FORUMS: list search recent posts

Tracks

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
tony west
Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 3:00:43 pm

A few people here have asked me what it is I like about X
so I thought I would start a new thread to try to answer instead of going back through past post.

In the past I have named off a few things like speed (64) and certain tools that I like but here I would like go to the heart of the matter.

Tracks

When I began to learn and watch people edit on Avid one of the things I liked was a multi track timeline. The more tracks the person had the more impressed I was : ) That sounds funny doesn't it? I'm just keeping it real with you guys.

As I got better I began to have that kind of timeline also.

Then X comes out.

Somebody decided that the timeline could be consolidated by combining video and audio as one track.

A bold move.

Everybody is used to having separate tracks (including me).

But when I thought about it it made sense. If I have a sit-down interview for the most part I would have that person's voice with their video anyway.

If I want to separate them and drop that sound below like Legacy I can, but that's my choice.

Let's say I have a person sitting there and I go to b-roll of a truck driving down the street. I want to hear the sound of that truck and that one clip is just sitting above my interview.


I'm not locking and unlocking tracks because there are no tracks. I'm just dropping stuff down the way I want without having it effect other clips.

I'm cutting faster with X simply because there are fewer things in the timeline to cut.

I had to ask myself, If I really needed all those extra tracks in the timeline.

The answer was I really didn't.

The consolidated timeline looks less impressive than the 20 tracks.
It looks simple. It looks like a toy.

But other than how it looked I couldn't find a downside to it.

There are many changes to the program but I think we can all agree this is the main one.

I'm not telling anybody here this way is better or they should do it this way. At the end of the day I want everybody to have the tool they need to get paid.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 3:35:18 pm

How many layers (picture) were you using in FC7 for a normal job?
How many languages do you use in a normal job?
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 5:58:01 pm

[Rafael Amador] "How many languages do you use in a normal job?
rafael
"


Just for fun, here's my answer after a moment of thought...

According to my wife, many.

I use rational language, emotional language, visual language, auditory language, high-level language, low-level language, even (I bet if you asked her on a day of conflict) stupid language.

So lots and lots and lots of different languages are arguably in use by every person in any particular day.

Is that germane?

"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


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 6:22:47 pm

Tony-

I know this post will catch some grief, but whatever. I'm over it. If I'm not a professional anymore because I see some advantages to FCPx, that's cool too. It doesn't matter as my clients are the ones who need to judge my level of professionalism.

I agree with you for the most part.

I really think that the simplified interface isn't as simple as some people make it out to be. I find the timeline to be very powerful, yet not really "simple" when you start really using it for its advantages. Sure, some processes have been simplified.

It is certainly different, which some people don't like.

I think Roles and Auditions are really awesome. What I do need is more control.

I'd like to see some more power and control come to Roles as well as a more visually organized area below the primary storyline. I don't miss tracks as a tool, but I do miss the organization provided by them, especially when you start getting to multiple audio tracks. I think secondary storylines should have a bit more control and power as well to help with visual organization. All in all, though, I like what's there. There are times when a second viewer is needed, or at least would make my life a bit easier. I don't need it all the time, that's for sure, but for match framing/match cuts, I do miss it. And of course, in order for me to use FCPX on paying gigs, I need capture card support.

And Rafa, for multiple languages, I think Roles and connected clips are really very nice for this. Yes, it's different and yes, it takes getting used to.

It might not be for everyone, and some people are very offended by what Apple has done, and that's fine. I do think FCPx has a tremendous amount of power and potential, it's just not quite fully realized yet, and thats ok with me or now. FCS3 is still working. I think the next major release will inform us as to how serious Apple is taking this (or not).


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 6:27:14 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I really think that the simplified interface isn't as simple as some people make it out to be. I find the timeline to be very powerful, yet not really "simple" when you start really using it for its advantages. Sure, some processes have been simplified.
"


Agreed, if you actually use FCPX for any length of time you soon realise this.

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


Return to posts index

Rob Mackintosh
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 4:38:27 am

Yes more control would be good.

What if Apple allowed you to pin your clip or secondary storyline to a lane i.e keep it in a fixed position in vertical space?

