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

Tedious track based editing

COW Forums : Apple FCPX or Not: The Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
craig slatteryTedious track based editing
by on Sep 7, 2012 at 11:58:35 pm

This evening I completed a six week edit for Sky, cutting in legacy FCP and can I just say, having only played with FCPX I now find the old track based editing in FCP, Avid and the other one, a bit of a ball ache. I’m no stranger to FCP, I’ve built a very successful career on the back of the software, starting with version 1, but the magnetic timeline in FCPX is genius. I'd be really surprised if Avid and Adobe aren't already developing their own versions. I cut a lot of proper brainy TV for BBC factual, all in legacy FCP, but I’ve been involved in some FCPX testing, and for me its a no brainer, the forum say’s FCPX or Not! I say FCPX yes please.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

H Spencer YoungRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 12:23:07 am

100% agree.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Michael GissingRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 12:32:40 am

So much depends on what you are editing and the structure of a track/ mixer layout, something that both X & 7 are poor at. I get that magnetic can be good for certain stages or styles of editing. As someone who works on high end DAWs like Fairlight, I can tell you that audio editing on FCP7 is poor so I don't consider it a point of comparison to say magnetic timelines are better.

Clearly it suits some and doesn't suit other workflows. So make it toggle on/off and then a lot more people might say FCPX yes rather than their current no.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


craig slatteryRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 1:01:19 am

That's the point. Edit assistants prep the work before it goes of to audio dub. I don't get involved. To that extent the audio editing in FCPX is completely fine, no different to FCP7, Avid. Don't make things more complicated than they have to be.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Rafael AmadorRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 2:27:39 am

If I would edit with some kind of script, probably I would edit FCPX.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

andy lewisRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 5:13:52 am

"If I would edit with some kind of script, probably I would edit FCPX."

Is this because FCPX is based on the assumption that you know the purpose of all your footage at the ingest and rough cut stage?

It seems that way to me - with tagging instead of bins and primary and secondary storylines. I do a lot of documentary and really don't like the idea of an NLE forcing me to be less open-ended and democratic.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Mark DobsonRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 7:14:33 am

[andy lewis] " I do a lot of documentary and really don't like the idea of an NLE forcing me to be less open-ended and democratic."

Not quite sure where the coercion is coming from.

I work in the documentary field myself and don't find FCPX any more restricting than other NLEs I have used. Any system will allow you to first get a handle on what you have got and then provide timelines to throw ideas down onto.

I don't often use the magnetic timeline to it's full extent, but when I do have to shift a whole sequence or insert new shots I'm still amazed at the speed at which one can make changes.

My main problems with editing are mental ones.

After 15 months with the software I've finally taught myself enough keyboard shortcuts to not feel in any way restricted by the way the FCP timeline works.




The next update is


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 7:07:35 am

[Mark Dobson] "I work in the documentary field myself and don't find FCPX any more restricting than other NLEs I have used. Any system will allow you to first get a handle on what you have got and then provide timelines to throw ideas down onto. "

So speaking of documentaries…

I spent last weekend hanging out with a buddy and his wife who were in town screening their doc, which has been on a national tour with The United Film Festival. It was great to see their film and catch up with them.

A bit of background - my friend is an award-winning doc editor based in LA. His work regularly screens at Sundance and he's well connected with everyone in the LA feature documentary scene. Final Cut Pro legacy has been his main NLE for years. Naturally, I was curious what he thought of FCPX and what his plans for the future were. Here's what he told me:

He isn't the least bit interested in FCPX. In fact, he said he doesn't know anyone in the entire LA doc scene with any interest in it whatsoever. No surprise there. What I found interesting were his reasons why.

For him (and apparently the feature doc makers he works with), the biggest problem isn't just the magnetic timeline, it's Apple's unconventional and proprietary organization and asset management model.

Simply put, he said the whole notion of keywords as an organization tool are essentially useless for the way he and his colleagues break down footage and organize a film. The point he stressed is that he and his teams already have organization systems in place that work really really well. They want flexible tools that accommodate their custom organization infrastructures. They see zero value trying to force their needs into Apple's new organization model. They're just not interested. They'd rather find a new vendor who's products will work with them, rather than change the way they work for Apple.

I think this is true for enterprise as well, and is why you'll likely see more case studies like AP's recently announced move to Premiere Pro in the future.

I was surprised because the keyword organization features in FCPX are one of the things I actually like. My friend said he though it would be great for short pieces and as a whole, it seemed to him that FCPX was designed for shorts and one-man-band type operations, or small shops that keep everything in house. I couldn't argue with that.

BTW, my friend was at the NAB Supermeet in 2011 and was texting me from the floor as FCPX was previewed. He was totally excited about it and after talking to him, so was I. In our minds, we filled in all the gaps in the demo -- we couldn't wait to have it. Then we got our hands on it on June 21 and the rest is history...

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 7:54:09 am

[David Lawrence] "Simply put, he said the whole notion of keywords as an organization tool are essentially useless for the way he and his colleagues break down footage and organize a film. The point he stressed is that he and his teams already have organization systems in place that work really really well. T"

So did he relate what these systems are?


[David Lawrence] "it seemed to him that FCPX was designed for shorts and one-man-band type operations, or small shops that keep everything in house."

In reality this isn't true at all, but I can understand how it might be the perception of people who haven't used the software

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 11:15:45 pm

[Steve Connor] "So did he relate what these systems are?"

Not in specific detail, but he did mention the importance of flexible custom bin structures, sequences and transcripts. I got the impression that the methods Oliver discusses here and in his blog post come into play as well. On top of that, he was a beta tester for GET before it became Soundbite and I know it's become a key component in his workflow. I'll ask him if he wants to poke his head in this discussion and say more. Or better yet, if Timmy W. is interested, maybe he could be coaxed into doing an article. He's a good writer and has written for the COW magazine in the past. I would love to learn more about how he and his teams work.

[Steve Connor] "In reality this isn't true at all, but I can understand how it might be the perception of people who haven't used the software"

That may be right, but unfortunately it seems to be the perception in the feature documentary scene in LA. There's no incentive for people like my friend to try it. They have too may other options and they're too busy making movies to start everything from scratch.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

craig slatteryRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 9:13:28 am

[David Lawrence] " it seemed to him that FCPX was designed for shorts and one-man-band type operations, or small shops that keep everything in house."

That's simply not true, I've been involved with testing on the show I cut at the BBC and I'm very excited with FCPX and future of the software, particularly for a multi item program with multiple editors. And its a factual program, 8 mini Documentaries every week. I don't understand what your film festival mate is banging on about.
I started this thread a couple of days ago because I have 2 weeks of downtime (holidaying in the south of France, thanks for asking) I have to say, there are many loud voices that seem to spent more time blogging than actual editing. Cheers


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 2:42:14 pm

[craig slattery] "I started this thread a couple of days ago because I have 2 weeks of downtime (holidaying in the south of France, thanks for asking) I have to say, there are many loud voices that seem to spent more time blogging than actual editing."

I'd swear that the Sirius Cybernetics Corp. is testing out a new Genuine Person Personality on the forum, here. This kind of smugness seems generated to pass the Turing Test. I'm guessing that this is one of Eddie,the shipboard computer's alternate personalities. Personally, I prefer Marvin's.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


craig slatteryRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 2:57:57 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I'd swear that the Sirius Cybernetics Corp. is testing out a new Genuine Person Personality on the forum, here. This kind of smugness seems generated to pass the Turing Test. I'm guessing that this is one of Eddie,the shipboard computer's alternate personalities. Personally, I prefer Marvin's.
"


I don't even know what that means but it made me laugh out loud.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 3:33:22 pm

[craig slattery] "[Chris Harlan] "I'd swear that the Sirius Cybernetics Corp. is testing out a new Genuine Person Personality on the forum, here. This kind of smugness seems generated to pass the Turing Test. I'm guessing that this is one of Eddie,the shipboard computer's alternate personalities. Personally, I prefer Marvin's.
"

I don't even know what that means but it made me laugh out loud.
"


Really? Well, any sizable computer with the proper AI components would have understood the references, so I'm guessing you're human after all. Unless--oh, dear--you've reached a processing level high enough to feign an adequate lack of knowledge, pass the Turing test, and bring the Singularity upon us. Cripes!

At any rate, Craig Slattery, whether you are Carbon or Silicon-based, please be assured that many--if not most of us--who post on this site are professional editors, preditors, and creative compositors.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

craig slatteryRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 8:25:02 am

[andy lewis] " I do a lot of documentary and really don't like the idea of an NLE forcing me to be less open-ended and democratic."

This makes me laugh. What we do is take a bunch of footage to make a story and people watch it on their telly. It's pretty simple.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-2


craig slatteryRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 7:41:50 am

If I would edit with some kind of script, probably I would edit FCPX.
rafael

Couldn't disagree more


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 7:58:27 am

[craig slattery] "the magnetic timeline in FCPX is genius. I'd be really surprised if Avid and Adobe aren't already developing their own versions."

I wouldn't hold my breath ;)

BTW, This just out tonight:

Associated Press standardizes on Adobe® Premiere® Pro CS6

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

andy lewisRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 8:24:45 am

"After 15 months with the software I've finally taught myself enough keyboard shortcuts to not feel in any way restricted by the way the FCP timeline works. "

In FCP7, I rarely touch the mouse. Even clip selection in the timeline and adjustment of effects parameters is all possible with keyboard shortcuts.

Is FCPX as fully keyboard-shortcut enabled as this? Cos Premier Pro certainly isn't.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Mark DobsonRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 8:58:47 am

[andy lewis] "In FCP7, I rarely touch the mouse. Even clip selection in the timeline and adjustment of effects parameters is all possible with keyboard shortcuts.

Is FCPX as fully keyboard-shortcut enabled as this? Cos Premier Pro certainly isn't."


Andy, I was not talking about which NLE has a more comprehensive set of Keyboard shortcuts but more about getting used to the magnetic timeline which is fundamentally different from FCP7 or Premier Pro.

The magnetic timeline is probably the most contentious feature within FCPX.

I would love to have the ability to create more keyboard shortcuts in FCPX.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 4:40:38 pm

[andy lewis] "s FCPX as fully keyboard-shortcut enabled as this?"

I find keyboard editing to be very capable in FCPX. In some ways it is better than 7. You still need the mouse for some things but mostly just to direct the pointer, and then you don't even have to click (like hitting 'c' to select a clip).

I also find the extremely intuitive keyboard shortcut editor to be one of the best FCPX training tools out there.

I do find it funny that after working in FCPX, and generally liking where it's going, and then going back to tracks, is when the reality of how much faster editing can be in X presents itself. I'm not saying its for everyone, or that the X timeline does not need some mechanics tuning, but there are aspects of it that are actually better in my opinion.

I don't think that anyone will copy it for a long while. It caused way too much uproar and other companies are currently profiting from said uproar. The closest thing out there is Smoke 2013, and it's not exactly really like FCPX but it does share a small bundle of ideas. Only Apple would show up to the marathon, shoot themselves in the foot and then line up at the starting line. Unlike mr slattery, I am often wrong.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Franz BieberkopfRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 5:45:47 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "... but there are aspects of it that are actually better in my opinion."

I've heard that with X, editing is no longer boring and tedious!

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 6:46:01 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I've heard that with X, editing is no longer boring and tedious!"

If one finds editing boring and tedious, then this is not the profession to pursue no matter what software is employed.

Yesterday, I was editing in FCP7 and had to wedge in changes to add another aspect of the story per client request. Pretty simple piece, interviews, broll, music, nat sound/sound design, not scripted.

Since this still a rough cut, I have lots of disabled clips and potential choices on my timeline as well as two camera angles per interview, audio on each camera, and double system sync sound.

Trying to get everything situated just right took a lot of delinking, locking certain tracks, and generally trying to add pieces to the middle of a puzzle without taking apart too much of what has already been built. You have to move layers around and generally get everything situated in the timeline before adding the new clips, add the new clips, then fold everything back around it. In X, I could have slid things around and kept the groups of clips I wanted together through connections or otherwise and simply added new clips to my timeline without moving much of anything. I can select or deselect the audio channels before or after I add them to the timeline. It is not until you have really used X, and then go back to tracks do you start to see where the strengths lie. It's not for everyone, but if you like FCPX you can generally see that it is better at certain tasks that involve editing and not quite as obtuse as it has been made out to be. The connections are the timeline metaphor. It is new and different, but there is logic behind it.

I wanted to make a screen capture out of it as I thought it was a pretty good example of how X can make things more efficient, and dare I say, easier, and at the same time allow creative freedom.

Sure, some things need to be kept in place in time, but the X timeline allows that as well if you know how to work it.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Dominic DeaconRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 10:35:04 pm

Couldn't you achieve the same ease of use with a tracks based editor set to ripple mode and tracks lock?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 11:02:33 pm

[Dominic Deacon] "Couldn't you achieve the same ease of use with a tracks based editor set to ripple mode and tracks lock?"

But I can do that right now and explained that is exactly what I was doing. No, it's not easier in FCP7, but that's just, like, my opinion man:







Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris HarlanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 11:09:04 pm

Well, yeah. Dude.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 11:05:14 pm

[Dominic Deacon] "Couldn't you achieve the same ease of use with a tracks based editor set to ripple mode and tracks lock?"

No. Not in the least. Can it be done? Yes. "ease of use" not at all.
Imagine moving a selection 4 or 5 clips deep for example.
Locked tracks may become out of sync because they don't move at all.
in FCPX everything moves out of the way, maintaining sync.

One might say, in FCPX everything stays locked to their primary storyline link yet, at the same time, things move down the storyline as you move the segment in to that spot and everything moves up, maintaining sync, to fill the gap the move created.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-1

Michael AranyshevRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 8:49:40 pm

Track lock would wreck the sync. Insert or Ripple Paste would do the job just fine.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


craig slatteryRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 8:26:54 am

[David Lawrence] "I wouldn't hold my breath ;)"

Only time will tell. But Im very rarely wrong.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-2

Herb SevushRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 10:43:54 pm

[craig slattery] "But Im very rarely wrong."

The very definition of "hubris."

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

Jim GibertiRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 2:00:04 am

[Herb Sevush] "The very definition of "hubris.""

Don't be so judgmental Herb.

I'd just call it exceedingly confident beyond the point of reason.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+2


David CherniackRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 2:10:45 am

[Jim Giberti] "I'd just call it exceedingly confident beyond the point of reason."

I'd call it the blather of someone whose wishful thinking has outrun his brains....a fairly common feature of these here dominions.

David
AllinOneFilms.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 4:05:35 am

[Jim Giberti] "[Herb Sevush] "The very definition of "hubris.""

Don't be so judgmental Herb.

I'd just call it exceedingly confident beyond the point of reason.
"


ROTFL


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Chris HarlanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 11:08:12 pm

[craig slattery] "David Lawrence] "I wouldn't hold my breath ;)"

Only time will tell. But Im very rarely wrong."


Well, heavens to Betsy! Nice to meet ya. I, personally, am rarely very wrong, though it has been known to happen. I do generally get big chunks right. And often--though not this week--I am very wrongly rare, since I don't seem to get enough sun and end up a bit pasty from long bouts in the edit bay. But very rarely wrong? Wow. That's quite a statement. And whose word do we have to take on that? Well, somebody who is very rarely wrong. So, yeah, take this to the bank!


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+4


Michael SandersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 8:37:21 am

http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/customer-success/pdfs/associated-...

As someone who worked at AP when it was WTN, cutting a news feed package is hardly the most demanding of an edit system. They've gone for cost over anything else and I suspect they got a great deal.

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-1

Andy FieldRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 9:26:38 am

AP went with Premiere for Cost? What editing system costs less than FCPX?

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Michael SandersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 9:28:09 am

One where the seller has a big volume licence discount and a bit of PR!

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-1


Michael SandersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 9:28:58 am

And one that works on PC's!!!

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Rafael AmadorRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 10:45:58 am

[Mark Dobson] "Not quite sure where the coercion is coming from"
In the very moment that you can not move things freely on your "working space".
In the very moment that things get "connected"

[Mark Dobson] "My main problems with editing are mental ones. "
That's the point, Mark. And FCP helps me better to visualize and arrange my ideas.

[craig slattery] "If I would edit with some kind of script, probably I would edit FCPX.
rafael

Couldn't disagree more"

So, when you have an script then you don't use FCPX, is that what you mean?

