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

Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D

COW Forums : Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
Craig SeemanApple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 24, 2012 at 10:12:10 pm

Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
http://alex4d.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/fcpx-apples-bet-against-tracks/

We've been through this ad infinitum in the early days but Alex's explanation might be good for newbies visiting the forum. When one loves or hates Apple's new methodology, Alex does a good job explaining the intent at least.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 24, 2012 at 10:40:56 pm

Craig,


His examples and understanding of the timeline are interesting for two reasons: they are based around the visual elements (primarily) and the focus on visual elements is modelled on A/B roll editing.

It's also interesting that he starts with this statement:

"... track-based editing has been flexible enough to allow for hundreds of different methodologies to be used over the last 25 years."

and works toward:

"The primary benefit of the new Final Cut Pro X timeline is that it makes the relationships between clips clear."


Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 24, 2012 at 11:48:58 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "His examples and understanding of the timeline are interesting for two reasons: they are based around the visual elements (primarily) and the focus on visual elements is modelled on A/B roll editing."

It is a good article and a good explanation and it lays out the editorial limitations of the thinking behind it. Both assumptions, the primacy of the visual and the primacy of the "b roll" conception of editing, do not work for me nor for many others. Again it is not that this concept doesn't work, it does work quite well for many editorial situations, the issue is that it doesn't work as well for as many types of situations that a tracked environment does.

This is from the article:
If the B-roll clips were locked to specific tracks, there would be no way of maintaining the relationships between the clips.

Why assume that in a a tracked environment B-roll clips are "locked to a specific track? While I'm working I rarely think of shots as "B" roll - but when I do they can be on any track. The sync indicators in FCP will alert any following editor to the nature of the clip, you don't have to use tracks to do that. You can use tracks that way, but you don't have to. You can use them that way for part of the show, but not others. You can use them that way and then change it as you go. You can organize you material in many many ways - visuals are never locked to a specific track. Audio is another story entirely.

Again from the article:

It seems to me an application that can encode the relationships between clips is more powerful than apps that leave the relationships to be recognised by whichever editor is looking at a timeline.

Why this emphasis on vertical clip relationships. I place much more emphasis on horizontal clip relationships. Also I understand that the magnetic concept is great at maintaining relationships of groups of clips as you move them across a timeline, but quite frankly this has never been an issue for me - as I've said before it's a very elegant solution to a problem I've not been having. And I definitely wouldn't trade it's advantages for the loss of visual organization provided by tracks.

I don't begrudge those who find that the positives far outweigh the negatives for their style of editing, I just bemoan that this option came at such a high price.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2


Franz BieberkopfRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:01:18 am

Herb,

I've been trying to think of a term to refer to non-A/B modeled editing - the best I can come up with is "Film Editing" (which only works if described historically, I think). Part of the problem is that A/B editing describes a very specific approach and model as opposed to a broader approaches.

Any ideas?

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:18:57 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Any ideas?"

Free editing.

Multi-Modal editing.

Editing.

Just kidding here. How about Classical Film Editing.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:22:54 am

[Herb Sevush] "Free editing."

Herb,

Reminds me too much of multi-modal love and heady days of yore.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:33:02 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Reminds me too much of multi-modal love and heady days of yore."

I was thinking of free jazz - ornette coleman, cecil taylor, sun ra ...

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:37:00 am

[Herb Sevush] "free jazz"

That's not a bad direction. Maybe "compositional editing".

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:06:03 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Maybe "compositional editing"."

I think compositional editing works, the problem is it's not understandable without an explanation. A/B roll means your using a "B" roll methodology, it's not clear what copmositional editing is. How about "beyond A/B roll" editing - BAB editing for short;)

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Franz BieberkopfRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:14:29 am

[Herb Sevush] "I think compositional editing works, the problem is ..."

Agreed. In a way it resists labels - where A/B editing is sort of a specific conception on how to compose, the other begs the problem of composition itself.


Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:23:02 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "where A/B editing is sort of a specific conception on how to compose, the other begs the problem of composition itself."

Yes, A/b roll editing is a specific and limited sub-set of "editing' so it's hard to come up with a catchy name for the parent unless we go back to one of your first posts on this forum to a statement that's in my signature - we can call it spinal editing as in ... "deciding the spine is the process of editing"

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:29:46 am

[Herb Sevush] "... deciding the spine is the process of editing"

... sure, but flattering citations aside, I lied.

Deciding the spine is only part of editing. ;)


Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David LawrenceRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:16:52 am

[Herb Sevush] "It is a good article and a good explanation and it lays out the editorial limitations of the thinking behind it. Both assumptions, the primacy of the visual and the primacy of the "b roll" conception of editing, do not work for me nor for many others. Again it is not that this concept doesn't work, it does work quite well for many editorial situations, the issue is that it doesn't work as well for as many types of situations that a tracked environment does."

Bingo.

[Herb Sevush] "Why assume that in a a tracked environment B-roll clips are "locked to a specific track? While I'm working I rarely think of shots as "B" roll - but when I do they can be on any track. The sync indicators in FCP will alert any following editor to the nature of the clip, you don't have to use tracks to do that. You can use tracks that way, but you don't have to. You can use them that way for part of the show, but not others. You can use them that way and then change it as you go. You can organize you material in many many ways - visuals are never locked to a specific track. "

Well said.

[Herb Sevush] "Why this emphasis on vertical clip relationships. I place much more emphasis on horizontal clip relationships. "

Exactly. For me, the only relationship that has any meaning is a clip's relationship to time. And even in FCPX, time is represented horizontally.