Would this get around the trackless-ness without breaking the new timeline paradigm?


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 5:26:41 am

[Rob Mackintosh] "What if Apple allowed you to pin your clip or secondary storyline to a lane i.e keep it in a fixed position in vertical space? "

Yep. I think that would be cool and useful. We talked about having "Zones" that would be Role defined here:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/18676


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 5:44:55 am

I was working on FC 6, and I don't have "normal jobs".

I could be on anything from sports to corporate to a Doc I just started shooting.

For sports it's typically the talent's VO, nats (bat crack) the call of the game, music and maybe player VO

That under player highlights and graphics

What kind of projects do you work on?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 2:20:25 pm

[tony west] "I could be on anything from sports to corporate to a Doc I just started shooting."

I think the last part of your statement is a key dividing line in much of this argument and in how FCP X is perceived. I don't mean this as a negative or disrespectful comment, but people who edit as a part of another job description (videographer, producer, director, reporter, etc.) value different features in an NLE than someone who edits full-time. I've frequently collaborated on edits with many talented "non-editors" and it completely baffles me how some of them developed their editing styles and workflows. Their results may be the same as mine, but the path to get their is wildly different.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


tony west
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 3:38:42 pm

I don't mean this as a negative or disrespectful comment either but being an editor makes you a better shooter because you know what shots you need.

A good editor knows that great footage make the project. If you start with crap it will be crap in the end.

So yeah, we baffle each other brother.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 4:12:51 pm

[tony west] "but being an editor makes you a better shooter because you know what shots you need"

I completely agree. I've often said that every shooter should have to edit his own material at least once ;-)

[tony west] "So yeah, we baffle each other brother."

LOL.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 4:32:09 pm

[Tony West] "I had to ask myself if I really needed all those extra tracks in the timeline. The answer was I really didn't."

Tony,


Something about your post and the recent tutorials by Andy Neil seemed to crystallize an impression I've had. What you are talking about is class A-roll, B-roll editing - Andy's tutorial is base on it - and this comes from broadcast (and if I'm not mistaken, it comes from broadcast news practice).

It seems like this is the paradigm that FCPX is designed around: The primary storyline is the A roll against which the various B roll elements are cut.

(This isn't to say you're restricted to using FCPX that way and that way only, but it does seem to be the idea which informs the design).

Far from a new idea, FCPX actually derives its model from time-tested broadcast practice.

Many people edit this way and FCPX seems well suited to this kind of editing.


Franz.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 6:09:31 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Something about your post and the recent tutorials by Andy Neil seemed to crystallize an impression I've had. What you are talking about is class A-roll, B-roll editing - Andy's tutorial is base on it - and this comes from broadcast (and if I'm not mistaken, it comes from broadcast news practice).

It seems like this is the paradigm that FCPX is designed around: The primary storyline is the A roll against which the various B roll elements are cut."


Franz,

I couldn't disagree more. I guess you can make that point if you narrow the question to the timeline ONLY. But in point of fact, a tremendous amount of the old A/B roll paradigm is precisely what X has stripped away.

It was based almost totally on hardware. (yippie, I used an italic rather than just CAPS - I'm learning!) The editor had one or more physical source decks - that fed a switcher with a Source Monitor (the Viewer in Legacy)- which in turn fed one record deck (the Canvas.)

That arrangement was driven by the tapes and decks hardware world. Only as "sources" morphed into digital streams that were disconnected from hardware was a change in the editing tradition possible.

Every NLE I've ever used or seen (not all, but many) were based on this tradition because thats what "editors" expected.

FCP-X still has a "timeline" metaphor in the form of the Primary Storyline - (tho it's characteristics have clearly been changed) but upstream and downstream of that it's very different in how it handles the editorial process.

My view, anyway.

"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

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 6:20:40 pm

Bill,


I agree the source / record analogy in FCP and other NLEs comes from broadcast. I am looking at the timeline.

I am talking specifically about the approach to editing - the idea that you cut an A-roll and "cut away" to B-roll. This approach seems built-in to the Primary Storyline model (with attached clips).