[craig slattery] "This makes me laugh. What we do is take a bunch of footage to make a story and people watch it on their telly. It's pretty simple."
That's may be your job, but no mine. I don't make videos for the people to watch while drinking a coke and eating pop corns. Not all video production is about filling the empty time of people with an empty brain in front of a TV.

[craig slattery] " But Im very rarely wrong."
Congratulations man.
My life is full of errors and mistakes, but I guess this is not the place to talk about.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

craig slatteryRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 12:23:40 pm

[Rafael Amador] " I don't make videos for the people to watch while drinking a coke and eating pop corns. Not all video production is about filling the empty time of people with an empty brain in front of a TV."

That's true Rafael, to be honest I make proper brainy TV for BBC Two audiences, but lets face it,at home Id rather be watching Big Brother. My argument is not about content, I cut TV all day everyday, mostly documentary for the BBC. I just think there is no ligament reason to stick with track based editing. I'm not saying its difficult, or that it hampers creativity. Its just boring and completely unnecessary, its true! I have seen the light, and its in FCPX. I predict that this argument will be obsolete in two years, because all the systems will have adopted their own version of the magnetic timeline.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-2


craig slatteryRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 12:35:23 pm

[craig slattery] "I just think there is no ligament reason to stick with track based editing."

That should read "Legitimate"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Bob WoodheadRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 12:53:35 pm

Ligament.

You were right the first time Craig.... your fingers were talking for you.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

craig slatteryRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 1:15:26 pm

[Bob Woodhead] "You were right the first time Craig.... your fingers were talking for you."

you got me. Nice one


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Rafael AmadorRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 2:03:16 pm

[craig slattery] " I just think there is no ligament reason to stick with track based editing. I'm not saying its difficult, or that it hampers creativity. Its just boring and completely unnecessary, its true! I have seen the light, and its in FCPX. I predict that this argument will be obsolete in two years, because all the systems will have adopted their own version of the magnetic timeline."
And there is no room, Craig, for an NLE that could works in both ways, up to the editors needs/preferences?
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 2:21:16 pm

hey craig, are you still going ahead with that london based post facility based around FCPX you mentioned a while back?

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

craig slatteryRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 6:59:19 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "hey craig, are you still going ahead with that london based post facility based around FCPX you mentioned a while back?"

Yes, scouting for a location at the moment. Opening around Christmas or March. Would really like to know what apple are going to do with the Mac Pro.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


tony westRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 3:29:05 pm

[craig slattery] "I predict that this argument will be obsolete in two years, because all the systems will have adopted their own version of the magnetic timeline."

This was my prediction also when I first started using X

I thought others would have a track version and then a copy cat X version to try to capture both markets.

I must admit I underestimated people's willingness to continue to use a 32 bit program.
I thought more people would jump to SOMETHING 64 bit, be it ppr, X or newer version of Avid, but it seems many people have stood still. They are using their same 7 or their same Avid.
Hey, it's working for them and they feel at home with it. I thought more people hated that render bar as much as I did.

Many people have moved, just not as many as I thought would. I think many feel trapped. They want 64 but they have heard or just don't like X and some don't want to learn a new program so they have just not moved.

My other prediction was that X would be helped by the bandwagon effect from third party plugin companies.

FxFactory and others have been all over X, as well they should. They just care about selling their products and they see that huge X market. ( like if you are going to sell phone apps you are looking at the iPhone kind of thing)

Third party apps are making X stronger and stronger and even funner to work with.

They also seem to be leading with X all the time. Their demos start off with "i'm in FCP X, but these also work in After Effects instead of the other way around.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 9, 2012 at 3:42:23 am

[tony west] "FxFactory and others have been all over X, as well they should. They just care about selling their products and they see that huge X market... Third party apps are making X stronger and stronger and even funner to work with. They also seem to be leading with X all the time. Their demos start off with "i'm in FCP X, but these also work in After Effects instead of the other way around."

I wouldn't read too much into vendors based on FxFactory leading with FCPX over AE; FxFactory has always led with FCP over AE, it has always been aimed at editorial more so than fx/comp/mograph/animation, its architecture is better suited to the FCP/FCPX/Motion rendering pipelines than the AE rendering pipeline, and it has always faced more robust competition from native AE plugins than native FCP plugins.

That said, I really admire what Noise Industries has built. The FxFactory Pro package is nice, the in-app store and licensing system is pure genius and tremendously artist-friendly, the multi-host support is a big plus (even if AE performance is relatively low), and by building their system around Apple's Quartz Composer technology, they actually empower mere mortals to develop their own effects.

I still wish Apple had done a better job communicating with their third-party ecosystem, and I wish that FCPX offered developers deeper and tighter integration into the application and its interchange. Though I wish Apple themselves would have taken on the responsibility for things that could well be considered core NLE features, I am really impressed with the third-party efforts to expand FCPX's capabilities and I think you are right to point to broad third-party support as one of the things encouraging FCPX adoption.

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  

tony westRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 9, 2012 at 12:13:52 pm

Walter good information.

question, i notice that many of these plug-ins say they work in X, Motion and After Effects.

Can they also work in PPr's timeline, or do you have to go to AE to use them only?

I do like the ability to use them right in the X timeline. I find that convenient


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 9, 2012 at 2:12:58 pm

[tony west] "Can they also work in PPr's timeline, or do you have to go to AE to use them only?"

I could be wrong about this, but I think that Pr plug in structure doesn't allow for it.

I'm not a developer, but I think the Pr API is very similar to the AE plugin API, but it does not include all of it and of course it is Mac only.

I think what you would need to do now is dynamic link the footage with noise industries plug from Ae back to Pr, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 9, 2012 at 5:33:50 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think what you would need to do now is dynamic link the footage with noise industries plug from Ae back to Pr, but I'm not 100% sure on that. "

This is exactly right. I did this on a recent project to bring in particular FxFactory effect that my client really liked. Dynamic link from AE made it simple. But working directly in the Pr timeline would be even better. As you can see, it's loading, it just doesn't work yet. FxFactory hasn't given a date, but they've made recent statements hinting that they're working on something.



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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 9, 2012 at 3:18:42 pm

[tony west] "Walter good information. question, i notice that many of these plug-ins say they work in X, Motion and After Effects. Can they also work in PPr's timeline, or do you have to go to AE to use them only? I do like the ability to use them right in the X timeline. I find that convenient"

Noise Industries does not currently have a Pr host for their effects. Niclas had mentioned here a couple months back that they were planning to support Pr but did not have a date set. I have no idea what their current plans are.

I agree that it's really valuable to have one general effects set that works the same across all the apps you rely on.

If you're all FCPX/Motion/AE on Mac, FxFactory Pro is a very useful general-purpose set and is well worth consideration. (Personally, I chose Sapphire for myself because it's cross-platform and multi-host, including Nuke and Smoke -- but I don't believe it supports FCPX.)

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  


Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 9, 2012 at 4:39:52 pm

[Walter Soyka] "(Personally, I chose Sapphire for myself because it's cross-platform and multi-host, including Nuke and Smoke -- but I don't believe it supports FCPX.)"

Only Sapphire Edge at the moment on FCPX. I had asked them about full Sapphire support a while back and they did indicate they were thinking about it.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Andy FieldRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 9, 2012 at 11:47:40 pm

We'd love to get rid of 32 bit editing (AVID already has without disrupting the tracks we need) If Apple puts a tracks and auto keyframe mixing option back into FCP X - you'd see many more converts.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 2:20:13 pm

not tooting my own horn or anything - but I actually called that three months ago.

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/35659

BOOM. ok I am tooting my horn. my sources have sources.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 8, 2012 at 5:53:11 pm

I think Apple will lead the way in building an alternative to tracks for some time.

I've had issues with Tracks going back over 20 years when I started on Avid in its early days. Tracks have server two, often conflicting purposes for me. They are a compositing tool and an organizing tool. The result has been years of "track dancing" as I have to push things up to composite followed by re-targeting. Ultimately resulting in unwieldy vertical scrolling.

FCPX is the first NLE to bifurcate the process. Connected Clips and Secondary Storylines are now address the layering I need. The composited elements are now tied to the primary so the composites stay together as I move them. Sometimes though, elements need to be connected to the Secondary. I'm hoping FCXP adds that.

Roles are a step in the right direction in addressing what was the organizational abilities of tracks both from a data management and visual display. The issue is that this feature is still very young and very incomplete. For many it's not yet a successful replacement. Sometimes when doing structural work one needs to address all VO or all Actor A Close Ups (however the many custom ways one would use the flexibility of tracks to organize). Roles isn't quite there yet. Sometimes I need to see the linear display of the same to judge pacing. Roles isn't there yet on that either.

As you might know, I'm a big fan of FCPX. It's precisely because Apple is addressing problems I've had with NLE design. Yet while FCPX is very much data management driven, it's youngest in its development of the display of that data. i think FCPX will excel in this in the not too distant future. There's little or no precedent in NLE design for this. The entire FCPX GUI is very young because of it's radical departure from NLE design.. Apple itself has a good history with interface design. That's been their forte.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
-1

Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 9, 2012 at 2:46:35 am

I doubt you'll see others adopt a similar magnetic timeline mainly for three reasons. Apple is patenting the heck out of every aspect of FCP X. Apple is entering a very litigious mode. The magnetic timeline is as hated as it is liked.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

tony westRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 9, 2012 at 12:33:39 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The magnetic timeline is as hated as it is liked.
"


This is why if I were to copy it I would have two versions. One Tracks and one not.

But your first two probably stops them from getting to 3


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Richard CardonnaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 9, 2012 at 1:04:39 pm

Avid studio now pinnacle studio ultimate has the magnetic timeline just like fcpx except that it can be turned off and has tracks besides this it has many similarities with fcpx. now owned by corel it is planned for furthrer development towards a more pro version.
offerings include a trim tool like avids. At the moment very good for events,web,weddings... this app came out a couple of month before fcpx and its being developed by the liquid formerly fast/dps crew in germany


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 9, 2012 at 1:35:25 pm

[Richard Cardonna] "Avid studio now pinnacle studio ultimate has the magnetic timeline just like fcpx except that it can be turned off and has tracks besides this it has many similarities with fcpx."

I think "magnetic time" is an overloaded term, encompassing many separate (but related) concepts like clip connections, rippling, relative time, and self-collapsing lanes.

Which of these concepts does Pinnacle Studio include?

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  

Richard CardonnaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 9, 2012 at 2:17:14 pm

No self colapsing. not sure what you mean by relative time.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 9, 2012 at 6:58:22 pm

[Richard Cardonna] "not sure what you mean by relative time."

David Lawrence describes it better than I ever could. Please see his genius article "The Magnetic Timeline -- Thoughts on Apple's New Paradigm" [link].

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  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 4:06:23 am

Thanks, Walter.

Something I find interesting is that a couple of the Magnetic Timeline's big selling points have been available in for years:

1) Ripple - Every NLE lets you ripple, but usually it's just a tool. I see no advantage in FCPX making it the default timeline mode.

2) Clip connections - You can think of clip connections as a special type of grouping. Premiere Pro's groups are actually more flexible because anything can be connected to anything, anywhere on the timeline. No artificial hierarchical constraints, no artificial "relationships".

What FCPX brings that's new to the game is floating, trackless, connected objects and collision avoidance behaviors. I think it's possible to design this collision avoidance into a tracked system like Pr and get a much more powerful, flexible UI. I can imagine a couple different ways it could be implemented using groups. It would be the best of both worlds.

Really, relative time and everything that results from it seems to be the primary innovation in FCPX. For better or worse, depending on your POV.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 12:40:07 pm

It's not that you can't cut documentaries or features on X. Rather, if you have a system in place using Legacy, then it's easier to go to Media Composer or PPro and maintain existing utilities and workflows. Going to X means changing a lot of what you do, how you do it and what you use to do it with. The others require modification but not wholesale replacement and rethink. I'm talking about roundtrips with After Effects, ProTools, grading as well as archiving and logging tools based on XML.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 1:20:00 pm

[David Lawrence] "2) Clip connections - You can think of clip connections as a special type of grouping. Premiere Pro's groups are actually more flexible because anything can be connected to anything, anywhere on the timeline. No artificial hierarchical constraints, no artificial "relationships". "

I think that grouping and clip connections are two very different takes on automated selection. As I see it, the benefit to the end user of automated selections is making editorial maneuvers on the timeline simpler by making the relationships between clips explicit. Without these explicit, stored relationships, the editor must remember (or deduce from arrangement on the open timeline) how clips relate in order to make the correct selections before performing any timeline maneuver. With stored relationships driving automated selection, the burden of remembering or deducing relationships among clips is reduced.

The difference with FCPX clip connections versus grouping is that, due to the connected clip's anchor, the selection actually changes contextually depending on the maneuver being performed, and pre-selection is not necessary at all.

I absolutely agree that FCPX's tiered object model imposes artificial hierarchical constraints, but I don't think it's fair to say that relationships among timeline clips are artificial. Of course not all clips are necessarily interrelated, but there are certainly many examples of clips which relate not just to another clip, but to a specific point on that clip -- like illustrative cutaways, graphics, and sound effects -- meaning that a single stored selection will not be most accurate for all editorial maneuvers (depending on whether the maneuver involves a point in time before or after the connection point[s]).


[David Lawrence] "What FCPX brings that's new to the game is floating, trackless, connected objects and collision avoidance behaviors. I think it's possible to design this collision avoidance into a tracked system like Pr and get a much more powerful, flexible UI. I can imagine a couple different ways it could be implemented using groups. It would be the best of both worlds."

I think it's important to note that FCPX's shifting lanes don't actually avoid collisions per se -- they simply allow clip collisions to result in overlaps instead of overwrites (therefore avoiding data loss). It is still up to the editor to manage the collision.

I do agree that clip collision overwrite avoidance is possible in a traditional tracked and open timeline, and that it would be a very powerful and welcome feature.

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  

Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 3:07:23 pm

One of the issues that I think goes to the heart of the dislike of the magnetic timeline - and I believe to the heart of this thread - is that the MT is very fast for a "first cut". BUT... I find it to be a big PITA once you get to making minute little changes. It's great for moving big swatches around, but terrible for little precise changes, like swapping out VO or adding shots.

The reason I say it's a PITA is because you spend just as much time managing the connecting points (changing the clip to which they are attached) and re-adjusting the arbitrary vertical stacking order of clips, as you would do with the equivalent functions in a track-based NLE. Sometimes even more. You often end up with projects that have a lot of wasted vertical space, just because of what X decided to do. Without a track structure you can't perform the edit in a way to place a clip where you want it (vertically). You have to first make the edit and then adjust the vertical position.

In the end, all this adjusting becomes much more mouse-centric than any other NLE.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+3

Franz BieberkopfRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 5:48:11 pm

[Oliver Peters] "the MT is very fast for a "first cut""

Oliver,

This does depend on your methodology for arriving at, and definition of "first cut".

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 6:18:44 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "This does depend on your methodology for arriving at, and definition of "first cut"."

Well, of course, but I really haven't seen much disagreement with this statement even amongst the severest critics. By "first cut", I'm talking about the refined/polished cut that the editor develops prior to getting input from the director, client, agency, producer, etc. to make changes.

Assembly (even complex sequences) is at least fast - and for some, much faster. Part of that is making use of the Keyword/Smart Collection clip organization - not just the Magnetic Timeline. Where it gets slower for me (compared with traditional NLEs) is in the speed of trimming, especially with split-edits and dialogue editing. Also, when you have to significantly re-arrange the cut in more complex ways than just the order of clips on the primary storyline.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 6:35:49 pm

[Oliver Peters] " Part of that is making use of the Keyword/Smart Collection clip organization - not just the Magnetic Timeline."

Oliver,

You're presuming that one should use a clip-based editing approach as opposed to sequence based editing approach.

related thread de-rail here:
http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/40193#40342

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 7:11:23 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "You're presuming that one should use a clip-based editing approach as opposed to sequence based editing approach."

Yes, I understand. I know what you are getting at. When I cut documentaries or docu-style long-form videos in FCP 7 or Media Composer, I build long sequences with markers and whittle down from there. I discussed that in my blog here:

http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/one-bite-at-a-time/

Admittedly that's something I'm conceptually struggling with in X, because its Project (timeline, sequence) structure is extremely weak if you are trying this type of approach.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Franz BieberkopfRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 8:20:51 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Admittedly that's something I'm conceptually struggling with in X, because its Project (timeline, sequence) structure is extremely weak if you are trying this type of approach."

