Specifically on the idea of tracks or layers in tools like Motion, how good would it be to have both layers and tracks. By that I mean the idea of keeping track based streams that can be used to blend with other tracks whilst having layers within a track that can also be interacting. An example would be a chroma key with foreground, background elements on one track doing an opacity blend or other blend mode with another track that might have images that dissolve, key, fade in/out plus a title on top which is a composite on another track. Think of it like in Legacy having V2 with a complicated nest doing a blend with V1 which is a nested chroma key. The layers within tracks could be collapsed down to look like a nest but are adjustable in the timeline when expanded so they are not nests that open up another sequence.

I think FCPX by throwing away the track based paradigm has missed out on an opportunity to introduce layers within tracks that would have made Motion unnecessary. It can all be built into the timeline so round tripping to other apps is a thing of the past.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bill DavisRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless (now OT: organization in FCPX vs FCP7)
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 11:12:59 pm

[Michael Gissing] "I would love to give you a race Bill, to select, fit and mix a voice over track. With a tool like Fairlight I can sort, select, trim, globally adjust levels, apply EQ and fit to a guide narration all in the timeline at a speed that would surprise. I can also stack alternate takes in preference order on the one track so the director can audition in place during the mix."

Sigh,

I think so many people are still missing the whole point. Let me try to be clear. FCP-X isn't the finest tool for all jobs on the planet in every case. Purpose built tools of all sorts will out-perform it every time. That's not the point of X in my estimation.

I'll try to explain it in yet another lousy metaphor. We're coming out of the age of steam train editing. Those hauled people and cargo amazingly well. They were what we needed at the turn of the last century. Big solutions to big needs. They've changed the whole planet. Then along comes this new "automobile" thing. It's useless to say "it can't haul freight like a train. Because it can't. Nobody's saying that it can.

And if you're moving big stuff between places where there are tracks but no roads, a car might even be a really stupid thing.

But what happened with cars in the early days? Some folks used them in cities. Some used them cross country. Some knuckleheads even RACED the darn things. Some of those folks got hurt, failed, drove into ditches, scared the horses, etc.

Eventually, because the fundamental idea of a fast, affordable, general purpose mode of transport that an individual could own and use for a lot of "individual" things - the ecosystem built up so it was a general use tool that everyone valued.

The parallel is only instructive, IMO, because editing has traditional been an "industrial" game - only recently in history an individual one. Now that is CLEARLY changing.

I think X is a fine early tool for a new era of personalized editing. And know what? It wasn't long before the smartest guys adapted the basic idea into everything from postal delivery vans to Indy race cars.

X is NOT a Fairlight. And putting it in a race with one is about as relevant to my thinking as putting a tractor in a race with a Kawasaki Ninja.

if you do 90% VO work, doing it on X is probably as silly as trying to harrow a field with a motorcycle.

I do 90% corporate video editing, and probably 25-50 paid VO gigs plus another 50 for my own projects a year. And for that. X is a fine tool, just like Legacy was. I didn't use it because it's the "best VO tool in the world." I use it because it does a competent job and I didn't have to waste my brain keeping up with FCP and something like ProTools.

Simple as that.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Michael GissingRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless (now OT: organization in FCPX vs FCP7)
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 12:34:49 am

[Bill Davis] I'll try to explain it in yet another lousy metaphor.

Sigh,

OK Bill I agree with you. It is a lousy metaphor because I think you constantly make the mistake of assuming the magnetic timeline FCPX paradigm is the future and therefore all we have to do is realise the genius and leave behind our last century ways of thinking. I, like many, have tried to argue that it isn't automatically a step forward. Indeed I see it in most ways as a step backward and I have tried to illustrate how older systems like Fairlight have evolved into something sleek and efficient, whilst solving the same problem. If the developers at Apple want to try and reinvent the wheel in isolation from the history of wheel making, then don't expect wheel X1.0.3 to be a smooth ride.

I have constantly called on people to question the methodology of magnetic timeline because I think there is no reason not to have borrowed the superior collective wisdom from years of DAW development. That there is a potentially better and more powerful way to solve a simple clip overwrite function without throwing away a tried and proven system like tracks should be discussed without your usual knee jerk reaction that we just have to lift the veil from our tired old eyes or some rant about who or what is a 'professional'.

I am really glad it works for you Bill but you have so far failed to convince me that FCPX has done something clever or revolutionary. So let us discuss and argue without feeling a pathological need to rush to the defence of FCPX every time we ask can it be better.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Bill DavisRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless (now OT: organization in FCPX vs FCP7)
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 3:12:21 am

Ok, Michael. I'll bite. Explain it to me.
How is the Fairlight approach superior? How would you reflect those ideas as not just an audio editing system, but one to handle visual content of all types - video as time streams, stills, titles, et.

It seems to me that sound based systems always deal in streams unfurling over time. But in video targeted systems, we have to deal with all sorts of content that must persist over ranges of time. Titles, stills, bugs, etc. etc.

What is there in Fairlight that those engineers were able to give you that escaped the designers of all four primary video editing approaches?

When Apple's engineering staff looked for inspiration and ideas to use in X, as they must have with access to plenty of audio folk with a Logic, and Soundtrack Pro teams in house, why do you think they decided to craft X like they did rather than more like a DAW?

I'd honestly like to know your thinking.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Michael GissingRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless (now OT: organization in FCPX vs FCP7)
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:13:45 am

Firstly let me qualify by saying that I am arguing about track vs magnetic or trackless timeline. NLEs need different ways to organise media and FCPX is heading in the right direction with ideas about tagging and using metadata, which as you say was already in FCP7 but not elegant so kudos there.

The perceived problem was overwriting. Most NLEs and a lot of DAWs overwrite when things are dragged, pasted or nudged around the timeline. Apple have been typical in that FCP, Logic and STP could overwrite clips on a track and erase complex edits. What Fairlight did (borrowed from dSP, another DAW company that they acquired the IP) is to allow clips to stack as layers on a track. Bingo no erasing when dragging copy pasting etc. But there the power begins. By treating audio as layers the same as the video tracks of NLEs they could edit and crossfade between layers. So they took the idea of NLEs that layers interact on the so called video tracks. I see video tracks in an NLE as layers of a single output stream. This is a track in audio parlance.

So the function of a track is that it can be a layered area where complex editing can be done, with alternate takes in place on lower layers streaming as a track to the downstream mix process. Where I see the power in controlling both audio and video streams is in retaining the advantages of a track based spatial layout with the advantage of being able to layer elements. I mentioned earlier that it would be very powerful to treat layered video as a track to interact with other complex video layers in other tracks. I have worked on a number of projects where video layers had to be nested or baked into a file and reimported in order to have another video layer or layers be blended or keyed.

If accidental overwriting or getting out of sync can be totally avoided by stacking layers on tracks then apart from solving the irritating problem that is solved by the magnetic timeline, a whole new power of 'in place' manipulation can be done without messy nesting or bouncing material to composite files.

To me the other great power of a track approach is track based processing. In audio, levels, EQ and dynamics processing can be done both at a clip level and the track level. If video had real tracks, not just layers and clip based processing, I can see that a single app could start to approach an all in one finishing tool. So to me the magnetic timeline takes away the power of tracks to solve a problem that layering within a track fixes. But worse, it means that the power of combining layers with tracks isn't realised.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Michael GissingRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless (now OT: organization in FCPX vs FCP7)
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 5:26:00 am

For me the future is having a timeline framework that will allow incredible power to be manipulated quickly and intuitively. As bottlenecks in data rates are reduced with thunderbolt and processing power at CPU and GPU allows a level of really complex real time processing, then the organisational power of layers within tracks will be able to be manipulated.

Editors love the way audio can be played with via faders and knobs. Imagine doing that with vision as well. To me the framework that is tried and proven for real time human control in audio is better suited to video. Throw away the track and you throw away a simple means to have control over groups of layers.

When roles were introduced, it immediately signalled to me that the people behind FCPX realised the magnetic timeline was limited. I fear though that the structure is so ingrained that they added roles on as a fix. I can't see how roles can be as powerful as tracks via the bussing and auxiliary control that track based audio systems enjoy. It is all about control and making spatial sense which magnetic timeline and roles doesn't seem to have.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Gary ColeRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless (now OT: organization in FCPX vs FCP7)
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:11:07 pm

Bill Davis on Feb 23, 2012 at 3:12:21 am wrote:

When Apple's engineering staff looked for inspiration and ideas to use in X, as they must have with access to plenty of audio folk with a Logic, and Soundtrack Pro teams in house, why do you think they decided to craft X like they did rather than more like a DAW?


