FORUMS: list search recent posts

The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
David Lawrence
The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 12:20:46 am

This topic comes from a discussion on the UI differences between audio and video tools, thinking about music composition as a metaphor for editorial process, and how workflows differ in a multi-tracked open timeline vs. the magnetic timeline. You can catch up and join in here:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/16886

I want to address some questions and points raised in that and previous threads that I think warrant this separate topic.

From this post from Jeremy Garchow

[Jeremy Garchow] "Also, do you think that this style of editing simply is impossible in FCPXs timeline? I'm just curious, I am not attacking (and I'm sorry I have to say that). I really want to try and understand why this can't be done in FCPX. Also, let's make the huge assumption that Roles to OMF created the tracks and order that you need in a DAW. Maybe a screen grab of a typical timeline if you can? Help me understand what I seem to be really missing."

From this post from Andrew Richards

[Andrew Richards] "I don't see any technical barriers to being as creative in a magnetic timeline as you can be in an open track timeline. Default ripple and non-spatial organization may rub you the wrong way (like, a lot), but they are not exclusive of creativity. They are a different means to the same end."

From this post from Walter Soyka

[Walter Soyka] "After a little more thought, I'd argue that an NLE that "understands" editorial intent knows when to treat clips individually, when to treat them as a group, and how to define what should and should not be included in the group.

Does FCPX get this part right?"


From this post from Franz Bieberkopf

[Franz Bieberkopf] "In order for a designer to start designing around my "editorial intent", they have to start making a lot of assumptions about what editing is - or more specifically what kind of editing I want to do. In other words, they have to start designing around more formulaic models of what editing is. I think the long term implications of this are clear - taken to its conclusion, this will mean more formulaic editing and less creative approaches. (The irony here is interesting to me)...

...Strictly speaking, I think the only intent that can be assumed is that an editor will wish to put sound and image together in time. All else beyond that starts to get ... a bit messed up."




An Open Workflow Example

I want to address these questions by walking you through my typical workflow on the open timeline. These are screen grabs from a recent project. The workflow is typical of most of my jobs.



This is my log sequence. It is every clip from a roughly one hour interview laid out on the timeline. I've skimmed thru every clip in the browser, adding a commented marker at every interesting point in the actuality. I have a simple color coding system -- green markers are sound bytes I'll definitely use; red markers are interesting sections worth going back to. Anything in between I'll skim thru only if needed. This is my metadata.





This is my editorial sequence. There are three main zones:

1) These are my logged clips, copied from the log sequence. Since the interview audio is dual mono, the first thing I do is delete one audio track then select track and center pan. It takes a couple seconds. Guided by the markers, I'll use these clips as my edit source.

2) This is my edited segment. I've cut together close to 300 sub-clips to build a roughly 4.5 minute narration from the source. This narration is completely manipulated, down to the frame. It's filled with constructed sentences that were meant but never actually said, and completely different pacing and sequencing from the original interview. You'd never know, it sounds perfect.

3) This is my scratch area. You're looking at some left over clips I never bothered to clear. This is where I test ideas for editorial continuity and audio transparency. I use this area heavily as a staging area. I quickly jump back and forth between areas 1 and 3 as I build up area 2. The visual feedback of the green and red markers, as well as the marker comments makes finding what I'm looking for in the source easy. The flexibility of the open scratch area let's me quickly experiment as I build the final segment in section 2. I never worry about accidently messing anything up because I'm working here, instead of in my editorially locked area.

Note that I've set In and Out points for section 2. I'll export that section and send to my client for feedback. Once I get approval I make a new sequence:





This is my final sequence. Here I've added B-roll, made final editorial tweaks and color corrected. With picture locked, I turn to sound. I've round-tripped to Soundtrack Pro, added compression and noise-reduction taking advantage of VST plug-ins and STPs audio bussing. I import the final mix .aiff, conform then mute and minimize the source audio tracks.

Done. I'm ready to output the final for mastering, encoding and delivery.


This non-linear, checkerboard style has been at the heart of my workflow for many years. I find it exceptionally efficient and I'm very fast at it. I think there are tens of thousands of other editors who also work the way I do.

Here are my questions for you and for Apple:

What are my intentions as an editor for each of the timelines in each step of this process?

How would you accomplish this workflow with the magnetic timeline?

How would the magnetic timeline make this workflow any more efficient? What would the benefits be?

In the context of this workflow, how are the clip relationships emphasized by the magnetic timeline meaningful?


Looking forward to your thoughts and further discussion.

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


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 1:02:23 am

David, this edit methodology is similar to how I approach audio editing on a DAW with the difference that I have source at the end and the edit is at the beginning. You method however, allows for ripple edit which I don't use.

One difference is that I use tracks as further delineators of good/ best/ ng takes. This is because Fairlight is a track based editor so dedicated keys that are used to jump to clip start are modified by track selection which also automatically mutes playback of non selected tracks. The lack of track based select and mute functionality is partly what makes FCP of all flavours a clumsy audio editor.

For dialog editing, I think the Boris Soundbite is potentially more useful than meta data based magnetic timeline.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 1:47:34 am

[Michael Gissing] "David, this edit methodology is similar to how I approach audio editing on a DAW with the difference that I have source at the end and the edit is at the beginning. You method however, allows for ripple edit which I don't use. "

Michael --

I'm not surprised to hear this. I think understanding audio-centric workflow helps make the constraints of the magnetic timeline obvious. For editors who work like I do, it's inefficient for anything beyond the most basic editorial tasks.

You're correct that the reason I keep source at the front and edit from the end is because of ripple. I'll often shift-delete gap space as I'm cutting down dialogue. The important thing is ripple is a tool. I only use it when I need it. It's not the permanent state of my timeline workspace.

Imagine cutting dialogue or music on a timeline that's in fixed ripple mode -- the only way to hold time apart being with explicitly-placed spacer objects. Audio people would never accept this. I think it's a deal-breaker for most advanced video people as well.

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


Return to posts index


Christian Schumacher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 2:44:52 am

You are right on the money.

Editing involves many different intents at the same time.
AND every piece of work has its particular combination of them.

Hence the tool should allow you to place anything, anywhere...
Up or down...To the left or to the right… Freely, for God's sake.
AND preferably in alternative fashions, as well.

This is the "journey" that one needs to go through to craft an edit:
To experiment, to deliberate, to ponder feedbacks and to sort it all out.
The final result is achieved ONLY after we are able to do that.

Sadly, according to Apple's engineering brains (or marketing ones?)
we all should know it beforehand - Instead I say WE know it better.

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people
who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."

Mark Twain


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 7:36:46 pm

[Christian Schumacher] "Editing involves many different intents at the same time.
AND every piece of work has its particular combination of them.

Hence the tool should allow you to place anything, anywhere...
Up or down...To the left or to the right… Freely, for God's sake.
AND preferably in alternative fashions, as well.

This is the "journey" that one needs to go through to craft an edit:
To experiment, to deliberate, to ponder feedbacks and to sort it all out.
The final result is achieved ONLY after we are able to do that.
"


It is sort of freakish to me that this lack of flexibility is being sold as the new wave, and that people who are bemoaning the loss of variety in tools and palette are being labeled fudsters for standing in the way. This is NOT a program to sing "The times, they are a changin'" to.


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 1:43:48 pm

[David Lawrence] "Imagine cutting dialogue or music on a timeline that's in fixed ripple mode -- the only way to hold time apart being with explicitly-placed spacer objects. Audio people would never accept this. I think it's a deal-breaker for most advanced video people as well."

But "fixed ripple mode" isn't really an accurate description of how the Magnetic Timeline works. First, the rippling behavior differs for storyline clips and connected clips. Rippling only occurs within storylines, not not between ungrouped connected clips or between separate secondary storylines.

Secondly, even within a storyline the Position tool creates gaps without the user explicitly placing spacers, and while I guess you could say "Replace with gap" is placing a spacer 'explicitly', this is only because it's name has been changed to indicate this; in terms of behavior it's just a non-ripped delete, which I don't think most people would describe as 'explicitly' placing a spacer in FCP 7.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index


Jeff Folland
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 1:56:36 am

There really isn't any reason you can't cut exactly like this is fcp x. In fact its the same method I used in fcp7 so I'm very familiar with it (although I would usually shift delete the garbage out as I went). If you use the positon tool and gap clips in fcp x its exactly the same as old school fcp. In fcp x it's easier since in the primary storyline when you get to the state of shuffling clips around to set their order and stitch your interview together, they ripple out of the way. No more having to do the dance of selecting everything down the line and making a gap. etc. It's actually much easier and faster once you get the workflow.

But it's ignoring the even better way of doing this which is tagging in the event window. Go through clip by clip like you would in the timeline. Set ins and outs and mark sections as favorites and tag them with various tags like 'must use'. 'interesting' etc. Think of the tags as your markers. When you are done with this process you not only have the clips you want marked but also have rough ins and outs set. And with smart collections you can have the same content in multiple collections. Multiple tagging allows for a lot more depth like tagging by person or content as well as priority of use. This adds signifanctly to the speed of zeroing in on a clip you are trying to find. Then filter your events to show favorites and select the 'must use' collection. It's like you already have a rough edit of the must use stuff in the event window. Then you drag them into the timeline in the order you see fit for fine tuning. All the usual controls work with keyboard trimming ins and outs to tighten up edits. But it's doing much more heavy lifting in the event window than you would do in the old bin way of fcp 7 which you and I were making up for by cutting and tagging in the fcp 7 timeline. You could still use a gap clip to create a scratch section where you shuffle stuff around.

Now getting to the cutaway phase is a different mindset without tracks and I'm still wrapping my brain around the pluses and minuses. But for cutting long interviews into tighter edits as you described, I think fcp x is actaully much, much faster and easier to organize. I know that's a very rare opinion in these here parts!

J


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 4:44:08 am

"Go through clip by clip like you would in the timeline"

It seems that works for a certain intent, but surely not to visualize them stringed together which is David's point in this thread.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 5:29:22 am

First, David L, I can't thank you enough for taking the time. This will certainly help keep a healthy dialogue going. I will craft a detailed response when I'm in front of FCPX and can provide more screen grabs.

I understand what's in 2 but i cant see it are, so to clarify, are those just the little dialogue edits with overlaps (checkerboard)? Looks messed up, but sounds great? :). And 3 is a few or more left overs?