Oliver,

It's actually these sorts of ideological underpinnings that make X the least attractive option for consideration.

- A/B roll editing model
- clip-based editing model
- non-mixer, non-realtime based audio model

It seems clear that people are using it in a variety of ways (not restricted to the above), but the design philosophy has always been a bit suspect to me.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 8:33:51 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "- A/B roll editing model
- clip-based editing model
- non-mixer, non-realtime based audio model"


I completely agree. It's the "bad half" for me in how I view the product today. It's these same "features" that I have a problems with, beyond their basic advantage in simple "news story" types of edits. I'm hoping that the next update makes huge leaps in rectifying these deficiencies.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 8:59:08 pm

FCPX is still a very young app in its development.

Sometimes I think we should differentiate paradigm related discussions vs feature related. The two have some relationship but we know new features will be added. The paradigm shift might be another story.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 9:13:45 pm

[Craig Seeman] "FCPX is still a very young app in its development.

Sometimes I think we should differentiate paradigm related discussions vs feature related. The two have some relationship but we know new features will be added. The paradigm shift might be another story.
"


I find it interesting that discussions continue about FCPX, there are enough alternatives around now if you want the "traditional" editing model. If I hadn't got round to FCPX's way of working then I would have been more than happy to move to PPro. As I have said before, I think it's great that someone is trying a new direction in editing, even if it is as unpopular in some circles as FCPX is.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 9:15:57 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "- non-mixer, non-realtime based audio model"

Mixer coming soon, what do you mean by non realtime?

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 9:24:49 pm

Steve,

Have they actually announced a mixer, or just the promise of more sophisticated audio features? In any case I am interested to see what develops.

With 7 and a control surface, I can adjust levels and twiddle knobs real-time while listening, reacting - with a mouse I can do so as well on the mixer (though I am limited to 1 track, or 1 interaction at any given time). My understanding of X is that you're limited to clip adjustments, and keyframing is not done in real time.

I guess by "real-time" I mean a multi-track mixer model, unrestricted to one interaction, with integrated automation reading/writing.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 9:29:55 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "My understanding of X is that you're limited to clip adjustments, and keyframing is not done in real time."

Correct, hopefully this is about to be added


[Franz Bieberkopf] "I guess by "real-time" I mean a multi-track mixer model, unrestricted to one interaction, with integrated automation reading/writing."

Again hopefully we'll have this soon, it feels like the structure is there in the code as audio level adjustments happen very smoothly in realtime whilst the sequence is playing.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 10:24:49 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I discussed that in my blog here:

http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/one-bite-at-a-time/"


Oliver, I missed this article when it was originally posted. The sieve approach pretty much describes how I've been working for years. I tend to work on shorter pieces so I often go from select/organization sequences to the build sequence in fewer steps, but the basic methodology is the same. A good read, thanks for the link.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 10:41:01 pm

[David Lawrence] "The sieve approach pretty much describes how I've been working for years."

Thanks. It's these jobs - where the editor is "the writer" and you are trying to find the story arc through the juxtaposition of clips - that require a ton of sequences. The fact that it's hard to have many, many "projects" tied to one production and that the UI gives you minimal custom text entry and feedback, make FCP X a hard NLE to use if this is your style. Here, FCP 7 and Media Composer clearly excel. And definitely excel over Premiere Pro, EDIUS, Vegas, etc.

For example, FCP X would work much better if there were a simple list view alternative of the project library with a notes field. Or sequence-based markers. And no, putting projects/sequences/timelines into an event is simply messing up the design of the NLE, not to mention bloat.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Franz BieberkopfRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 10:53:47 pm

[Oliver Peters] " Here, FCP 7 and Media Composer clearly excel. And definitely excel over Premiere Pro, EDIUS, Vegas, etc."

Oliver,

What sorts of issues have you encountered with PPro and this approach?

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 11:30:02 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "What sorts of issues have you encountered with PPro and this approach?"

I miss the level of textual organization FCP 7 and Media Composer enables. Lots of user-defined columns and better Find structures.

Another problem with PPro - one that Adobe Anywhere appears to try to solve - is the situation of two or more editors collaborating. Let's say you assign an assistant the task to cut a scene or assemble a timeline of selects on a second system with duplicate media files. When you import his edited sequence into your PPro project, it creates a folder with the sequence AND duplicates of the master clips used in that timeline. If you delete them because they are duplicates of the master clips that are already in your project, then all the clip in that sequence disappear.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 10:56:35 pm

[Oliver Peters] "And no, putting projects/sequences/timelines into an event is simply messing up the design of the NLE, not to mention bloat."

Bloat tossed aside for a moment, it is actually one of the things I find appealing. I feel it is not "messing" with the design, rather that's a feature of the design.

Make your selects in favorite ranges, sort by favorites, selects all clips, make a compound called "whatever_you_want__selects" and make a smart collection that searches for "__selects" and any other compound that you make after that you'd finish with "__selects" and they'd all be in one place. Note that's two underscores.

Yet another way is to make keyword collection ranges like "Acceptance of the blindness", select all those, make a compound, and make a smart collection from those compounds.

I work in sequences too, and lots of them. Your picture from the blog of the folder and the myriad of sequences could easily be an FCPX Event, except the sequences would be skimmable compound clips, and the folder would be a folder :).

Having the sequences in the Event above the Project I find to be handy, but I know its just me.

I find the compounds to be a work area, and the Project down below to be a bit more fleshed out. I can add clips from the Event Compound and break them apart in the Project. I can always go back to the original favorited ranges, or the original clip itself.

As I said earlier, I am often wrong, so I'm sure my methods make me an unprofessional.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 11:21:08 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Bloat tossed aside for a moment, it is actually one of the things I find appealing. I feel it is not "messing" with the design, rather that's a feature of the design."

I don't think you can ignore the bloat. Look at my blog post and the documentary workflow I describe. I'm talking about whittling down 60+ hours of footage into a series of shorter and more focused timelines. If you did this all via compounds, you'd end up with compound inside compound ad infinitum. Just think of what permutations this would have for your final project! You'd never get to the end, because about halfway through, the app would never be able to complete loading everything!

I'm not saying you can't cut this type of documentary. Simply that if this is your approach, then you will have to completely alter your editing strategy with FCP X.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 12:22:52 am

[Oliver Peters] "I don't think you can ignore the bloat. "

No, you can't at this point.

But if compounds in the event weren't supposed to be a design feature, they wouldn't let you right click and make them right in the Event. Certainly, the performance of them needs to be fixed. If they were fast performing, then this would be an excellent feature for me.

[Oliver Peters] "I'm talking about whittling down 60+ hours of footage into a series of shorter and more focused timelines. "

Yes. This is easily what I do all the time, and I find FCPX does not hinder this workflow for me. I rather like having the Project down below and a visual skimmable set of compounds above. It's almost like having two simultaneous "timelines" open and instantly viewable without having to switch tabs, or double click a clip in to the viewer. Of course I can't see them both at the same time as in a viewer and canvas, but I can easily switch back and forth either through skimming or through keyboard commands.

[Oliver Peters] "If you did this all via compounds, you'd end up with compound inside compound ad infinitum"

I am particularly looking at this picture from your blog:

http://digitalfilms.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/blg_lrgproj_4.jpg?w=640

This could easily be compound clips.

I have often argued that the make a bunch of sequences is how FCP7 is best suited, either by design or accident. There is no better way to slog through footage than to lay it all out and start cutting away at it when you are going through that much interview/dialog content, which in essence, is skimming and editing. FCPX can do this as well.

Surely, it looks different, but the very idea, I find, is very similar.

[Oliver Peters] "Simply that if this is your approach, then you will have to completely alter your editing strategy with FCP X."

Indeed.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 12:47:02 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Oliver Peters] "Simply that if this is your approach, then you will have to completely alter your editing strategy with FCP X."

Indeed.

"



can we not just say it is dying on the vine now?

Isn't this a deliciously near dead editing system? The motion of editing?

haven't we actually killed it?

can't we pop balloons?

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 12:57:52 am

Is that the royal "we"?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 1:03:55 am

aaalrightie now - one citizen under constitution to another...

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 6:39:57 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "can we not just say it is dying on the vine now?

Isn't this a deliciously near dead editing system? The motion of editing?

haven't we actually killed it?
"


Good to hear your familiar war cry again Aindreas

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


craig slatteryRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 8:40:19 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "can we not just say it is dying on the vine now?

Isn't this a deliciously near dead editing system? The motion of editing?

haven't we actually killed it?

can't we pop balloons?"


Hang onto your balloons Aindreas, it is so not near dead. Watch this space.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 11:05:46 pm

[Oliver Peters] "It's these jobs - where the editor is "the writer" and you are trying to find the story arc through the juxtaposition of clips - that require a ton of sequences. The fact that it's hard to have many, many "projects" tied to one production and that the UI gives you minimal custom text entry and feedback, make FCP X a hard NLE to use if this is your style."

Exactly. Ironic, isn't it? Especially with the way Apple markets FCPX as letting you "focus on your story".

[Oliver Peters] "For example, FCP X would work much better if there were a simple list view alternative of the project library with a notes field. Or sequence-based markers."

Great idea. Hope you've made it a feature request.

[Oliver Peters] "And no, putting projects/sequences/timelines into an event is simply messing up the design of the NLE, not to mention bloat."

I'm often impressed at the work arounds people come up with to get the app to do what they need. But yeah, the design likes things to be a certain way and you can only push so hard against it before things get ugly.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 5:54:50 pm

[Walter Soyka] "... making the relationships between clips explicit. Without these explicit, stored relationships, the editor must remember (or deduce from arrangement on the open timeline) how clips relate in order to make the correct selections before performing any timeline maneuver."

[Walter Soyka] "... there are certainly many examples of clips which relate not just to another clip, but to a specific point on that clip -- like illustrative cutaways, graphics, and sound effects -- meaning that a single stored selection will not be most accurate for all editorial maneuvers"

Walter,

You've used this language before, and I'd like to know what you mean by it in more detail.

I think of a timeline as an explicit map of relationships - not that it doesn't need to be interpreted, but that those relationships are there (the result of the edit). It seems to me that clip connections are only good for making certain kinds of relationships explicit (less interpretation needed) - and these would be those examples you list (illustrative cutaways, graphics, and sound effects) though in fact I'm not sure that 1 frame connections really do them justice either (each, after all, has a duration).

To restate - there are all kinds of relationships going on in a timeline; relationships are the basis of editing. Clip connections seem to focus and make explicit one kind of relationship.

But I'm not sure I'm quite understanding you on this ...

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 6:06:10 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "You've used this language before, and I'd like to know what you mean by it in more detail."

Absolutely. Basically, I think that FCPX allows the editor to encode the relationships between clips via temporal order and clip connections. Traditional timelines imply but do not strictly encode relationships via placement in absolute time and space (hard tracks).


[Franz Bieberkopf] "I think of a timeline as an explicit map of relationships - not that it doesn't need to be interpreted, but that those relationships are there (the result of the edit)."

I'd agree with that. Here's the twist:

In a traditional timeline, elements are placed in absolute time and track space, and their relationships may be inferred by the human editor from these arrangements.

In the FCPX timeline, clips are always placed relative to each other, and their place in time is derived from their relationships to other clips, and ultimately to the first clip.

A traditional timeline provides tools for moving clips through absolute time, thereby redefining their relationships. The FCPX timeline provides tools for changing clips' relationships to each other, thereby redefining their positions in time.

FCPX is "aware" of clip relationships in away that traditional NLEs are not. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is in the eye of the beholder.

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  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 10, 2012 at 6:14:19 pm

Walter,

Thanks, I think we've had this exact exchange before.

I'm still conceptually fuzzy on it. I somehow imagine that the "absolute time" of most NLEs is somehow equivalent to the primary storyline in FCPX - ie. I'm not really sure practically how it really makes a difference if a shot's placement relates to absolute time or the primary storyline.

... "grouping behaviour" and "clip connections" quite aside.

Also, I think pretty broadly in terms of the kinds of relationships that exist in a timeline, and I think you're speaking in specific terms when you use that word. ("placement" maybe?)

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 12:58:56 am

I can actually answer this - if you grab an edit point for a ripple trim pushing against timeline start - it actually sucks timeline start against you. timeline start is magnetic. no. i"m not kidding - its that stupid.

the default behaviour of FCPX is that time is relative to your current decision - you can suck time start absolute left against you.

again - I'm not joking - this is the degree to which they smoked special cigarettes in cupertino - in the process of destroying a decade industry standard.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 1:58:09 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I can actually answer this - if you grab an edit point for a ripple trim pushing against timeline start - it actually sucks timeline start against you. timeline start is magnetic. no. i"m not kidding - its that stupid.

the default behaviour of FCPX is that time is relative to your current decision - you can suck time start absolute left against you.

again - I'm not joking - this is the degree to which they smoked special cigarettes in cupertino - in the process of destroying a decade industry standard."


I know it's a work around but the ultimate outcome is exactly the same as rippling in FCP7.

Even though I agree that the animation is executed poorly, ripple trimming 3 seconds off the head of FCPX is the same as ripple trimming 3 seconds off of the head of FCP7. X just chooses to show you the warm up area before the starting line.

I'm not making excuses as the animation is stupid and rather unnecessary. Shift-z rights the sinking ship.

Zero tc is still zero tc.

On the flip side of that, if you make a trim and you cannot see zero, the time marker stays right in the middle, so that you don't have to hunt for it, the active area has remained conveniently in the same place.

I know, you are completely done with FCPX, but there is a reason for this animation when you can't see zero.

This is especially apparent when you use the keyboard to trim.

I don't know why I keep pushing this water uphill.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:08:56 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I can actually answer this - if you grab an edit point for a ripple trim pushing against timeline start - it actually sucks timeline start against you. timeline start is magnetic. no. i"m not kidding - its that stupid."

What's the alternative? Showing a non-ripple trim, creating a gap between the timeline start and the head of the first clip, then running a ripple-deleting animation for the gap when the user lets go? Shortening the first clip, leaving the trimming in locked against the start of the timeline, making it difficult to distinguish which end you're trimming?

The alternatives are misleading. I actually think the current animation, bizarre as it may seem, is actually the clearest about what is going on.

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  

Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 4:54:25 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Thanks, I think we've had this exact exchange before. I'm still conceptually fuzzy on it."

I am happy to keep trying to explain the way I see this, if you are interested and think it's fruitful.


[Franz Bieberkopf] "I somehow imagine that the "absolute time" of most NLEs is somehow equivalent to the primary storyline in FCPX - ie. I'm not really sure practically how it really makes a difference if a shot's placement relates to absolute time or the primary storyline."

As I see it, it's a question of frame of reference. With a traditional open timeline, the clock exists outside of the structure of the edit and cannot be modified. In FCPX, the primary storyline itself is the clock that drives secondary storylines and clips. As Jeremy G said [link]: "The primary is time. Control the primary, you control time." (To which I would only add an "Mwa ha ha ha!")

Speaking quasi-physically, open timelines have no gravity and no magnetism; clips go where you put them and stay there. When you rearrange clips, you reposition them in time.

The FCPX timeline has gravity which pulls down and to the left, and magnetism, which pushes up and to the right. When you rearrange clips, you redefine their relationships and FCPX repositions them in time accordingly.

Both let you reposition clips in time, but in a traditional timeline, you reposition clips in time directly. A timeline clip object's temporal position is an inherent property.

In FCPX, you reposition clips in time indirectly, because a clip's position in time is a function of its relationship to its parent clips.

The FCPX timeline is a very strictly hierarchical (parent/child) data structure. If a traditional timeline is best simplified as an EDL, FCPX's timeline might be a RDL (relationship decision list). You can derive the EDL from the RDL, but you can't (easily or perfectly) go the other way because the data does not exist.

The practical difference is not in what you can get done, but rather in the way you must do it.


[Franz Bieberkopf] "Also, I think pretty broadly in terms of the kinds of relationships that exist in a timeline, and I think you're speaking in specific terms when you use that word. ("placement" maybe?)"

Yes, in this context, I am referring to placement on the timeline (since that is what the magnetic timeline is all about). Some other kinds relationships can be codified via metadata (Roles?). Others still may not be able to be codified at all.

What other relationships do you have in mind?