From an audio point of view, although vast numbers of sound engineers do use Logic - and indeed ProTools and many other similar systems - for serious high-level editing, the actual 'editing' capabilities (as distinct from tracking and mixing) of these systems are fairly basic in comparison with more specialist editing DAWs such as SADiE, Sequoia, Pyramix and soundBlade. (Braced for 'red arrows'!)

So the Apple engineers may well have looked at the typical editing going on in Logic and thought 'we can do this better'. If they'd looked at some of the editing going on in specialist DAWs I think they may have thought twice - much of that would probably be pretty traumatic without a track-basedc paradigm!

Gary Cole
Regent Records UK Ltd


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Richard HerdRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless (now OT: organization in FCPX vs FCP7)
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 3:40:44 pm

[Bill Davis] "putting a tractor in a race with a Kawasaki Ninja."

Your metaphor slipped...depends the track we're racing on. If there is no track, the tractor will win!

These are puns.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless (now OT: organization in FCPX vs FCP7)
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 11:52:37 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I know you've been working with FCPX for a while now. Can you think of another everyday example that was dramatically easier (organizationally) in FCPX which would have been nightmarishly difficult in FCP7? I believe that FCPX has great advantages here in theory, but I'm curious as to what they are in practice."

A month ago. Corporate client. Two days of field interviews in San Diego. Dozens of subjects discussed. Everything gets imported into X. Linda sits and goes through things in X doing nothing but labeling all the total dreck as "Rejected." Hide rejected. Then one-step drag everything else to a new storyline. Slap the timecode filter on it and output a window dub for the client. Done.

The look it over and want a New Project. A 2 minute piece on a single topic that was discussed in multiple places in the overall sessions.

Since we can "hide rejected" we no longer have to audition anything but the "first round selects" - we go through those. Decide to keep it simple. Whenever we hear something "on topic" we keyword it as Favorite.

Yeilds 40 or so clips out of 200 plus.- WAY too long. We put them in a bin, Drop a "subject" tag on all of them to keep our choices separated. strip off the "favorites" tag and replace it with "Selects" (in case we want to use "Favorites" again for something else from the dashboard.

We decide to "quality assess" the clips using the simplest possible rating system - numbers 1 to 5, 5 being best. We re-assess the group. (remember we don't even HAVE a timeline at this point. Everything is being done in the Event Browser. We zero tag a bunch of clips as duplications with better alternatives.

The Event Library now shows us we have 6 clips tagged "4" and 11 clips tagged "3" and zero in any other category! (you never know how an arbitrary rating system will work in advance, do you?)

Click on our tag "4" in the Event Library (SNAP - all the 4's are displayed as pre-trimmed clips)- drag them all into a new Storyline (they are already come in "rough edited because we trimmed them during the original clip selection process!) At a glance I can see all the best stuff (the 4s) add up to 1:32. To fill the 2 minute request, we know we need another 30 seconds or so. We call up the 3's and listen to them.

In a minute 3 of them that say something different and gets us to around 2 minutes.

We re-arrange them for a couple of minutes (that magnetic thing!) until we're happy. I tweak beginnings and ends. Then decide I want the VO to lead the visuals in the transitions between the clips. So the precision editor lets me do "L cuts" so the VO change leads the visual change in all instances.

Title and Closing slate and the edit is done. The total time is completely dependent on how much time you spend discussing and deciding and comparing, but the actual editing operations have been kinda trivial. At each stage, I kept the benefits of the time and effort I'd put in during the stage prior.

The point is that the Event Browser was an integral part of managing, rating, rough trimming, assessing and assembling my story before I ever opened up a timeline.

Now I suppose you could do all of that in Legacy using color tags, bins, and such - so I'm not saying anything here is "impossible" in what we had before.

I'm saying its all easy, practical and FAST do do the above in X. And in fact the interface encourages the tagging and sorting by elevating tagging to equal prominence in the workflow of X, where in Legacy you would have been working in "bins" that many people think of merely as "dumb storage" constructs - rightfully or not.

I presume I'll use "search, sort and find" every time I open X because it's a huge persistent part of the interface by design.

To me it's elevating selection and clip judgment functions to near equivalency with timeline arrangement functions by design.

Something I think it should be in the new searchable world.

Sorry to go on so long. But that's a quick example of a typical X workflow I'm finding very valuable these days.

It also kicks butt to know the next time that client asks me to re-cut stuff from that event - since Events are persistent storage - I can setup as many projects as I like, and all the tagging, trimming and similar work I did last week will be waiting for me across all projects I choose to link to that event.

So I feel like I'm "building a system" rather than just "working an edit" when I use X.

I guess that's it in a nutshell.

FWIW.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless (now OT: organization in FCPX vs FCP7)
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 1:28:29 pm


[Bill Davis] "The point is that the Event Browser was an integral part of managing, rating, rough trimming, assessing and assembling my story before I ever opened up a timeline.

Now I suppose you could do all of that in Legacy using color tags, bins, and such - so I'm not saying anything here is "impossible" in what we had before.

I'm saying its all easy, practical and FAST do do the above in X. And in fact the interface encourages the tagging and sorting by elevating tagging to equal prominence in the workflow of X, where in Legacy you would have been working in "bins" that many people think of merely as "dumb storage" constructs - rightfully or not.
"


I think that's a fair, accurate assessment of some of the pluses of X. In 7, I do most/all of what you are talking about here with a combination of bins, notes, timelines and color tabs, but your approach would be a welcome alternative that I would certainly add to my workflow. It might even supersede my workflow or create a hybrid that worked better for me than either. I enjoyed your description, btw, of the process you used.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 10:13:05 pm

[Bill Davis] "Editing as ALWAYS been a "two stage process.""

Maybe so, but my point was that a) if there are two stages then the organization one has traditionally been of far less consequence than the putting the shots together process, and b) I don't agree with the notion of stages as such, but rather that there should be a constant free interplay between selecting and editing.

But perhaps we are talking about a difference of emphasis, and more to the point a difference of editing styles and/or requirements.

[Bill Davis] "We can all think of lots of typical stuff where that's all the editing that a person needs."

I can see where you're coming from and, yes, there are some advantages to be had from the FCPX methodology. However, I think to talk about this type of work as "editing" is possibly confusing. It's really just "prepping" or whatever other term you want to use. Almost by definition, editing is what happens on the timeline ... or is that an preposterous thing to say!??

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 22, 2012 at 10:53:14 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] ""prepping" or whatever other term you want to use. Almost by definition, editing is what happens on the timeline ... or is that an preposterous thing to say!??"

Simon,

It's not preposterous at all. I'm probably over-emphasizing the joys of the event browser - but I'm doing so with intent.

Everyone who edits understands the conventions of the old way. One thing about X is that it challenges us to consider new ways to interpret and view old conventions. Walter S. (in another thread) is pushing back on the fact that one could do much "pre-organization" in legacy. And he's right. But it's no where near the same. (I'll address why I think so in that thread.)

For this thread, I'm trying to challenge people here to break free of some of the conventional thinking about the structure of editing and what you can do in the new X interface. Not everyone will need, want, or be comfortable with thinking about the new tools in new ways. But for whose who do - I want to encourage them to look at the structure and see what it "might" be good for.

A good example is my VO work. It was the very last thing I migrated from Legacy to X. I was completely happy and totally comfortable cutting VOs in Legacy. I was fast, sure, and had everything I thought I needed.

I do the VO recording and rough edit. The clients do the final layback.

It took me a few weeks of tinkering in X to get up to near the same speed, but by that time, I started understanding how tagging and the database structure and auditioning could create some new possibilities in VO assembly. It's not that Legacy couldn't do that really well, It certainly could. But X's unique capabilities kept me asking myself "with these new tools" how can I use them to perhaps make this job more interesting and effective. In the past, if I had four "reads" of a line, I'd just pick the best. I seldom swapped them in and out since the differences were marginal in effect and it caused me to have multiple takes of the same thing cluttering up my timeline. (and honestly, I pretty much know I'm just pick the take I "like" best nearly all the time anyway and doing too much "auditioning" can be a waste of time!) And the client typically doesn't want "multiple takes" just the final VO as a unit.

But the "capability" for auditioning in X had me asking myself if I ever got in a quandary with a piece of important work, and have a few nearly identical reads for "paragraph 3?" Would the "auditioning" space built into X help me pick the best?