I do have to say that part of my response is what Jeff Foland has said. Since I know you are a timeline organizer (as I am in FCP7), I will keep my responses more tailored to that, but I do have to jump in here really quick:

[Christian Schumacher] "It seems that works for a certain intent, but surely not to visualize them stringed together which is David's point in this thread."

and you can do this in FCPX before you hit the timeline. With the favorites sorted you can make a compound clip (in the browser) of just the favorites and make one clip if you want to, and that clip is then editable in to the timeline, and can be broken apart at anytime in the timeline (or opened in another timeline, and necessary parts copied and pasted). To this compound clip, you can add/remove/reorder whatever you want, including more layers of video/broll/audio.

Alternatively, keeping the favorites as separate clips in the browser, you can easily skim to the next clip. Skimming, is awesome. I didn't like it at first, seemed a bit out of control, but I learned to control it.

Thanks again, to everyone. More later.


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 9:19:52 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I understand what's in 2 but i cant see it are, so to clarify, are those just the little dialogue edits with overlaps (checkerboard)? Looks messed up, but sounds great? :). And 3 is a few or more left overs?"

Here's a couple close ups so you can see what's going on:



Section 2 (marked with In and Out points) is the edited segment
Section 3 is the scratch area. This area is where I experiment as I build in section 2


Zooming in closer:



This is the zoom level I typically work at for fine cutting. I have dedicated buttons on my mouse that make zooming in and out super fast.

Some things to note:

I use volume curves to get subframe accuracy with audio transitions. I frequently use two-frame dissolves as well. You'll see one at 3:33:14. I create them with a single click and can easily set them to start, center or end of edit. I find these tools to be more accurate and responsive than the tools in FCPX. Technically, FCPX may be more accurate, but the gratuitous UI chrome and animation makes it feel sloppy. BTW, did you know you can't do a two-frame dissolve in FCPX? Three is the minimum. (feature request?)

Using these tools and techniques, I create seamless audio right in the timeline. I rarely need to make any edit adjustments by the time I go to Soundtrack Pro for sweetening.

The second track is room tone.

Maybe I'm not being clear about what I mean when I say "checkerboarding". I'm referring to a process, not necessarily how the timeline looks. Checkerboarding is actually an old-school term that refers to CMX linear days. The CMX operator would program in the EDL and because the tape decks were computer-controlled and frame accurate, it was possible to "checkerboard" all the material from the source tape to exactly where it needed to be on the record side. This made assembly efficient because you never needed to swap back and forth between source reels. When I was at LucasFilm, we made laserdiscs that were used as frame stores for database-driven multimedia projects. Each of the 54,000 frames was either a single-frame edit or a segment of moving stills. We used checkerboading a lot.

In the context of NLEs when I talk about checkerboard workflow, what I mean is the process of building a sequence in a totally random access manner. Starting at the end, middle or beginning; working backwards or from the center. It doesn't matter, it's completely fluid because that's the nature of the digital medium. NLEs made checkerboarding a completely natural way to work in video.

[Jeremy Garchow] "and you can do this in FCPX before you hit the timeline. With the favorites sorted you can make a compound clip (in the browser) of just the favorites and make one clip if you want to, and that clip is then editable in to the timeline, and can be broken apart at anytime in the timeline (or opened in another timeline, and necessary parts copied and pasted). To this compound clip, you can add/remove/reorder whatever you want, including more layers of video/broll/audio."

See my response to Jeff regarding favorites. I'm not sure this would work with my method because I don't know what I want until I'm in the process. Agree about compound clips, but I think jumping in and out of context would break my flow and slow me down. I feel like my efficiency depends on having everything available all at the same time in the same place. I'll give it a try and let you know.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Alternatively, keeping the favorites as separate clips in the browser, you can easily skim to the next clip. Skimming, is awesome. I didn't like it at first, seemed a bit out of control, but I learned to control it."

I like skimming :)

[Jeremy Garchow] "I will craft a detailed response when I'm in front of FCPX and can provide more screen grabs. "

Looking forward!

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 9:38:46 am

[David Lawrence] " I create them with a single click and can easily set them to start, center or end of edit. I find these tools to be more accurate and responsive than the tools in FCPX. Technically, FCPX may be more accurate, but the gratuitous UI chrome and animation makes it feel sloppy. BTW, did you know you can't do a two-frame dissolve in FCPX? Three is the minimum. (feature request?)"

If you are talking about audio dissolves then you are not correct, you can create audio mixes at a subframe level

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 4:57:57 pm

FCPx lovers are assuming that FCPx critics are non-educated enough.
Well, the converse is also true, ironically. Because I am assuming that
they can't grasp the myriad of intents one should have in crafting an edit.

I appreciate Jeremy's position when he tries to engage in a healthy
and thoughtful debate here. Cheers, mate.
But I suspect that having a compound single clip placed in the timeline
won't give you the visual clue of the original set-up, where the edits are just there.

Instead, in FCPx, it's buried in a nest that you HAVE to work with in a exclusively fashion.
And surprisingly (not so much, alrite) we have to to think of it beforehand.

I have read your ideas on how dynamic panels could be
the right response for a lot of the problems people are facing.
From all the useful input you have provided, those should be pretty obvious…

Sure one could just build all your footage into one-single-big-fat-project-string, but
where did all the alternatives go? Should we create an additional project?
I am sure you're going to need it right there as fuming memories chips are melting.

Some people have to deal with tens of hours to get to a less-than-ten-minute-piece:
That's what I'm talking about, primarily. Depending on the complexity of the subject
that tool they use (sometimes only tool) should help them. Not hinder them.

Has anybody here suggesting to leave Apple's rocky boat ever heard
of the definition of freelance job? No choosing anytinhg!
OK, now go put your iphones in your tight pants pockets and sit down :-)

Expanding David's example, where one could have the select's cut
itself presented right in the scratch timeline at a glance,
all the Clip created markers could be combined with Timeline created markers
additionally as you work within the edit.
Though markers be it on clips or compounds should make a viable feature request.

I see how compounds work well with a lot of things, but is crucial
to have tracked based sequences and the ability of having trivial features,
such as duplicating a timeline, custom auto-saves, custom window lay-outs
and finnaly the Viewer for the intertwined edits of sequence content
or the beloved and essential "gang" feature.

Not mentioning here the legacy expected features, of course,
just the core-design ones. And speaking of them…
As long as FCPx's flawed design doesn't catch-up,
it won't fly beyond the hipster's desk. (or hands for that matter)

It's still full of restraints and the worst part is that they are blatantly scrammed in there.
And on purpose. It is sad but true: There will be plenty more hands out there
than workstation desktops - for FCPx's glory.

At the end of the day (or the decade) we wish this tool to improve itself...
AND the craft of editing as well.


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 5:49:35 pm

Thank you, Christian. You bring up some great points.

Once I get back to X at the office, I will address what you are saying here as a screen grab is worth a thousand MBs. Direct correlations of timeline pictures will help me as I think I should be able to address it.

The compound is one way of working. It was a response to seeing things strung together. I don't and wouldn't work that way as it's not my style, but a skimmable clip of all your selects could/would/can be efficient.

Keep in mind that Apple really is asking a lot of us, but I do think that ultimately, FCPX is a pretty powerful program.

Statements like Rafael and others have made similar to, "I can't edit a timeline in FCPX with audio, visual and titles" don't add up to me as FCPX is definitely more than capable, and in my opinion easier to do with more creativity, albeit a bit different from a track based timeline. If FCPX isn't working for someone, that's totally fine. It can't be for everyone and I still can't use it without video out, but I have been asking a lot of questions like "how" and "why" these things can't be done and then people end up getting mad at me for some reason. I haven't really been getting solid answers. What this says to me is that there's a lot of confusion and it's creating a bit of anger. Totally understandable.

Questions like, "how is this better", or "where'd the alternatives go" are great questions and fun to answer. I like to talk these things out, I think it helps everyone, and ultimately will help us get to where we need to go, whether that's X or PPro, Vegas or Lightworks, Edius or GVS, and maybe even Avid.

Your point of the melting memory chips rings so true with me, I think FCPX will help in this regard, even with a cursory organization, as the access to the clips is so dynamic.

I think FCPX is providing a bit of muscle confusion at the moment, but this is not a bad thing.


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 6:35:04 am

Couldn't agree more Jeff.

Its interesting that people still not really analyse the x timeline. All they see is ripple being the default and no tracks.
If you actually look at your options you have 'forward delete' ('function-delete' on small or reduced keyboards) which is the classical lift. It really shows that if you just looking for the old way (and not reading the manual) you'll miss all the added functionality.

Specially true looking at audio. FCPx makes SoundtrackPro really obsolete and takes audio editing far beyond FCP7 (of course a dedicated DAW is still ahead)
First of all audio is edited at sample level no matter if it is part of a video clip or not. This gives you a precision FCP7 can only dream off.
All plugins are right in FCPx and buses can be simulated by compounding audio clips into logical groups which than can have additional plugins and their own volume graph. Yes you don't have them in place when opened but as one mixes in batches anyway it's easy to make adjustments to individual clips before compounding them. And little adjustments can be done anytime by opening the compound, or you break the pound apart, adjust, and compound again.
Just imagine the classical scenario of the client returning after a week and wanting changes. In FCP7-Soundtrack world you were in deep trouble as the conform changes never worked! In FCPx you'll be down in no time 'cause everything is still in one timeline!

FCPx needs some adjusting to workflows you are used to from FCP7, Premiere or Avid. But the gains in FCPx far outweigh some shortcomings one might encounter when trying to use the old 'muscle memory'.

I just had a little project where I threw everything from 320 flash to 1080 into one 720 timeline and the picture quality FCPx delivers is just stunning compared to FCP7. Audio is so much faster and better to work with, if alone by the fact that the waveform is really fast and therefor gives you a true optical aid to edit audio (FCP7 rebuild waveform is stone age).

FCPx needs time to be understood and to practise best workflows. For me the starting idea to get rid of tracks so I don't have to think about track panels, audio with video, sync issues etc is really really good.
That I run into little problems like yesterday where I was editing to music (on main storyline) and I wanted to shift a number of secondary story lines and titles, looking for the 'select everything from here forward' function and of course couldn't find it. I need to adjust my approaches because the timelines system work differently. And I'm sure I will run into some dead ends before I know the quickest way to get from A to B. Same as I had using FCP7

If you think the old way is better safe your time and stick with FCP7, Premiere or Avid. I don't think FCPx will change. The only thing they'll add is more functionality to group clips based on certain criteria.

my 2 cents.