Clip connections are a form of grouping. The main advantage of FCPX's connected clips is collision avoidance. You can achieve similar results in Premiere Pro by simply grouping clips together. You don't get the collision avoidance behavior, but you can group anything to anything so the group relationships are actually much more flexible and potentially meaningful.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris ConleeRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 3:34:04 pm

[Herb Sevush] "visuals are never locked to a specific track"

Actually this isn't quite true in my case. I'll often put titles ID-ing VFX on a specific track, say v5, so that I can turn them off if I'm doing an output, but they're visible when doing work so I know where my VFX are and what their status is. Lots of reasons for a track-based workflow.

Chris


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 3:57:07 pm

[Chris Conlee] "Actually this isn't quite true in my case. I'll often put titles ID-ing VFX on a specific track, say v5, so that I can turn them off if I'm doing an output,"

Chris - the point is that's a workflow choice you are making, not a requirement. I tend to keep certain things on certain tracks in video as a visual reference, but it's not as rigid as how I keep my audio tracks aligned.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Charlie AustinRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 24, 2012 at 11:23:00 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Alex does a good job explaining the intent at least."

He does. I think that FCP X *does* have tracks though, they just move around and you don't need to "patch" stuff anymore. Plus, it's nice to be able to work with this:



When what's really going on, more or less one keystroke away, is this:



Looks like tracks to me. :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 24, 2012 at 11:49:56 pm

A long while back I mentioned that Apple's use of the term "trackless" was yet another marketing mistake.
Rarely anything called "...less " would be used as a marketing term unless the thing that it is "less" than was considered bad. No one thought of tracks as a bad thing. A better term would have been "virtual tracks."



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 24, 2012 at 11:50:50 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Looks like tracks to me."

So what track is audio EFX on ?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Charlie AustinRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 24, 2012 at 11:58:04 pm

[Herb Sevush] "So what track is audio EFX on ?"

Right here:



One click to visually isolate, or solo, whatever I want...



Hopefully they'll add the ability to group roles, then it'll be even easier to see different "tracks"

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:13:56 am

Fundamentally I've always thought that using tracks vertically to edit and horizontally to organize was at cross and often conflicting purposes.

FCPX starts in the direction to resolve that conflict for me. While Roles still needs to develop and there are times where I'd hope for better visual representation of Roles, I do think they are in the early stages of heading things in a viable direction.

For those who like the "cross purposed" track they have Avid and Adobe to chose from. At least I know have an NLE that works they I've wanted for nearly 20 years. While I may not be in the majority (at least not for the time being) I know I'm not alone.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:21:02 am

[Craig Seeman] "Fundamentally I've always thought that using tracks vertically to edit and horizontally to organize was at cross and often conflicting purposes."

Craig,

Why? Please explain. And don't you mean "vertically to organize and horizontally to edit"? Or do I completely misunderstand you?

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:48:31 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Please explain. And don't you mean "vertically to organize and horizontally to edit"? Or do I completely misunderstand you?"

It's just my incomplete explanation. Vertically for layering. Horizontal in that Track 2 for character A, Track 3 for character B, Track 4 for Titles, or whatever. At some point I'd find I'd need Track 2 through 4 to composite something, for example, and then have move other tracks up since they were used as rows of "like" content as well. Personally I've always found that awkward. I want to build layers and use "something else" for organizing. FCPX starts to address that. It's got aways to go but it's the first NLE that is at least starting to address the way I personally prefer to edit.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:07:14 am

Craig,

Thanks. I understand slightly better your meaning (though I still see that as vertical organization).

But to my mind, you've described the difference between tracks and layers - which in an ideal world would have distinct implementations in a timeline.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bret WilliamsRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 4:07:41 am

I'm tending to agree with Craig as well. Using tracks to organize only works up to a point, and it also can be prone to error. It requires precision and much maintenance as the edit goes along. People complain about roles, but searching the index is less cumbersome than trying to make sure you always patch channel 1 of actor B to track 2, etc. and once it's done, there wasn't any real indication, aside from looking at the clip and reading it, as to whether it was right. If you wanted to raise the audio in all the sfx by 3db, do you just select all the clips in what is supposed to be the sfx track and add 3db or do you select them all, then zoom in and scan each selection to make sure, then make the change? Over the course of an edit, keeping it organized can be time consuming, or error prone. And as much as I try to always keep my lower 3rd on track 5, it just never ends up that way. Suddenly i have a 6 layer section that needs to transition to an interview with a lower 3rd. Now my lower 3rd is on track 8 or something or something. Yeah, I could compound (nest) but if you're going to do that, there's not much point in using tracks to organize. Although I do think tracks for audio makes more sense than video. A video only has ONE video track in the end. Audio on the other hand DOES have tracks in the final product. But, usually it's not a direct relation. Tracks 1,2,5,7 might be mapped to output track 1&2 and 3,4,5 to track 3&4, etc. and if you consider that the tracks are just being used for organizing, and that manual organizing is more prone to error than roles (or index searching), then it's easier to make the argument that audio tracks are a hindrance instead of something that gets out the way and let's you edit.

Maybe. Perhaps. Still not sure. And the damn thing still can't copy and paste Keyframes. I've been pissed about that for 12 years.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:30:24 am

[Craig Seeman] " I've always thought that using tracks vertically to edit and horizontally to organize was at cross and often conflicting purposes."

First of all, for me, the use of tracks is totally different for audio and video. Audio is a layered system, it's harmonic at it's essence. Video is about juxtaposition. Tracks allow you both organizational and editorial options for both simultaneously.