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  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 5:48:35 am

[Walter Soyka] "n FCPX, the primary storyline itself is the clock that drives secondary storylines and clips. As Jeremy G said [link]: "The primary is time. Control the primary, you control time." (To which I would only add an "Mwa ha ha ha!") "

Yes. Obviously, I am the idiot in the room today and pretty much every day. I am often wrong.

[Walter Soyka] "The FCPX timeline has gravity which pulls down and to the left, "

Mwha h...cough cough ha

Yes, clips pull down, unless of course you setup a barrier (like leaving an empty track in FCP7, which is a preset barrier, if you will) and add clips as connected. The clips added as connected will stay above until you move them or the barrier goes away. This is a space managing workaround and FCPX timeline deficiency if you must keep clips at a certain level for whatever reason.

But pull to the left...that's only if you want it to? If you don't want it to you can edit with the p key and put things exactly in time where you want them, connected or not, and time stands still. If you control the primary, which in turn in controlling connected clips, then you control time. You can do the same operations in FCP7, but they are mechanically different. You have to pick exactly which clips you want to move or not, you may find that locking certain tracks is easier, but then you might have to move clips out of those tracks up and down the timeline so they don't accidentally stay put, or select all and deselect a few clips to leave them behind, or ripple everything in/out to push the timeline up and down, or Cut a clip out and set the autoselect and paste it back at an uncollided point (or paste insert), and reset autoselect.

If there are many j and l cuts in a certain section, and audio attached to video and other "loose audio", this can get "tricky" in the sense that it's lots of clicking and space management. It is much less tricky in FCPX as the general group and timing of that group has been defined with connections, and there is no overwriting, unless you want overwrites to happen in the primary with the position tool.

In some cases, you have to more things around first before you make an edit, just like FCP7. For instance, if you have a music track and it's connected in the wrong place, you might have to setup something to keep it in place. Putting it in the primary is a good and easy way with convenient keyboard shortcuts, or you can setup a secondary storyline, and attach it somewhere further up the timeline.

In X you also have to determine how you want the timeline to move. Time is not relative, 3 seconds is 3 seconds.

If you need something to stay where it is in FCPX there are ways to do it, just like there are steps and ways to move disparate groups around in fcp7 to void clip collisions.

[Walter Soyka] "A timeline clip object's temporal position is an inherent property."

Only until you ripple? I can just as easily move clips out of it's "inherent time" in 7 as in X. Same tools, different kb shortcuts.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 6:16:53 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Yes. Obviously, I am the idiot in the room today and pretty much every day. I am often wrong."

Hardly! That quote was so perfectly stated I wanted to look it up to make sure I got it right.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Yes, clips pull down, unless of course you setup a barrier (like leaving an empty track in FCP7, which is a preset barrier, if you will) and add clips as connected. The clips added as connected will stay above until you move them or the barrier goes away. This is a space managing workaround and FCPX timeline deficiency if you must keep clips at a certain level for whatever reason."

Here's where I'm the idiot in the room, and where I go wrong. The FCPX timeline feels very physical to me in a very different way than the traditional timeline does. While nothing will happen in a traditional timeline that the user doesn't explicitly order, the FCPX magnetic timeline has a system of rules that guide operations during timeline maneuvers.

One of those rules is that two clips can't exist in the same place at the same time. Just like the floor stops me from falling into the basement, so too do lower "barrier" clips stop the clips above them from falling down. The gravity I naively referred to wants to pull clips down as far as it can, but it stops when they hit another clip.


[Jeremy Garchow] "But pull to the left...that's only if you want it to? If you don't want it to you can edit with the p key and put things exactly in time where you want them, connected or not, and time stands still."

Same deal as above. Clips pull as far to the left as they can, until something else -- another clip, a connection anchor, or a gap -- stops them. The P key does not let you reposition a clip in time absolutely; it lets you redefine the relationship of that clip to its parents (and antecedents?), either by sliding the parent-side location of the connection anchor point or by creating a gap object that acts just like your "barrier clip" in the above example.

Am I that off? Doesn't everything always go as far down and as far left as it can? And if you want to change that behavior, don't you have to put something in there?


[Walter Soyka] "A [traditional] timeline clip object's temporal position is an inherent property."

[Jeremy Garchow] "Only until you ripple? I can just as easily move clips out of it's "inherent time" in 7 as in X. Same tools, different kb shortcuts."

Same result, but a different operation. A traditional ripple tool offsets the temporal position properties of all affected clips equally. FCPX's magnetic ripples are the result of a change to a child's parent(s), not a change to the child itself.

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  

Steve ConnorRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:00:27 am

[Walter Soyka] "Same deal as above. Clips pull as far to the left as they can, until something else -- another clip, a connection anchor, or a gap -- stops them. The P key does not let you reposition a clip in time absolutely; it lets you redefine the relationship of that clip to its parents (and antecedents?), either by sliding the parent-side location of the connection anchor point or by creating a gap object that acts just like your "barrier clip" in the above example.

Am I that off? Doesn't everything always go as far down and as far left as it can? And if you want to change that behavior, don't you have to put something in there?"


Not exactly if you don't work in the primary, put a two hour gap clip in the primary, only work in secondaries and the "magnetic" element disappears. The gap clip is still the parent as the clips are all connected to it, but if you don't manipulate the gap clip then the secondary clips are, to all intents and purposes, independent.







Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:13:36 am

[Steve Connor] "Not exactly if you don't work in the primary, put a two hour gap clip in the primary, only work in secondaries and the "magnetic" element disappears. The gap clip is still the parent as the clips are all connected to it, but if you don't manipulate the gap clip then the secondary clips are, to all intents and purposes, independent."

Right, but that's all still perfectly consistent with the magnetic elements as I described above and still follows the "pull in until you hit something" idea. The children are all still relative to their parent (the gap), and it's only absolute to the extent that you pinky-swear to yourself not to manipulate that gap.

If Apple allowed multiple primaries, then relative time would really go away.

My late-night zen view: if you want to move a river, you don't move the water. You move the earth it flows through.

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

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:19:25 am

[Walter Soyka] "If Apple allowed multiple primaries, then relative time would really go away."

Exactly!

[Walter Soyka] "My late-night zen view: if you want to move a river, you don't move the water. You move the earth it flows through."

Excellent. That's one for the quote book.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:26:42 am

[David Lawrence] "[Walter Soyka] "If Apple allowed multiple primaries, then relative time would really go away."

Exactly!"


That really is stretching a point to fit your argument, even if Apple did allow multiple primaries, then they would still allow secondaries and my example stands

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 8:01:20 am

[Steve Connor] "That really is stretching a point to fit your argument, even if Apple did allow multiple primaries, then they would still allow secondaries and my example stands"

Steve, I do agree with you that you can get absolute time behavior in FCPX by cutting a gap into the primary and then connecting everything to it. You could consider a traditional timeline to be much like this, except that the primary gap clip is invisible to the user.

I'm just pointing out that this technique is still based on the same set of rules. FCPX timelines are built away from time zero on the timeline, and must be supported by some structure in a near physical manner, be they clips, gaps, or connection anchors.

If Apple allowed multiple independent primaries, they would need an absolute grounding in order to still function as primaries -- or they'd need that invisible gap clip.

As it stands now, nothing in FCPX can hang out in space, totally disconnected and unaffected by the rest of the timeline, because objects cannot exist outside of a relationship (or extended relationship) to the first clip of the primary. Using the P key does not position a clip in absolute time (visually, absolute space on the timeline); it creates a gap as necessary and uses that to anchor the reposition in relative time (visually, absolute space on the timeline). FCPX abhors a vacuum.

With every editorial operation, FCPX re-flows the timeline according to the magnetic timeline rules.

That's were I was going with the river analogy. In a traditional timeline, you can essentially only manipulate all the water directly by grabbing it and moving it around through a fixed river bed. In an FCPX timeline, you can move the earth beneath the water -- the network of supporting structures -- the related clips -- and in doing so, you can move the whole river.

This is why I keep blabbering on with Franz about clip relationships; they are foundational to FCPX's timeline data structure (just look at FCPXML) and FCPX's toolset for manipulating clips on the timeline.

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  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 10:29:13 pm

[Walter Soyka] "... you can get absolute time behavior in FCPX by cutting a gap into the primary and then connecting everything to it. You could consider a traditional timeline to be much like this, except that the primary gap clip is invisible to the user."

Walter,

That's pretty much my understanding of it. So I guess I understand it. I just have a nagging suspicion that creeps up when people start talking about relative time and absolute time. Maybe I can't conceptualize the distinction and Einstein was right.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:00:32 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "That's pretty much my understanding of it. So I guess I understand it. I just have a nagging suspicion that creeps up when people start talking about relative time and absolute time. Maybe I can't conceptualize the distinction and Einstein was right."

Let's drop the words relative and absolute for a moment.

My thesis is that in an FCPX timeline, as you travel up and to the right in a timeline, the clips you encounter have the position in time that they do not as an intrinsic property in terms of a common clock, but rather in terms of the clips that exist before them, down and to the left, all the way back to The Singularity (frame 0).

A traditional timeline has no such construct, and clips' positions in time are treated by the data model and modified by the tools as intrinsic properties of those clips objects themselves, all in terms of the same common clock.

Am I still spouting crazy talk?

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  


David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:59:55 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Am I still spouting crazy talk?"

Makes sense to me.

Franz, here's how I think if it:

Absolute time = fixed external temporal frame of reference = the window space -- all media objects placed in this window are fully independent of one another in space. Objects can be placed anywhere. Empty space is empty.

Relative time = internal temporal frame of reference = the primary storyline in FCPX -- all media objects must be connected to or contained by the primary. Editing the primary storyline by default changes the spatial and temporal positioning of connected objects. The position tool can be used to override this behavior by automatically inserting gap objects to hold space. Space is never empty. Space must always be filled with an object because the magnetic timeline always pulls objects to time zero on the left.

This leads to weird UI feedback, like Aindreas mentioned. The visual feedback's correct when you think about what the timeline is doing. But the premise of the timeline itself is debatable.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 12:39:54 am

[David Lawrence] "The visual feedback's correct when you think about what the timeline is doing. But the premise of the timeline itself is debatable."

David,

I'll have to remember this line as a delicate way of expressing myself when I don't like a cut.

[David Lawrence] "Franz, here's how I think if it ..."

[Walter Soyka] "Let's drop the words relative and absolute for a moment."

So,

I think the thing is that I've always had some sort of timecode-based "primary storyline" (yeesh - that term) in my head when I work with timelines. So the concept has always been there and now Apple have taken it, emptied it of any sort of preloaded (useful) template, and asked editors to fill it as they begin. If that really is all there is to it, then I've got it. In fact, I've always had it.

Relative Time is Absolute Time without the Time.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 12:53:05 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I'll have to remember this line as a delicate way of expressing myself when I don't like a cut."

LOL, good one!

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Franz BieberkopfRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 10:44:45 pm

[Walter Soyka] "This is why I keep blabbering on with Franz about clip relationships ..."


Also, thanks for that.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:01:23 pm

[Walter Soyka] "This is why I keep blabbering on with Franz about clip relationships ..."

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Also, thanks for that. Franz."

For clarity, I am the one doing all the blabbering. You are asking insightful questions, and I am delivering 10,000 word dissertations in which I still fail to adequately express my reasoning about how the FCPX data model is directly expressed in the timeline.

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  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:32:23 pm

[Walter Soyka] "For clarity, I am the one doing all the blabbering. You are asking insightful questions, and I am delivering 10,000 word dissertations in which I still fail to adequately express my reasoning about how the FCPX data model is directly expressed in the timeline."

Walter, I think you're doing an outstanding job describing the FCPX data model and how it impacts and is expressed through the UI.

I'm really enjoying this thread. It reminds me of the good old days of 2011. :)

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 8:03:38 am

[Steve Connor] "That really is stretching a point to fit your argument, even if Apple did allow multiple primaries, then they would still allow secondaries and my example stands"

No, because to be useful, multiple primaries would require a fixed external frame-of-reference for time in the project window. Relative time goes away and secondaries and clips could be connected wherever the editor wants. It would be the best of both the tracked and the magnetic world and would be much more flexible than the single primary allows.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:23:14 am

[Walter Soyka] "Right, but that's all still perfectly consistent with the magnetic elements as I described above and still follows the "pull in until you hit something" idea. The children are all still relative to their parent (the gap), and it's only absolute to the extent that you pinky-swear to yourself not to manipulate that gap.
"


It's as absolute as you need it to be, there is no reason to touch the primary when working like this so it's not a factor, if the software would let you lock the gap clip would that make it more absolute?

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 9:05:59 pm

[Walter Soyka] "While nothing will happen in a traditional timeline that the user doesn't explicitly order, the FCPX magnetic timeline has a system of rules that guide operations during timeline maneuvers."

Are we (the royal we) really saying that FCP7 has no rules? I'd call BS on that one, I just think that people are so familiar with them, they don't feel like rules and they have somehow morphed in to.....Legend.

[Walter Soyka] "One of those rules is that two clips can't exist in the same place at the same time."

And this is different from FCP7 how exactly?

[Walter Soyka] "Just like the floor stops me from falling into the basement,"

I have to remember to not stomp on my floor too hard today. It is saving me from certain death at every step and I should be more respectful of that fact. The problem is, I'm not sure if I can convince my dog of the same...

[Walter Soyka] "The gravity I naively referred to wants to pull clips down as far as it can, but it stops when they hit another clip."

This is true. And it is certainly different from FCP7. But what's on top is still on top and playback happens exactly the same as it does in FCP7. Visually, yes, there's no straight lines in FCPX except the primary. If you need to keep things on top, you can add an artifical barrier like a blank title layer. Any new connected clip you add will always stay on top until you move it below, or move the barrier layer. As I mentioned, this is a work around and should not be necessary with better UI design. For now, it is necessary if you need the visual organization.

[Walter Soyka] "Same deal as above. Clips pull as far to the left as they can, until something else -- another clip, a connection anchor, or a gap -- stops them. The P key does not let you reposition a clip in time absolutely; it lets you redefine the relationship of that clip to its parents (and antecedents?), either by sliding the parent-side location of the connection anchor point or by creating a gap object that acts just like your "barrier clip" in the above example.
"


Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding. You are saying that I can't put a clip where I want it because it's always going to pull to the left? THis is crazy. I would not be here if this is actually how FCPX worked.

What I don't think that people realize is just what the position tool does. Here's an example.

With the arrow tool on:

Three clips that are exactly 4 seconds a piece:


01_3clips.png

I make a range of two seconds:


02_2secselect.png

and trim the heads and tails (kb shortcut 'option-backslash' (which leaves behind the selected content within the range) which effectively trims two seconds off the over all time of the sequence. Everything ripples. The end of the timeline is now at 9:23 when it was at 11:23. Picture:



03_aftertoptail.png

Now.

With the position tool on, if I do that same kb shortcut (option-backslash) look what happens:



04_timestandsstill.png

The sequence remains the same length of 12 seconds.

So how is time relative in this example?

I can now take a clip from my event with the position tool on, and place it anywhere I want and nothing moved. X adds the gap clips automatically:



05_nothingmoved.png

Again, how is time relative? Because of gap clips? It seems to me that there's a misconception that you can't move things and keep things where you want in the X timeline. I am not so sure that's true.

[Walter Soyka] "[Walter Soyka] "A [traditional] timeline clip object's temporal position is an inherent property."

[Jeremy Garchow] "Only until you ripple? I can just as easily move clips out of it's "inherent time" in 7 as in X. Same tools, different kb shortcuts."

Same result, but a different operation. "


Yes. Same result. I am not arguing that X doesn't work differently, but you can get the same result, and in most cases it's holding a different modifying key, just like FCP7 where you have to hold certain modifying keys, or lock tracks, or select certian clips, but not others.

[Walter Soyka] "A traditional ripple tool offsets the temporal position properties of all affected clips equally. FCPX's magnetic ripples are the result of a change to a child's parent(s), not a change to the child itself."

So, you are saying that everytime I ripple in FCP7, all things get treated equally? Ha! That is a great one. Here's Le Me trying to ripple everything equally in FCP7. Oops:



06_fcp7_allthingsequal.png


If I remove the offending transition that is 5 seconds down the timeline from where I am trying to ripple trim, certain things move, certain things stay put. So tell me how this represents more exact time than relative time? FCP7 moves certain things that I have no control over unless I correctly select a myriad of connection points, and delete certain offending transitions. All of this is mitigated in FCPX at a glance with the connection points (or parent and child or whatever)



07_deletedtransition.png.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 10:48:59 pm

Jeremy, I'm really surprised here. I'm not criticizing FCPX and I'm not saying that you can't use it to make the edits you want. I honestly don't see where we disagree.