Carsten


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 8:08:10 am

[Jeff Folland] "Go through clip by clip like you would in the timeline. Set ins and outs and mark sections as favorites and tag them with various tags like 'must use'. 'interesting' etc. Think of the tags as your markers."

FCPX's metadata and tagging features are one of its greatest strengths. They're so interesting in fact, that I think FCPX would make an excellent logging and preflight assembly tool. If there were some XML translation utility, I'd be using it today. I wrote about a logging workflow like you describe here in the FCPX Techniques forum:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/344/4418

[Jeff Folland] " It's like you already have a rough edit of the must use stuff in the event window."

It's not even close. I don't work with a script, I make everything up as I go along. I may know something is "must have" but I have no idea how or where I'll use it until I start building the piece. And as I build, I may change my mind several times. I never know what the finished piece will look like until it's done. It's a creative, organic process. The process is what defines the workflow.

[Jeff Folland] "You could still use a gap clip to create a scratch section where you shuffle stuff around. "

You're still in ripple mode. Only now you have keep track of not just the stuff you're cutting, but also everything in the space in-between. How is that a better way to work?

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


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 9:14:23 am

David, you do understand that the position tool disables ripple? If you use the position tool nothing on the timeline ripples, it just automatically creates gaps when you leave a space. That is the only way it is different to FCP7 in terms of clip positioning,

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Jeff Folland
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 12:33:10 pm

David you said...It's not even close. I don't work with a script, I make everything up as I go along. I may know something is "must have" but I have no idea how or where I'll use it until I start building the piece. And as I build, I may change my mind several times. I never know what the finished piece will look like until it's done. It's a creative, organic process. The process is what defines the workflow.

I'm not saying it's close to a final edit but it is a bin or a collection or a timeline (call it what you want) of all the stuff you marked as must use. And it really is no different than what you are already doing. You are going through a big long interview(s) in zone 1 and flagging the bits you really like with a green marker. Then when that's done you go through and collate all your favorite bits into zone two and shuffle them around finding an order that works. Zone 1 has been replaced with the tagging and collection. Ripple preferences aside, you no longer have to go back and forth on the timeline from zone 1 and zone 2. Zone 1 and 2 are both open at the same time in x (the timeline and the collection). I don't see how that is any less creative or organic. You are still arranging clips in the timeline to preference. You still have a marked subset of all your footage you are using as a palette. you still have freedom to place any clip anywhere. That is no different.


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 5:44:08 pm

[Jeff Folland] "You still have a marked subset of all your footage you are using as a palette. you still have freedom to place any clip anywhere. That is no different."

This is my view as well. As far as I can see, the workflow presented in the original post is simply using an unoptimized general purpose tool for an organizational task that FCP X actually provides more optimized task-specific tools for. Scrubbing in filmstrip view in the browser view makes it much easier to move though large quantities of footage. Tagging and marking favorite regions of clips is far more powerful than simply dropping markers, and more streamlined and flexible than doing something like creating named subclips (which wasn't part of this workflow, but is another common approach to pulling selects in FCP 7).

People keep accusing Apple of not understanding what editors do. I think the truth is more that Apple designed Final Cut Pro without regard for how current NLEs work. Instead, they went back and looked at what high-level tasks editors perform, and designed a new interface from the ground up specifically to facilitate that. Some critics have confused the mechanics of how these tasks are performed in current NLEs with the tasks themselves.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 1:21:03 am

Brilliant post Chris!
Your last paragraph is I think the summary of the problem here :-)

Cheers


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 5:49:53 am

[Chris Kenny] "People keep accusing Apple of not understanding what editors do."

According to Larry Jordan: "Retaining In and Out points for clips in the Event Browser is undergoing a debate in Apple. So is the ability to read source timecode for clips in the Timeline."

If the geniuses in Cupertino really are debating persistent In and Out points and reading source timecode, I think the case of Apple of not understanding what editors do makes itself.

[Chris Kenny] "Some critics have confused the mechanics of how these tasks are performed in current NLEs with the tasks themselves."

Let's say there's a bathtub filled with water in front of us. Our task is to empty the bathtub with the tools we've been given. I get to use a five-gallon bucket. You get to use a spoon. Same task, different mechanics. One of us is gonna be a lot more efficient than the other. Task and mechanics are intrinsically related when it comes to efficiency. That's what UI design is all about.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 11:59:25 am

[David Lawrence] " So is the ability to read source timecode for clips in the Timeline.""

That's weird. Using almost any tool but the selection tool displays source tc. Wonder what they are still debating?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 5:20:30 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "That's weird. Using almost any tool but the selection tool displays source tc. Wonder what they are still debating?"

Weird is right. But the one that really gets me is persistent In and Outs. I mean seriously, what on earth is there to debate???

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 6:28:40 pm

[David Lawrence] "But the one that really gets me is persistent In and Outs. I mean seriously, what on earth is there to debate???"

Well, this is just total conjecture, but FCP7 was always caching, always caching, and that caused some problems with certain workflows (like Color renders not updating, weird audio renders, XMl files getting stuck/not updated, and other anomalies).

When adding that in and point, you have to store that info somewhere. Being that FCPX's browser is so dynamic, this could probably add up to a lot of little calculations pretty quickly, thus slowing performance, or making things move slowly. Writing a bunch of little files to SAN volumes can take a long time as that's the way a metadata controlled SAN system (such as XSAN) work. If the event file is constantly caching all these little in and out pints, it make make for a less efficient system.

Like I said, it's just conjecture, but I bet it has to do with some sort of system architecture rather than deciding if it should be a useful feature. I am sure it's possible, but is it the best decision from a stability standpoint when there's other ways to store in and out? Perhaps that's what they are asking themselves. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just do it?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 6:39:58 pm

I've argued elsewhere that the event browser is acting more like a DAM in this regard, and less like an NLE source monitor.

With FCPX, media clips exists independently of the project (whereas in FCP7, you stored clips within the project itself). In and out points belong to the media within the context of a single project, but they do not globally belong to the media across all projects.

The event browser would have be contextually aware to present the proper in and out for a media clip, depending upon the current project.

I think that resolving the stored In/Out points goes back to the question of how to best associate a media clip with the projects that use it.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 7:29:31 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think that resolving the stored In/Out points goes back to the question of how to best associate a media clip with the projects that use it."

Well, isn't it just that simple? The project uses it, the in/out gets cached to that project? Every project already has event references.

New project, new cache?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 7:36:41 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Well, isn't it just that simple? The project uses it, the in/out gets cached to that project? Every project already has event references.

New project, new cache?"


Exactly. Seems like caching at a project level would be the way to go. Unless event references are stored at the event level?

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 7:36:58 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Well, isn't it just that simple? The project uses it, the in/out gets cached to that project? Every project already has event references. New project, new cache?"

I would think so, but my guess is that the debate is more about the role of the event browser (is it a DAM, a source monitor, or both?) than how to technically achieve stored in/out points.

But what about a project that uses multiple ranges within the same clip? That information could and should all be preserved (unlike FCP7, which only stores the last set in/out per clip). Like so many other concepts, the way FCPX should handle it may not be the way FCP7 did. This is the perfect case for a new use of old metadata.

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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 7:46:09 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I would think so, but my guess is that the debate is more about the role of the event browser (is it a DAM, a source monitor, or both?) than how to technically achieve stored in/out points."

I would challenge that. ;)


[Walter Soyka] "But what about a project that uses multiple ranges within the same clip? "

How would you have that? You can't have more than one selected range on a clip. It would just store the last range, just like FCP7.


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 8:14:26 pm

Marking favorites or similar allows you to have multiple range selections in a clip. Some other marking indicator, such as the orange tag used in iMovie, could be used on a clip to indicate a range that's been edited into the active project. Switching projects would should a different selection range. This functionality is already in iMovie. No idea why it's not in FCP.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 8:17:32 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Walter Soyka] "But what about a project that uses multiple ranges within the same clip? "

How would you have that? You can't have more than one selected range on a clip. It would just store the last range, just like FCP7."


Walter, by range are you referring to multiple tagged regions?

I agree with Jeremy -- why not have a special flavor or metadata for In/Out that persists in the UI until it's redefined by the user?

The other thing that really bugs me in the browser is the way that if you click anywhere inside a selected range, the time indicator sticks, allowing you to set an In/Out point, but if you click anywhere outside the range, it selects the entire clip. That's just sloppy. Command-A for "select all" makes much more sense as an explicit expression of user intent and has been the Mac OS standard since 1984.

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


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 8:48:01 pm

"and has been the Mac OS standard since 1984"

Maybe because those standards won't be there anymore in the near future?
Why would you perform a "select all" when you can say -Beam me up, Scotty?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 9:02:07 pm

[David Lawrence] "I agree with Jeremy -- why not have a special flavor or metadata for In/Out that persists in the UI until it's redefined by the user?"

Right -- but what does that mean when the event browser crosses projects? The last set of In/Out points I made on that clip in any project, or the last set of In/Out points I made for the current project?


[David Lawrence] "Walter, by range are you referring to multiple tagged regions?"

Imagine a single interview clip, from which you have cut several small pieces into the timeline. I'm suggesting that although remembering the last set of In/Out points is useful, with all the attention we're paying to metadata now, remembering ALL of the sets of In/Out points associated with that clip for each project (and maybe even across projects) would also be useful.

For example, it might be really helpful to be able to expand a clip, showing and skimming all its in-use ranges as well as its unused ranges right in the browser.

I'm trying to think a little more like Jeremy here -- not what we're doing now, but what we could do if we were going to eliminate prior assumptions about how an NLE should work (although when cutting film, only showing unused footage on the source side is the default).

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

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 9:55:09 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'm trying to think a little more like Jeremy here -- not what we're doing now, but what we could do if we were going to eliminate prior assumptions about how an NLE should work (although when cutting film, only showing unused footage on the source side is the default)."

I'm with both of you on this, but also I think they serve different purposes -- ranges behaving like sub-clips, while In/Out points indicating a specific range I'm only interested in right now. Maybe because this is a section I want to cut into my sequence or a section of my timeline I want to export as a discreet file (something I do constantly).

Conceptually, it's like the difference between global and local. Why not simply allow for both? I see no reason why global metadata ranges and local In/Out points couldn't happily co-exist.