What I'm saying is that I can't tell in advance if I want to use the new process, until I both know it's there - and have explored it well enough to uncover it's utilities and weaknesses. That's what all of us are doing with FCP-X right now. Exploring.

Which I enjoy.

And I firmly feel that the best way to uncover it's strengths and weaknesses isn't helped by just focusing on what's missing or different, or what's "kinda like" what we had in Legacy. It's uncovering the reality in this particular piece of software. Something I'm enjoying doing (and discussing) with others.

FWIW.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 12:34:51 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "But how sustainable is the notion that FCPX is in any real sense a nodal system? ......... Nothing is actually passed through the connection - and you can't interpose other types of nodes to change the value of the connection."
[Walter Soyka] "I'm probably being dense, but I'm not following here. Could you explain this again for me?"

Admittedly it's a very, loose analogy. But the methods of connections and the fact that audio clips can be anywhere in the timeline hierarchy, does mimic a more node-tree-like appearance. And clips do have different properties, developing on where they are, much like the differences in Resolve. So, while not truly the same as a node-based compositor, it certainly isn't track-like either.

[Walter Soyka] "I don't think of Motion as tracked so much as layered. "

Well, layered in a similar sense to AE. Track, layer - it's pretty much the same, as you have a change of motion in the content over time and pinned to a scale of time.

[Walter Soyka] "Apps like Motion (and AE, Shake, Nuke, and Fusion) are fundamentally designed to handle shots, not sequences. "

Well, true, but both Motion and AE have no problem with sequences if you don't mind the cascade of clips. In fact, today, if you "send to Motion" from FCP 7 on a system with both sets of apps installed, the command opens Motion 5 and the clips you sent over from FCP 7 show up just as they did in Motion 4. Multiple clips in succession from the FCP 7 timeline are just fine.

[Walter Soyka] "Back to nodes, here's an interesting sidebar: you can see a lot of what's going on under the hood with Motion inside of Apple's Quartz Composer, a node-based visual programming system that ships with the developer tools. "

I have. In fact, any user of FxFactory can open effects in Quartz Composer and tweak them as well as create their own brand new effects. Watching the "under-the-hood" spaghetti that some one like Roger Bolton (CoreMelt) builds to create his effects is truly inspiring ;-)

I guess my point in this was to question FCP X more than Motion, as well as the design inconsistencies exhibited.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 12:50:43 am

Does Motion have tracks? I'd say it doesn't, really, anymore so than After Effects.

Is X's container system a node tree? Kinda, sorta, but not really, but close? When you start adding "adjustment layers", it gets a step closer, but it's not as tight of a package.

Actually, Motion's structure is more like X's structure in more ways than a track based system.

Groups can be containers, which can compliment X's clip container system very nicely. A group can be a compound, a storyline, an audition, a multiclip...a role.

We are missing connections and magnetism.

I agree with Bill, that the Event as organization is completely great. It is one of my favorite aspects of X. It gives you a massive amount of data that has been hand picked by me quickly and efficiently, and then allows quick access to view, organize and rearrange further than having multiple selects timelines and a copy/paste function to a "master" timeline, or as a version timeline. In my opinion, it is really powerful, and most of all extremely useful. With a click of a collection, I can drill down even further, or with another click of the top layer of the Event, I can go back to everything.

I have posted this pic before, but since video monitoring came out, I have been running the viewer on a smaller second monitor, and I have the event and the Project stacked on one large screen. My video monitor becomes a new viewer. I I need to switch the setup for more precise compositing/key framing, I simply switch the event and the viewer. I find it works very well, and I rather like it. It's fast, it's highly creative, and the "birds eye view", I get of my media and decisions is so much more tangible and useful than other tabbed based methods.

Pics here:






Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 1:23:15 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I agree with Bill, that the Event as organization is completely great. It is one of my favorite aspects of X. It gives you a massive amount of data that has been hand picked by me quickly and efficiently, and then allows quick access to view, organize and rearrange further than having multiple selects timelines ."

While I agree it's nice, I don't see the tremendous leap over FCP 7. Nearly all of this organization could and can be done there in the standard bins and browser just in a different manner. If you want to look at MC, as a different example, it's been even better for 20 years now. If you really want to be helpful, bring back batch export from the Event Browser. And while you're at it, make it easier to add source-side effects instead of the SLOW "open in timeline" method.

[Jeremy Garchow] " I simply switch the event and the viewer. I find it works very well, and I rather like it. It's fast, it's highly creative, and the "birds eye view", I get of my media and decisions is so much more tangible and useful than other tabbed based methods."

Sure. Works nicely. MC has for almost two decades been able to play the thumbnail or storyboard view as real motion video out through the I/O card to a video monitor.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 1:58:20 am

Well, I'm glad final cut pro has caught up after 20 years. Kudos to the ProApps team for ripping off a truly great idea!

In all seriousness though, it's not just about scrubbing a thumbnail. 7 had it, it didn't work that well.

[Oliver Peters] "While I agree it's nice, I don't see the tremendous leap over FCP 7."

I do. It's different for me and works differently. I cannot setup 7 like X and have it work as efficiently. Perhaps you can. I constantly have to use timelines in fcp7 to see what I have, I don't have to in X. Via key wording/favoriting/compounding, I have access to either clips, collections of clips, or timelines of clips AND my master timeline in one interface. 7 works differently.

The keyword system is hugely dynamic, the bin system is not. I cannot get access to every piece of media in my event like I can with bins, unless I dump everything in the root level of the 7 project, and then that destroys all of my organization, not so in X. Even if all my clips are at root level in 7, there's not much I can do to them until I load them in a viewer, not so in X. There are master clips I have to be mindful of, not so in X.

I could go on, but in my opinion, 7 and X (and Avid) don't work quite the same way. I favor X's approach. It fits me. A big pool of data, rather than shelves and hallways that I have to go pick up what i want, take down off the shelf, set in on a workbench, and return to the shelf, or return part of it to the shelf, leaving behind what I need.

I agree about batch expo, and source side effects. I would imagine, all in due time, although I am hoping for a step up in real time LUT/color transforms than baking proxy media, but there's advantages to both sides. It'd be nice to be able to bake that stuff in when "creating proxies" in X. Man, that'd be sweet. In the "create Proxy" dialogue, the ability to add an effects stack. Sweetness.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 1:59:21 am

By the way, Oliver, do you think Motion really has tracks?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 12:48:20 pm

By the way, Oliver, do you think Motion really has tracks?


I answered that in another reply, but yes, I see the layers in Motion and in AE as tracks. The reason is that you can adjust their position against time and you can also change in/out points and slip the media content of each clip.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 1:39:23 pm

[Oliver Peters] "By the way, Oliver, do you think Motion really has tracks?


I answered that in another reply, but yes, I see the layers in Motion and in AE as tracks. The reason is that you can adjust their position against time and you can also change in/out points and slip the media content of each clip.
"


I agree with this, and I'd be willing to call a Photoshop layer a single frame track if anyone wanted to get into a donnybrook over it. Personally, I would love an NLE that could group tracks in the way Motion does. It would be totally rocking to have the option hierarchical track Groups so that all sfx could reside in a single group that could be expanded/contracted, have filters or volume changes applied globally, etc. Maybe somebody will do it some day, though not with X since it is the antithesis of what X is about.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:16:39 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I'd be willing to call a Photoshop layer a single frame track if anyone wanted to get into a donnybrook over it."

To be really pedantic, a Photoshop layer doesn't have to be a single frame - all you have to do is go into the Animation mode and you start getting time based media there too! There's a timeline where you can trim and offset clips and apply a variety of animated parameters that make is quite like a kind of cutdown After Effects.

Animation is Photoshop is surprisingly powerful but not much used.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:19:25 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Personally, I would love an NLE that could group tracks in the way Motion does. It would be totally rocking to have the option hierarchical track Groups so that all sfx could reside in a single group that could be expanded/contracted, have filters or volume changes applied globally, etc."

Isn't this just what you can already do when you compound clips in FCPX?

A Compound is not hugely different to a Motion Group in a practical sense if not a design one.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:22:48 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Chris Harlan] "Personally, I would love an NLE that could group tracks in the way Motion does. It would be totally rocking to have the option hierarchical track Groups so that all sfx could reside in a single group that could be expanded/contracted, have filters or volume changes applied globally, etc."

Isn't this just what you can already do when you compound clips in FCPX?

A Compound is not hugely different to a Motion Group in a practical sense if not a design one."