I understand that you prefer the trackless approach Craig, I'm sure many do. The argument that I can use Avid or PPro doesn't sit well with me however. Neither is a satisfactory alternative for me. It would have been nice for Apple to either continue developing simultaneously or sell Legend off to someone else. I'm not surprised they did neither, I don't quite expect the universe to be organized according to my druthers. Still the argument that I can F'n well go elsewhere does not quite cut it.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2

Charlie AustinRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:42:41 am

[Herb Sevush] "First of all, for me, the use of tracks is totally different for audio and video. Audio is a layered system, it's harmonic at it's essence. Video is about juxtaposition. Tracks allow you both organizational and editorial options for both simultaneously.

Sorry to jump in here, but I think where they're going with X is going to allow you to do that, it really isn't "trackless" and it's not as limiting as some people think. I've mentioned some things that would make audio work more like I'm used to, which is maybe what you're looking for too. They could do some other things which would eliminate the need for fixed tracks with video as well. A right click selection to "always leave on top" or something like that. There are a lot of possibilities here....



[Herb Sevush] I don't quite expect the universe to be organized according to my druthers. Still the argument that I can F'n well go elsewhere does not quite cut it."


Having just been playing with MC 6 and Pr 6, I agree. I haven't lost hope yet. :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:23:22 am

[Herb Sevush] " The argument that I can use Avid or PPro doesn't sit well with me however. Neither is a satisfactory alternative for me."

That's a key point which, it would seem to me, doesn't come up often enough. For many people neither Avid or PPro are (yet) as good a track based editor as FCP7 was. Or maybe it has been obvious but I'm becoming a bit more aware of it as I see grumbles about both Avid and PPro workflows. My own guess is that Adobe will get there.

[Herb Sevush] "Still the argument that I can F'n well go elsewhere does not quite cut it."

Unfortunately we're all left with that at the moment. Even FCPX is an elsewhere that's not all there yet. We're all stuck with some void and a hope that the NLEs move forward.

As per this discussion about tracks, FCPX's weakest area is missing ways of displaying information. Roles needs better ways to display information as a track alternative. Windows need to be movable with two monitor setups. I like where the "data" feature sets are going and I suspect that's going to be the near term roadmap. They do need to address the display of the data though. It varies from rigid to MIA, depending on what you want to look at. I think it'll get there given some of the hints . . . just as I saw the hints in 10.0.0 of what would become Roles in 10.0.1.

I do think all of us, regardless of the NLE path(s) we've chosen, have a good year or so for our chosen NLEs to get close to what we want.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Bret WilliamsRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 4:46:41 am

Bottom line, it has been immensely more fun learning something completely new (FCP X) than learning something different (CS6). If I'm forced to learn something else because my app of choice was EOL'd it might as well be new. If I total my 2004 Honda I don't want another 2004 Honda. I want a 2012 Ford. Or something different. I loved the Honda, but it's time to move on. Premiere feels like I just switched to a 2007 Acura. A little newer, a little different, but annoying that all the buttons do the same thing but are in different places. Learning Premiere feels kinda like that. It's nothing really new and exciting. Just a chore to switch to another similar but different thing. Ditto with Avid, except going back to Avid is like tasting something again and remembering suddenly that it made you puke the last time you ate it. Been there, done that.

So, somehow Apple knew that they had us over a barrel. They rolled the dice and I think in the end, they might pull it off.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 5:00:39 am

[Bret Williams] "Bottom line, it has been immensely more fun learning something completely new (FCP X) than learning something different (CS6). If I'm forced to learn something else because my app of choice was EOL'd it might as well be new."

I'm indifferent to novelty as regards my tools, I want them to work quickly and efficiently and stay out of my way. When I want to learn something new for the sake of enjoyment I take courses on biology.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bret WilliamsRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 6:07:16 am

To each their own. And if I have to become a Premiere Pro expert I will. I kinda depends on some of my corporate clients and what they're using in house. I suspect my world will be Premiere / FCP X / whatever I want for awhile. And 7 for another year or less.

Learning X has been good fun, and luckily the right projects came along at the right time to give it a shot. I didn't want to have to do it, but it was sure more fun than learning the same editing app again. FCP legacy was the first editing app that I learned that was pretty much the same as the previous. All the other transitions have been a bit more challenging as the one to FCP X has. First it was VideoCube, then Sony AB roll linear, then Media 100, then Avid, then Final Cut Pro, and then CS6 and now FCP X. Throw EditDV in there somewhere, but that was short lived. So the last decade and a half has pretty much been the same view on my monitors. Nice to get something different, even if I didn't want it.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 5:01:07 am

[Bret Williams] "going back to Avid is like tasting something again and remembering suddenly that it made you puke the last time you ate it."

12 years on Avid and the gag reflex hasn't gone away.

[Bret Williams] "If I'm forced to learn something else because my app of choice was EOL'd it might as well be new. If I total my 2004 Honda I don't want another 2004 Honda. I want a 2012 Ford. Or something different. "

Yes something different!

The VeecoRT (aka FCP X)








http://veeco.pt/en/

http://gas2.org/2012/07/20/veeco-rt-is-a-portuguese-powerhouse-w-video/



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Don WalkerRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 10:02:52 pm

[Bret Williams] "Bottom line, it has been immensely more fun learning something completely new (FCP X) than learning something different (CS6)."

[Bret Williams] "Learning Premiere feels kinda like that. It's nothing really new and exciting. Just a chore to switch to another similar but different thing."

BINGO!