Franz.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 6:35:23 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I agree the source / record analogy in FCP and other NLEs comes from broadcast. I am looking at the timeline.

I am talking specifically about the approach to editing - the idea that you cut an A-roll and "cut away" to B-roll. This approach seems built-in to the Primary Storyline model (with attached clips).
"


I think apple used the useful part of that method (connected clips essentially ARE cutaways, aren't they?) but just extended it so that instead of it being fixed single use thing - it became a very flexible thing.

That's the point of the new Auditions idea. The cutaway can be a "container" for choices, if you so choose.

Different, but not just different to be different, different to add value.

"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


Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 6:40:49 pm

Bill,


Without opening the question of how they have added to it, my point was that the A/B roll model is the fundamental model they've chosen - it informs the way they approached the timeline.

I think you're in agreement here.


Franz.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 6:51:42 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Without opening the question of how they have added to it, my point was that the A/B roll model is the fundamental model they've chosen - it informs the way they approached the timeline.
"


I'd agree with that

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


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 6:09:10 pm

A-Roll/B-Roll editing has its origins in film actually where master shots were collected on one reel (A) and cutaways and other angles were collected on a second reel (B).

However, you are correct in pointing out it's continued use in broadcast TV (scripted and reality) as well as broadcast news. I cut my teeth in news so its certainly in my DNA, but I find it's used in any facility where multiple editors are working on the same story.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 6:29:48 pm

[Andy Neil] A-Roll/B-Roll editing has its origins in film actually where master shots were collected on one reel (A) and cutaways and other angles were collected on a second reel (B).


Andy,


My experience with film editing is very limited, but this against everything I know about it, where reels are compiled by Scene or Slate (for scripted material) or Scene and Location (for unscripted material).

I'd be interested in more history and detail if anyone can point the way.

So far as I know, where the A/B model has been used in film, it was imported from broadcast.

For instance, while I might imagine Griffith working with A/B collections (though I have no reason to) I can't imagine the Soviets, Godard, Wiseman, or Murch doing so.

But I'd love to know more about the history ...


Franz.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 6:43:45 pm

I too am woefully ignorant of the traditions of film, but as I recall, film was actually the first "non linear" editing tradition wasn't it?

You came back with your field footage from developing. You cut it into scenes, hung it on the wire as celluloid strips. Then the editor could pick and choose from any of them, in any order, to assemble the cut. The actual editing was essentially done as a "non-linear" assembly.

It was only when videotape came along that the images were all baked onto a linear "time stripe" and you had to shuttle back and forth and mark electronic ins and outs to do your "assemble edit" - which forced the workflow to be LINEAR, just as the videotape was.

Every primary source was essentially ALWAYS stuck in linear time on tape, unlike the movie process.

That's how I kinda recall it, anyway.

"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

Herb Sevush
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 10:14:24 pm

"I too am woefully ignorant of the traditions of film, but as I recall, film was actually the first "non linear" editing tradition wasn't it?"

Totally true. It was non linear, but it was slow, without the instant access we all have grown so used to. And messy. There was nothing like hunting for a 2 frame clip at the bottom of a bin (that is a real physical bin, like a laundry hamper full of film) at the end of a long day.

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 7:02:55 pm

A preliminary search yielded only this:

http://www.theindiefilmblog.com/history/the-history-of-the-term-b-roll.html

... hardly authoritative (no dates or references) but it reflects my own impression. Outside of video, I'd only ever heard "B-roll" when conforming 16mm neg.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 7:04:25 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "My experience with film editing is very limited, but this against everything I know about it, where reels are compiled by Scene or Slate (for scripted material) or Scene and Location (for unscripted material)."

Well, I was being a little over-simplistic when talking about it and also relaying it to my film (I mean celluloid) cutting experience on Moviola flatbeds.

The basic concept comes from where a film is compiled on two reels. The reels are matched up and the first shot of the film is on reel A and the second shot of the film is on reel B and you go back and forth. In between shots, on both reels leader is cut in to keep the two reels at the exact same length. This method was necessary in order to do things like dissolves.