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


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 8:17:57 pm

"unlike FCP7, which only stores the last set in/out per clip"

True that but one can always populate a bin with subclips and/or
record them onto selects sequences and both will hold all that log work.

FCPX does that with keywords. Back to the object vs. text dichotomy?

Though if you take your selected clips and create a compound clip
from the event browser you could have a similar approach, apparently.


Return to posts index

Christian Schumacher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 3:23:27 pm

Let's say that the spoon is iMovie and FCP7 is the bucket.

What could have been "awesome" to do to improve that task?
To develop a hose(call it FCPx)to empty the bathtub right to the sink.

The problem is that this new hose workflow is lacking a water pump!
And we have to suck the water out ourselves...Now back to the bucket.


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 5, 2011 at 2:20:56 am

[David Lawrence] "If the geniuses in Cupertino really are debating persistent In and Out points and reading source timecode, I think the case of Apple of not understanding what editors do makes itself. "

Err... these are absolutely implementation details. Neither of these behaviors is in any way required by the process of editing in the abstract.

(And these UI issues are not a clear-cut as they might appear. Source timecode for clips in the timeline can be trivially found by using the 'Open in Timeline' command. I imagine the debate is over whether to allow the main timecode viewer to be switched to show source timecode, something that would be useful, but potentially confusing, thus the debate. As far as persistent in/out points, I suspect the 'con' argument is that explicitly marking favorites is better practice and not very hard to adapt to.)

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 5, 2011 at 5:07:01 am

[Chris Kenny] "Err... these are absolutely implementation details. Neither of these behaviors is in any way required by the process of editing in the abstract."

Chris, the problem with that argument is that the process of editing never happens in the abstract. Editors work in the real world. Lots ideas are fantastic in the abstract, but quickly hit a wall in actual use. FCPX is filled with them. Implementation reflects design intention.

[Chris Kenny] "I imagine the debate is over whether to allow the main timecode viewer to be switched to show source timecode, something that would be useful, but potentially confusing, thus the debate."

Confusing to whom? This is supposed to be professional software for professional editors. I think we can handle it. Just sayin' ;)

[Chris Kenny] "As far as persistent in/out points, I suspect the 'con' argument is that explicitly marking favorites is better practice and not very hard to adapt to."

In/Out points and favorites have different uses in a typical editorial workflow. I think of favorites as virtual sub-clips. In/Out marks are something entirely different. The hypothetical 'con' argument just doesn't make sense. As far as In/Out marks go, it's a no-brainer. I expect we'll see them an update eventually.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 7, 2011 at 5:04:05 pm

[Chris Kenny] "Source timecode for clips in the timeline can be trivially found by using the 'Open in Timeline' command."

Or selecting the trim, blade or range tool and skimming over a clip in line.

[Chris Kenny] "I imagine the debate is over whether to allow the main timecode viewer to be switched to show source timecode, something that would be useful, but potentially confusing, thus the debate."

Yes. What happens when you have 5 layers of video and 16 tracks of audio, all with their own tc? Which one do you show?

[Chris Kenny] "As far as persistent in/out points, I suspect the 'con' argument is that explicitly marking favorites is better practice and not very hard to adapt to.)"

I agree, but it would be nice if I select a range, then click off of that clip to get check something else (like double check I have the right shot or something), then click back on that clip that the range will still be there. The range remains until I click somewhere.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Daniel Annefelt
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 2:36:35 pm

[David Lawrence] "FCPX's metadata and tagging features are one of its greatest strengths. They're so interesting in fact, that I think FCPX would make an excellent logging and preflight assembly tool. If there were some XML translation utility, I'd be using it today."

Would this do the trick?
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/09/announcing-project-x27/

.-daniel

Daniel Annefelt
Producer, Creative & Design
MTV Networks North


Return to posts index

Nick Toth
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 11:01:40 am

Jeff - I agree with you 100%. I recently cut together a talking head piece and it was much faster than I could have done it in 7 (FYI I'm an FCP user since 1.25). It just doesn't seem so clunky as it did in previous versions.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 7:33:02 am

David, that's pretty much the way I work with interview based films too. I have been working like that all week in FCPX, the position tool allows you to do this. Then when you are composing your main edit, the ripple function makes it easier to re-order clips.

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 11:39:05 am

Hi,
I come from the field with hours of footage and ITWs (10/40 hours, after 1/3 weeks) on any subject, and just a general idea of how to put all that together.
I select, edit and write the text, that will link all the elements, all at once. Sometimes I write text in FCs subtitles as it comes to my head, so I don't waist time to put it down somewhere else and i don't forget it.
A sequence of mine could look similar to one of those posted by David:
10/20 minutes; few more layers for the titles, subtitles, Lower-firsts, and 6/8 audio tracks (ambience, 2 languages and music).
Can't do that in FCPX.

[Jeff Folland] "But it's ignoring the even better way of doing this which is tagging in the event window. Go through clip by clip like you would in the timeline. Set ins and outs and mark sections as favorites and tag them with various tags like 'must use'. 'interesting' etc...This adds signifanctly to the speed of zeroing in on a clip you are trying to find. Then filter your events to show favorites and select the 'must use' collection. It's like you already have a rough edit of the must use stuff in the event window. Then you drag them into the timeline in the order you see fit for fine tuning."

The BEST WAY is the one that works better for each one.
That's may be the best way for YOU, but not for ME.
That's the best way for you because when you start to edit you probably have NO IDEA of what you gonna edit and probably you will have no time to go properly through all the stuff.

But that's a waist of time for me.
I shoot my footage, I download it and back-it-up and I import it to FC, so, when I go to start to edit I have a very good knowledge of my stuff.
So, before you even have decided how to tag your clips, I my footage selected and organized in and WITHOUT TYPING all day long (but few sequences and bin names).

When you have finished to select, tag and mark your stuff, I have my movie half edited.
If I would go the FCPX way, I would never finish.
In short, the best way in doing this is not FCPX way, but mine. Believe me.
If you would have your own way you would agree with me that is better than FCPX.

Supposedly FCPX brigs "creative freedom", but all this is cleric work and bureaucracy.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Jeff Folland
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 1:10:54 pm

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest this is the BEST way ever in the history of editing. I simply meant that if you are using fcp x and editing in zones as suggested in the first post, this is what I have gathered to make most efficient use of the tools. Not that this is THE way.

However I don't agree that this is any longer of a process when you suggest you would have half the edit done. I also work on content that I am very familiar with before the edit. You still at some point have to say this clip starts here and ends here and at this point it will work best tagged for this section. Tagging and key wording is no slower than sorting into bins and multiple timelines for me. You still at some point have to get your arms around the beast. And I don't see how adding subtitles, titles and lower thirds is any less efficient. In fact I think with compound clips it can be easier to turn this stuff into one unit on the timeline rather than a stack that needs multiple selections.

I'm not trying to sell anyone on using fcp x. There are all sorts of issues I've had with it and I have a long, long running list of things which I think they should improve. But when I read this thread I thought that I could share my experience going from editing in the zone fashion to switching to the collections and tagging method. It is a mindset change and maybe for some it's not for the better. And there are some longer, more complicated edits I still default to fcp 7 for because I am used to arranging on the timeline both horizontally and vertically. Maybe it's comfort in how I've done it over the past twelve years or maybe it is that fcpx is flawed for me. There really isn't a right or wrong or best or worst way and I did not mean to suggest that. But If you want to force fcpx to work like you did in the past with fcp it will be a long, hard, uphill road.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 8:05:52 pm

Also as people keep pointing out, you don't HAVE to keyword, you can work in FCPX in exactly the same way as FCP7, set your bins as keywords and I'll say this loudly KEYWORDS CAN WORK IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS BINS.

I know this because I'm working like this every day on FCPX and I've spent the time learning how it works.

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 9:10:18 pm

I"LL CHIME IN LOUDLY TOO.

TAGS ARE DIFFERENT TO BUCKETS.

BINS ARE CONTAINERS, TAGS ARE METADATA

koff koff - wait why am I shouting?

seriously tho - the keywords cannot be made to function like bins - you cant open and arrange multiple keywords on the second monitor so you can casually visually scan the contents of the various keywords. those would be bins. Instead you get to click on a tiny little keyword squashed up in the corner under all those dated events, then all the files associated with that keyword are populated to the right of it in the one virtual folder that exposes all the keyword collection - the event browser - but in this case its kind of the keyword browser? of course the items it exposes are the original clips, so then in list view you have to twirl down the stupid finicky arrow to see the assigned keywords.

TAGS ARE NOT THE SAME AS BINS. NOT AT ALL. NOT IN CONCEPTION, SEMANTICS, OR OPERATION.

I had a shouting fit again. I recognise the strength of tagging but if forced to, I will choose bins every last time - they're way more muscular and robust overall and also allow for spatial organisation which is not to be underestimated. As opposed to that hulking stupid inappropriate iphoto persistent digital assets management library wedged up there in the corner of FCPX. I think that thing gets far too much respect.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 9:30:47 pm

Purely because it was more fun when people were posting timelines in the beginning of this thread, I thought I'd post a snap of one of mine from back in FCP v5.

Branded graphic heavy long form training with many embedded video examples that had to function like a video driven powerpoint in live training situations.

Even the client wanted a picture of it when we were done to justify the huge number of hours/decisions (and update/revise points that remained accessible right down to the delivery wire) that were represented by the visualization scheme of classic FCP.

No, I'm NOT going to try the same thing in FCP-X right now, but I suspect that Connected clips et al and clearly the collapsing timeline could have made this whole thing a LOT easier to navigate.

Enjoy!




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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 9:31:29 pm

OK, fair point, I realise now how bad FCPX is, I'm convinced

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 9:34:10 pm

ah that's great! about time. isn't our bitter kool aid nicer? now that's all settled, lets close all this down and go to the pub.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 9:39:13 pm

Cool, how's the cat by the way?

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 1, 2011 at 9:42:08 pm

Man, I tell you - that cat is doing great. eating like a hound, purring like a foghorn.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 12:41:30 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "seriously tho - the keywords cannot be made to function like bins - you cant open and arrange multiple keywords on the second monitor so you can casually visually scan the contents of the various keywords."

Totally true as a practical matter.

But.

In all fairness, isn't that more to do with the lack of tear-away tabs than the nature of the clip container? If there could be multiple instances of the Event Browser, you'd be able to see inside different keyword collections simultaneously and have the same net effect you get with bins.