I have been having a hard time figureing out why I don't want to learn Premiere. I think you just put it into words

don walker
texarkana, texas

John 3:16


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:22:56 am

[Charlie Austin] "One click to visually isolate, or solo, whatever I want..."

So can you see the dialogue tracks at the same time - do they come up in a different color, and can you leave the highlighted colors on as you work?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Charlie AustinRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:32:13 am

[Herb Sevush] "So can you see the dialogue tracks at the same time - do they come up in a different color, and can you leave the highlighted colors on as you work?"


You can leave the highlight on as you work, (hell you can trim stuff while the sequence is playing...) and highlight as many things as you want, but currently it's only one color. I'm hoping (and have suggested) they'll add the ability to use different highlight colors... don't see why they won't. Since I'm usually only messing with one "stem' at a time, it's not a big deal for me though. If they add more color options, and the option to group roles and maybe choose how they're stacked, I honestly can't see anything else, at least organizationally, I'd need... for audio anyway.

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:41:49 am

[Charlie Austin] "and highlight as many things as you want, but currently it's only one color."

Which, in plain english, means you can't isolate your distinct types of audio at any one moment, which means you don't have tracks in any meaningful way.

[Charlie Austin] "Since I'm usually only messing with one "stem' at a time, it's not a big deal for me"

Well I like to know where everything is at all times. Call me anal, but I don't like editing in the dark.

[Charlie Austin] "If they add more color options, and the option to group roles and maybe choose how they're stacked, I honestly can't see anything else, at least organizationally, I'd need... for audio anyway."

If and when they do that, then you can make your argument about X having tracks. I would still prefer consistent alignment to consistent colors, but that's just me (and probably every UI designer who ever lived.)

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Charlie AustinRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:53:21 am

[Herb Sevush] "If and when they do that, then you can make your argument about X having tracks. I would still prefer consistent alignment to consistent colors, but that's just me (and probably every UI designer who ever lived.)"

Hey, I'm not arguing. lol I totally get where you're coming from... In a previous life I was a post audio mixer, I started cutting audio on Otari Studio Vision. I had to organize mixed up messy tracks from every editor in town. And If they were never going to update X, I'd be right there with ya. But I don't think they've even scratched the surface here. Again, allowing you to group roles, assuming they do, will do exactly what you want just by clicking a button or something.

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


alban eggerRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 3:58:47 pm

[Herb Sevush] "[Charlie Austin] "and highlight as many things as you want, but currently it's only one color."

Which, in plain english, means you can't isolate your distinct types of audio at any one moment, which means you don't have tracks in any meaningful way."


Yes you can. In my typical project I would import the sound effects and music into their respective bins.
Eg. stockmusic, SFX, loops, jingles. Whatever ou have prepared for the project (if you have always the same SFX/loops library it would make sense to have one event always open with those).

Now you create the roles (SFX, music, loops) and in the bin select the 100 SFX and add the role SFX. Do that to all various types of audio.

In the item list in the timeline you can now solo/highlight the singular roles. SFX could be all over the place "track wise", but on export they will all come into the same stem.

And if you absolutely need a visual reference you can select the Role SFX and hit OPT-G to compound them into one long line called SFX, so when another editor comes he can see it even without the item list.

But color coded clips and roles are definitely a top-wish from many here to make the visual representation even easier.

EDIT: one more advantage of the item list/roles system: when you have a SFX called BANG and the client wants it changed into the BONG, you search the item list for BANG and when you click it then your playhead jumps right there. Fast and accurate.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 4:21:03 pm

[alban egger] "And if you absolutely need a visual reference you can select the Role SFX and hit OPT-G to compound them into one long line called SFX, so when another editor comes he can see it even without the item list."

I absolutely do need a visual reference, that's what this little discussion is about. So if you make your various compounds - one for sync, one for efx, one for music and then put each on it's own track, can you see the individual clips in those tracks and their relationship to the individual clips in the other compounds?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

alban eggerRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 5:35:32 pm

Herb,
no, you can´t look into a compound - actually a nice feature request to have a 50% opaque compound!).

This compound-track-trick would only make sense so an editor who gets the Project could fast see what´s going on. He would then uncompound and stick to the roles highlights.
Compounding would not help your work as you need it. Sorry for the bad news again ;-)



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 5:48:51 pm

[alban egger] "Sorry for the bad news again"

It's not bad news for me since I don't currently use FCPX. What it means is that no matter how many work arounds and kludges you come up with X is incapable of presenting an editor with the type of clear visual representation of the project that any tracked NLE can provide. The importance of that visual info is subjective - I demand it, others don't seem to care.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

alban eggerRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 6:07:11 pm

[Herb Sevush] "X is incapable of presenting an editor with the type of clear visual representation of the project that any tracked NLE can provide. The importance of that visual info is subjective - I demand it, others don't seem to care."

No NLE is perfect. And it is up to us users to find the one or two that work best for our purposes. And for me the clumsiness that comes with tracks is a bigger drawback than the loss of visual representation during one certain process of the whole work (I don´t care about where which soundeffect is until I output stems). While I put the effect in place I am in a microsomos of a few frames to seconds anyway, where I have enough visual reference anyway. It is the finishing, when you look at the big picture where it would be nice to see better what is what on the timeline. I agree.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 7:10:25 pm

[alban egger] "no, you can´t look into a compound - actually a nice feature request to have a 50% opaque compound!). "

I'd like a secondary that can hold more than one layer of clips, but keep a layer structure, an "open" compound clip if you will, or a "bubble" of clips if you need it.

Or, you should be able to "expand" a compound clip like you can expand audio and video and look in to the guts but keep context.