Certainly, and it is one of the nice ideas of X, but it comes at the expense of the other elements of track-i-ness, which--for me--far outweigh the usefulness of compound clips. In Motion, each layer still retains both its relations across time and its assigned hierarchical level within the group.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 3:50:34 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "
Isn't this just what you can already do when you compound clips in FCPX?

A Compound is not hugely different to a Motion Group in a practical sense if not a design one."


Exactly. I think FCPX's interface "mirrors" Motion's container based interface much more so than tracks.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 3:55:30 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] " I think FCPX's interface "mirrors" Motion's container based interface much more so than tracks."

Arguably, but don't you think perhaps this whole discussion is getting confused between "things that could be described as similar" and "things which are in fact similar"? There is really no design or conceptual link between the two is there?

I'd also argue that the "container based inferface" was already there in Legacy.

In almost every meaningful sense, FCPX Compounds are the same thing as FCP7 nests with the major exception that you can now break them apart. It's surely pretty obvious that the concept of Compounds was devised as a way of doing classic nesting only better (and hence more versatile).

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:08:23 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Arguably, but don't you think perhaps this whole discussion is getting confused between "things that could be described as similar" and "things which are in fact similar"? There is really no design or conceptual link between the two is there?"

I am just reading to the subject of this thread, and Oliver's comments.

I don't think motion has tracks in the NLE (or dare I say DAW) sense of the word. It has layers, containers, and groups of containers. Those aren't tracks, but maybe I just see it differently and we are arguing semantics.

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'd also argue that the "container based inferface" was already there in Legacy. "

Yeah, but if something isn't enabled properly or useful, it might as well not exist as why use it if it makes your editing life hard? Mutliclips are great containers in 7, and X expands that model very very well.

In 7, I can't take v1 and v2 and literally put v2 inside of v1, having the next rack be v3. I can take the CONTENTS of v2 and nest them in a new container which will be residing in v1, but v2 still remains it's own fixed entity. The clips I have nested in v1 have zero relationship to v2 anymore. Tracks contain things, but they aren't real containers in that I can't put one inside the other and maintain the relationship (in FCP7 anyway, perhaps other NLE's work differently, I'm sure we will get another schooling form MichaelG about a track bussed layered Fairlight). In motion, I can take a group, put it in another group, and the original group is no more, but the group relationship is still in tact.

And this doesn't even begin to touch on audio tracks, or Browser side containers.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:22:10 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "In 7, I can't take v1 and v2 and literally put v2 inside of v1"

I'm probably being dense here but surely you can!

You can nest the two together, just the same as making a compound clip. I don't see what the difference is? You can't put one clip inside another in FCPX either, except in the sense of making a compound of the two of them.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Tracks contain things, but they aren't real containers in that I can't put one inside the other and maintain the relationship"

But we were talking about nests and how they compare to compound clips, not tracks and how they compare to compound clips. Nests are in every sense real containers just as compound clips are. You can step inside those containers and alter the contents, you can save them to the browser (now there's a great idea!!!), and so on.

[Jeremy Garchow] "And this doesn't even begin to touch on audio tracks, or Browser side containers."

Again, I don't see how this is any different to how nests behave(d). You could, if you wanted, use nests as audio busses, or even video "busses", by applying global effects to them. You could also use them as "Browser side containers", actually more so than FCPX.

FCPX has made one huge stride forward with the ability to break apart compound clips, which was a massive drawback to nests, but other than that this is not "new tech" we're talking about here.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:47:44 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I'm probably being dense here but surely you can!"

You can't drag v1 to v2 and have v2 inside of v1. I'd ask you to prove it. I know that you can't, so it's a trick. Don't fall for it!

As I said, you can take the CONTENTS (clips/video/whatever) of v2, and then nest them in a CONTAINER (A nest sequence) in v1, but v1 and v2 will remain fixed and the clips have zero relationship to v1 or v2, the just sit there. You cannot move them. Motion does not work this way, nor does X (save storylines). Groups and compounds are the very definitions of the relationship, then add connections and storylines. This is very different than a track based approach. I have always tried to harp that understanding these relationships is crucial to understanding FCPX.

[Simon Ubsdell] "You can't put one clip inside another in FCPX either, except in the sense of making a compound of the two of them."

Compound clips are analogous to Motion groups. The compound clip simply exists in relationship to other clips and the primary, and the defines the relationship od the clips inside of them. If the compound resides outside of the Primary, it is it's own entity and not bound by a track that I can't really do anything with in FCP7 terms.

[Simon Ubsdell] "Again, I don't see how this is any different to how nests behave(d). You could, if you wanted, use nests as audio busses, or even video "busses", by applying global effects to them"

We are not arguing about nests, we are arguing about tracks. I think you just proved my point.

[Simon Ubsdell] "FCPX has made one huge stride forward with the ability to break apart compound clips, which was a massive drawback to nests, but other than that this is not "new tech" we're talking about here."

Who said anything about new tech? What is different is the access to these clips, and how we can use them. It's not new tech, but they have been given more capability and better tooling, and that's an important difference. FCPX rethought on how these "nests" as you call them, work. Then there's auditions, multi-clips, and storylines, all of which are different containers for different purposes, and none of the bound by a track based approach.

All we need now is David L, Aindreas G, and Herb S, and we will have the band back together.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:39:34 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Simon Ubsdell] "I'd also argue that the "container based inferface" was already there in Legacy. "

Yeah, but if something isn't enabled properly or useful, it might as well not exist as why use it if it makes your editing life hard?"


I use nesting all the time in 7. Funny, how depending on kinds of projects, we all see different tools as useless or useful.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:49:36 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I use nesting all the time in 7."

I stay away from it as it completely explodes Color, or any other XML juju I need to perform.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 3:49:53 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I agree with this, and I'd be willing to call a Photoshop layer a single frame track if anyone wanted to get into a donnybrook over it."

I see them as layers, not as tracks. I can have a clip in a track at the beginning of the timeline, and a clip in the same track at the end.

How would you do this in Photoshop?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:34:33 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Chris Harlan] "I agree with this, and I'd be willing to call a Photoshop layer a single frame track if anyone wanted to get into a donnybrook over it."

I see them as layers, not as tracks. I can have a clip in a track at the beginning of the timeline, and a clip in the same track at the end.

How would you do this in Photoshop?
"


I suppose I'm mostly joking about the granularity of the distinction. Frankly, I'd be willing to call them either Harvey or Loraine if I could get others to agree. So, yes, one is a Harvey and the other is a Loraine and they share many, many properties, but viva la difference.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:31:16 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I see the layers in Motion and in AE as tracks. The reason is that you can adjust their position against time and you can also change in/out points and slip the media content of each clip."

I think that those are things that layers have in common with tracks, but I think there are differences, too.

Tracks are containers, whereas layers are singular elements.

Tracks allow some group operations (in FCP7, this is pretty much limited to muting or track-based selections, but in an audio system, tracks may be routed and submixed).

Tracks may be used for organization or to encode metadata about the clips placed within them (i.e., titles and only titles on V5).

Moving clips among tracks is usually non-rippling (in terms of the composite) by default, whereas moving layers in a compositing stack is rippling by necessity (since there is no concept of hard vertical space, layers can't overwrite each other or leave vertical gaps).

In other words, tracks are fixed while moving clips vertically; inserting or deleting a track is an operation entirely separate from adjusting clips.

In terms of Motion, I think a group is more analogous to a track than a layer is.

(Veering off-topic a bit, I meant to mention this earlier: a lot of nodal functionality exists within Motion's layer-based system through clone layers. Pretty clever solution!)

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:50:14 pm

[Walter Soyka] "(Veering off-topic a bit, I meant to mention this earlier: a lot of nodal functionality exists within Motion's layer-based system through clone layers. Pretty clever solution!)"

Could you explain?

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 3:06:06 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Veering off-topic a bit, I meant to mention this earlier: a lot of nodal functionality exists within Motion's layer-based system through clone layers. Pretty clever solution!"

[Simon Ubsdell] "Could you explain?"

Gladly.

Say, for example, you've generated a procedural matte that you want to use multiple times in the same project.

Nodal compositors excel at reuse of a single element (by piping its output to the inputs of multiple other nodes). Layer-based compositors cannot do this; you have to either duplicate the layer (and maintain any manipulations on both copies) or pre-compose (which, without intelligent render management, incurs processing and memory penalties).