Conceptually speaking, I would maintain that keyword collections are bins+.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 1:32:06 am

Plus you can create custom searches where you can combine any keywords you like into one new selection.
Effectively opening multiple bins at once. And you can save those combinations.
If you have Roles assigned you can even group the results by them.
Or just show favourites parts of your newly selected clips.
Or just rejected parts..
Or don't show rejected at all..

Cheers


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 9:32:10 am

[Carsten Orlt] "combine any keywords you like into one new selection.- Effectively opening multiple bins at once"

nope, thats about as useful as taking the contents of a load of different bins, dumping them into one bin, and then only being able to figure out who's what by twirling down arrows to see the associated keywords for all the clip items you just dumped into the one bin.

It is not even in the tiniest way like opening multiple bins at once. its very like stringing multiple tags into a single metadata query.


[Carsten Orlt] "If you have Roles assigned you can even group the results by them.
Or just show favourites parts of your newly selected clips.
Or just rejected parts.."


that all sounds like tremendous OCD fun... but it still doesn't answer the intrinsic issue with the event browser - its one bin at a time - which is not on.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Gerald Baria
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 12:53:32 pm

Keyword collection are NOT like bins. IT IS LEAPS AND BOUNDS MORE ADVANCED AND USABLE THAN BINS!

Quobetah
New=Better


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 4:33:17 pm

[Gerald Baria] "Keyword collection are NOT like bins. IT IS LEAPS AND BOUNDS MORE ADVANCED AND USABLE THAN BINS!
"


Gerald, I've seen some of your work, and from what I have seen, YOU don't have any significant use for bins, so I think it is just possible that you don't have a full understanding of what others might need. No one is saying that the 'keyword collection' is in anyway a bad thing--I think everyone pretty much agrees that the more advanced the indexing the better--but bins were able to do slightly more in terms of holding things that have obscure or ephemeral relationships with one another. While such relationships might not crop up often for you, I assure they do for others.

Andrew's suggested solution of "multiple instances of the Event Browse" might be Aindreas' answer; it would probably come close to solving the issues for me. But to say that there is no issue at all is to simply be unaware of it.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 7:51:30 am

Totally true Andrew, if we had tear away tabs, or in this case actually, an event browser that could clone itself into multiple instances to simultaneously represent multiple keyword collections... Oh Hang on wait. Apple are never going to do anything like that. The point surely is that we have *an event browser*. You know as well as i do that apple are never going to muddy the conceptual waters by having *the* event browser multiply in that fashion.
It never takes the name of the keyword collection - it never is a container. It is the browser. It represents whatever you click on to the left of it, be it event or keyword metadata. Also do we really see tabs making a comeback? Considering where apple are going with single window applications? I rather don't. I think that is a glued together one window application.

I think only being able to see one keyword collection/bin at a time is really extremely limiting and something of a crazy idea for an editing application. As is the fashion these days, I might post a pic later as an example of workflow on a project to illustrate what I'm on about.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 4:25:36 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I think only being able to see one keyword collection/bin at a time is really extremely limiting and something of a crazy idea for an editing application. As is the fashion these days, I might post a pic later as an example of workflow on a project to illustrate what I'm on about."

I'd love to see this as at this point I think you're being argumentative. Entertainingly argumentative, at least. :)

In FCP legacy you do not have access to all of your clips at all times like you do in X and then grouped by keyword (or other definitions).

Bins are not containers. They are doors, hallways, and shelves. They are arbitrary sort mechanisms that are not connected to your media in anyway, accept through an FCP project file.

Events are actually a container on the Finder level. They physically hold all of your media and within FCPX allow you to arrange/look at that media however you see fit, and it's all dynamic, meaning you can change/add to it very easily. You say the browser gets more attention than it deserves, I think it deserves a lot of attention.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 4:43:24 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Bins are not containers. They are doors, hallways, and shelves."

mmm, I'm pretty sure they're containers - they hold things, and you can view multiple open bins at the same time, which I do honestly rather like to do?

In FCPX the browser exposes one keyword collection at a time - I'm really not being argumentative - I find that a reasonably significant limitation in the software- will post the pics in a bit - its a thing I'm editing today. there is much multiple bin behaviour, and then some tabbed sequences as other type skimmable selects bins going on...


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 4:51:20 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "n FCPX the browser exposes one keyword collection at a time - I'm really not being argumentative - I find that a reasonably significant limitation in the software"

I agree.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 5:09:59 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "In FCPX the browser exposes one keyword collection at a time - I'm really not being argumentative "

Ok. I guess I just find this to be not true, but it's not that I don't believe you.

Tabbed sequences, yes, that's a true statement and going from all sequences open to one a time isn't as fun, especially when you get in to versioning for different uses. This is where gang function comes in really handy in Legacy.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 5:23:37 pm

"[Aindreas Gallagher] "In FCPX the browser exposes one keyword collection at a time - "

[Jeremy Garchow] " I guess I just find this to be not true,"

I'm in danger of sounding like a broken and stupid record here.. but doesn't FCPX expose one keyword collection at a time? as in you click on the event, the event is presented in the browser, you click on a keyword, the keyword tagged items are displayed in the browser? Isn't this a one at a time process?
My point is that there is no equivalent to being able to scan across multiple open bins? In FCPX you can only view one keyword collection at a time?
Its not an end of the universe issue, but I do find it a fairly serious limitation for a piece of editing software..


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 3, 2011 at 7:11:49 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "In FCPX the browser exposes one keyword collection at a time - I'm really not being argumentative - I find that a reasonably significant limitation in the software"

You can select multiple keywords in the Browser and have them display what's in both bins. Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean it shows one collection at a time?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 3, 2011 at 11:31:35 pm

oh right, simple really - I mean opening two bins as two separate containers to view, but there can be no two or more containers opened in FCPX, as there is only the one browser?

you cannot open, view, scan and contrast say two keyword collections as two separate items? the basic architecture of FCPX does not allow for this operation, and I find it very useful when assessing footage: opening, and scanning multiple bins as discreet containers - FCPX's keyword/event list populated into one single browser does not allow for this behaviour?
it does not allow for opening and onscreen spatial arrangement of bins/keyword collections. I find that ability quite powerful.
FCPX has only one single persistent browser as a single window view for all assets? that I do actually find rather limiting.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 12:39:37 am

Got ya. I get it now, sorry it took me so long.

Two collections can be selected, but you can't drag them to where you want.

I guess I find the new browser much more flexible and visual, and texty when it's needed. That doesn't matter as you don't. I see your point, it's how you work.

So say we all.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 12:44:19 am

Oh BSG. Where is blood and chrome I ask?


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 1:00:03 am

Supposedly soon.

Or here:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/602


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 6:22:26 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Supposedly soon.

Or here:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/602"


lol! How did I miss that thread?

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 10:42:03 pm

jeremy - THAT IS A TRULY FANTASTIC POST.

to you sir.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 11:08:19 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "jeremy - THAT IS A TRULY FANTASTIC POST.

to you sir."


Thanks!

If you aren't having fun then what is the point?


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 4:49:23 pm

Jeremy, I think the thing about bins is that they are better at holding obscure or ephemeral relationships based on whim. I'm in no way arguing against a strong indexing system, and the majority of my bins fall neatly into categories that indexing easily represents. But it is nice to have a few odd boxes that are a jumble of relationships--possibly very temporarily--where I don't even necessarily see the connection between items, but just feel them. I know I can create a tag for "odd things" or "elbow joints" so I CAN make do in a bin-less world, but sometimes its nice just to have a little table to throw things on.

What I miss more, actually, is multiple open timelines, since I tend to use timelines as bins.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 5:53:28 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I CAN make do in a bin-less world, but sometimes its nice just to have a little table to throw things on"

I got ya. And here's the question that I get in trouble for. How does FCPX prevent this idea? Why can't you do this in X?


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 7:05:01 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Chris Harlan] "I CAN make do in a bin-less world, but sometimes its nice just to have a little table to throw things on"

I got ya. And here's the question that I get in trouble for. How does FCPX prevent this idea? Why can't you do this in X?
"


It just comes down to visibility, really. Andrew's suggestion of multiple instances of the Event Browser would probably solve all my qualms. I mean, the super bin on Avid is a terrific feature, but there are many times I want multiple bins open because it gives me a better view of the possibilities. Certainly, it is a convenience and not a necessity; I could adapt, but I don't want to have to.

In general, I can only see FCP X as potentially one of my tools--instead of my primary tool--unless it adapts a less rigid, multi-monitor interface. It is a bit sad that FCP went from what was arguably the most flexible UI to one of the least flexible in a single, albeit drastic, iteration.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 7:21:08 pm

I can't imagine a "open Keyword collection in separate window" command would be beyond the realms of possibility. Worth putting in as a feature request, I just did.

I don't find having multiple projects open a problem, it's very fast and easy to navigate between projects. Not as easy as clicking on a tab, but not a huge inconvenience for me.

A plus though is the ability to skim through all my projects quickly in the project browser.

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 7:28:23 pm

[Steve Connor] "I can't imagine a "open Keyword collection in separate window" command would be beyond the realms of possibility. Worth putting in as a feature request,"

I agree.

[Steve Connor] "I don't find having multiple projects open a problem, it's very fast and easy to navigate between projects. Not as easy as clicking on a tab, but not a huge inconvenience for me.
"


In FCS, I often take the multiple timelines a step further, keeping my cut open on the left monitor and placing timelines that act as bins open on the right. I find this even faster than tabs.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 7:31:54 pm

Agreed, I used that one too, again an "open project in separate window" command is my next feature request!

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 2, 2011 at 7:38:30 pm

[Steve Connor] "Agreed, I used that one too, again an "open project in separate window" command is my next feature request!"

Cool. We're thinking alike in this.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 3, 2011 at 7:16:57 pm

[Chris Harlan] "unless it adapts a less rigid, multi-monitor interface."

If multicam is coming, I would imagine they are going to need to add a few dimensions to the interface, including but not lmited to a way to see both all angles and the program. Curious to see what happens there.

[Chris Harlan] "It is a bit sad that FCP went from what was arguably the most flexible UI to one of the least flexible in a single, albeit drastic, iteration."