All the basic tools and design ideas seem to be pretty much already in FCPX, they just need further capability as X diverges from it's iMovie sensibilities.

As far as time, the primary story line equals time. That's it. You want to control time, you control the primary, and that sometimes mean the clips attached to it via a gap. When time is of the utmost importance, it is really easy to edit with the position tool on at all times and only use the more magnetic arrow tool when you absolutely need it.

And I still think Role based "Zones", as we've talked about before, would be pretty sweet at least in the audio section. Although, it would be hard to implement in practice especially if audio is attached to video.

Also, keyboard shortcuts to move a clip to the top or bottom of the stack depending on where you're working, would be ideal. That would mean less clicking and dragging layers around, and one keyboard press to get the layer above/below everything else. This functionality is already present with the move clips in/out of primary storyline, it just needs to be expanded upon.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Richard HerdRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 26, 2012 at 12:22:48 am

And color coded tracks/roles too.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:07:22 am

[Herb Sevush] "So what track is audio EFX on ?"

That would be a ROLE.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 12:45:22 am

[Craig Seeman] "That would be a ROLE."

Charlie claimed that FCPX effectively has tracks - my question is a fair one if that's his statement. I know that X has roles and I can think of some great uses for them. No reason a timeline couldn't have tracks and roles is there?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Charlie AustinRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:04:58 am

[Herb Sevush] "No reason a timeline couldn't have tracks and roles is there?"

Tomato, Tomahto... :-) Not to beat a dead horse here, but grouping roles will do just that. I'm testing an alpha version of app right now that exports audio from X. It lets you group roles, and choose each groups vertical relationship to the others. It creates nicely organized timelines for traditional, fixed track apps.

I have no knowledge of what's coming in the next version(s) of X, but I'll bet ya a dollar they'll add that functionality to the timeline.

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:08:08 am

[Charlie Austin] " Not to beat a dead horse here, but grouping roles will do just that. "

What I'm asking about is the use of rolls in a tracked NLE - like Avid or PPro or FCP 8.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Charlie AustinRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:14:07 am

[Herb Sevush] "What I'm asking about is the use of rolls in a tracked NLE - like Avid or PPro or FCP 8."

And maybe I'm just not understanding what you're looking for. Assume for a second that you can color code roles, and group them in the timeline. So all your Roles are vertically adjacent as well as visually distinct from one another. If that was possible, why would you even need traditional tracks?

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:26:45 am

[Charlie Austin] "And maybe I'm just not understanding what you're looking for."

I'm looking for interesting solutions that have nothing to do with my using X, which does not interest me at the present time for reasons far beyond the visual organization of audio tracks. I like roles, I think it is as likely that PPro will implement them as that Apple will implement what your describing.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Charlie AustinRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:31:43 am

[Herb Sevush] "I'm looking for interesting solutions that have nothing to do with my using X, which does not interest me at the present time for reasons far beyond the visual organization of audio tracks."

Fair enough. :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:44:43 am

[Herb Sevush] "No reason a timeline couldn't have tracks and roles is there?"

In fact way back when, buried amongst my sea of early posts, I mentioned that there are times I'd want to start with a "secondary storyline" (virtual track) for some projects. There may be times, for a given project, I want a secondary storyline (filled with a GAP clip as FCPX necessitates) running the duration of the primary storyline.

Right now the workflow is Connected Clips which, when transitions are added, before a secondary storyline and only connect to other secondary storylines as one adds transitions or selects all the connected clips to make one bigger secondary storyline. It's possible, if you know where you're headed with a given project, that you may simply want to start by adding a full length secondary storyline (virtual track). This wouldn't be outside the current FCPX paradigm of relationships. It's just that there may be times where instead of connected clips tying together procedurally to end up with secondary storyline, you want to start with that.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:11:06 am

Mr. Gollner is absolutely correct to point out the benefits of connected clips -- we've been discussing this and FCPX's A/B style of editing on this forum for a year.

It's hard to discuss the differences between traditional NLE timelines and FCPX projects because it's so easy to conflate so many separate aspects of the implementations: hard-tracked (manually organized) versus trackless (self-collapsing), non-magnetic (traditional) versus magnetic (connected clips), and absolute time (timeline) versus relative time (storyline).

In his article, Mr. Gollner says, "It seems to me an application that can encode the relationships between clips is more powerful than apps that leave the relationships to be recognised by whichever editor is looking at a timeline. In Final Cut Pro X, a modern technological implementation doesn’t get in the way of the craft of working with clip relationships."

I agree. FCPX builds clip relationships into its data model. The unique toolset FCPX offers for managing and manipulating clip relationships is innovative, and a very powerful feature.

However, clip connections versus tracks is a false dichotomy.

Managing the relationship between clips does not require a self-collapsing system of lanes; that's just one solution to the problem of clip collision during magnetic movements. DAW-style layered tracks or track groups would be compatible with traditional tracks.

Managing the relationship between clips does not require counting time relatively; that's just a design decision. The parent/child data model, which gives magnetism/clip relationship management "for free" due to its design, could be based on an independent absolute time container instead of anchoring on whatever the first clip in the primary storyline happens to be -- consider David Lawrence's and Jim Giberti's suggestion of multiple peer storylines.

FCPX's magnetic timeline is a set of related but ultimately independent design decisions including tracklessness, clip connections, and temporal relativity. You could have clip connections without giving up tracks.

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  
+1

Charlie AustinRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:27:17 am

[Walter Soyka] "Managing the relationship between clips does not require a self-collapsing system of lanes; ... DAW-style layered tracks or track groups would be compatible with traditional tracks.