Clone layers [link] let you re-use a layer in other places in the compositing stack, similar to how nodal compositing lets you send multiple outputs from a single node.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 3:20:48 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Clone layers [link] let you re-use a layer in other places in the compositing stack, similar to how nodal compositing lets you send multiple outputs from a single node."

Thanks for the explanation. I did know this about Clone Layers but I wasn't sure quite what you meant about the "nodal" behaviour. Maybe this discussion is using the word "nodal" more as a metaphor a lot of the time rather than an actual reality, and I kind of think you are doing that there. But your point is still a good one.

Motion is pretty amazing in many ways, I think, and doesn't deserve to be judged so adversely in comparison to After Effects when there are in fact a number of important things that it does much, much better. Pre-comps in AE are really not a good design idea whichever way you slice it, whereas Motion Groups (and things like Clone Layers) give you a distinctly superior control a lot of the time.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 3:52:36 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Maybe this discussion is using the word "nodal" more as a metaphor a lot of the time rather than an actual reality, and I kind of think you are doing that there. But your point is still a good one."

Yes, looking back at it, I was terribly unclear. There is no nodal interface in Motion, but clone layers give you one of a nodal system's traditional strengths in a layer-based system.


[Simon Ubsdell] "Motion is pretty amazing in many ways, I think, and doesn't deserve to be judged so adversely in comparison to After Effects when there are in fact a number of important things that it does much, much better. Pre-comps in AE are really not a good design idea whichever way you slice it, whereas Motion Groups (and things like Clone Layers) give you a distinctly superior control a lot of the time."

Motion is a tease. There are so many brilliant ideas shown in it (like you suggested, pre-comps as collapsible groups is a perennial favorite AE feature request). Unfortunately, I still feel it falls a bit short of the mark for most standalone mograph work.

Having just built a complicated custom transition element in AE (requiring about half a dozen copies of the precomps, per instance), I am feeling particularly jealous of rigging and publishing today.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:00:27 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Motion is a tease."

Absolutely, and it has been for years, though Motion 5 is perhaps a promise that Apple are starting to take it a bit more seriously. I really hope so because I think the foundation is really well conceived and the potential is huge.

The worst thing that could happen now is for Apple to "bundle Motion into FCPX", as I have noticed quite a few users are suggesting would be a great idea.

It would be a tragically bad idea - for both apps.

To make mograph/compositing converge with editing is absolutely a recipe for disaster.

To my mind, it is the repeated and highly vocal demand over the years for an uber-app to replace Final Cut Studio that has been behind Apple's thinking with FCPX. Gone are STP and Color, and I don't think anybody who knows what they're talking about could say this is an improvement.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Steve ConnorRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:04:37 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "To my mind, it is the repeated and highly vocal demand over the years for an uber-app to replace Final Cut Studio that has been behind Apple's thinking with FCPX. Gone are STP and Color, and I don't think anybody who knows what they're talking about could say this is an improvement.
"


I've been working in Motion this week and I forgot what a powerful tool it was and how relatively easy it is to use, I hope they continue it's development.

Fortunately Resolve has filled the gap left by the EOL'ing of Color and I'm desperately hoping the next version of Logic will replace STP.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:30:55 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Gone are STP and Color, and I don't think anybody who knows what they're talking about could say this is an improvement.
"


Again, I have no idea how valuable my point is or if I know what I am talking about, or am qualified for your level of expertise, but good riddance to STP. The interchange sucked between 7 and STP.

I will miss Color. I really will, but there are alternatives. I am really looking forward to Speedgrade, if it ever comes out.

I would welcome Motion to be wrapped in to FCPX as well. Especially since there's no good way to get to and from at this moment in time. If the interchange becomes such that we can simply send to Motion and back to it doesn't feel like such a huge and defining gap between the two applications, I'd be OK with that.

Although, I would probably still use AE. :)

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:43:23 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Again, I have no idea how valuable my point is or if I know what I am talking about, or am qualified for your level of expertise, but good riddance to STP. The interchange sucked between 7 and STP."

I really do beg to differ, sorry!

As someone who has used ProTools for a considerable number of years and several other DAWs besides, can I say that STP was absolutely amazing and gave huge speed advantages when working with FCP.

There were any number of really great ideas in there that never got the chance to shine because of all the negative press that came from people who only ever opened it once, and probably didn't know what to expect anyway.

Yes, interchange could get a bit flaky with longer form but there was one thing in there that made me forgive all the rest, and that was reconform which in the main worked like a charm, and often jsut as well as Virtual Katy costing a serious amount of money. The amount of time this has saved me over the years has been priceless.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I would welcome Motion to be wrapped in to FCPX as well."

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but could this be because, like STP, you haven't used Motion all that much? I can't see that anyone who recognizes the astonishing depth and complexity, not to mention the massive potential, in Motion, could possibly want to see it diluted by being bundled into FCPX to its certain major detriment, as well as almost certainly the detriment of FCPX.

Please, Apple, if you're listening, shut your ears to this stuff!!!!!

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Steve ConnorRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:46:43 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Please, Apple, if you're listening, shut your ears to this stuff!!!!!"

Agreed, Adobe would't wrap After Effects into Premiere.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:52:00 pm

[Steve Connor] "Agreed, Adobe would't wrap After Effects into Premiere."

Yeah but have you played with Dynamic LInk?

As I mentioned, if that's how it's going to be for FCPX and Motion, they can remain separate, but at least give me the connection.

I guess I can see Motion as a "room" or "node" to FCPX. They can develop separately, but give me that connection. Dynamic Link is amazing.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:59:12 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "There were any number of really great ideas in there that never got the chance to shine because of all the negative press that came from people who only ever opened it once, and probably didn't know what to expect anyway."

If you got it to work for you, that's great. It never really worked for me It would make new media, it wasn't really great at dynamic changes, they weren't tightly integrated, not like AE and PPro are. That should be a modeling standard of application integration. You can effect things in AE, send it back to the PPro timeline and there's no new media created, but all the filters and work you did in AE are honored on the PPro timeline.

I don't do final audio mixes (and don't use DAWs), but I do need some filters for my review edits, and that's why I prefer FCPX's approach as it gives me the basic tools I need to rough things in before the finish. Audio mixing and filters in 7 is a pain and a chore.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 5:09:51 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "it wasn't really great at dynamic changes, they weren't tightly integrated"

Oddly, it was actually really good at this.

Send to STP Audio File Project not did not create new media, it was also dynamically linked so that whatever filters you applied in STP would stay live and editable - particularly handy if you'd sent a clip from the timeline for EQ or compression or whatever, you could always go back and tweak it whenever you wanted.

Obviously there is never going to be a way of dynamically linking an entire audio mix (as in the Send to STP Multitrack Project route. you are alwasy going to need to send back a mixed down version of your project, but even that is well handled for speed of use, I always thought.

I would however agree that for the casual user who's not interested in mixing DAW-style, the integration of the Logic plug-ins in FCPX is a handy advance and can give some good results pretty quickly. But really this most emphatically comes into the dreaded "dumbing down" category of improvements, just as the Color Board is a sadly dumbed down version of Color. (And yes, Resolve is clearly the way foeard in the latter case.)

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 5:23:56 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Oddly, it was actually really good at this."

It was good at sending. True.

[Simon Ubsdell] "Obviously there is never going to be a way of dynamically linking an entire audio mix (as in the Send to STP Multitrack Project route. you are alwasy going to need to send back a mixed down version of your project, but even that is well handled for speed of use, I always thought."

Really? have a look at PPro and AE. There's no new media created and new new render created. There's no need to "mix down" the Ae sequence to PPro. PPro simply plays back the intent of the AE project.

IF STp could do this inside of FCP, it would be even better. the work that I do changes so much and so fast, I don't have time to mess around with multiple copies of mixed down STP renders. I need quick accessible toolss that allow me to change. For me (and my needs) the audio filters in FCPX helps me to achieve this in a way that STp never offered. I can then get through the edits and approvals until it's time to spend time on the finish which comes later. i understand this isn't the way everyone needs to/should/can work.

Speaking of work...

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 5:04:56 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Jeremy Garchow] "Again, I have no idea how valuable my point is or if I know what I am talking about, or am qualified for your level of expertise, but good riddance to STP. The interchange sucked between 7 and STP."

I really do beg to differ, sorry!
"


I too dig STP, and am sorry to see it go. I use/used it a lot, and that's with Logic, ProTools, and Digital Performer sitting right next to it. (I use them a lot, too, but just for different stuff.)