It is just the beginning stages. With help from everyone, it will get to where it needs to be.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 2, 2011 at 6:41:43 pm

ok as promised here was my day - there's two things - I made big half specific bins and hold all the variations and shot alternates there, but then out of those bins, I set a pile of marker in and outs and used them to make a whole pile of selects sequences of my very favourite stuff that I think is going to be enough to populate the spot which is running to a couple of minutes of very fast cutting, so I'm editing mostly by skimming the select sequences to find the bits to go with the typography at that point and occasionally digging back into the big bins for all the rest of the stuff. Also the two icon bins represent stuff that came in last minute - I only need two performer shots so I'm not bothered tagging and naming, so I leave them in large icon view so I can easily pick out the blue performance clips.

so here is this big pile of bins on the left monitorrrrr.....



and here's all my lovely sequence style skimmable bins stacked up in tabs, you will note that they are suspiciously like a skimmable filmstrip in action - the purple tab MAIN EDIT is my actual edit. and I stick the music track down loosely under all the selects to get an idea how they do with the tune.




so who the hell cares O gallchoir? I hear you cry.. well, me I guess, that was a fun edit today - just a really kicking tune, tons of good shots and some typography - yay.

But for me at any rate, doing this stuff - or even longform which I do an awful lot less of, I do need both these things - without tabs I don't really think the sequence bin thing works, and I am deeply wedded to the bin sequence thing and I don't like how cramped the event browser is, its just really really cramped - I want to be able to spatially arrange my bins and scan across them - you can take in an awful lot that way.

ultimately, on a personal level, FCPX feels like very good engineering metadata/database thought and very poor editing practise workflow thought.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 2, 2011 at 7:20:14 pm

Aindreas, this looks very much like one of my projects down to a combination of bins and sequences used as bins. I agree with you that this a far better workflow. To me, FCP X offers visually something that is akin to Avid's Super Bin without the ability to turn it off and organize multiple bins.

Sometimes it is very useful to have only one bin open, which is an experience that FCP X can replicate. Sometimes it is useful to get the view you have above, which is something that FCP X--in its current form--cannot do.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 2, 2011 at 10:26:17 pm

[Chris Harlan] " FCP X offers visually something that is akin to Avid's Super Bin"

I am piggishly ignorant on Avid, i'm just unable to go there.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 2, 2011 at 11:46:00 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "[Chris Harlan] " FCP X offers visually something that is akin to Avid's Super Bin"

I am piggishly ignorant on Avid, i'm just unable to go there.
"


If all things in my world were equal, I might have decided to drift towards Adobe as it seems to be most like FCP, and I will certainly spend more time using it. But in the LA Entertainment Biz, Avid has never not been king, though FCS really gave it a run for the money. It was a real serious rivalry that both Avid and FCS users gained from, though, sadly, I know many Avid editors who continued to sneer. FCP X has been rather roundly rejected for not coming out of the gate as a whole NLE. The safest bet around here is to migrate to Avid, especially since Avid has been making serious changes and delivering generous deals. However attractive Premiere might be, it is just not the overall wise choice for the muscle memory machine here. And, I have to say, being back on an Avid has brought back some good memories, and there are more than a few things I do like better than on FCS, though FCS was (and still is) a terrific experience.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 3, 2011 at 12:19:36 am

yes,
I'm sort of short form broadcast spots meself, a bit of brand online stuff, and a wee bit of long form factual - but
the thing is that no one in london, no facility or production house seems even willing to discuss FCPX? I'm not trolling - I mean it.
It's not at all like a wait and see. People aren't wearing it. There's deep structural anger with what has happened.

In even the larger London facilities no one, (correct me if I'm wrong, world) no one is taking a punt and installing even a seat for whizz about value.

I've asked in say four fairly large soho shops with multiple existing FCP seats and it is a dead sentence. Worst of all, a recurrent client that is primarily an online short form pure play servicing a major american sports brand and gaming vendors with teens of FCP seats (with not a single tape deck) delivering mostly off red or 5D literally will not countenance the software. ...and i actually think it makes some sense for them?
but they will not wear it - they're sitting on an xsan and FCP studio seats and they are ill pleased. They just will not go there.

And I would have rather liked for them to have as it would have been perfect kicking ground to use the software in anger - its nearly all music and typography based shortform. Although don't get me started on FCPX's handling of music based edits..

from my end I'm slowly figuring its... a long tail dying of FCP7, then premiere for most of my stuff? (I probably have to actually learn Avid - thank you universe)

and well, FCPX sort of drifts into an aperture style agonising slow death?

And that's about the final and total end of Apple pro apps isn't it?

there. the sky is falling on our heads.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 3, 2011 at 7:41:14 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I am piggishly ignorant on Avid, i'm just unable to go there."

Andy, (can we call you Andy?) I think we are in total agreement here.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 3, 2011 at 11:41:38 pm

dude, andy is good to go.

..I.. get itches thinking about plowing into avid.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 3, 2011 at 11:54:43 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "..I.. get itches thinking about plowing into avid.

"


I'm plowing fields of gold in Avid these days myself... though not with clients looking on just yet.

Simple editing in Avid is duck soup; the plow needn't go to deep in that regard. It's when you need to go deeper and find something you've never seen before that the plowing gets a bit harder. Premiere is not that much different. It can be a bit frustrating with both apps in that regard, but then good old FCP was always that way for many newbies too.

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
http://www.drwfilms.com

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Producing Episodic TV with "24" Producer Michael Klick:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-1_Michael-Kl...

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™


Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 4, 2011 at 12:02:28 am

i know - like everyone says - if FCPX does one thing, FCPX reminds you that you actually have to know and be able to execute on the other editing systems within about 12 to 14 months or face peril.

premiere I'm ok with so far, its more or less a puddle jump largely, although there is some weird (by which he means new) stuff there. Am loving the keyframe editing though - proper nice old style AE inline timeline stretchable keyframe beziers! I missed you! - makes a huge difference in sultry fades to black I find.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 2, 2011 at 7:48:15 pm

Awesome example, Aindreas. Thank you!

[Aindreas Gallagher] "ultimately, on a personal level, FCPX feels like very good engineering metadata/database thought and very poor editing practise workflow thought."

Agree 100%. I've been saying for some time now that FCPX's metadata/database tools are excellent and I'd love to use them in my logging workflow. For those who missed it, here's what I proposed in the FCPX Techniques forum.

I have no problem with skimming and keyword collections when I'm logging. But when it's time to start cutting, I'm fully in Aindreas' camp. I want to see bins and sequences as objects that I can spatially organize any way I want on the monitor.

Keyword collections and bins may have functional similarities, but keywords are words. Bins are objects. We think about words and objects in entirely different ways. As I read the comments, it seems that the debate here is between people who think abstractly, in terms of words, and people who think spatially, in terms of objects.

I think visually and spatially, hence the title of this topic. My editorial workflow efficiency depends on being able to very quickly take in a complete, holistic overview of my entire source, at any time. That includes bins and sequences I use as bins. Color coding, grouping random piles of objects and working in space; all of this is essential to how I work.

BTW, I've never said you can't build a project like my example in FCPX. I've done it. My issue is that the constraints of the magnetic timeline make the process inefficient.

Another thing to notice about Aindreas' screen shot -- Typography matters in UI design. Look at how many lines of text appear on his screen. Because the text is rendered in a small, single pixel thick font, it's possible to view significantly more information in a single glance than you can in FCPX. In fact, because the FCPX UI designers chose large, bold text, you see less than half the information on the screen, both horizontally and vertically.

FCPX is filled with typographic and graphic design decisions that make is visually harder to find information. What possible professional benefit is there to these visual design decisions?

This is great you guys. Please keep posting screenshots to demonstrate your workflows.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 2, 2011 at 8:59:04 pm

[David Lawrence] " it seems that the debate here is between people who think abstractly, in terms of words, and people who think spatially, in terms of objects."

yep yep.
I'm an object guy, I really do need to see, feel and spatially manipulate video objects and the containers for those objects.

for instance: who here uses hotmail, we're all on gmail right? well I am - tagging in gmail makes eminent sense to me, as it does in google reader - multiple semantic tags building up into an accessible, relatable database of tags. But its also worth noting maybe that in most instances where we see searchable tags based clouds the parent material itself is usually itself text in some form. email, or GTD apps or whatever.

But as an editor I don't want a sea of tags returning keyword searches or persistent saved keyword collections into a single browser window - i want a broad canvas of stored physical video objects - you can argue that in pure engineering grok terms it's less efficient than tags as keyword collections, but what it looses in semantic flexibility it gains immensely in reliable spatial reality - after a decent interval with a completely setup and well named set of bins, well named video objects and sequence selects bins, I'm deeply familiar with all the assets available to me. Which is the trick really isn't it?
because once you've got the assets at recall, all the relational tagging is happening in your brain at el warp speed.

however you get there really -but that's how I get there.


http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 3, 2011 at 7:39:43 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] " i want a broad canvas of stored physical video objects -"

Isn't that what the event could be, or is? What if you used an event as a bin instead of a keyword collection? Then you have your containers, which I still maintain the Event is much more of a container than a bin will ever be.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Which is the trick really isn't it?
because once you've got the assets at recall, all the relational tagging is happening in your brain at el warp speed."


Yeah, until 9 months later you are working on the same project, but haven't touched it in two months due to client delays. At that point, text based searches become much more reliable. Tagging becomes much more useful. At a glance, you can see what you liked, what you didn't, what's used, when you might have forgotten due to time passing and 18 more projects in between then and now.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 2, 2011 at 9:20:54 pm

[David Lawrence] "BTW, I've never said you can't build a project like my example in FCPX. I've done it. My issue is that the constraints of the magnetic timeline make the process inefficient."

David, can you elaborate, what exactly stops you from doing the same thing in an FCPX timeline than you do in a FCP7 timeline?

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 3, 2011 at 2:21:24 am

[Steve Connor] David, can you elaborate, what exactly stops you from doing the same thing in an FCPX timeline than you do in a FCP7 timeline?

Steve, perhaps you would like to re-read David's comment that you yourself quoted?

[David Lawrence] "BTW, I've never said you can't build a project like my example in FCPX. I've done it. My issue is that the constraints of the magnetic timeline make the process inefficient."


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 3, 2011 at 6:38:19 am

[Gary Huff] "[Steve Connor] David, can you elaborate, what exactly stops you from doing the same thing in an FCPX timeline than you do in a FCP7 timeline?

Steve, perhaps you would like to re-read David's comment that you yourself quoted?