Broll means a different these days but in general film production still tends to put scenes together in a master shot/cutaway fashion which to me matches well with the primary story/connected clip paradigm.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 7:13:04 pm

Andy,


Yes, this is necessary for neg conforming in 16mm as outlined above. (Though I can't imagine ever putting your negative through a moviola ...)

The meaning was fundamentally different in the video edit suite (though perhaps it came from the film terminology? This we may never know ...)

In the video suite "A" roll and "B" roll designate functions of footage - it's an ideological designation, and reflects ideas about the importance of the footage.

Contrast this to the purely technical designation needed for neg conforming.

It is the video paradigm (above) that has been adopted in the "Primary Storyline" model of FCPX and this was the point of my post.


Franz.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 7:23:11 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I can't imagine ever putting your negative through a moviola"

In news, right up through the end of the 70's, negative was often cut and screened live on-air via a "film chain," which was like a telecine, but without video tape. I worked for the CBS affiliate in Boston, and amazingly that's how it was still being done as late as 1978. The first portable video cameras were only just making it into the broadcast business at the network level. We're come a long way in the last 30-plus years.

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

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

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

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 7:29:11 pm

[David Roth Weiss] In news, right up through the end of the 70's, negative was often cut and screened live on-air via a "film chain,"...

For some reason I always assumed film chain was print - though I suppose they had a pos/neg switch? It certainly makes sense to bypass the lab time and go direct from neg.

Were you hot splicing A/B rolls or tape splicing single rolls of neg?

I would assume, being in a broadcast environment, that "B roll" took on the broadcast meaning that I've outlined?


Franz.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 7:37:52 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "It is the video paradigm (above) that has been adopted in the "Primary Storyline" model of FCPX and this was the point of my post."

This is my understanding, as well. Also, Source/Record--which keeps getting thrown around in the world at large as an old filmmaking technique--is unquestionably a video/television technique that developed with offline/online editorial devices like Convergence, CMX, Sony and GVC.

And Bill, there were several early NLE's that eschewed Source/Record. D/Vision and Avid, however, made compelling use of it, and it became the metaphor of choice. D/Vision--for those who have never heard of it--was highly successful NLE (and contender for the throne) that was eventually purchased by Discreet, and was improved and sold as Edit*. Edit*, of course, was brutally murdered in its sleep, and then dragged into a ditch to die.


Return to posts index

David Roth Weiss
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 8:21:04 pm

[Chris Harlan] "D/Vision--for those who have never heard of it--was highly successful NLE (and contender for the throne) that was eventually purchased by Discreet, and was improved and sold as Edit*. Edit*, of course, was brutally murdered in its sleep, and then dragged into a ditch to die."

And, I was right there for that one too... That was the first time big brother destroyed my well-oiled business machine. I certainly never imagined the same thing could happen at the hands of Apple. Lightening seldom strikes twice, right?

Perhaps the others who wonder why Herb and myself are not happy, should be aware that it's because we've been through this before. We both survived to fight another day, only to find ourselves being dumped by another huge, deep-pocketed corporation we thought we'd invested in for the long-term.

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

Don't miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing "The Whale" to the Big Screen:
http://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfit...

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

Herb Sevush
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 10:34:58 pm

"Perhaps the others who wonder why Herb and myself are not happy, should be aware that it's because we've been through this before. We both survived to fight another day, only to find ourselves being dumped by another huge, deep-pocketed corporation we thought we'd invested in for the long-term"

Apparently we never listened when Pete Townsend wrote "we won't be fooled again."

[Chris Harlan] "D/Vision--for those who have never heard of it--was highly successful NLE (and contender for the throne) that was eventually purchased by Discreet, and was improved and sold as Edit*. Edit*, of course, was brutally murdered in its sleep, and then dragged into a ditch to die."

Lovely alliteration with those "Ds" there at the end Chris - it really captures the feeling.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 9:08:29 pm

[Chris Harlan] "D/Vision--for those who have never heard of it--was highly successful NLE (and contender for the throne) that was eventually purchased by Discreet, and was improved and sold as Edit*"

D/Vision, was great, I spent a long time working on the offline version absolutely rock solid edl's from it, better than Avid at the time.