[Simon Ubsdell] "I can't see that anyone who recognizes the astonishing depth and complexity, not to mention the massive potential, in Motion, could possibly want to see it diluted by being bundled into FCPX to its certain major detriment,"


I agree, as well. I'm still using 4, but when I have time I might gravitate to 5 and use FCPX/Compressor as its i/o.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 5:13:22 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I'm still using 4, but when I have time I might gravitate to 5 and use FCPX/Compressor as its i/o."

I'd highly recommend Compressor 4 (which you can use even without FCPX). Although it's still a 32 bit app, the 64 bit job controller means that my 8 cores now show up as 16 cores with a virtual cluster, which is a very pretty sight indeed. And I'm getting some very impressive encode times as a result.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 7:11:29 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I too dig STP, and am sorry to see it go. I use/used it a lot,"

Pretty much most mixes I do (when I don't send to a ProTools mixer) get touched by STP, even if just for some EQ & compression/limiting. In the Adobe world, Premiere Pro + Audition gives you the same functionality (though no SFX and music). In the Media Composer world, you have both clip-based and track-based audio mixing and filtering capabilities.

[Chris Harlan] "I'm still using 4, but when I have time I might gravitate to 5"

On my home machine I have both FCP7/FCS and FCPX/Mtn5/Comp4 installed. The "send to Motion" in FCP 7 now only sends to Motion 5 - no longer Mtn4. BTW - it works pretty well, but I haven't really tested the trip back into FCP 7 to see if everything is right. I does seem to indicate to me that very little was done with Mtn5, beyond UI skinning and the rigging/publish thing.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 24, 2012 at 12:45:34 am

[Oliver Peters] "The "send to Motion" in FCP 7 now only sends to Motion 5 - no longer Mtn4. BTW - it works pretty well, but I haven't really tested the trip back into FCP 7 to see if everything is right. "

Hmm... After doing some testing it now appears that this function is completely broken with FCP 7 and FCP X on the same machine. FCP 7 does indeed "Send to Motion" opening Motion 5, but then you have to relink media in Motion 5. Any changes you make are not updated in FCP 7 at all or it ends up with the Motion project on the timeline as "missing file" that won't relink. Broken!

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 24, 2012 at 1:06:45 am

There's a document for this, Oliver, and I can't find it.

It had to do with launching motion 4 first, then installing motion 5. Let me do some more digging.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 24, 2012 at 1:12:45 am

Here it is.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4722


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 24, 2012 at 1:50:00 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "It had to do with launching motion 4 first, then installing motion 5. Let me do some more digging."

Thanks. Yes, I did all that. It has to do with the apps even working in the first place, because it sets the routing to their supporting files. Apparently it doesn't prevent the Send To Motion from getting broken.

Also, that document was written with the initial launch. It could also be that something about the update (which also included a Motion and Compressor update) may have broken it. In the end, it doesn't really matter to me, because I never send to Motion anymore, because it has proven to make my FCP 7 projects unstable. I prefer AE anyway.

FWIW - existing Motion projects (from 4) that are in older FCP 7 sequences are just fine.

But I appreciate the help. Thanks.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 3:48:04 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I answered that in another reply, but yes, I see the layers in Motion and in AE as tracks. "

Wow. I don't, especially in AE. I can't add another clip to a layer in AE without a nest. And AE's nests don't do a good job of showing you what's inside either. At least secondary stoyrkines do, and with Motion the groups scan be expanded to show what's inside as well.

[Oliver Peters] "The reason is that you can adjust their position against time and you can also change in/out points and slip the media content of each clip."

And you can't do this in X? This is what makes a track a track?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jim GibertiRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 24, 2012 at 12:07:38 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Groups can be containers, which can compliment X's clip container system very nicely. A group can be a compound, a storyline, an audition, a multiclip...a role."

I like this Jeremy, It's how I've been thinking of Motion lately, and putting it in context with X is a good way to visualize the overall concept.

I've had the unique (for us) opportunity to do a ton of stuff in X and Motion5 the last few months and now I've been reworking a lot of stuff in 7 and Motion4.

I've evolved a pretty solid opinion from the experience - along with doing a lot of audio post directly in X and separately in DP.

I think I'll post my "conclusion in a new thread FWIW.

Jim


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 24, 2012 at 12:37:54 am

Send a link when you're done, Jim!


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 12:03:45 pm

[Bill Davis] "I've used the example before of how I import long raw narrations into X. Use the range tool to mark the good takes, and if I do that with some care, I can just drag everything tagged as a FAVORITE to my timeline and essentially my initial "edit" of my voiceover is done. I'm left with nothing I don't want. I can become more "precise" on the timeline if I need to."

Actually I'm surprised that you think this is a better way of selecting VO takes than editing in the timeline (although I can see it has some uses).

One of the key things with VO recordings is to know how one take sits against another, how well the intonation, inflection and other factors match, especially if there has been a pick-up in the middle of a paragraph or even a sentence. The only way you're going to make those judgement calls correctly is to hear the edited takes back to back, in context, on a timeline.

"Editing in the Browser", which is what you are describing, is not going to allow for this. It's adequate for rejecting stuff you definitely don't want to use, but not for actually making choices about which takes work best together. And let's not forget that quite frequently you're going to want to steal or a word or two here and there from takes that are otherwise "useless".

(Having said that, editing VO on the FCPX timeline definitely feels a lot quicker and easier than in other NLE's, for a variety of reasons.)

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 1:10:41 pm

"Actually I'm surprised that you think this is a better way of selecting VO takes than editing in the timeline (although I can see it has some uses). "

It seems to me that one of the key missing functions is the ability to drag a Project directly into an Event. I realize you can "open in timeline" and you can start a compound clip in the Event, but these all seem like workaraounds. Why not the same behavior as we had with bins? Assemble a timeline of selects and drag that into an Event for organization.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 2:48:18 pm

[Oliver Peters] "It seems to me that one of the key missing functions is the ability to drag a Project directly into an Event. I realize you can "open in timeline" and you can start a compound clip in the Event, but these all seem like workaraounds. Why not the same behavior as we had with bins? Assemble a timeline of selects and drag that into an Event for organization."

I very much agree and this is a really major missing piece for me.

On the one hand there is the Bill Davis school of editing for people who are deliriously happy making all their selections in a browser environment and who feel that the job is pretty much done once this has been accomplished ... OK, so I simplify for rhetorical effect, but you know what I mean!

On the other hand, there is a popular school of thought that likes to do their editing on the timeline, in the sense of making selects as a sequence rather than a folder/bin/collection of assorted clips.

The huge advantage to the latter way of working is that you can immediately see how the different clips might fit together, but also get a feel for how they flow into one another.

When you make selects in the timeline you can already feel the edit coming together as an edit (rather than just a list of decisions about what to include or exclude).

Ideas start to come together about the organization of the material that might never have occurred to you if you hadn't been working this way.

More than anything else, you get to know your material in a very real sense, but you keep watching it and rewatching it. (I've seen quite a few feature editors who even like to keep alt takes back-to-back in their scene assemblies, just so they can continously be evaluating - and re-evaluating - the different choices.)

Conversely, the former school of thought involves staring at a database of clips that is effectively inert - there is no synergy between one clip and another, not way of knowing how they might fit together from just lookoing at them this way.

And most disadvantageous of all - and I know this because I've seen too many editors work this way - a lot of good material simply gets lost because it is not being reviewed enough. There is a feeling that because the browser has been organized and selections made that the onus of reviewing the material has somehow been removed. Time and again I've seen editors looking at bins full of detailed clip names and thumbnails and all sorts of organizational aids, but not really knowing what's actually in those clips becaue they've only looked at them once.

One of the key lessons of editing is that the really good stuff - that one little moment that will really make your edit sing (or possibly get you out of that impossible hole that you can't fix any other way) will very probably be hidden somewhere you least expect it.

And I think the FCPX model with its insidiously seductive data management tools makes the danger of losing track of your material all the more acute. There's clearly even more of a sense in which the organization takes the place of the actual editing. There is a real potential for false confidence, confidence that you've rejected, and selected, the right stuff and you can start the edit from that point - without going continually going back.

Bill Davis tellingly describes this as a "two-stage process" - organize first, edit later. My concern about this is that "stage one" seems to be shutting the door on the selection process as though it's all done and dusted.

For me, and it's just a personal judgement, editing is essentially one process from start to finish and it's a process that involves continuous evaulation - and more importantly re-evaluation - of the material.

That's why I'm not sure that FCPX is necessarily a force for good in all this!