I am just trying to explain how it is that FCPX's editorial is relationship-driven in away that traditional timelines are not.

The FCPX magnetic timeline has a different underlying data structure (parent/child hierarchy) than a traditional timeline (EDL). I'm arguing that both timelines express their data models in the tools they offer the user and the way timeline maneuvers work. I'm arguing that FCPX exposes its internal data model in its external UI. I'm arguing that because clip relationships underpin FCPX's representation of a timeline, FCPX automatically reflows (and shows you those magnetic preview reflows) every time you make (or consider) an editorial change, and that it does so according to a set of rules that are a consequence of that parent/child data structure. I'm arguing that there is no parallel for this behavior in traditional timelines, because they lack this higher-order construct relating clips back to the beginning of the timeline.

That's not a value judgment -- if anything, I actually think the engineering of this data model is beautiful. I'm not trying to offer an opinion on whether it's good or bad, or easy or hard -- just that it's different, how it's different, and why it's different, in terms of that data model.

What exactly are we arguing about? Do you think that clip relationships don't drive the magnetic timeline?


[Jeremy Garchow] "Are we (the royal we) really saying that FCP7 has no rules? I'd call BS on that one, I just think that people are so familiar with them, they don't feel like rules and they have somehow morphed in to.....Legend."

Not saying that at all. I am saying that FCPX has rules which have no Legendary equivalent (even in ripple mode).


[Jeremy Garchow] "I have to remember to not stomp on my floor too hard today. It is saving me from certain death at every step and I should be more respectful of that fact. The problem is, I'm not sure if I can convince my dog of the same..."

Dude, it's not just the floor. The crust of the earth prevents you from getting sucked into a hot swirling molten iron core of doom. Unless your canine companion is Clifford the Big Red Dog, I think you'll be ok. :)


[Jeremy Garchow] "Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding. You are saying that I can't put a clip where I want it because it's always going to pull to the left? THis is crazy. I would not be here if this is actually how FCPX worked."

Jeremy, I am not saying that at all. I promise, I fully understand how the position tool works, and I agree that it lets you put a clip wherever you want.

If you want that clip way out on the right somewhere, moving it with the position tool (really maybe more a mode than a tool as you illustrate with your top/tail trim) automatically creates a gap (or gaps) for you that blocks leftward reflow, thereby preserving position. FCPX cannot have a clip hanging off in absolute time, related to nothing; everything must be related back to frame 0 via these blocking objects, be they clips, gaps, or anchors, that come before it.

This bit of engineering is the heart of what what enables all the cool magnetic features. Without this, there is no magnetism. The gaps must exist, and clips' temporal positions must be relative to their parents or antecedents, in order to satisfy this requirement that is inherent in the data model.


[Jeremy Garchow] "If I remove the offending transition that is 5 seconds down the timeline from where I am trying to ripple trim, certain things move, certain things stay put. So tell me how this represents more exact time than relative time? FCP7 moves certain things that I have no control over unless I correctly select a myriad of connection points, and delete certain offending transitions. All of this is mitigated in FCPX at a glance with the connection points (or parent and child or whatever)"

I'm not saying that absolute time is "more exact" than relative time. I don't even know what that means. I have said over and over here that FCPX, by virtue of its data structure, defines the relationships between clips as the editor works, and in doing so, eliminate the need for the editor to interpret the relationships by remembering or reading the timeline and then to make complex pre-maneuver selections and modifications before finally making the edit itself.

If you drag some clips, see the preview reflow, and you don't like what a magnetic move will do, what do you do? You use FCPX's tools to change the relationships between the clips! You move a clip into or out of the primary. You change a connection point. You use the position tool. Then you attempt the maneuver again. The reflow rules are all still the same, but the redefined relationships result in a different reflow with no complex selection on your part.

I actually think all of this is really cool!

I think the magnetic timeline could be enhanced with David Lawrence's suggestion of multiple primaries, which would still allow local magnetism/relativity and global absolute positioning if you wanted it, or allow you to work with FCPX exactly as it is today if you only wanted to use a single primary. Really, as he has said, the best of both worlds. Legendary and innovative at the same time.

I also think that FCPX's unique timeline representation poses some challenges for workflow and interchange, but there's been a lot of progress on that front in the last year and a quarter, and that has nothing to do with my opinions on how the mechanics of the magnetic timeline actually work anyway.

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  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 12:03:55 am

[Walter Soyka] "What exactly are we arguing about?"

Gravity.

[Walter Soyka] "What exactly are we arguing about? Do you think that clip relationships don't drive the magnetic timeline?"

Clip relationships drive every single edit, FCPX or not. In my FCP7 screengrabs, I seriously messed up the relationship of my clips by ripple trimming that clip. That wouldn't happen in FCPX (I mean, of course it could happen, but not as easily).

[Walter Soyka] "If you want that clip way out on the right somewhere, moving it with the position tool (really maybe more a mode than a tool as you illustrate with your top/tail trim) automatically creates a gap (or gaps) for you that blocks leftward reflow, thereby preserving position. FCPX cannot have a clip hanging off in absolute time, related to nothing; everything must be related back to frame 0 via these blocking objects, be they clips, gaps, or anchors, that come before it. "

OK.

I guess I think you are trying to point this out as some sort of a problem. I see what you're saying now. This happens in FCP7 too, it's just that the relationships are less clear and they are "implied" by the edit, and when the timeline gets more complex, you have to constantly remind yourself exactly what those relationships are. FCPX shows you those relationships (most of the time) and also gives you control if you'd like it (some of the time, audio needs more help).

I never need a clip hanging off in "absolute time related to nothing". I don't understand this metaphor. David Lawrence uses it a lot, too. I am sure it is my fault.

A clip is always involved in some way with something in the edit. At the very least, it is related to time. X allows for this.

[Walter Soyka] "If you drag some clips, see the preview reflow, and you don't like what a magnetic move will do, what do you do? You use FCPX's tools to change the relationships between the clips! You move a clip into or out of the primary. You change a connection point. You use the position tool. Then you attempt the maneuver again. The reflow rules are all still the same, but the redefined relationships result in a different reflow with no complex selection on your part."

But that is the very nature of editing. An edit creates relationships all over the place.

There are many things that you simply don't have to do in X that you do in 7.

You sometimes have to move clips up/down tracks, you have to lock certain things in place while moving others, you have to make room by selecting/deselecting certain clips and not others, you have to delete transitions to make a ripple, you have to select a video/audio target tracks before adding it to the timeline, you have to select the exact right number if clip edges to avoid some sort of collision. You are constantly redefining relationships in FCP7 as well.

From you: "While nothing will happen in a traditional timeline that the user doesn't explicitly order, the FCPX magnetic timeline has a system of rules that guide operations during timeline maneuvers."

So does every timeline everywhere. There are always rules. Plenty of crap happens in a "traditional timeline" that isn't "ordered".


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 1:19:17 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Clip relationships drive every single edit, FCPX or not."

Yes I agree. Let's talk about that.

[Walter Soyka] "The FCPX magnetic timeline has a different underlying data structure (parent/child hierarchy) than a traditional timeline (EDL). I'm arguing that both timelines express their data models in the tools they offer the user and the way timeline maneuvers work. I'm arguing that FCPX exposes its internal data model in its external UI. I'm arguing that because clip relationships underpin FCPX's representation of a timeline, FCPX automatically reflows (and shows you those magnetic preview reflows) every time you make (or consider) an editorial change, and that it does so according to a set of rules that are a consequence of that parent/child data structure. I'm arguing that there is no parallel for this behavior in traditional timelines, because they lack this higher-order construct relating clips back to the beginning of the timeline."

Walter, I think this is a *great* description of what's going on under the hood.

A few posts up, I compared clip connections and the FCPX relationship paradigm to Pr's grouping feature. I want to expand on this a bit:

Let's ignore the FCPX data model and the collision avoidance/overlap behavior of connected clips and think strictly about the notion of clip relationships from the standpoint of user intention.

If I have the ability to group objects together on the timeline so that they always move together in sync, would you agree that this group explicitly specifies a relationship between clips?

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 1:40:59 am

[David Lawrence] "If I have the ability to group objects together on the timeline so that they always move together in sync, would you agree that this group explicitly specifies a relationship between clips?"

If you are asking me, the answer is surely.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 9:26:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[David Lawrence] "If I have the ability to group objects together on the timeline so that they always move together in sync, would you agree that this group explicitly specifies a relationship between clips?"

If you are asking me, the answer is surely."


Agreed. Curious to hear what Walter and others have to say.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 9:39:14 pm

[David Lawrence] "Curious to hear what Walter and others have to say."

David,

Perhaps a new thread is in order ...

I've often thought that we need some sort of wiki for conceptual references, as I tend to lose the thread and rely on searches and faulty memory later.

Oliver Peters has a sketch for a historical outline, for instance, and there are certain recurring themes.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 10:14:02 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Perhaps a new thread is in order ...

I've often thought that we need some sort of wiki for conceptual references, as I tend to lose the thread and rely on searches and faulty memory later.

Oliver Peters has a sketch for a historical outline, for instance, and there are certain recurring themes.
"


Franz,

I think you're right. This thread is getting too big for all the ideas floating around.

There are some key inter-related ideas that you, Jeremy, Oliver, and Walter have raised that I want to try to expand on. I'll go start a new thread for this.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships
by on Sep 14, 2012 at 1:41:17 pm

[David Lawrence] "If I have the ability to group objects together on the timeline so that they always move together in sync, would you agree that this group explicitly specifies a relationship between clips?"

Yes.

(My shortest post ever in this forum?)

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  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships
by on Sep 14, 2012 at 7:40:31 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Yes.

(My shortest post ever in this forum?)"


Short and sweet! :)

OK, I think we're all on the same page.

I'm gathering my thoughts and will get try to get a new thread started soon!

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships
by on Sep 14, 2012 at 7:49:37 pm

[David Lawrence] "I'm gathering my thoughts and will get try to get a new thread started soon!"

Looking forward to it!

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing - let's talk about relationships
by on Sep 15, 2012 at 1:04:50 am

Alright Gentlemen, please join me here at:

It's All Connected -- Clip Relationships and The Magnetic Timeline Paradigm

I'll be out tonight and much of tomorrow but look forward to your thoughts and continuing the conversation.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 14, 2012 at 1:53:56 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Clip relationships drive every single edit, FCPX or not."

From the editor's perspective, yes; from the software's perspective, no.

I'm curious to see where David goes with the relationship sub-thread he's started. Perhaps I'll have the opportunity to go into a bit more depth there.


[Jeremy Garchow] "From you: "While nothing will happen in a traditional timeline that the user doesn't explicitly order, the FCPX magnetic timeline has a system of rules that guide operations during timeline maneuvers."

So does every timeline everywhere. There are always rules. Plenty of crap happens in a "traditional timeline" that isn't "ordered"."


My very clumsily-made point here is that in FCPX, the timeline is ordered or laid out according to relationships only, and if the editor wants to alter the layout, he or she must alter the clip relationships. For example, the second clip in a primary storyline doesn't start on frame 30 because that time is a property of that clip; it starts on frame 30 because it comes after the first clip and because the first clip ends on frame 29.

In a traditional timeline, the editor is responsible for the layout.

I think most of the crap that happens in the traditional timeline is because the traditional timeline tools don't honor the relationships between clips.

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  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 14, 2012 at 6:44:48 pm

[Walter Soyka] "For example, the second clip in a primary storyline doesn't start on frame 30 because that time is a property of that clip; it starts on frame 30 because it comes after the first clip and because the first clip ends on frame 29."

I guess this where I have trouble. Thanks for saying this as I think I can finally see what you mean.

This seems to imply that it is harder, for some reason, to put a clip on frame (or second) 30 in FCPX when in fact it's not. It's one keystroke, just like FCP7. Sure, there might a gap clip that is created automatically by FCPX, but I don't find that to be a hindrance. It's actually nice to have to not create slugs all the time, or measure the empty space that is in FCP7. Those gap clips are really easy to change to exact timing by hitting control-d to change duration. But I digress.

In FCP7, the time is not as absolute as everyone makes it out to be, at least in my opinion. That clip that you put at 30 seconds does not take the 'property of time' any more or less than FCPX. This goes back to my comment of controlling the primary equals controlling time. With 7, if I put a clip at 30 seconds, it stays at 30 seconds until I ripple something in the timeline, or paste an insert, or insert edit, or drag the clip and move it. To me, this is the same as FCPX. If I DON'T ripple anything in the timeline that clip remains at 30 seconds. It's really easy and not as complicated as people seem to be making it out to be. Am I wrong about that?

FCP7 does have the advantage that you can lock tracks, but this doesn't mean you can lock one clip unless there's a track with one clip. So this means if you want to lock one clip you have to move everything out of the appropriate a/v tracks, lock the track, do the move, then unlock, not that I ever do that as I usually just move the one clip up and down to empty tracks and move everything else around it. FCPX can make that type of move much easier, and as Oliver Peters had mentioned, you sometimes have to think and adjust connection points before you move instead move and then adjust. This is the same with tracks, you sometimes have to move clips in certain places before adding new clips. I find that with the non clip collision methods of FCPX, it's really easy and fast to move things in and out of the primary when I need to keep time where it is. It could use some refinement, but as it stands, it is possible and no more difficult than adjusting a bunch of clips around in tracks to make room for more clips. In some cases it is much much easier even if it looks different.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 14, 2012 at 7:53:25 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I guess this where I have trouble. Thanks for saying this as I think I can finally see what you mean. This seems to imply that it is harder, for some reason, to put a clip on frame (or second) 30 in FCPX when in fact it's not. It's one keystroke, just like FCP7. Sure, there might a gap clip that is created automatically by FCPX, but I don't find that to be a hindrance. It's actually nice to have to not create slugs all the time, or measure the empty space that is in FCP7. Those gap clips are really easy to change to exact timing by hitting control-d to change duration. But I digress."

Ok, now I see where we went off the rails.

I was not trying to say that Legend could make cuts that X can't. I was just trying to say that the timelines fundamentally work differently, so the mechanics of making and preserving the same edits are a bit different in X vs. Legend.


[Jeremy Garchow] "In FCP7, the time is not as absolute as everyone makes it out to be, at least in my opinion. That clip that you put at 30 seconds does not take the 'property of time' any more or less than FCPX. This goes back to my comment of controlling the primary equals controlling time. With 7, if I put a clip at 30 seconds, it stays at 30 seconds until I ripple something in the timeline, or paste an insert, or insert edit, or drag the clip and move it. To me, this is the same as FCPX. If I DON'T ripple anything in the timeline that clip remains at 30 seconds. It's really easy and not as complicated as people seem to be making it out to be. Am I wrong about that? "

I think we still differ in opinion here, but the difference is very subtle.

I am suggesting that FCP7 lets the editor lay clips into the timeline at specific times, and then FCP7's toolset allows the editor to refine the edit by adjusting the time properties of the clips. Relationships are fragile, as they are primarily governed by manual selection.

In FCPX, the editor lays clips into the timeline with respect to what is already there. The toolset allows the editor to refine the edit by adjusting clip relationships, and it re-determines clips' locations in time accordingly. Relationships are strong, but malleable, and they are foundational to the timeline's structure.

In a nutshell, FCP7 relates all clips to time, not to each other. FCPX relates all clips to each other, not to time (though time can be derived from the relationships and clip durations, and this is why Xto7 is easier than 7toX).

In all cases, editors may think of clips as related or as located in time, and may make adjustments accordingly, but the way the tools in Legend work is fundamentally time-based whereas the tools in X are fundamentally relationship-based -- even when they do the same thing from a user's perspective.

The degree to which you need to adjust your thinking about editing in X vs Legend is the degree to which you internalize the data model.

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  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 14, 2012 at 8:04:16 pm

[Walter Soyka] "The degree to which you need to adjust your thinking about editing in X vs Legend is the degree to which you internalize the data model."

And that in a nutshell, is the problem with FCPX. More soon.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 14, 2012 at 8:37:09 pm

[Walter Soyka] "The degree to which you need to adjust your thinking about editing in X vs Legend is the degree to which you internalize the data model."