D/Vision online showed so much promise, shame it was murdered while still so young. At least FCP had a good life before it met it's sticky end

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 9:41:06 pm

[Steve Connor] "D/Vision online showed so much promise, shame it was murdered while still so young. At least FCP had a good life before it met it's sticky end"

Hey, and it is still breathing. I'll be using heavily over the next year. But I will, also be working Media Composer into the mix to build up speed--and truthfully, this is something I should have been doing over the last several years--from the intro of MC 3.0--but I've been to lazy to do so.

Talking about all the old wild west NLEs, does get me a little excited about FCP X. I totally agree that it is nice to get something out there that shakes things up, and if it had come as a side product or from another company, I'd be completely jazzed about it. One of the things that FCP did to its NLE competitors is that it made them be better. Avid is much better than it was. I know there are die-hards out there that think things went down hill after MC 2.8, but--for me--it was the confinement of those earlier versions that forced me away. So, hopefully, FCP X will preform a similar function down the road. I have to admit that it is quite a bit of fun trying to figure that out.


Return to posts index

Richard Cardonna
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 3:07:26 am

I am sure that avid and adobe are getting ready for anything that fcpx may launch next year. They don't want to be caought offgard again.

So expect many inovations and freebies from them.

Ric


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 10:24:53 pm

"A-Roll/B-Roll editing has its origins in film actually where master shots were collected on one reel (A) and cutaways and other angles were collected on a second reel (B)."

I worked in film for the first 10 years of my career and I never heard of collecting either master shots or cutaways on separate reels. Each take was hung on a pin in the film bin, paired with mag track if it was a sound take; each pin generally had a label noting organization so you knew where to look for a given shot. What purpose would there be for cutaways to be on a separate reel when the vast majority of editing tables could only handle one film reel at a time?

The A & B rolls in film referred to the way the negative was checkerboarded after the film was finalized and prior to printing. This was generally done be a specialist negative cutter. In ten years of film editing I never cut negative myself.

The first time I ever heard the expression "B - roll" used to describe a cutaway was after I started working in video. I don't know what the derivation is.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 10:49:30 pm

WE GOT THAT B-ROLL!!!







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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 11:05:12 pm

[David Lawrence] "WE GOT THAT B-ROLL!!!"

Casual? Upscale casual? Business?

Haven't seen that one in a while. Thank you.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 5:04:01 pm

Since I started editing with Computer NLEs in 1990 on Avid Media Composer, I'd felt that tracks were not quite representative of the way I edit.

Sometimes my relationships are horizontal (compositing or individual b-roll) and sometimes vertical (where b-roll are clips that must relate to each other as well as the main track). Tracks had also been a contrived (for me) method of categorizes (title tracks, classes of b-roll, alternate sections, audio functions).

While they were capable of all the above functions, they were far from my ideal. FCPX comes closer (still needs work) to what I've been looking for since 1990. Vertical and horizontal relationships are controlled by the editor. Clip functions (roles) are controlled through metadata tagging and not confined to a row where relationship to function was more important than relationship along time.

Certainly others may not want that and some may not understand it, but it's the way my brain is wired. It's why I find data bases far more flexible than spreadsheets. I want control over the data. I don't want it forced into horizontal rows when that is decidedly not my intent.

I would love to see FCPX move to a more nodal relationship in which the connection may be to clips or secondary storylines rather than limited to the primary storyline. I'd like to have more control over the visual relationship when needed (and it is sometimes).

But generally I like the direction FCPX is headed. I find tracks constrained/limited. I don't want them to be an enforced (nor even a preferred) workflow.



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 8:10:10 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Certainly others may not want that and some may not understand it, but it's the way my brain is wired. It's why I find data bases far more flexible than spreadsheets. I want control over the data. I don't want it forced into horizontal rows when that is decidedly not my intent.

I would love to see FCPX move to a more nodal relationship in which the connection may be to clips or secondary storylines rather than limited to the primary storyline. I'd like to have more control over the visual relationship when needed (and it is sometimes)."