[David Lawrence] "BTW, I've never said you can't build a project like my example in FCPX. I've done it. My issue is that the constraints of the magnetic timeline make the process inefficient."
"


Yes I have and I'm still interested in exactly what constraints are making the process inefficient, is it the lack of tracks? is it connected clips?

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 3, 2011 at 9:01:19 am

Actually I just found the secret keystroke that enables tracks in FCPX :)







"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

David Eaks
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 3, 2011 at 10:05:33 am

Please elaborate, Mr. AdventuresinFCPX.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 4, 2011 at 6:28:59 am

[Steve Connor] "Yes I have and I'm still interested in exactly what constraints are making the process inefficient, is it the lack of tracks? is it connected clips?"

Fair question, Steve. Some of the constraints have to do with issues Aindreas raised in his example regarding the fixed screen layout and wanting more flexibility with how bins and multiple sequences can be arranged. Others have to do with the nature of the timeline itself. I'll explain in more detail when I answer Jeremy.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 4, 2011 at 6:45:03 am

[David Lawrence] "Fair question, Steve. Some of the constraints have to do with issues Aindreas raised in his example regarding the fixed screen layout and wanting more flexibility with how bins and multiple sequences can be arranged. Others have to do with the nature of the timeline itself. I'll explain in more detail when I answer Jeremy."

and well done for starting the most interesting and productive thread on this forum so far IMHO

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 10, 2011 at 7:36:36 pm

[Steve Connor] "and well done for starting the most interesting and productive thread on this forum so far IMHO"

Thank you Steve. I appreciate your questions and comments along with everyone else's. A couple people have questioned the value of the FCPX debate forum in general, but I find I learn a lot here. Let's keep it going!

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- ANDY's mess o Bins
on Oct 3, 2011 at 9:15:09 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] " don't like how cramped the event browser is, its just really really cramped"

And have you put this on the second monitor in FCPX? You can go back and forth between list and filmstrip with option-command 1/2. You can also change the text size.

It appears to me you use both text and thumbnails. It's been mentioned, but compound clips in the browser can be just like a "skimmable timeline" as you mention just without the timeline. If you want the timeline, you can then right click on the compound and "open in timeline" if you want, allowing you to grab what you want from it, then left arrow back to your edit timeline and paste in to it. Almost like a tab, but no tabs, just a browser style, back/forward interface.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 3, 2011 at 4:24:01 pm

David-

Woking on my response to this, just have to get the timeline together, and also show some options. It might take a little while!

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 3, 2011 at 5:16:30 pm

No worries, Jeremy, take as much time as you need. I appreciate your thought and effort. It's not like writing COW posts is the only thing we have to do all day ;)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 3, 2011 at 7:01:53 pm

[David Lawrence] "This is my log sequence. It is every clip from a roughly one hour interview laid out on the timeline. I've skimmed thru every clip in the browser, adding a commented marker at every interesting point in the actuality. I have a simple color coding system -- green markers are sound bytes I'll definitely use; red markers are interesting sections worth going back to. Anything in between I'll skim thru only if needed. This is my metadata."

OK. In FCPX There's a couple of ways to do this. Directly copying your method, you can layout the interview and use markers. Unfortunately, the markers aren't color coded at this time, so, you can use the timeline index to mark which is good, and which is OK in the notes. The timeline index also allows you to jump to each marker just by clicking on it. See screengrab here:



An alternative way is to log all the clips in the browser, marking favorites as you go. You can then name those favorites, select them all and hit 'e' to put all the different favorite ranges in the timeline. Screen grabs of event and subsequent timeline here:





You can even sort the browser by favorites only (control-f), select all those clips and make a compound clip if that is easier or more beneficial to you. That would create one big skimmable clip of all of your selects if you want them.

Moving on to the edit.

Taking your selects, you can then use the range tool to copy and paste selected ranges to add to your more refined edit at the end of your selects reel. You can copy/paste your starting clip at the end of the timeline, then using the Position Tool "p", you move the starting clip as far away from your selects reel as you want, or you simply move the playhead beyond the end of the timeline and paste and a gap is automatically created. You can also start you "Scratch" area over at the very end of the timeline using the exact same method. Of course, You can also always add gap with option-w and revise how long/short that gap is by hovering over the clip, c to select, control-d for duration and the type a duration (such as 1.. for One minute). This prevents you from hitting tttt to select the select from here tool, selecting then dragging, the timeline simply moves along with. You asked how is this a better way to work, in my view, it works the same, just a bit faster. Keep the gaps, and you still have what you need, separated by space. Screengrabs:





Where it does differ is that you can't mark in and out and export from the timeline. In that case, you'd either dupe the timeline and delete everything you don't want, or you'd send to compressor and mark the ins and outs in Compressor to compress, definitely not as convenient for sure. It is functionality like this where FCPX needs some help, but these refinements seem like programming add-ons, not undoable impossibilities.

I didn't have time to complete this piece this morning, but I will post a grab of that later when I'm done. As far as the STPro workflow, perhaps STPro isn't needed in FCPX anymore? The filters are there, the real time is there, and provides a bit more flexibility for changes. If changes come, you don't have to deal with a change list, you can simply work right in the timeline. Tracks on clips can be easily tuned off en masse if needed in the inspector > Audio > Channel Config, even before the clips hit the timeline, or after. Secondary story lines/Compound clips can make adding filters to similar clips easier. Hopefully an update to Roles will help to being an audio bus functionality to FCPX. An Effects tab in the Timeline Index would help here too.

[David Lawrence] "What are my intentions as an editor for each of the timelines in each step of this process?"

It's organization and workflow. Your intention is to deliver a final product, something that can be done in both programs, using the same methodologies.

[David Lawrence] "How would you accomplish this workflow with the magnetic timeline?"

With gaps. Trimming in X is a lot easier, J&L cuts are very simple, and once you start laying in broll, the connected clips make moving things around very easy. I guess my question is, how can you see this not being accomplished with the magnetic timeline?

[David Lawrence] "How would the magnetic timeline make this workflow any more efficient? What would the benefits be?"

Well, it's not the magnetic timeline per se, but the Timeline Index helps you to find what you want faster, as well as selecting a range to copy/paste without having to cut an in and out, copy and paste. it also gives you a text based "bird's eye view" of what is going on in your timeline and allows you to click and go to wherever you want without having to scrub if you don't want to. Once editing the magnetic timeline allows you to swap clip and order extremely easily without too much fuss.

[David Lawrence] "In the context of this workflow, how are the clip relationships emphasized by the magnetic timeline meaningful?"

In the case of broll, they stay with the main comments. If you want to switch the order of the story around, you simply grab the clip in the primary and all the connected clips go with it.

As has been mentioned here, I think that using the browser to help organize your selects is a pretty efficient way to start telling the story. I understand that maybe that's not the way you work, but it wasn't the way I worked either as FCP Legacy's browser kinda sucks, so putting everything in a timeline was logical. FCPX allows for objects and visual thinking, but it also allows for text based searching as well. This is the best of both worlds if you ask me.

First you do something like this:



Then you hit Control-f and turns that in to this, which is skimmable objects that can be added to the timeline as you see fit:



Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 3, 2011 at 8:10:41 pm

Bravo Jeremy!

Thank you for this detailed and thoughtful post. There's actually a lot we agree on, and a couple key places where we diverge. I'll need some time to gather my thoughts and maybe a screen grab so hang tight. I really enjoy and appreciate this dialogue.

best,
David

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 3, 2011 at 8:21:06 pm

[David Lawrence] "I really enjoy and appreciate this dialogue."

Me too. Thanks for hanging in there.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 4, 2011 at 3:37:33 pm

Same from me: Bravo Jeremy!

Andreas

Spherico
http://www.spherico.com/filmtools


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 7, 2011 at 4:51:45 pm

So, how's everyone doing?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 7, 2011 at 6:18:41 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "So, how's everyone doing?"

It's been hard to think about this stuff the past couple days. Finally getting my wind back.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 7, 2011 at 6:19:05 pm

[David Lawrence] "It's been hard to think about this stuff the past couple days. Finally getting my wind back."

Yeah. I hear that.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/399182/october-06-20...


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 7, 2011 at 7:41:37 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "
Yeah. I hear that.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/399182/october-06-20.....
"


Nice. Love Colbert -- he had me laughing all the way up to the end bit with the email. Sigh.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:47:12 pm

Thanks again, Jeremy for the thoughtful and well-documented response and for keeping this conversation going.

Apologies for the delay, last week was hard and flew right by. Let's dig back in.

[Jeremy Garchow] "OK. In FCPX There's a couple of ways to do this...

...An alternative way is to log all the clips in the browser, marking favorites as you go. You can then name those favorites, select them all and hit 'e' to put all the different favorite ranges in the timeline. Screen grabs of event and subsequent timeline here:"


I'm with you all the way here. I really like working with favorites in the browser. As soon as that XML transfer utility is available, I'm ready!

[Jeremy Garchow] "Moving on to the edit."

Here's where we run into trouble. There are two main bottlenecks -- one slows me down, the other is a deal-killer.

The first bottleneck is inflexible layout options. Aindreas' subthread did an excellent job covering the issue. My bins are usually much fewer and simpler than his example but I share the same need of getting a quick overview of all my source at a glance. It's crazy how much UI space is wasted on chrome and empty space in FCPX. Even setting font size in the browser to small doesn't help that much, gaining only a few extra lines. Still, I can manage. It takes more fussing and scrolling than I like but I can get to what I want. And as you've demonstrated so well, the flexibility of favorites and keywords are really great.

The second bottleneck is the timeline itself. Your example above is similar to my own attempts to match my FCP7 cutting style in FCPX. As you've demonstrated and I've found for myself, it's certainly doable. All the techniques work.