I'll beat the dead horse again and say that I think that's coming in some form or other.

[Walter Soyka] Managing the relationship between clips does not require counting time relatively; that's just a design decision. The parent/child data model, which gives magnetism/clip relationship management "for free" due to its design, could be based on an independent absolute time container instead of anchoring on whatever the first clip in the primary storyline happens to be -- consider David Lawrence's and Jim Giberti's suggestion of multiple peer storylines.

Personally, my solution to that is that I don't use the primary story line at all. Just cut everything as connected clips. Adding transitions to clips requires an extra keystroke or two to make a secondary storyline, but that time is more than made up for by not having to worry about about "patching" my tracks before I cut something in. Just press the button and go. It's very freeing... like not wearing pants. LOL..

[Walter Soyka] FCPX's magnetic timeline is a set of related but ultimately independent design decisions including tracklessness, clip connections, and temporal relativity. You could have clip connections without giving up tracks."

As I said elsewhere, If you could group Roles, and maybe set the vertical (layer) position of a role or individual clip relative to others in the same space, why do you need fixed tracks?

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:38:10 am

[Charlie Austin] "As I said elsewhere, If you could group Roles, and maybe set the vertical (layer) position of a role or individual clip relative to others in the same space, why do you need fixed tracks?"

Charlie,

I think you missed part of Walter's point, which can be made by inverting your question: why would you want to get rid of tracks?

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Charlie AustinRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:53:31 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I think you missed part of Walter's point, which can be made by inverting your question: why would you want to get rid of tracks?"

Because they slow me down. When I'm in FCP 7 now, which is what I mostly still use, or MC or Pr, it drives me batshit crazy to have to patch my tracks. If I cut in a video clip, 99.99% of the time I want it to be on top of whatever is there. In X, that's where it goes. And as far as audio, particularly when I've got a shedload of tracks, I just want it to go wherever it fits when I'm cutting. Not tell it where to go, not make sure that only CH2 of my 6 Channel source is assigned to an open track for every single edit. Not to play track tetris when I want to move a group of clips from one part of the sequence to another. Having the ability to solo or mute just the clips I want, not the whole damn track which might have something else on it i want to hear or not.

I could go on and on, I get that it's totally subjective, but tracks are really limiting to me now. YMMV ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 2:01:40 am

Charlie,

No doubt X satisfies your needs, and I won't question that but I will point out that you have missed some functionality in FCP7 (and earlier).

You can enable and disable any clip in the timeline, individually.

I pretty much never patch tracks while I'm working in FCP (but then I work largely with sequences, not clips).

I do spend time on track management while cutting, but from what I've read you trade track management in 7 for connection management in X.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Charlie AustinRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 2:11:37 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "No doubt X satisfies your needs, and I won't question that but I will point out that you have missed some functionality in FCP7 (and earlier).

You can enable and disable any clip in the timeline, individually.


I do know that, but you can't solo individual audio clips, and add other clips to the soloed group, in 7... and that is a huge timesaver for me

[Franz Bieberkopf]I do spend time on track management while cutting, but from what I've read you trade track management in 7 for connection management in X."

Honestly I never really give connections a thought, but as I said I avoid story lines where I can, so it hasn't been an issue for me... I do miss sync indicators and hope they re-implement them.

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 2:05:08 am

[Charlie Austin] "Personally, my solution to that is that I don't use the primary story line at all. "

So then you understand how I can appreciate clip connections while also appreciating elements of traditional timelines.


[Charlie Austin] "As I said elsewhere, If you could group Roles, and maybe set the vertical (layer) position of a role or individual clip relative to others in the same space, why do you need fixed tracks?"

Don't confuse empty space with the lack of information.

Graphic design offers us a few tools to convey information in 2D space -- notably here, alignment -- but FCPX's self-collapsing timeline totally disregards them.

I have argued here that the self-collapsing timeline removes visual cues from the edit. Imagine working a nodal compositor that continuously and automatically reflowed -- or if your physical desktop did, or if your kitchen's spice cabinet did. Our brains are wired for spatial thinking, but FCPX fights this.

If FCPX must ignore human-centric concepts like space, it could at least leverage computer-centric concepts like sorting. How cool would it be if FCPX could sort and re-sort your timeline based on user-defined criteria?

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  
+1

Charlie AustinRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 2:17:46 am

[Walter Soyka] "Don't confuse empty space with the lack of information.

Graphic design offers us a few tools to convey information in 2D space -- notably here, alignment -- but FCPX's self-collapsing timeline totally disregards them.

I have argued here that the self-collapsing timeline removes visual cues from the edit. Imagine working a nodal compositor that continuously and automatically reflowed -- or if your physical desktop did, or if your kitchen's spice cabinet did. Our brains are wired for spatial thinking, but FCPX fights this.

If FCPX must ignore human-centric concepts like space, it could at least leverage computer-centric concepts like sorting. How cool would it be if FCPX could sort and re-sort your timeline based on user-defined criteria?"


I get what you're saying, and I agree. I guess that, being a former FCP v1, 2 and 3 beta tester, I'm more forgiving of unfinished software. ;-) Also for that reason, I think X will have the ability to do just what you've suggested. It already does in a rudimentary way.

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:56:36 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I guess that, being a former FCP v1, 2 and 3 beta tester, I'm more forgiving of unfinished software. ;-)"

I have participated and continue to participate in numerous beta programs. My criticisms here aren't about unfinished software. They're about major design choices -- the sort of thing that should be wrapped up prior to beta release.