Agree it's a brain wiring thing that really influences how each of us feels about the trackless timeline. For example, I can't imagine a nodal system being helpful for time-based work. The way my brain is wired, nodal relationships apply to shots, not to time, so it just doesn't make sense.

Tracks on the other hand are a clear, efficient way to represent parallel channels of synchronized time-based media in a 2D graphic space. The way my brain is wired, it makes perfect sense.

A question for you and for Tony - I've asked this before but I'm curious what your thoughts are:

Do you think a trackless, ripple-only timeline would be good for creating music? Would you want to create an album or do your audio post on the magnetic timeline? Would you want DAWs to adopt this timeline model as a standard?

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


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 7:26:06 pm

[tony west] "I'm not locking and unlocking tracks because there are no tracks. I'm just dropping stuff down the way I want without having it effect other clips."

While I don't mean to, in any way, disparage your liking or experience, I have to point out, "the way you want" is a contradiction in terms regarding this timeline.

One thing for sure here, the language we use for other NLE's does not translate to this "NLE"

The "way I want" to place audio and video conforms to how FCX wants. And I have to create slugs and roles and compound clips if I even want to attempt to do "what I want"...I want to put something here - I can't, I want to layer this way, I can't. I want to import this video, I can't unless I transcode to fit the locked AR. Very simple procedures any where else. The relationship of control and the editor is wiped away and the FCXers will argue that's the way it's supposed to function...but for some, that's just puzzling. It doesn't *have to* function this way...

You have an appreciation for it I will never get, you bring the one thing you can't find in any other NLE as a "better way". Which was the gist of my query. Please don't interpret any of this as a criticism. You like it. I think it blows lol. What I have to say almost matters...


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 8:10:22 pm

[Jamie Franklin] "The "way I want" to place audio and video conforms to how FCX wants."

You see, this is a matter of perspective. You edit in exactly the way your NLE of choice forces you to. You just don't see it that way, probably because it's the way you learned.

[Jamie Franklin] "I want to put something here - I can't, I want to layer this way, I can't. I want to import this video, I can't unless I transcode to fit the locked AR."

Every NLE has rules and functions that can't be adjusted or worked around. You can't put video tracks into the audio tracks area of Avid or FCP, nor audio in the video sections. Of course, you could counter with, "why would I WANT to?" but the point remains that those NLEs FORCE you into tracks, they force you into a particular way of compositing and editing.

You talk about how you "have to create slugs and roles and compound clips if I even want to attempt to do 'what I want'." But if you want to export all the SFX stems for your project in FCP or Avid, you HAVE to organize them onto the same tracks. You can't just tell your NLE to export only SFX regardless of where they are. It's not extra steps in FCPX, it's just a different workflow contingent upon the way the program is designed.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 8:46:23 pm

[Andy Neil] "You see, this is a matter of perspective. You edit in exactly the way your NLE of choice forces you to. You just don't see it that way, probably because it's the way you learned."

Sorry, Mate; I think you are brazenly wrong here. The actual joy of FCP is/was that it allowed you to pursue any number of editing paradigms at pretty much any given time. I've edited on things far weirder than FCP X--say, the Montage 3--which I enjoyed, and I've been able to edit using FCP as if it were a Montage--using multiple open timelines as bins, rotating edits between them; or I've been able to able to edit as if I were on a Media Composer or D/Vision, with stricter Source/Record; or I've been able to work like I'm using Speed Razor, which for its time, was an mazing editorial compositor. There has never been a more flexible, freeform editorial device than FCP. And to paraphrase--if you don't see it that way, its probably because you haven't learned on enough different NLEs.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 2:13:03 am

[Chris Harlan] "I think you are brazenly wrong here. The actual joy of FCP is/was that it allowed you to pursue any number of editing paradigms at pretty much any given time."

I'm sorry Chris. Perhaps you don't see my point. I'll try again with an example. Let's say your workflow in Avid MC is to pull sequences into the source monitor and cut complex edits into another sequence. How would you do the exact same workflow in FCP? You can't because while you can load a sequence into the viewer in FCP, when you edit it into another sequence, you're left with a nest, not the individual clips from the source sequence.