I'll wait for David's new thread. :)


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Aindreas GallagherRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 14, 2012 at 11:40:26 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "
In FCP7, the time is not as absolute as everyone makes it out to be, at least in my opinion. That clip that you put at 30 seconds does not take the 'property of time' any more or less than FCPX. This goes back to my comment of controlling the primary equals controlling time. With 7, if I put a clip at 30 seconds, it stays at 30 seconds until I ripple something in the timeline, or paste an insert, or insert edit, or drag the clip and move it. To me, this is the same as FCPX. If I DON'T ripple anything in the timeline that clip remains at 30 seconds. It's really easy and not as complicated as people seem to be making it out to be. Am I wrong about that?

FCP7 does have the advantage that you can lock tracks, but this doesn't mean you can lock one clip unless there's a track with one clip. So this means if you want to lock one clip you have to move everything out of the appropriate a/v tracks, lock the track, do the move, then unlock, not that I ever do that as I usually just move the one clip up and down to empty tracks and move everything else around it. FCPX can make that type of move much easier, and as Oliver Peters had mentioned, you sometimes have to think and adjust connection points before you move instead move and then adjust. This is the same with tracks, you sometimes have to move clips in certain places before adding new clips. I find that with the non clip collision methods of FCPX, it's really easy and fast to move things in and out of the primary when I need to keep time where it is. It could use some refinement, but as it stands, it is possible and no more difficult than adjusting a bunch of clips around in tracks to make room for more clips. In some cases it is much much easier even if it looks different.
"


I'm just going to negate all of this, he said grandly.

quite simply, I do not desire the natural state of my timeline to be ripple mode, and I do not desire the natural state of all of my clips to be connected, such that I am periodically required to re-arrange their relationships.

that's it jeremy. I require an open, clean multi-track, object dis-interested timeline.

this is not a nodal compositor, apple were stupid to introduce faux child relationships when no real downstream information (as in cc correction) was being imparted - its a stupid conceit they introduced, and they are in the process of being fully punished by the market.


thats it.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 15, 2012 at 1:44:47 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "quite simply, I do not desire the natural state of my timeline to be ripple mode, and I do not desire the natural state of all of my clips to be connected, such that I am periodically required to re-arrange their relationships."

Rearranging relationships is the basis of editing. They are built in FCP7 and FCPX.

FCPX makes certain rearranging much easier so you aren't fighting the interface, but actually creating new and more meaningful relationships. At the very least you can go out on a few dates to test the waters without completely destroying your weekend.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 15, 2012 at 11:17:37 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "this is not a nodal compositor, apple were stupid to introduce faux child relationships when no real downstream information (as in cc correction) was being imparted - its a stupid conceit they introduced, and they are in the process of being fully punished by the market."

By the Broadcast and facilities market yes, but the wider market perhaps not. They seem to be selling a lot of copies. I know you really want it to fail, but I don't think it will


[Aindreas Gallagher] "quite simply, I do not desire the natural state of my timeline to be ripple mode, and I do not desire the natural state of all of my clips to be connected, such that I am periodically required to re-arrange their relationships.

that's it jeremy. I require an open, clean multi-track, object dis-interested timeline.
"


Great, plenty of other NLE's for you to use made by companies with a heartily renewed interest in what Editors want from their NLE.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Steve ConnorRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 6:51:22 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Yes, clips pull down, unless of course you setup a barrier (like leaving an empty track in FCP7, which is a preset barrier, if you will) and add clips as connected. The clips added as connected will stay above until you move them or the barrier goes away. This is a space managing workaround and FCPX timeline deficiency if you must keep clips at a certain level for whatever reason.

But pull to the left...that's only if you want it to? If you don't want it to you can edit with the p key and put things exactly in time where you want them, connected or not, and time stands still. If you control the primary, which in turn in controlling connected clips, then you control time. You can do the same operations in FCP7, but they are mechanically different. You have to pick exactly which clips you want to move or not, you may find that locking certain tracks is easier, but then you might have to move clips out of those tracks up and down the timeline so they don't accidentally stay put, or select all and deselect a few clips to leave them behind, or ripple everything in/out to push the timeline up and down, or Cut a clip out and set the autoselect and paste it back at an uncollided point (or paste insert), and reset autoselect.

If there are many j and l cuts in a certain section, and audio attached to video and other "loose audio", this can get "tricky" in the sense that it's lots of clicking and space management. It is much less tricky in FCPX as the general group and timing of that group has been defined with connections, and there is no overwriting, unless you want overwrites to happen in the primary with the position tool.

In some cases, you have to more things around first before you make an edit, just like FCP7. For instance, if you have a music track and it's connected in the wrong place, you might have to setup something to keep it in place. Putting it in the primary is a good and easy way with convenient keyboard shortcuts, or you can setup a secondary storyline, and attach it somewhere further up the timeline.

In X you also have to determine how you want the timeline to move. Time is not relative, 3 seconds is 3 seconds.

If you need something to stay where it is in FCPX there are ways to do it, just like there are steps and ways to move disparate groups around in fcp7 to void clip collisions.
"


This is all true and as I keep saying, you can only understand this if you actually spend a considerable amount of time learning the software. The workflow issues others are describing are not actual issues when you have experience with FCPX.

I think Editors by nature are a conservative bunch, so I understand why a large amount wouldn't want to make the effort when there is no obvious benefit to them.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:05:48 am

[Steve Connor] "This is all true and as I keep saying, you can only understand this if you actually spend a considerable amount of time learning the software. The workflow issues others are describing are not actual issues when you have experience with FCPX.

I think Editors by nature are a conservative bunch, so I understand why a large amount wouldn't want to make the effort when there is no obvious benefit to them."


I don't think it's about editors being conservative as much as it is (as you correctly point out) unintuitive and in many cases, its limitations outweigh any potential benefits.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Steve ConnorRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:32:26 am

[David Lawrence] "I don't think it's about editors being conservative as much as it is (as you correctly point out) unintuitive and in many cases, its limitations outweigh any potential benefits."

Like anything that works in a different way than you are used to, FCPX is only unintuitive until you have learned it.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:53:53 am

[Steve Connor] "Like anything that works in a different way than you are used to, FCPX is only unintuitive until you have learned it."

intuitive |inˈt(y)oōitiv|
adjective
using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive : I had an intuitive conviction that there was something unsound in him.
• (chiefly of computer software) easy to use and understand.
The iPhone was completely different than any phone that ever came before it. But regular people could pick it up and start using it with virtually no training. In the computer world, that's we mean when we say intuitive.

On the other hand:

[Steve Connor] "as I keep saying, you can only understand this if you actually spend a considerable amount of time learning the software."

If this is true, then it's unintuitive by definition.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Steve ConnorRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 8:00:56 am

[David Lawrence] "[Steve Connor] "as I keep saying, you can only understand this if you actually spend a considerable amount of time learning the software."

If this is true, then it's unintuitive by definition."


Fair point, although most software we use is unintuitive to start with. Resolve, AE, Smoke etc

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 8:10:26 am

[Steve Connor] "Fair point, although most software we use is unintuitive to start with. Resolve, AE, Smoke etc"

Yes, absolutely true.

Some of the most powerful applications (the ones you mention, for example) are unintuitive almost by necessity. Power, control and complexity often go hand in hand. It's not necessarily a bad thing if the benefits are worth it.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

tony westRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 1:47:35 pm

[David Lawrence] "The iPhone was completely different than any phone that ever came before it. But regular people could pick it up and start using it with virtually no training. In the computer world, that's we mean when we say intuitive."



David, I don't know about this one, X is about as intuitive as editing can get.

There are children on-line offering tips on it.

X was cracked on for being too simple at first and now too complicated.

It can't really be both can it?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 2:35:39 pm

[tony west] "There are children on-line offering tips on it. X was cracked on for being too simple at first and now too complicated. It can't really be both can it?"

Why not? Couldn't it be that FCPX makes easy things easier (assembly)and makes hard things harder (trimming)?

How true or not that may be is outside my experience with FCPX, so I'll leave that for others to debate, but I have had the experience with other "simple" software that achieving complex ends without specialized tools to support them is very challenging.

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  


tony westRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 3:00:13 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Why not? Couldn't it be that FCPX makes easy things easier (assembly)and makes hard things harder (trimming)?"


I don't know Walter, I have not really found many things hard about X

Different.

But not really hard. I have adjusted to "it's" way of doing things though.

I'm not really fighting it. I don't have time.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 3:51:27 pm

[tony west] "I have not really found many things hard about X

Different.

But not really hard. I have adjusted to "it's" way of doing things though.

I'm not really fighting it. I don't have time."


I find FCPX EASIER because it fundamentally addresses a two decade peeve I've had with NLEs.
Some of you think the multiple purposes of a track as "flexibility." To me that's been a contrivance, a work around. To me, layering and organization are two different functions and should be handled different to at least allow for optimal development of feature flexibility. FCPX does this with its layering and connected clips and secondary storylines as well as roles. Of course both need more development. It's a young app. But, to me, it's fundamentally headed in the right direction. This is one (of several reasons) why I suspect its intuitive for those without pre existing experience.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 4:53:58 pm

[Craig Seeman] " a two decade peeve I've had with NLEs.
Some of you think the multiple purposes of a track as "flexibility." To me that's been a contrivance, a work around. To me, layering and organization are two different functions and should be handled different to at least allow for optimal development of feature flexibility. FCPX does this with its layering and connected clips and secondary storylines as well as roles."


I've seen you mention this topic before Craig and I'm curious as to why FCP Legend's integration with Motion didn't solve this problem for you? I will admit I would have liked to see a greater integration with a more common GUI and set of tools, especially for color correction and monitoring from within Motion, but whenever I needed to do any serious compositing a simple "send to motion" seemed to do the trick, but obviously not for you and I was wondering why?

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 5:01:09 pm

And Motion is still there (and round tripping is another feature that has yet to be implemented in FCPX).
The reality is doing self contained compositing in an NLE is easier and faster for many simpler things. This also using b-roll in a variety of forms ranging from simple cutaway to compositing picture in picture with titles. NLEs are OK compositors but not ideal for "motion" graphics. A large amount of compositing involves very little motion work. As much as I too want to see roundtrip it can be tedious if you need to do it for everything. This is common to all NLEs and, in that sense, FCPX is "traditional." All NLEs have basic compositing sans complex motion.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 5:07:28 pm

[Craig Seeman] "A large amount of compositing involves very little motion work. As much as I too want to see roundtrip it can be tedious if you need to do it for everything. This is common to all NLEs"

For my work the idea of changing the basic workflow paradigm to accommodate the less than 5% of the time I'm working with compositing would seem much like the proverbial tail wagging the dog, but as Jeremy often says, that's just me and what do I know.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 5:40:26 pm

[Herb Sevush] "For my work the idea of changing the basic workflow paradigm to accommodate the less than 5% of the time I'm working with compositing"

I use compositing loosely as I also include b-roll and related. Anything that one would normally add above another shot in an NLE. When I include b-roll, titles, simple graphic transitions, I can't imagine it being as little as 5% for anything but the most primitive of pieces. Also consider the layering of alternate shots (which FCPX makes easier with Auditions).



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 7:08:17 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I use compositing loosely as I also include b-roll "

I don't dedicate a separate "B-roll" track for non sync material, probably because of my near constant use of multi-cam which can make the whole concept of "B-roll" a little vague. That's why I never liked editing with systems that use A / B roll style timeline tracks such as Media 100. I don't need the underlying video as a reference of any sort since I have the audio for that. Since I always disconnect the audio from the video in all my clips I never have to deal with L and J cuts and almost all my transitions exist on the base layer. For the way I cut, compositing means compositing - again different horses for different courses, but probably another reason why I miss the appeal of X.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Walter SoykaRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 4:28:03 pm

[tony west] "I don't know Walter, I have not really found many things hard about X. Different. But not really hard. I have adjusted to "it's" way of doing things though. I'm not really fighting it. I don't have time."

Once I got the feel for the FCPX timeline, working with it all made sense and felt very fluid -- but I haven't tried an edit of sufficient complexity in FCPX to run into the scenarios that Oliver, David, Herb and others have described here in detail since Pr meets my current needs better. I'm more a neutral observer on this point.

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  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 4:08:09 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Why not? Couldn't it be that FCPX makes easy things easier (assembly)and makes hard things harder (trimming)?"

I think this is right. For simple assembly, I agree it's easier, but like many, I've found trimming, manipulating audio and more advanced editorial techniques are more difficult than with a traditional NLE.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 4:17:56 pm

[David Lawrence] " think this is right. For simple assembly, I agree it's easier, but like many, I've found trimming, manipulating audio and more advanced editorial techniques are more difficult than with a traditional NLE."

Again, for me, there's a differentiation between paradigm vs features. There's nothing within the FCPX paradigm that prevents improved trimming and audio handling. It's a young app. In other words, it has little to do with "traditional" and a lot more to do with missing features that can certainly be implemented.

Example, keyboard timeline trimming should have a two up. Currently only the mouse brings up the two up. This can be addressed within the paradigm.

Another example, while being able to select a range within a clip to adjust levels is easy, sub frame time shifting and editing is easy, the Logic plug ins are amazing but, trying to audio edit a group of "like" clips (VO for example) is difficult without an easy way to organize or select by such groups. This too can be addressed within the paradigm whether it's improved functionality of Roles or some other method.

I don't think there's anything in FCPX's paradigm that makes these things harder beyond the fact that such features simply aren't implemented as of yet. They certainly can be without breaking the paradigm.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 2:41:41 pm

[tony west] "X is about as intuitive as editing can get.

There are children on-line offering tips on it."


Yes, we need to know the context of "who."
Those with nothing to unlearn find it intuitive.
This is also why I think Apple will make progress in the "professional" market through attrition. People coming in to the field without pre-established habits will be much more open to it.

I see, what I feel, is much discussion of the design/function theory of an NLE and, in that, I see established editors attached to notions they've worked with and assume are "natural" when there's a good chance they're not, at least not for many people or not for many people who aren't veteran editors.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

tony westRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 2:55:48 pm

[Craig Seeman] "This is also why I think Apple will make progress in the "professional" market through attrition. People coming in to the field without pre-established habits will be much more open to it."


Yes, this is one of the reasons I decided to get on board with it. Young folks seem to really like it and they will be moving up.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 4:20:05 pm

[Craig Seeman] "This is also why I think Apple will make progress in the "professional" market through attrition. People coming in to the field without pre-established habits will be much more open to it."

You mean like the way they've come to dominate the word processor/page layout market with Pages?

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 4:54:46 pm

[David Lawrence] "You mean like the way they've come to dominate the word processor/page layout market with Pages?"

In many respects Pages is very conventional.
Apple has no great motive to bring it to scale with Quark or InDesign.
They're not even trying. It hasn't had a major update since 2009.

If anything iBook Author is more appropriate but still not a good comparison because it's very much a closed system tied to Apple's store and sales revenue development.

FCPX sales seem to be extremely high. I suspect a fair number of people are buying it as their first NLE. Some of those will move into higher end professional markets and will be doing so with FCPX.

Apple's approach seems to be through attrition. They're going to attract many more new professionals than convert old guard establishment. It's a much easier sell.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 9:33:34 pm

[Craig Seeman] "FCPX sales seem to be extremely high. I suspect a fair number of people are buying it as their first NLE. Some of those will move into higher end professional markets and will be doing so with FCPX.

Apple's approach seems to be through attrition. They're going to attract many more new professionals than convert old guard establishment. It's a much easier sell."


No question Apple will sell far more copies of FCPX than Legacy. The price and power alone make it an easy choice for anyone who wants to get deeper into post-production. Especially for people buying it as their first NLE.

But I'm *much* more skeptical about it moving into high-end professional markets.

Historically, Apple's greatest success has been in creating new markets and new uses through innovative design and technology. The iPhone and iOS ecosystem are stunning examples. Apple's innovation created not only an entirely new class of product, it created an entirely new market altogether. And because these devices and their ecosystem proved so incredible flexible and useful, even though it started in the consumer space, it migrated to the enterprise space.

The NLE market is *completely* different because it's already well-established. It's a very mature market with common standards and practices that have been in place for decades. But more significantly, the NLE market serves an already well-defined need and use.

With FCPX, Apple radically changes the approach to the task of editing, but they haven't changed the nature of the task itself. FCPX is used to edit and post. Every other NLE on the market is also used to edit and post. But only FCPX works in its completely proprietary, non-standard way.