But my point here is not really to argue FCPX's design. I want to make it very clear that while I don't think FCPX's UI and design are perfect, I do think that they have serious potential and are avenues worth exploring. FCPX may not be the best choice for every job, but honestly, if I were still doing the sort of unscripted interview-driven pieces I was doing 10 years ago with FCP v3, FCPX would probably be my tool of choice. It would have saved me an awful lot of mad sub-clipping and searching.

I want to focus on the premise of the article which I do disagree with: the false dichotomy of a relationship-based timeline versus tracks. (And interestingly, Alex Gollner says that "tracks can implement every editing method" just a couple paragraphs before he outlines how he thinks clip connections "forced Apple to get rid of tracks.")

I agree with Mr. Gollner's descriptions of how FCPX uniquely manages clip relationships, and why this is important; I just dispute that a relationship-based timeline is incompatible with tracks. The self-collapsing lane system is but one solution to the problem of clip collision causing unwanted overwrites during magnetic timeline maneuvers: a way of preventing clips from overwriting. It is notably not a way of avoiding collision altogether; after a magnetic maneuver, the editor may still have to decide which collided clip should be shown and which should be trimmed -- just the same as with layered or grouped tracks.

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  
+2


David LawrenceRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 7:52:04 am

[Walter Soyka] "Don't confuse empty space with the lack of information.

Graphic design offers us a few tools to convey information in 2D space -- notably here, alignment -- but FCPX's self-collapsing timeline totally disregards them.

I have argued here that the self-collapsing timeline removes visual cues from the edit. Imagine working a nodal compositor that continuously and automatically reflowed -- or if your physical desktop did, or if your kitchen's spice cabinet did. Our brains are wired for spatial thinking, but FCPX fights this.

If FCPX must ignore human-centric concepts like space, it could at least leverage computer-centric concepts like sorting. How cool would it be if FCPX could sort and re-sort your timeline based on user-defined criteria?"


Well said, Walter.

I have to say though, I find it ironic that Apple - the company that defined the age of human-centric computing - has gotten uncharacteristically sloppy with Human Centered Design in recent years. FCPX is one of the more extreme examples.

The guiding philosophy behind Apple UI design is that computers should work the way people intuitively expect; that the computer should adapt to the human, not the other way around. It goes back to the Human Interface Group and Human Interface Guidelines. Note the emphasis on human rather than computer interface. This language is intentional and it's what set Apple apart from other computer companies when graphical computing became mainstream.

From Apple's OSX Human Interface Guidelines:
"Mental Model

The user already has a mental model that describes the task your software is enabling. This model arises from a combination of real-world experiences, experience with other software, and with computers in general. For example, users have real-world experience writing and mailing letters and most users have used email apps to write and send email. Based on this, a user has a conceptual model of this task that includes certain expectations, such as the ability to create a new letter, select a recipient, and send the letter. An email app that ignores the user’s mental model and does not meet at least some of the user’s expectations would be difficult and even unpleasant to use. This is because such an app imposes an unfamiliar conceptual model on its users instead of building on the knowledge and experiences those users already have."

Maybe the ProApps team should try reading that document.

One of the reasons I consider the current FCPX timeline a UI failure is because it seems driven by abstract engineering principals rather than an understanding of how editors actually work or how people actually think.

For example, why can't transitions be applied to connected clips? Why can't clips connect to secondaries? Why only one primary? And so on.

All of these constraints seem driven by the FCPX data model. I'm sure it's elegant from an engineering standpoint, but I don't think is has anything to do with editing. I've never met an editor who described their work in terms of creating "clip relationships" or gave a minute's thought to a timeline's data model. These are engineering concepts and they tell a lot about the FCPX UI design thinking.

Someone's bound to say that tracks have constraints too and of course this is true. But the constraints of tracks are much more easily understood in terms of their physical metaphors. FCPX's abstract "relationship" model has no real-world corollary.

Yes, it takes skill to get good dealing with track constraints but once you learn them, they're universal and easily transferrable. At that point, it's a matter of taste. Changing muscle memory is totally different than re-wiring your brain to an entirely different paradigm.

Apple's Human Interface Guidelines have stood the test of time as a benchmark of good design philosophy. The magnetic timeline fails the HIG at the most fundamental level.

This is the reason why I think Apple's bet on a trackless model is a very steep hill to climb. I know many folks like the new timeline model and I recognize its benefits for some editorial tasks. But more than a year later, I still see no reason why all of those benefits couldn't have been applied to a tracked environment or delivered in a trackless design that gave everyone the best of both worlds.

The magnetic timeline is an interesting experiment -- something only a company like Apple could try and still be taken seriously. I'm sure it'll do well in Apple's intended market, but I'll be very surprised if it ever achieves the ubiquity of Legend. I see FCPX as a niche product. The question is how big a niche that turns out to be.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

Walter SoykaRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 3:36:16 pm

[David Lawrence] "For example, why can't transitions be applied to connected clips? Why can't clips connect to secondaries? Why only one primary? And so on."

Agreed. FCPX would be more powerful and more intuitive if the object model hierarchy were flattened.

With FCP7, you had to carefully manage selections immediately before making complicated timeline maneuvers. With FCPX, you have to carefully manage each clip's object model any time before making a complicated timeline maneuver.


[David Lawrence] "Someone's bound to say that tracks have constraints too and of course this is true. But the constraints of tracks are much more easily understood in terms of their physical metaphors. FCPX's abstract "relationship" model has no real-world corollary."

Yet, once you accept the seemingly arbitrary constraints imposed by the object models, FCPX's timeline feels almost physical. It has consistent rules for interaction, and it provides plentiful feedback to the user about what is happening.