Of course, you can just open both sequences, select or blade the clips and copy/paste, but then you're not doing the same workflow. You're consigned to the workflow allowed by the program. So then, by that nature, if a particular workflow in one program is too much of a pain to recreate precisely in another, you ultimately change the way you edit to best fit the program you're using. Or at least I do.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 2:24:18 am

[Andy Neil] "You can't because while you can load a sequence into the viewer in FCP, when you edit it into another sequence, you're left with a nest, not the individual clips from the source sequence."

That's completely incorrect. In fact, it's pretty much the first thing Avid editors who migrated to FCP learned. Instead of Insert/Overwrite you use Insert/Overwrite With Sequence Content. I've remapped F9/F10 that way on every system I have used for years.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 2:51:58 am

[Oliver Peters] "Instead of Insert/Overwrite you use Insert/Overwrite With Sequence Content."

Nice tip. I never knew that shortcut existed and I've been editing on FCP for over 12 years.

I guess then as an alternate example, You can look at how effects are built in Avid, specifically when an editor is used to just creating add edits in filler and applying an adjustment effect to an entire section of footage.

The same workflow can't be produced in FCP because of how FCP treats gaps in a sequence. A different approach is necessary. Unless Oliver pipes in with some Add Adjustment Layer shortcut I've never heard of either. :-)

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 2:59:55 am

[Andy Neil] "Nice tip. I never knew that shortcut existed and I've been editing on FCP for over 12 years."

There's some irony in that. Given that nobody has been using FCPX for more than a few months, there's a whole slew of workflows that people may be overlooking and therefore calling the program inadequate.



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 3:12:50 am

[Craig Seeman] "There's some irony in that. Given that nobody has been using FCPX for more than a few months, there's a whole slew of workflows that people may be overlooking and therefore calling the program inadequate."

I hear if you type:

↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A

you get tracks.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 3:27:16 am

[David Lawrence] "I hear if you type:

↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A

you get tracks."


I thought they had medication for that. ;)

I heard that if you force quit FCP7 after starting FCPX, you can hear Bruce the Yak yell in pain.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 4:29:28 am

You need another B A, and then hit "start"!

I think Andy's point is that FCP7's interface informs how we work as does anything that allows manipulation.

You must use a sequence to layout clips in time, you must put 6 channels of audio on six separate tracks, you must composite transparent layers on top of non transparent. You must move certain layers out of the way, even if you want to overwrite them by dragging in the timeline. You must solo audio/video channels for stem export one by one. You must select the exact right edit points to trim multi layered timelines. You must dig in to bins to find your footage and watch clips one by one through a double click on every clip. You must select all clips to the Left/right if you want to shove clips up/down the timeline. You must adjust filter parameters in a tab. You must name your clips in the bins one at a time, etc and so forth.

While FCP7 may provide more than one way to work and has certain flexibilities, there's still methods we have to employ and "rules" to follow and learn.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 4:40:24 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "You must solo audio/video channels for stem export one by one"

Or in FCP7 you can make a multi channel output sequence and patch tracks to do all your stems at once. Surely it is easier to patch a whole track, rather than assigning roles to individual clips.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 4:51:16 am

[Michael Gissing] "Surely it is easier to patch a whole track, rather than assigning roles to individual clips."

That depends. That method requires making sure all your SFX, dialogue, music, etc. are organized on like tracks. You can do it as you go, or all at the end, but it's still work that needs to be done.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 4:58:39 am

[Michael Gissing] "Or in FCP7 you can make a multi channel output sequence and patch tracks to do all your stems at once. Surely it is easier to patch a whole track, rather than assigning roles to individual clips."

I'm not trying to argue the differences as the point is about 7 actually has an interface that you must control, but the export process in X is completely different than 7. You can do far more in one export pass in X than you can in 7, especially when you start to factor video tracks as stems as well, and you don't have to patch/solo anything. The timeline remains the same, you do your "patches" in the export dialogue. After exporting you continue work on the very same timeline, which you might not in fcp7.

Assigning Roles is easy, especially if you preliminarily assign before editing which makes reassigning even easier, but whatever, some people don't like it and that's fine.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 5:21:19 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "You need another B A, and then hit "start"!"