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2


Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 3:55:00 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "That's why I'm not sure that FCPX is necessarily a force for good in all this!"

I totally disagree. I feel like I have much more access to media in X. Much more quickly, and even the stuff I don't like, I can sort through that easier as well as I can call up the "rejected" parts.

If I make a selects reel in FCP7 and delete it, that part is gone. I would have to go searching for it back in the browser. X allows immediate access to everything.

Then when you get in to Audition clips, you can have multiple selects sitting right there in your Project to be called up at any time.

I'm sorry, but I find X's handing of this much more fluid than 7. I have much better access to all media at anytime in X in both Events and Projects.

Again, I don't think Bill is aging to edit in the Event, I think he is saying to do a bit of pre assembly in the Event, and I agree. I use it the same way.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:00:44 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "And I think the FCPX model with its insidiously seductive data management tools makes the danger of losing track of your material all the more acute. There's clearly even more of a sense in which the organization takes the place of the actual editing. There is a real potential for false confidence, confidence that you've rejected, and selected, the right stuff and you can start the edit from that point - without going continually going back.

For me, and it's just a personal judgement, editing is essentially one process from start to finish and it's a process that involves continuous evaulation - and more importantly re-evaluation - of the material.

That's why I'm not sure that FCPX is necessarily a force for good in all this!
"


Perhaps, but the skimmer gives you such a great way to view ALL your footage very quickly that for me it makes it much LESS likely I miss something, even when I've organised footage before the edit.

I also think the new timeline is fantastic for experimenting with edits and crashing things together to see what works and what doesn't, before you start the edit.

I'm just about to finish the first cut of a feature I've been working on. I planned to organise all the media before I started, but once I began playing with shots on the timeline, things just moved quickly and I've ended up hardly logging any of it!

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:07:55 pm

[Steve Connor] "I also think the new timeline is fantastic for experimenting with edits and crashing things together to see what works and what doesn't, before you start the edit.

I'm just about to finish the first cut of a feature I've been working on. I planned to organise all the media before I started, but once I began playing with shots on the timeline, things just moved quickly and I've ended up hardly logging any of it!"


I think this is a really interesting comment, and personally, although it must sound chaotic to some, I belive this is a really great way of working. And one which FCPX is hugely well suited to, as you say.

My argument is based on seeing so many editors down the years who have fetishised the organizational process to a degree that has serisouly crippled their ability to carry out the creative editing side of the job, which is the only bit that actually matters at the end of the day. (Often, to be a bit harsh about this, I have found that the editors that most fetishise the process are the ones that are actually a bit scared of actually doing the editing. Organization becomes a displacement activity rather than anything of any actual value.)

Your audience, whoever they may be, is not going to give you brownie points for a beautifully organized Event Browser.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:10:59 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I have found that the editors that most fetishise the process are the ones that are actually a bit scared of actually doing the editing. Organization becomes a displacement activity rather than anything of any actual value.)

Your audience, whoever they may be, is not going to give you brownie points for a beautifully organized Event Browser."


My favourite comment of the week so far!

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:18:36 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "My argument is based on seeing so many editors down the years who have fetishised the organizational process to a degree that has serisouly crippled their ability to carry out the creative editing side of the job, which is the only bit that actually matters at the end of the day. (Often, to be a bit harsh about this, I have found that the editors that most fetishise the process are the ones that are actually a bit scared of actually doing the editing. Organization becomes a displacement activity rather than anything of any actual value.)"

And X allows you to group your clips formally or informally. But it allows really easy access. I find it way more creative and way more accessible.

In FCP7, the reason I had to organize things so well is that I have to remember where they were. I don't really have to do that in X if I don't want to as the access to the media is paramount.

If I do want to tag and get really specific, I can. At my job this helps as there's sometimes a lot of time between the beginning of the job, changes, and the end of the job, with many other jobs in between. I don't edit just one project at a time, so having everything sorted for when I come back to it helps me to refresh what's there. X allows this even more easily than 7 as everything is still in the Event at all times. With FCP7 selects reels, this might not be true. I hope this is making sense as I find this a really really powerful feature in FCPX as supposed to FCP7. It would be easy to explain if we could all share a screen and watch.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:34:34 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "And X allows you to group your clips formally or informally. But it allows really easy access. I find it way more creative and way more accessible."

That's because it sounds like you're a really good editor who's good at keeping all the balls in the air at once.

My point is not that you can't get to your material. It's rather about the editing mindset, the psychological aspect of how you set about the task, and where less good editors can and do get lost.

If the NLE is somehow suggesting, albeit subliminally, that organization is somehow an end in itself or somehow an intrinsic part of the creative process, then that is distorting the picture in a way that I personally fgeel is undesirable.

Organizing your material on the timeline has massive creative benefits as I have mentioned earlier in this thread and I would hate to see this particular editing skill become sidelined in favour of one that promoted Browser-side organization above any other kind.

And while FCPX is great for editing on the timeline in many ways, I don't think that it's yet addressing some of the needs of editors who find that this way of working suits them better. Not being able to send a compound clip to the Browser (yes, I know the workarounds), not being able to tab quickly between projects (OK, you can but only sort of), issues with editing with compound clips themselves (the notorious project bloat problem) - all these point to FCPX not being optimised (yet) for the way I like to work, and that I know works best for me, and that I have seen improve the speed and creativity of any number of editors who have adopted it over the years.

That's all I'm saying ...

(At the same time, I will readily admit that different kinds of editing require and/or favour very different editing strategies.)

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 5:18:05 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "If the NLE is somehow suggesting, albeit subliminally, that organization is somehow an end in itself or somehow an intrinsic part of the creative process, then that is distorting the picture in a way that I personally fgeel is undesirable. "

As I wrote in my "Didn't We ask For This?" article. X allows you to be messy or highly organized. It's the beauty of it, in my opinion.

[Simon Ubsdell] "Organizing your material on the timeline has massive creative benefits as I have mentioned earlier in this thread and I would hate to see this particular editing skill become sidelined in favour of one that promoted Browser-side organization above any other kind."

But what I like about X is that you can start a compound clip in the Event, then open it like a timeline and do the edits or organizing or form relationships, whatever. Then when going back to the Event this now becomes a scrubbable selects reel, and then there's the Project timeline. The interaction between the two is very fluid. But not only do you have access to that selects compound clip, you have access to everything else around it. In FCP7, you have to constantly jump between timelines/tabs/bins/borwser to do this, in X you don't and in practice, it makes a big difference.

[Simon Ubsdell] "Not being able to send a compound clip to the Browser (yes, I know the workarounds), not being able to tab quickly between projects (OK, you can but only sort of), issues with editing with compound clips themselves (the notorious project bloat problem) - all these point to FCPX not being optimised (yet) for the way I like to work, and that I know works best for me, and that I have seen improve the speed and creativity of any number of editors who have adopted it over the years."

Oh absolutely. There are real performance problems and workflow holes, but these are the types of things that can (and hopefully will) get fixed. FCPX is far from perfect, but the skeletal structure that is being built seems to be a good one, at least I find it more useful than 7. Optimization and stabilization are key, though, you are absolutely correct.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 24, 2012 at 3:27:24 am

[Steve Connor] "I'm just about to finish the first cut of a feature I've been working on. I planned to organise all the media before I started, but once I began playing with shots on the timeline, things just moved quickly and I've ended up hardly logging any of it!

Steve Connor"


Steve,

I'm all for you working the way you like. And I'd never stop you for a second concentrating on what you need "now" to get your work done.

But I want all the editors reading here to keep in mind, that while X won't requireyou to pre-organize anything - at some point when you look back at it after you've cut 10 more programs - you might start to see that doing clip categorizing and similar organization from the beginning - compounds in usefulness as you go along.

That's nothing but the simple truth of all databases. The more info they hold, the more useful they are as a class of constructs.

The overall arrangement of X - and the split between the Event Browser and the Timline is an excellent example - encourages you to think about what I want to do now that I can subsequently call upon later - and what I want to do now, that I will likely never want to use later.

Put simpler, there's no penalty for not applying the keyword "Jenny" to a clip of her. Drag and drop the untagged clip of her it to the timeline and rock on.

But hours, days, or perhaps even years later - if you want to "find all clips containing 'Jenny'" the fact that you got caught up in doing the necessary work of "diving into the cut" and decided to forgo applying any Keywords to your clips in advance, means you can't ever benefit from that nice "search" capability that is built into the very fabric of X.

You have to KNOW it's in there. Learn how it works. And implement it to benefit from it.