The barrier isn't necessarily the old guard establishment, its well-established industry standards and practices. These industry standards and practices won't simply go away just because Apple thinks they should.

Standards matter. It doesn't matter if a new generation starts using it, when they go looking for jobs, they'll need to know the tools that the industry has standardized on. FCPX's non-standard approach is already proven to be a barrier to acceptance. It actually makes it a much tougher sell.

This is why I think the comparison of FCPX to the NLE market to Pages and the word processor/page layout market is fair. In mature markets, the market decides the standard, not the vendor. The standard is the gate, not old guard establishment.

This is not to say that the market won't change or expand. I agree change and growth is inevitable. More and more people will start editing with FCPX. Professionals will find all sorts of uses for it. "Pro-sumer" means "Professional" and "Consumer" and FCPX fills needs for both. New tools and choices are a good thing.

But at the high end, I don't think attrition will be a factor at all. I think it's ultimately a question of whether the NLE paradigm Apple proposes in FCPX will eventually grow into something compelling and valuable enough to change standards. All the while competing vendors add continue to innovate, improve and develop traditionally designed systems. The enterprise space is an entirely different space than the consumer space where the iOS flourished. The rules are completely different.

Like I said to the OP, I wouldn't hold my breath.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1


Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 10:23:58 pm

[David Lawrence] "No question Apple will sell far more copies of FCPX than Legacy. The price and power alone make it an easy choice for anyone who wants to get deeper into post-production. Especially for people buying it as their first NLE."

[David Lawrence] "he NLE market is *completely* different because it's already well-established. It's a very mature market with common standards and practices that have been in place for decades. But more significantly, the NLE market serves an already well-defined need and use.

With FCPX, Apple radically changes the approach to the task of editing, but they haven't changed the nature of the task itself. FCPX is used to edit and post. Every other NLE on the market is also used to edit and post. But only FCPX works in its completely proprietary, non-standard way."


Attrition battles take time. FCPX is a very young app. As time goes on FCPX may add things that will serve the mature market. All prognostication of course but I'm talking a few years down the road.

I think we're looking at a few more releases of "catchup" features. At some point they may introduce features that may fit facility needs. Also "maturity" itself is changing as the definition evolves. Actually Adobe Anywhere might be one of the bigger indicators rather than anything by Apple . . . yet. Apple often isn't the first with a feature. They're revisioning of things usually works. Time will tell. That's the nature of attrition battles. I think it will come from "young" adaptors maturing along with FCPX itself.

Pages is not a good example because Desktop Publishing will have to include the growing eBook market and iBook Author offers interactivity.

I'll probably sound like Bill Davis but the changes are going to be radical even if not sudden.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:17:24 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I think we're looking at a few more releases of "catchup" features. At some point they may introduce features that may fit facility needs. Also "maturity" itself is changing as the definition evolves. Actually Adobe Anywhere might be one of the bigger indicators rather than anything by Apple . . . yet."

Agreed. One of the reasons I continue to pay attention to FCPX is because I'm curious to see how the paradigm evolves. I have doubts about its scalability, but I'd love to be proven wrong. I think the next major release and the approach to multi-channel audio will tell a lot.

Adobe Anywhere really looks like a game-changer. Apple likely also has something up its sleeve, but if Anywhere lives up to its promise, I think Adobe's use of open standards and ability to work with existing infrastructure will give it a huge advantage.

[Craig Seeman] "Apple often isn't the first with a feature. They're revisioning of things usually works. Time will tell. That's the nature of attrition battles. I think it will come from "young" adaptors maturing along with FCPX itself."

I'm hard pressed to think of any examples of Apple winning attrition battles. It's true they often lag behind with features until they get them right (iPhone copy and paste), but historically, that strategy has only worked for them in markets they created and already owned.

Ironically, in 2011, Apple was well positioned to own the NLE market too. But because they decided to take this radical new approach, they're now starting completely from scratch in a market that's not only mature, but highly competitive. On top of that, by burning their high end professional users with FCPX's botched marketing and release, they've blown the trust of decision makers who determine what gets used in the future. The damage from that in itself will take years to repair. The bar is high and I don't see attrition making much of a difference.

Maybe they'll come up with a future release so mind blowingly awesome everyone will *have* to use it. It's totally possible, but I'm skeptical. As you say, time will tell.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 11, 2012 at 11:58:47 pm

[David Lawrence] "Agreed. One of the reasons I continue to pay attention to FCPX is because I'm curious to see how the paradigm evolves. I have doubts about its scalability, but I'd love to be proven wrong. I think the next major release and the approach to multi-channel audio will tell a lot."

For me, I'm looking at the data management. The Event Project paradigm needs serious management features and I'd expect it to be a bit more than Event Manager X. I can't help but think that's going to happen. More generally there's a lot of metadata that's there or at least the pieces are there, that aren't handled well or at all so far. I'd almost say it's more Bento than FileMaker. In this case though they have potential in the Advanced areas of the Inspector that they simply aren't using. Also a powerful database has a lot of customization to display that data. FCPX is still rigid in that regard. I do think, given some of the bits, that they will get there though.

Assuming they hit those points (certainly my assumption), I think it will be a very powerful NLE for the "new" facility (whatever qualifies as a facility a couple of years down the road).

[David Lawrence] "I think Adobe's use of open standards and ability to work with existing infrastructure will give it a huge advantage."

For the time being. Apple's not one to simply match somebody else's functionality. One might guess that all these data centers they're building is just for iCloud. It maybe be iCloud is to whatever is coming (I think) as is iMovie is to FCPX (although may not take that the way I intend it).

[David Lawrence] "I'm hard pressed to think of any examples of Apple winning attrition battles."

In many respects this is new to them but they are making changes to their business model in some areas recently. I think this is what they anticipate though.

[David Lawrence] "burning their high end professional users with FCPX's botched marketing and release,"

That's why I think it'll be attrition. It's a much easier sell to those who haven't been burnt. There's a lot of scare tissue.

[David Lawrence] "Maybe they'll come up with a future release so mind blowingly awesome everyone will *have* to use it."

All it needs for a beachhead is to be compelling in a couple of areas to be at least one tool in the toolbox. At $300 if it's a great "plugin" it'll be in the tool chest. Then it'll take some time to exploit the beachhead.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


tony westRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:07:24 am

David, thinking of all these young folks who are starting out on X and really liking it.......at what point do you think they will stop using X


Seems to me as they use the program and develop their skills on it it will be harder to pull them away from it.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

David LawrenceRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:18:27 am

[tony west] "David, thinking of all these young folks who are starting out on X and really liking it.......at what point do you think they will stop using X "

When they decide they want to pursue a career making feature films in LA.

Admittedly, this will be a very small percentage of the FCPX user base, but the high-end of the post industry has always been a niche market.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

tony westRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 1:17:14 pm

[David Lawrence] "[tony west] "David, thinking of all these young folks who are starting out on X and really liking it.......at what point do you think they will stop using X "

When they decide they want to pursue a career making feature films in LA.

Admittedly, this will be a very small percentage of the FCPX user base, but the high-end of the post industry has always been a niche market."



So if the person is 16 now, let's say they graduate at 22, that would be 6 years from now.

No telling where the industry will be at that point seems to me. It will be interesting to watch what happens.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 1:33:15 pm

Well, this thread has meandered a bit, but all great points. Here are some random thoughts I'll toss out there for more pixel fodder...

Zero time and the magnetic timeline

This is not new with Apple, although the FCP X implementation is a new twist. Avid has done "magnetic" since its earliest days, though limited to a single video track (with sync audio) and cuts-only sequences. Simply set the timeline view to "head & tail frame" and you can move around clips magnetically. Also Avid has been based on timelines with zero time value since the beginning. You could never edit a clip 10 minutes down onto a blank timeline. This came in with FCP "legacy" (maybe with other NLEs, too), but at least with Avid, you had to insert "filler" (same as gap or placeholder clips in X) to create "emptiness" between clips on a Media Composer timeline.

Clip connections

The biggest PITA in X as far as I'm concerned. Part of the problem is that connections always default to the start of a clip. This means you frequently have to move a connecting point BEFORE you make the edit you intend to make. It also gets in the way of good workflow versus tracks. Take this example. You have a clip at the end of a :30 commercial. There's a connected clip for a logo graphic and a connected clip to add a black generator with a fade (so both the graphic and video fade together). The fade-to-black is a constant because that's where :30 ends. It would be if these were on tracks. But with X, if I need to slip the video clip to get the right timing for the end of the spot, the logo and the generator+fade slide along at the same point as I slip the clip. So I never get the right relationship of the end of the clip versus the fade without a bit of trial-and-error.

Apple and NLE business models

I believe Apple is banking on the belief that the "traditional NLE" as we understand it today in Premiere Pro, Media Composer or FCP "legacy" will disappear. Functions will become more preset-based and the NLE will be more of a "platform" where you can bolt on specialty items you might need. It's pretty early in that process, but look at other tools, like The Foundry's Hiero and you see a similar concept. In effect, Premiere+AE is along those same lines. Today, established film editors are mentally locked into Avid or "legacy". But those folks are dying and/or retiring. I already know film/TV editors in LA, who are very Avid-centric, but admit to losing jobs because they didn't know Final Cut ("legacy"). Not that they haven't worked, but rather, they missed the opportunity to get projects that they really wanted to have. That's a process driven by producers, not editors. When you consider that X is $300 for up to FIVE OWNED SYSTEMS, that's a pretty powerful incentive for producers - who want to bring post in-house - to move to X as it improves.

Apple software development

So far that's been a spotty record. Apple develops cool software, but has yet to create something that's an industry leader (ignoring OS X or iOS for sake of argument). FileMaker Pro, maybe, but mainly because they were spun off as a subsidiary. Apple revels in the 80/20 rule and seems to get software up to a passable point and then stops development other than maintenance. Look at Logic, Aperture, iLife apps, iWork apps, etc. They are a mass market company that occasionally brings a product up to a standard that it's "good enough" for professional use. However, when those same pros become too "needy" Apple loses interest.

Will that happen with X? Who knows? Apple is very different today than in SJ's heyday, but in many ways they haven't changed in some areas. They tend to maintain smaller development teams than other software companies and share engineers across product boundaries. For example, UI developers who work on more than one product in order to maintain a consistency across the board. That being said, I like the sandboxing of the apps and the way the App Store functions most of the time. I certainly prefer that to the hiccups I get with Adobe's updaters 90% of the time.

OTOH, I've been most happy as a professional user with Avid's approach (on the Mac), where the uninstall/reinstall of updates is very smooth. At least I can revert to older versions if I need them, because THEY ACTUALLY STILL EXIST ON THE WEBSITE.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 2:20:55 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Clip connections [...] There's a connected clip for a logo graphic and a connected clip to add a black generator with a fade (so both the graphic and video fade together). The fade-to-black is a constant because that's where :30 ends. It would be if these were on tracks. But with X, if I need to slip the video clip to get the right timing for the end of the spot, the logo and the generator+fade slide along at the same point as I slip the clip. So I never get the right relationship of the end of the clip versus the fade without a bit of trial-and-error."

Yes. A feature request to be able to hold a modifier and slip clips without their connected clips moving would be all that's needed. For now, you have to easily move the clip out of the primary, slip, and move back (very easy shortcuts, but still more trouble than it's worth).

There also needs to be a way to use the keyboard to select connected clips without using the mouse. This process would go even faster.

Or do this:


fin.png

The "opacity fade" clip is a generator. Yes, I restabbed the clips to the opacity fade, but that takes less than a second. It'd be nice to be able to select both clips and hit the kb shortcut have the connection point repositioned, but alas you have to do it one clip at a time.

It is moments like this where FCPX shows its young age.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 2:41:07 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Yes. A feature request to be able.....
....Or do this:....
.....It is moments like this where FCPX shows its young age."


Completely agree and I understand these alternate methods. But these are all workarounds and "tricks" that are counter-intuitive in ways that make one pine for a track-based system.

This also adds another wrinkle we haven't discussed much here. A lot of the way X works is like flinging **** against a wall and re-arranging the mess. One editor does it COMPLETELY different than another. If I were to pick up a project after another editor on X or the other way around, it seems that the two approaches to the timeline may be so radically different, that neither would have any idea how to decipher what the other editor had done.

The app has both a rigid structure and no structure at all, which makes it all so confounding.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 3:08:43 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Completely agree and I understand these alternate methods. But these are all workarounds and "tricks" that are counter-intuitive in ways that make one pine for a track-based system.

This also adds another wrinkle we haven't discussed much here. A lot of the way X works is like flinging **** against a wall and re-arranging the mess. One editor does it COMPLETELY different than another. If I were to pick up a project after another editor on X or the other way around, it seems that the two approaches to the timeline may be so radically different, that neither would have any idea how to decipher what the other editor had done.

The app has both a rigid structure and no structure at all, which makes it all so confounding.
"


Ha! Of course it's true. There's a bit of new language to learn, new terms, new techniques, etc, and of course more work to be done to get more refinement out of the X timeline. The language is still being written.

There's been times when I have been handed FCP7 timelines, and they are complete cluster f*cks.

Or even harder is someone's Ae project, which can be hard to decode, or at least it can take a while to drill down far enough to see what's happening.

I do not think this is limited to the scope of FCPX.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 3:28:01 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Or even harder is someone's Ae project,"

Definitely!

[Jeremy Garchow] " There's a bit of new language to learn, new terms, new techniques, etc"

Which is the struggle. After over two decades of computer-based NLEs, we've all come to understand a reasonably similar syntax, regardless of brand.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I do not think this is limited to the scope of FCPX."

Agreed. DAWs would be another case where the similarities aren't as close as in most "traditional" NLEs.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 3:43:03 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Which is the struggle. After over two decades of computer-based NLEs, we've all come to understand a reasonably similar syntax, regardless of brand."

I know that the familiar is more comfortable. I understand that there are real cost implications to a wholesale change of technique in terms of time and expertise. Moving from FCP Legend to Pr is a decently "easy" transition, perhaps much easier than moving from FCP7 to FCPX for some people.

But after those 20 years, are tracks really the best we can do?

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 3:57:30 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "But after those 20 years, are tracks really the best we can do?"

After hundreds of years of composing symphonies, is the musical staff and notes really the best we can do? ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 3:59:09 pm

[Oliver Peters] "After hundreds of years of composing symphonies, is the musical staff and notes really the best we can do? ;-)
"


I've heard this analogy before, maybe it was you. :)

Do you read music?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:00:32 pm

Meaning - can you read music? (sorry)


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:07:51 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Meaning - can you read music? (sorry)"

Yes.

BTW - Look at Mistika if you want to see where Apple "borrowed" the trackless idea.

http://www.pixelution.co.uk/mistika-for-editing/

or sgo.es

Which originally started as Jaleo in the 90s.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:25:13 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Yes."

So then you know a notes position on the staff is absolute. In the same key, a G can never be an F. The staff defines a specific tone, the note defines the time. Written music is an alphabet of sorts.

Digital editing is not that exact. A video clip doesn't always have to be on the bottom row, or the top. With composting modes, even the top most visible layer doesn't need to visually be in the top of the layer stack.

While I agree that there is a modicum of similarity between NLEs, the timeline is not a musical staff and is much more flexible. Meaning is often implied, clips don't have as much meaning as notes on a staff.

I'll check out your links.

Jeremy


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:09:36 pm

[Oliver Peters] "After hundreds of years of composing symphonies, is the musical staff and notes really the best we can do? ;-)
"


No in fact not. That's a ver "EuroWestern" view of notation. There have not only been modern composers who have struggled with that, there are some very old cultures in Africa whose rhythms can't accurately be notated that way.

The result is, IMHO, music composition in constrained by a convention which needs to be replaced. Music notation is geared towards complex harmonic and instrument arrangement and a major fail when it comes to complex rhythms with relationships that change through time as well as microtonality and there's sonic structures which can evolve which can't be represented at all in traditional notation.

Your comment is IMHO a perfect example of constrained thinking in that the "conventional" is the best.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:15:48 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Your comment is IMHO a perfect example of constrained thinking in that the "conventional" is the best."

First of all his quote had to do with composing symphonies, not notating different world musics. Second of all it is not enough to point out the problems of an existing system unless you have a better system to recommend. Oliver was talking about "best" not about a hypothetical "ideal."