It has gravity which pulls down and to the left, and time is relative. This is not the same timeline metaphor that other apps use, but it is internally consistent.


[David Lawrence] "I see FCPX as a niche product. The question is how big a niche that turns out to be."

FCPX could well go mainstream as more of the general population -- not just editors per se -- use video for communication. (See Apple advertising FCPX on a MBPr on TV commercials.) In that case, professional editorial becomes the niche, as the mainstream would dwarf all other editorial niches combined, in terms of installed seats.

So I guess FCPX may be considered a niche product from the perspective of our niche market.

From a wider perspective, I see myself as a niche user, and I may well need niche products that would be ill-suited for general use.

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  

alban eggerRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 5:28:03 pm

[David Lawrence] "The guiding philosophy behind Apple UI design is that computers should work the way people intuitively expect; that the computer should adapt to the human, not the other way around."

That is exactly why finally Apple dropped the FCP7 approach.
When I take a clip and move it elsewhere I want to do that. But in FCP7 I maybe can´t, hmmm , why...oh of course, because when I move the clip from Track one to track two I move the audio at the same time to tracks 3 and 4...but I locked 3 and 4, because there is my music bed.

X more often than not (and more often than7) does what a human wants it to do. !!NOT a seasoned FCP7 editor, but someone who simply wants to do a simple task of moving a clip from here to there.

Many call FCPX not-pro-ready, because it is making these tasks simplified and "too easy" and especially different from their conditioned work-patterns.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 3:52:16 am

Keep up the good work Alex4D.

"doug d Says:

24 July, 2012 at 11:45 pm
Alex:

Nicely done. FYI the “tracks” metaphor goes back to actual film editing. When working on a bench, you would stack film and audio reels onto a set of “cranks” they wind them left to right through a geared “synchronizer block” on your editing bench (table). The sync block had multiple geared wheels, each one using the sprocket holes to “lock” the separate pieces of film and audio track “in sync.” You hand cranked the whole mess of picture and track, and it rolled past perfectly locked together, frame-accurate.

You could buy sync blocks that “ganged” several tracks together, and even gang blocks together for more tracks. You could run multiple film pieces, e.g. a title roll alongside a picture roll. These pieces could subsequently be run through a viewer to screen the film. You could sync multiple audio tracks, with the magnetic heads that read the tracks attached directly to the sync block, multiple heads reading different tracks, all feeding into a mixer and “squawk box.” If you wanted to move picture against track, “out-of-sync,” you would simply detach that track from it’s geared wheel, roll all other geared wheels-with-tracks ahead, or back, and then lock you maverick track down again at a different spot. Exactly like sliding clips back and forth on NLE tracks!

On an upright Moviola, the same principle applied. Multiple sound heads could read sync dialogue, music and efx tracks separately, all side by side and in sync with the picture head of the Moviola, which is where you cut picture. If you wanted to throw one of your audio tracks out of sync with the picture head, you moved a sliding collar on the shaft connecting all the heads, which exposed a free-wheeling “knuckle” joint, and you could freewheel your audio ahead or back, then re-couple the joint and everything runs together again.

On flatbed editing tables, you still had the same physical layout. Your picture track in front, running past a spinning prism to deliver picture on a viewer. Your audio running on multiple platters that could be disengaged and moved out of sync, relative to the picture and each other.

When Avid came out, then, they offered filmmakers a truly MIXED metaphor interface. The timeline window looked just like track-editing in film. But the “Source & Record” windows came from tape editing, where you would dub shots from your source deck onto a recording deck, by defining “in & out” points via timecode. And then the Bins window was actually just a variation on the Mac Finder, with files inside of nested folders.

So they were mixing metaphors drawn from Film, Tape and Computer interfaces to arrive at the so-called track-based NLE.

That alone, in my view, was cause enough to re-imagine the entire NLE interface from the ground up! So FCPX has risen to the challenge, finally."

I just hope the Adobe CS will read an fcpxml someday.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 4:52:53 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "So they were mixing metaphors drawn from Film, Tape and Computer interfaces to arrive at the so-called track-based NLE. That alone, in my view, was cause enough to re-imagine the entire NLE interface from the ground up"

Nice explanation, been there done that. Don't understand why using proven workflows, some of which have been around since 1910, is "cause" for anything. Wheels have been around for a few centuries, a car is mixing metaphors from chariots and trains, is that reason to come out with a vehicle with square wheels?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 4:54:39 am

[Herb Sevush] "Wheels have been around for a few centuries"

Lets make that millennia when describing wheels.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


James MortnerRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 8:57:34 am

Really interesting article, thanks for posting.

I noticed that it's assumed you don't want to see your other deactivated clips on the timeline. This isn't an advantage for me at all...And when I do to tidy I simply nest. Just another example of me working around FCP7's antiquated interface ? It just seems easier for the majority of work I do.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 1:42:37 pm

FWIW - the "track metaphor" goes back to an orchestral score created by a composer and organized by instruments. I'd say that's several hundred years that "tracks" have been ingrained into our mindset.

Ironic that the examples Charlie has posted completely circumvent the editing design of X by refusing to use the primary storyline at all. Just an observation ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Charlie AustinRe: Apple's bet against Tracks by Alex4D
by on Jul 25, 2012 at 3:13:36 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Ironic that the examples Charlie has posted completely circumvent the editing design of X by refusing to use the primary storyline at all. Just an observation ;-)"

How is it ironic? I'm not circumventing the design, the design lets me choose how I want to work. X isn't as rigid as some seem to think. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


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]