But it's totally up to each editor how much to value it.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 4:02:39 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "On the one hand there is the Bill Davis school of editing for people who are deliriously happy making all their selections in a browser environment ......
.....On the other hand, there is a popular school of thought that likes to do their editing ....
"


What's interesting to me in this conversation is that I'm in the middle of teaching my annual film editing class. These are film students in a year-long college program learning all aspects of film production technology. I do 2 weeks of lab and have the choice of using FCP 7, FCP X, PPro CS 5.5 or MC 6 this year. For various reasons, FCP 7 is the right choice this year, because the track/bin approach can be generalized to 3 out of the 4 options they are likely to encounter professionally. No local shops are using X yet (other then playing around with it).

I let them work in ways that suit them best - giving them the various techniques in which you can perform any function - and then letting them apply what works best for their own style. It's fascinating to see how some people work. I definitely see where trackless would be a benefit for many, as the FCP 7 track-patching, auto-select rules get confusing for some, even when I break down the concept to the analogy of a physical cord and plugging something in. Although, of course, I do try to discourage the natural habit of dragging and dropping to the timeline as their first and only way of editing ;-)

However, organization options are way more freeform in 7 than it would be in X and that would really affect the style of even these newbies. For instance, one organization approach I see some doing, is to physically rearrange clip icons in a totally freeform manner within a bin or between two open bins. Think of organizing photographs on a light table. The bin ends up looking more like a Smoke-style desk view than anything X can do. Again, I generally try to avoid "right" or "wrong" as I want them to find a comfort zone. I'm not teaching software keystrokes as much as editing concepts (keeping in mind reasonable "good practices"), so it's the end results that matter.

Just an observation.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Franz BieberkopfRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 9:27:33 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Although, of course, I do try to discourage the natural habit of dragging and dropping to the timeline as their first and only way of editing"


Oliver,

Why would you discourage this? It's pretty much the only way I get things into the timeline.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 11:04:37 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Why would you discourage this? It's pretty much the only way I get things into the timeline."

Because it's an inherently slow way to edit versus the keyboard.

If you have a 10 min. clip and drag it to the timeline and then trim, that's very cumbersome. If you open it first to mark in/out and then drag & drop, you are taking any extra unnecessary step. Also the location to where you drag it on the timeline is very imprecise resulting in further adjustment of the clip once it's on the timeline. It also limits your use of the interface to one-handed operation when using keystrokes utilizes both hands. Lastly the more you use the mouse, the more you run the risk of repetitive stress disorder to your wrist over the years. Working the keyboard or maybe a tablet eases that strain.

No offense, but many people edit that way because they were never taught otherwise. I discourage it because it is poor technique in the same way a music teacher discourages music students from learning their instrument with bad posture, bad hand position, etc. But, I realize that some people like to work that way, so I don't have a heavy-handed attitude about it as a teacher.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 24, 2012 at 1:52:45 am

[Oliver Peters] "
Because it's an inherently slow way to edit versus the keyboard."


... select batch of clips, check that no ins and outs are set and drag into timeline; proceed to edit with keyboard; quite fast. The ability to easily set the clips into whatever tracks you wish (bypassing all that assignment nonsense in most cases) is a bonus functionality.

But your intentions seem pure.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 24, 2012 at 2:05:36 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "select batch of clips, check that no ins and outs are set and drag into timeline; proceed to edit with keyboard; quite fast."

Yikes! I typically work with hundreds of clips on file-based projects, so I do use the bins for organization in much the same way as Bill has been advocating for the FCP X Event metadata functions. OTOH, when I'm cutting long documentary pieces where I'm trying to "find the story", then the soundbites all go to the timeline and I cut down from there.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "The ability to easily set the clips into whatever tracks you wish (bypassing all that assignment nonsense in most cases) is a bonus functionality."

Yes, I can see that. Although I prefer my students to fully comprehend the track assignments. Having said that, I do acknowledge that for some it's a completely confusing concept.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "But your intentions seem pure."

Thanks ;-) That's why it's not a big sticking point for me. Just something I encourage in my teaching. I'm glad it works for you, though.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bill DavisRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 24, 2012 at 3:45:20 am

At the risk of getting yelled at more... : )

There's a reason that Google went from obscurity to global prominence so quickly.

They understood that in a world where access to information is expanding so rapidly, the key enabling technology that makes sense of the world is ... search.

In X, that's precisely what's been elevated by the re-build.

A "search engine" was grafted in front of the editing interface.

If they keep expanding input and output in the future, and X comes to be seen not exclusively as "an editing application" but more as an editing enabled "gatekeeper" providing access to storage pools of "edits" and "exports" - it will be a major player in a somewhat new ballgame.

I think they're building the "editor" today. I suspect they'll continue to build on that tomorrow, but also keep an eye on whats happening in increasingly disperse image creation (the Go Pro to Red spectrum) and increasingly diverse output (the smart phone to movie screen spectrum.)

That's the world X is moving us toward - hand in hand with the other "A's - who all, IMO, will continue their already started journeys to widen capabilities at BOTH the small and large screen ends of the production spectrum.)

We'll see.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 3:48:21 pm

[Oliver Peters] "It seems to me that one of the key missing functions is the ability to drag a Project directly into an Event. I realize you can "open in timeline" and you can start a compound clip in the Event, but these all seem like workaraounds. "

Absolutely. A relationship back to the Event would be nice. It's a one way street at the moment.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 3:45:09 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] ""Editing in the Browser", which is what you are describing, is not going to allow for this."

What Bill is describing is that all of the organization is done in the Browser, the rough selects, the take selection, the tagging and favoriting, or whatever method is used. You then add that to the timeline to further edit it for time.

I use X the same way. It's not like you can't back to the Event and look for other clips if the original rough edit isn't working. The good thing is that all of those takes should be tagged and ready to go.

It's the difference of having selects timelines and then an edit timeline, which is what it seems a lot of us do in FCP7.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bret WilliamsRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 7:07:19 pm

Funny, but this is how we worked back in 1996 on every NLE before drive space was so cheap people just started loading whole tapes (and now cards) in without even considering the concept of logging. I'm still occasionally out there on set logging the takes. When I do it this way I don't even bother with the bad or rejects. It's keepers and safetys. I've never done selects timelines. Occasionally selects bins. The latter becoming more common as producers bring me a terabyte drive full of media instead of logging.

Oddly, FCPs media structure reminds me of my 1993 VideoCube days at GA Tech Athletic Asdiciation. We shot and logged footage without projects in mind. It was just a database of good shots. It had bins you could save anywhere, and sequences you could save anywhere. No project concept at all. When I switched to Media 100 and Avid I found them very limiting in this aspect. But they were better designed to delete used/unused media and consolidate and redigitize, etc. /ramble


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 9:09:09 pm

[Bret Williams] "Funny, but this is how we worked back in 1996 on every NLE before drive space was so cheap people just started loading whole tapes (and now cards) in without even considering the concept of logging."

I think this really depends on the kind of work you are doing. I don't think anybody in features or drama generally would be very pleased if somehow material had been preselected out of existence. Here everyone rightly expects all the material (as in every single frame shot without exception) to be available all of the time.

Though your point is still a good one in many cases - overshooting being very much a modern curse.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 9:11:16 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Though your point is still a good one in many cases - overshooting being very much a modern curse."

And deadlines getting ever tighter.

More footage (usually meaning more cameras) and less time.

It's a great time to be alive!


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Simon UbsdellRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 9:15:45 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "And deadlines getting ever tighter.

More footage (usually meaning more cameras) and less time.

It's a great time to be alive!"


Hey, living on the edge! Who'd have it any other way!??

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bret WilliamsRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 10:25:50 pm

Which is why I do like the new media mgmt in X. But it could of course use a thumbnail view that you can freely arrange. In Avid they actually used to train to arrange your selects in thumbnail view (like a storyboard) then drag them all to the timeline. THAT is editing in the bin. I think you try that in FCP 7 it just arranges them in the seq alphabetically. Oops.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Christian SchumacherRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 24, 2012 at 5:37:18 pm

[Bret Williams] " I think you try that in FCP 7 it just arranges them in the seq alphabetically. Oops."

But in "List View" if you sort a bin of clips in columns, say "reel" or "duration", and drag that bin to a sequence, it will be populated accordingly. All clips within that bin will get to the sequence in that sorted order. Very handy.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Richard HerdRe: Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
by on Feb 23, 2012 at 3:32:07 pm

I'm sure Thomas Kuhn would agree with you :)


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]