Your comment is a perfect example of supporting an illusory good over a functioning practice.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:36:59 pm

[Herb Sevush] "First of all his quote had to do with composing symphonies,"

That's an artificial limit. I don't want an NLE to force me into pop tunes and classical orchestration.
In the early days of Mac music software there was a wealth of innovative programs and interface designs.

[Herb Sevush] "unless you have a better system to recommend"
"better" is relative to what you're trying to achieve or what limits one accepts. As per above, that software existed for a time (and may still).

Since we're talking about FCPX, I think it's a healthy step in addressing limitations (conventions) in NLE design even if it's still very young.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:50:56 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Since we're talking about FCPX, I think it's a healthy step in addressing limitations (conventions) in NLE design even if it's still very young."

Actually at the moment we weren't talking about FCPX, we were talking about the logic of this statement:

[Jeremy Garchow] "But after those 20 years, are tracks really the best we can do?"

And the counter argument that the passage of 20 years is neither an argument for or against change. Some things should be changed after 20 minutes, others still have purpose after 2000 years. Music notation has been around for well over 300 years and while flawed, is still the best we've come up with.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:58:38 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Music notation has been around for well over 300 years and while flawed, is still the best we've come up with."

For the printed page and for the instruments that benefit from this method.

What about digitized music creation?

We have transferred from the analog to digital in the imaging world. Does the analog model still fit?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:16:41 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "What about digitized music creation?

We have transferred from the analog to digital in the imaging world. Does the analog model still fit?"


I notice your still using the alphabet in this digital world. Are letters the best we can come up with? Apparently yes, for the moment. I don't see anybody using binary or hex when leaving post-it's to our kids. Hell, we can't get Americans to switch to the metric system - I think the possibilities of switching shared symbolic conventions are smaller than you think.

Humans seem to be very attached to their conventional visual representations of information for sharing and storage - be it letters, numbers or staff notation. The actual symbols change and grow over time - look at mathematical notation for instance - but these are additions and refinements - not wholesale change.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 6:38:50 pm

[Herb Sevush] "I notice your still using the alphabet in this digital world. Are letters the best we can come up with? "

Until we can implant hardware in our brains to communicate wirelessly. Yes. There is simply no vehicle for that, perhaps Project Glass is a start? You will be able to see/hear what I am without talking or writing about it. Is that better than sending a letter describing my situation via post?

[Herb Sevush] "The actual symbols change and grow over time - look at mathematical notation for instance - but these are additions and refinements - not wholesale change."

You think FCPX is wholesale change or is it that start of refinement?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 6:43:39 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You think FCPX is wholesale change or is it that start of refinement?"

According to Apple it is revolutionary, not evolutionary. And we know that Apple is always right.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 6:51:53 pm

[Herb Sevush] "According to Apple it is revolutionary, not evolutionary. And we know that Apple is always right."

Ah, fu*k that. That is marketing.

Many new pieces of tech that comes out are revolutionary according to the marketing. Apple's marketing is no different and won't be the first or last to use this highly overused term.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 7:49:19 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Ah, fu*k that. That is marketing."

Well then to answer your original question sans sarcasm - I don't know if X is a refinement or wholesale change. Based on our discussions sometimes I think it is a wankel rotary engine - another way to do the same thing with different strengths and weaknesses, but no clear cut overall advantage.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 7:20:57 pm

[Herb Sevush] "According to Apple it is revolutionary, not evolutionary. And we know that Apple is always right."

Of course, you have to ignore the parts that were borrowed/lifted/adopted/appropriated/quoted from 'prior art'. "Great artists steal." - SJ.

Avid had a magnetic timeline function early on.
Mistika had trackless timelines.
Media 100 (and others) had A/B-roll timelines.
DS had a container function (not unlike compound clips).
DPS Velocity had clip linking/grouping functions.
Avid and Premiere Pro had Find and Custom Sift functions with show/hide capabilities.
Various NLEs had combined A/V tracks separate from V-only and A-only and Title-only tracks.
Various NLEs used a single viewer window.
ArtBox (then FC Server) had the database functions.

... I'm just sayin' ;-)

And then there are the various other attempts at non-standard (NLE track-style) timelines...

Montage - clips in order, IIRC
Ediflex - EDL style but based on lined script numbers
Quantel Harry/Henry/EditBox - vertical filmstrips
Immix - more of an A/B roll track sheet based on A/B roll + titles + audio
Mistika - floating, freeform order
Autodesk Flame - node-based
Editware - track-like, bus based on parallel channels of a playback server

Note - some of these are still quite successful in their niche, like Flame.

I just want to be clear, that I'm not saying FCP X's timeline won't survive or even thrive. Clearly you have both nodal and track-style compositors. It's just a question of whether tracks are more conducive to how editors work and think. If that's not true, then a new generation will make X the professional market leader. If it is true, then pros will stick to tracks and X will stay in the minority of apps used by pros. Too early to tell.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  
+1

Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:20:51 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "What about digitized music creation?"

Yes, it can be the challenges in conveying a piece like Karl Stockhausen's Kontakte or Gesang der Jünglinge but even the kind of "rhythm leading" in African cultures that Steve Reich has written about and incorporated into some of his compositions. Harry Partch and other "non octave" composers had notation challenges. Heck even Frank Zappa struggled in trying to notate what he was doing with his guitar playing.
And with digital also there's timbre documentation which can be integral to a piece and, in some cases, the concept of a "note" itself is a problem if the sound involves continual changing pitch.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:12:02 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Music notation has been around for well over 300 years and while flawed, is still the best we've come up with.
"


There are cultures much older than that that have produced music. The assumption that modern EuroWestern music notation is a "standard" is wrong IMHO. The premise is wrong because it's EuroCentric. It's not even either/or but a matter of musical intent in which there was music communicated before those methods of notation and there's branches of modern music using other forms of documentation to be communicated. Basically it's not "the best" nor even appropriate in some circumstances nor can it be in some cultures.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Herb SevushRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:26:49 pm

[Craig Seeman] "There are cultures much older than that that have produced music. "

And there are many great musicians than can't read music notation. So what? I never said western music notation encompasses all of music. it is the best system yet devised for communicating music to others without a personal interaction. It is not as good or as deep or as worldwide as teaching another player what you want them to play, but it beats anything else for knowing what was on a composers mind if he isn't around to tell you.

[Craig Seeman] "The assumption that modern EuroWestern music notation is a "standard" is wrong IMHO. The premise is wrong because it's EuroCentric."

Many things are eurocentric, that doesn't automatically make them invalid. Tell me a better way to communicate musical intent to a bunch of musicians who have never heard a composition, met the composer or even met each other. Poetry existed long before written language, but there's a reason why the printed page is valuable. The printing press was eurocentric as well, do we throw that out too?

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:36:34 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Tell me a better way to communicate musical intent to a bunch of musicians who have never heard a composition, met the composer or even met each other."

I can imagine very complex display of data on a device like a tablet that may better convey complex information.

And this conversation sort of began with "tracks" and Apple is certainly working on an alternative and I do think they will improve on imparting information to the editor although they still have aways to go. I expect (or at least hope) that Roles will became a flexible tool for displaying the data visually in different ways as needed for a given editorial style or goal.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:45:13 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I don't want an NLE to force me into pop tunes and classical orchestration."

Craig,

This is precisely why I find the ideological choice of "primary storyline" and A/B editing a questionable foundation for an NLE.

Why start with such conventions?

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:51:25 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "This is precisely why I find the ideological choice of "primary storyline" and A/B editing a questionable foundation for an NLE.

Why start with such conventions?"


I think Roles will allow much more freedom (eventually).
I also think Connections will progress as well into something more nodal.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Franz BieberkopfRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 5:59:42 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I think Roles will allow much more freedom (eventually).
I also think Connections will progress as well into something more nodal."


Craig,

Maybe. Personally I like to distribute my overly-optimistic hopes about pretend software evenly to all comers.

By that measure, Premiere Pro will have the best media relink capability of anyone.

Franz.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 6:20:30 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Craig,

Maybe. Personally I like to distribute my overly-optimistic hopes about pretend software evenly to all comers.

By that measure, Premiere Pro will have the best media relink capability of anyone."


I have no problem with that. I'm not sure I see anything unusual in their approach to relink (saying from afar since I haven't used it). Adobe Anywhere is a good example of innovation and implementation on their part. I don't mean to limit innovation to Apple at all. It would seem that the "unique" advantages of a given NLE are going to be "more unique" but each will grab ideas and develop them differently just as Adobe has implemented its own form of skimming.

As an aside, barring any changes, Avid is going to be left behind. I suspect they're stuck in "survival mode" and have the most to fear from a user base that doesn't like to deviate much from conventions.

Apple seems much more willing to take extreme risks . . . and they are risks. It's easy to see what they're gambling on. Hence my "attrition" reasoning.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:22:51 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Your comment is IMHO a perfect example of constrained thinking in that the "conventional" is the best."

Not at all. Merely snarky and rhetorical! My son is a gifted guitarist and guitar instructor and I can see first hand through him how difficult it is to accurately notate the kind of sounds that are second-nature to a non-classical player.

I don't think any of this is a matter of better or best. Merely a set of options. Apple is not the first nor the only company to design an NLE that doesn't use conventional tracks. Yet, for whatever reason, the majority of the market ends up right back at that place and the other solutions have changed or been marginalized. The reason can't be laziness or unwillingness to adapt to change all the time.

I can't say if tracks are better or not. Sometimes, yes, and sometimes, no. Nevertheless, tracks seem to "feel" more comfortable to most editors, regardless of experience. At least that's been the case, so far. FCP X may be more successful, because of the power of all things Apple.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRE: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:43:27 pm

[Oliver Peters] "My son is a gifted guitarist and guitar instructor and I can see first hand through him how difficult it is to accurately notate the kind of sounds that are second-nature to a non-classical player."

That's why exploring interface design, breaking from convention, is important. Certain in a market driven society there is significant capital risk but nonetheless, I'm glad there are risk takers. Apple can do it because there's very little capital risk (especially compared to Avid or Adobe).

[Oliver Peters] "I can't say if tracks are better or not. Sometimes, yes, and sometimes, no. Nevertheless, tracks seem to "feel" more comfortable to most editors, regardless of experience. At least that's been the case, so far. FCP X may be more successful, because of the power of all things Apple."

Yes. this is both Apple's to create a new kind of NLE which may land a beachhead in younger people who have not yet internalized conventions and as per above, they can take the market place risk.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:00:11 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "But after those 20 years, are tracks really the best we can do?"

After a few thousand years are round wheels the best we can do? Sometimes good solutions are good solutions. Ask Mazda how far they got with the Wankel Rotary engine, when they asked the same question about the traditional piston engine. I'm not saying that tracks are the best GUI for editing, I'm just saying that appealing to change for change's sake isn't a good critique. If you're going to make a new car without a steering wheel and floor pedals there has to be real tangible improvement for all to get the market to accept the innovation.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:42:51 pm

[Herb Sevush] "After a few thousand years are round wheels the best we can do?"

Wheels? Or is it the round shape? What is a wheel made up of? Is rubber the best we can do? Steel? There are many questions. It's not the wheel, it's the shape of the wheel and what it's made up of that can change. No, we don't need to reinvent the circle, but my guess is that we might be able reinvent the components that ultimate make a better wheel.

Also, jets.

[Herb Sevush] "I'm just saying that appealing to change for change's sake isn't a good critique. "

I am not appealing to change for change's sake. Certainly not. I just asked a question if it's really the best we can do.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Herb SevushRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 4:56:09 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I am not appealing to change for change's sake. Certainly not. I just asked a question if it's really the best we can do."

My bad, I took it to be a more rhetorical argument. As to the answer I have no idea - maybe, maybe not.

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 2:39:15 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Clip connections"

It'll be interesting to see where they go with this. With FCPX all things are relationships (that relational database thing as they're building it IMHO) so nothing is ever "free standing" even temporarily. Some would say that one should lock the relationship to time rather than a clip when needed. One can move the clip connection around but that's not the best solution in some circumstances. I imagine Apple will think this through but I don't think the solution is as "obvious" as some of us think.

[Oliver Peters] "I believe Apple is banking on the belief that the "traditional NLE" as we understand it today in Premiere Pro, Media Composer or FCP "legacy" will disappear."

If they're all the same, how would Apple differentiate itself. I suspect part of Apple's decision with X was not just to be first with feature types but to be different and some argue that being different for the sake of that is part of "the problem." More likely is that it'll be some kind of combination. Knowing that the established NLEs have to hold on to their current base will slow their progress in some areas. Ironically Apple's ability to jettison their base has given them the ability to "attempt" a great leap forward in thinking through the design and principles of an NLE.

[Oliver Peters] "When you consider that X is $300 for up to FIVE OWNED SYSTEMS, that's a pretty powerful incentive for producers - who want to bring post in-house - to move to X as it improves."

Relates well to my "win by attrition" theory. As new editors grow with the app, some will grow into facilities. The barrier to entry is extremely low when you expand from on to five computers for example and your software cost for new seats is zero. Of course this may be paying fast/loose with the licensing terms but Apple isn't likely to be greatly concerned as you're buying more Mac dongles.


[Oliver Peters] "FileMaker Pro, maybe, but mainly because they were spun off as a subsidiary."

Just an aside comment but at one point I thought this might happen to the pro apps division. I suspect Apple saw the benefit of very direct control though.


[Oliver Peters] " Apple revels in the 80/20 rule and seems to get software up to a passable point and then stops development other than maintenance. Look at Logic, Aperture, iLife apps, iWork apps, etc."

My thought is, how does the phrase go in financial reporting, something like "past results don't predict the future" (sorry, I botched it but I hope you know what I mean). Logic X is taking a very long time and my hunch is that it's going to be a major rewrite with very good FCPX integration. Apple's frequent significant feature updates with FCPX, indicate to me, they're aren't simply looking for stasis. I do think part if it is that the changes in this industry are more radical more quickly than in other areas.

Although not directly related, I think iBook Author is another area where Apple is taking on something new but there's a lot to the business model that might slow growth there. Books are moving to digital and interactivity in the new frontier in that market. There's a lot of fights in pricing and distribution though. One could say that last bit is also related to AppleTV's walls as well. My point though, is that Apple's goal is no longer blanketly stasis.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Oliver PetersRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 6:31:41 pm

While I wouldn't hold my breath for Apple to ever add back in something like tracks, I do think there's an interesting (and possible) hybrid approach. Namely one of "zones", "stripes", "lanes" or whatever else you want to call it.

For many of us, tracks create areas of demarkation. 1-8 for dialogue, 9-16 for SFX, 17-24 for music, etc. Roles don't help, because this is a form of visual organization as much as anything else. It would be great to be able to cordon off zones within the timeline window into which we could designate certain types of connecting clips to fall (and yes, here, roles could help).

This way my music track doesn't flop around into strange places when something I move causes clip-collision-avoidance by one of my VO or SFX connected clips. These could still flop around within their zones, but otherwise they don't intersect vertically from one zone into the other unless I purposefully make that move.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Craig SeemanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 6:42:41 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Roles don't help, because this is a form of visual organization as much as anything else"

I think Roles will become a visual organizing tool. Roles is heading in that direction but it's very early. I think it will have linear "track like" display capability. I can't seem Apple putting this kind of feature anywhere else. I also can't see Roles being limited to its current use. It's handling data and display and will improve in both those areas, I think.



Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Jeremy GarchowRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 6:44:53 pm

[Oliver Peters] "While I wouldn't hold my breath for Apple to ever add back in something like tracks, I do think there's an interesting (and possible) hybrid approach. Namely one of "zones", "stripes", "lanes" or whatever else you want to call it."

Heck yes. I would love something like Zones. I will have to find the original discussion on that.

I was pointed to a training piece done very early on by Larry Jordan. I don't have it, or I'd show you.

In it, there's a movie that shows a music track that pegs the music to time indefinitely. I think it might be similar to what iMovie calls a "Soundtrack" but I don't know. It was sort of like another primary storyline, it had no interaction with the rest of the timeline, and it seemed to be audio only. This could be good, but it can also be bad as you now have to treat it separately.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Chris HarlanRe: Tedious track based editing
by on Sep 12, 2012 at 8:14:47 pm

[Oliver Peters] "This way my music track doesn't flop around into strange places when something I move causes clip-collision-avoidance by one of my VO or SFX connected clips. These could still flop around within their zones, but otherwise they don't intersect vertically from one zone into the other unless I purposefully make that move."

I'd go for zones.


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]