But it's not very efficient and feels like it's fighting against the design of the program. The reason for this has to do with the nature of the position tool and gaps. This is probably one of my biggest issues with FCPX and one of the most misunderstood aspects of the magnetic timeline. It's big enough issue that it deserves its own topic so I will address that here:

The Position Tool Does Not Disable Ripple Mode - Here's Why

Please join me in that thread to get into the nitty-gritty of ripple-mode, gaps and the Position Tool.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Where it does differ is that you can't mark in and out and export from the timeline. In that case, you'd either dupe the timeline and delete everything you don't want, or you'd send to compressor and mark the ins and outs in Compressor to compress, definitely not as convenient for sure. It is functionality like this where FCPX needs some help, but these refinements seem like programming add-ons, not undoable impossibilities. "

Yes, hopefully we get In/Out points for export soon. Case in point - here's a timeline that has nothing to do with story:



Those are sixteen 15-second interstitials. I export them one at a time by setting In/Out and choosing export. You can imagine the headache of dealing with this right now in FCPX. The current project architecture doesn't seem to consider the many possible uses for a timeline besides linear story. There's so much more you might want to do. I do things like this example a lot. To be fair, I'm pretty confident we'll be able to set persistent In/Outs for export soon. I can't imagine any debate over this ;)

[Jeremy Garchow] "As far as the STPro workflow, perhaps STPro isn't needed in FCPX anymore? The filters are there, the real time is there, and provides a bit more flexibility for changes. If changes come, you don't have to deal with a change list, you can simply work right in the timeline. Tracks on clips can be easily tuned off en masse if needed in the inspector > Audio > Channel Config, even before the clips hit the timeline, or after. Secondary story lines/Compound clips can make adding filters to similar clips easier. Hopefully an update to Roles will help to being an audio bus functionality to FCPX. An Effects tab in the Timeline Index would help here too."

I've experimented with this and I see potential, but it's not there yet. First off, it's great to be able to use VST plugins directly in the program. Excellent to be working with the plugin's native UI instead of sliders. Real-time performance without rendering is awesome. That said, it's just not good enough yet. It really feels like my computer is maxing out after I add a couple audio filters. In my test, adding VST noise reduction and compression slowed everything to a crawl. I also was getting audio pops that would not go away no matter what I tried. It felt slow and flaky until I turned audio filters off. Maybe my 3-year old unibody macbook pro is a bit too old, but I have no problems when I round trip to STP. Everything works smooth as silk.

I think it's asking a lot for one program to do everything. Don't get me wrong, it's great that these features are there and I'm sure they'll be useful. But specialized tools will always carry the day in terms of power, flexibility and quality. Fortunately, the tools for data exchange are moving forward. That actually brings up an interesting point that David Roth Weiss raised in another thread:

[David Roth Weiss] "Should proper "tracked" exports in FCP X ultimately be implemented by Apple or a third party, the question is, will long-form editors will really want to work for months with one view of their project, only to look at and implicitly trust an entirely different view of the same complex project just before taking it to their favorite mix facility?

Personally, my intimate knowledge of the layout of every event on the timeline in one of my edits is always quite helpful when I go into a mix, as the mixer is almost always seeing the project for very first time. Do I want to be seeing it for the first time too when I'm on the clock at a mix facility? I don't think so..."


I haven't gotten into tracks vs trackless in this topic, but I think this is an interesting and salient point to consider.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Trimming in X is a lot easier, J&L cuts are very simple, and once you start laying in broll, the connected clips make moving things around very easy. I guess my question is, how can you see this not being accomplished with the magnetic timeline?"

Let's get into this in the new topic linked above.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think that using the browser to help organize your selects is a pretty efficient way to start telling the story. I understand that maybe that's not the way you work, but it wasn't the way I worked either as FCP Legacy's browser kinda sucks, so putting everything in a timeline was logical. FCPX allows for objects and visual thinking, but it also allows for text based searching as well. This is the best of both worlds if you ask me."

I totally agree this is a powerful way to work in the organizing stage. Once we have the ability create our own layouts, I'll like it even more. But there's one key advantage of my timeline method that your example doesn't address -- when I'm marking my favorites, my favorite ranges are soft. I may know that a particular sound bite is good, but there's always surrounding contextual speech that I may not know I need until much later in my editorial process.

With everything exposed on the timeline I have instant visual access to my marked sections, and I can easily skim to find related material that I didn't realize was important at the time. When you Control-f to create objects as in your example, you only see the ranges that were marked ahead of time. In order to see the favorites in the context of the clip, you need to go back into clip-view. I can select ranges and add to the timeline from the browser, but there appears to be no way to see favorites on a whole clip once it's added to the timeline. I would expect to see favorites in the clip's timeline index at the very least. Maybe I'm missing something here?

How would you do something like this or is it a feature request?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 10, 2011 at 10:16:43 pm

[David Lawrence] "The first bottleneck is inflexible layout options. Aindreas' subthread did an excellent job covering the issue. My bins are usually much fewer and simpler than his example but I share the same need of getting a quick overview of all my source at a glance."

Yeah, it took me a long while to grasp what he was saying as with FCPX, I find that I can do much more (meaning have access to my footage) with much less space, and quickly. But if you don't work that way, you don't work that way and you should have the option to change it. I get it now.

[David Lawrence] "But it's not very efficient and feels like it's fighting against the design of the program. "

I would agree here. I think a lot of the organization stays in the Browser with X, while the assembly happens in the timeline. With the almost immediate access to footage in the browser without opening anything (or by just typing) I think it saves a lot of pre-sequence assembly, but again, you don't work that way.

[David Lawrence] "Please join me in that thread to get into the nitty-gritty of ripple-mode, gaps and the Position Tool."

Done and already done!

[David Lawrence] "That said, it's just not good enough yet."

Yeah, it might not be, but it's a great start, IMO. As far as your computer not being up to the task, it might because you are processing video, too? Perhaps try muting the video and see what happens as a test. Are you running 64 bit with lots of RAM?

[David Lawrence] "To be fair, I'm pretty confident we'll be able to set persistent In/Outs for export soon. I can't imagine any debate over this ;)"

Agreed. You'd have to do with this with in/out points in compressor right now. Not very handy.

[David Lawrence] "I haven't gotten into tracks vs trackless in this topic, but I think this is an interesting and salient point to consider."

It's true, but if an OMF export makes the audio timeline look like your FCPX timeline, then it's good, no? As was mentioned (and as Michael Gissing mentioned) the audio layering is mostly going to change (time still remains for the most part). I know my audio guys totally rearranges my timelines to something that makes sense to them. As long as they have clip by clip access, they are good.

[David Lawrence] "when I'm marking my favorites, my favorite ranges are soft. I may know that a particular sound bite is good, but there's always surrounding contextual speech that I may not know I need until much later in my editorial process."

And that the beauty of ranges/favorites, they aren't locked like sub-clips were, they are simply ranges connected to the main clip, if you need surrounding media, you can "open in timeline" or match frame back to browser and skim the whole clip, or resort the bin (Show all clips) and you get all the long form back.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:22:36 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Perhaps try muting the video and see what happens as a test. Are you running 64 bit with lots of RAM?"

Will give that a try. Laptop's maxed out at 8GB and I'm running 64-bit.

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's true, but if an OMF export makes the audio timeline look like your FCPX timeline, then it's good, no?"

Maybe, I'd like to see if roles will make it possible to see audio in a track-like manner. I'm skeptical but curious.

[Jeremy Garchow] "And that the beauty of ranges/favorites, they aren't locked like sub-clips were, they are simply ranges connected to the main clip, if you need surrounding media, you can "open in timeline" or match frame back to browser and skim the whole clip, or resort the bin (Show all clips) and you get all the long form back."

Right, but I never make sub-clips so that's not a problem. What I'd like to do is drop an entire clip onto the timeline and see the green favorite ranges on the clip, just like they appear when viewing the clip in the browser. Is this possible?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 11, 2011 at 3:35:38 pm

[David Lawrence] "Maybe, I'd like to see if roles will make it possible to see audio in a track-like manner. I'm skeptical but curious."

I would love to see some sort of "patch panel" assign a role/subrole to an export channel. It would be sweet! Since surround sound seems to be uilt in there, I can't imagine that this won't be possible someday. You have to have a way to route that sound.

[David Lawrence] "What I'd like to do is drop an entire clip onto the timeline and see the green favorite ranges on the clip, just like they appear when viewing the clip in the browser. Is this possible?"

Ah. I see what you are saying now. No, the favorites do not show up in the timeline.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 11, 2011 at 7:27:28 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Ah. I see what you are saying now. No, the favorites do not show up in the timeline."

Guess it's a feature request then. Do you understand why I want it?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 11, 2011 at 7:31:48 pm

[David Lawrence] "Do you understand why I want it?"

Absolutely. It would basically reflect what you see in the list or filmstrip view of the browser right in the timeline. Markers do translate in to the timeline from the browser. I think if they added a 'favorites' section to the index, or just added a favorites sort option to the 'Tags" section it would serve the purpose. The timeline index is one of FCPXs greatest strengths, I think. I do not know of another editor that gives a project overview quite like that. Humans like lists. I hope they plus it out.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 11, 2011 at 8:03:48 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It would basically reflect what you see in the list or filmstrip view of the browser right in the timeline. Markers do translate in to the timeline from the browser. I think if they added a 'favorites' section to the index, or just added a favorites sort option to the 'Tags" section it would serve the purpose. The timeline index is one of FCPXs greatest strengths, I think."

Exactly. And I agree!

[Jeremy Garchow] "I do not know of another editor that gives a project overview quite like that. Humans like lists. I hope they plus it out."

It's been a while since I've used it but IIRC, ProTools has a window that lists select regions. Peak Pro does as well. It's not exactly the same but it's a similar idea. I hear Avid is working on a timeline index for MC6.

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


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 11, 2011 at 7:33:00 pm

Maybe Jeremy does, but I'm unclear. I might understand in a particularly workflow, but I'm puzzled why you're using that.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 11, 2011 at 7:40:39 pm

[Tom Wolsky] "Maybe Jeremy does, but I'm unclear. I might understand in a particularly workflow, but I'm puzzled why you're using that."

It's because I want to do all my editorial work on the timeline, rather than in the browser. By having favorite ranges available on whole clips in the timeline, I'm able to instantly find, skim, grab, assemble and test versions of my cut -- all at the same time, all in the same place. For me, it's a very fast and efficient way to work.

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


Return to posts index

Tom Wolsky
Re: The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows -- An Example
on Oct 11, 2011 at 7:51:15 pm

It's a very fast and efficient way for you to work in the application in which you used to work. It worked well in that application because its design lends itself to that. I would suggest you work that way because of the tool that you used.

All the best,

Tom

Class on Demand DVDs "Complete Training for FCP7," "Basic Training for FCS" and "Final Cut Express Made Easy"
Coming in 2011 "Complete Training for FCPX" from Class on Demand
"Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users" from Focal Press


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]