Oh yeah, forgot! Good catch!

[Jeremy Garchow] "While FCP7 may provide more than one way to work and has certain flexibilities, there's still methods we have to employ and "rules" to follow and learn."

Agreed, but there's a huge difference in the kind of rules found in an open system like FCP Legacy and the kind of rules that the designers chose for FCPX.

I was writing a third article comparing the rules between the two systems but I never published it because the main points of that piece needed to be broken into smaller chunks and those workflow conversations you and I were getting into last month covered them in much better detail.

In regard to the rules themselves, this statement from Michael says it well:

[Michael Gissing] "If experienced editors need to learn it, that suggests it isn't simple or intuitive."

I believe the reason for this is has to do with the nature of the rules in FCPX. Even if you ignore the current bugs and inconsistencies, it's clear that the rules the designers chose for FCPX are primarily drawn from a data model. While this may be elegant from an engineering standpoint, from a usability standpoint it often falls flat.

In FCP Legacy, there are many rules too, but at least you never had to consider an object container model when making a dissolve.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 5:47:39 am

Yes. FCPX is different. The rules are different. The processes are different. Media100 was different, too.

I don't think that learning a system that is different makes it unintuituve, especially when you try and make it work like your older system. It's just different. I can still edit in FCPX, that hasn't changed.

[David Lawrence] "I believe the reason for this is has to do with the nature of the rules in FCPX. Even if you ignore the current bugs and inconsistencies, it's clear that the rules the designers chose for FCPX are primarily drawn from a data model. While this may be elegant from an engineering standpoint, from a usability standpoint it often falls flat."

A data model doesn't scare me, it might help me actually, especially if they gave us more control of it.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 4:53:20 pm

[David Lawrence] "I believe the reason for this is has to do with the nature of the rules in FCPX. Even if you ignore the current bugs and inconsistencies, it's clear that the rules the designers chose for FCPX are primarily drawn from a data model. While this may be elegant from an engineering standpoint, from a usability standpoint it often falls flat."

Well said.

The beauty and elegance of FCPX's parent-child data model for the timeline make my inner geek weep in appreciation.

The consequences of implementing this data model in the UI just make me weep.

I think that clip connections are an absolutely brilliant idea, and represent a major innovation in editorial -- but they could have been implemented in an open timeline, too.


[David Lawrence] "In FCP Legacy, there are many rules too, but at least you never had to consider an object container model when making a dissolve."

Indeed. FCP Classic asks you to consider where a clip is when you use it; FCPX asks you to consider what it is.

For all those who complain that FCP Classic requires track management, how do you address this concern? Is actively managing a clip's container really any different than actively managing its track position?

It's hard to discuss "tracks" when talking about FCP7/FCPX because it conflates so many separate aspects of the implementations. Hard tracked (manually organized) versus trackless (self-collapsing), non-magnetic versus magnetic (connected clips), absolute time versus relative time...

I personally would have liked an open timeline with magnetism (connected clips) and grouped tracks or "zones" as discussed with Michael Gissing and Jeremy Garchow. I understand this is not everyone's cup of tea.

Would a traditional open timeline with clip connections, the ability to hide or reduce audio tracks which come from video, metadata, and a "Collapse Tracks" hotkey have been a workable solution? Would it be preferred to either the classic or X timeline which require active track or container management?

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

Bill Davis
Re: Tracks
on Nov 22, 2011 at 6:06:08 pm

[David Lawrence] "In FCP Legacy, there are many rules too, but at least you never had to consider an object container model when making a dissolve."

I'll get in trouble again, probably, but here goes...

Again and again here, we keep seeing a reflection of something I find extremely interesting.

After 10 years of development and, honestly, expansion, each FCP-Legacy editor had become well adapted to the parts of Legacy that fed their personal and particular comfort. And they ignored LOTS of other capabilities and processes that didn't meet their requirements or simply didn't not cross their awareness at the right time.

The reason I say this is because we keep seeing editors say "you can (or can't) do this" and someone else proves the opposite by showing how. I know I've done the same. I learned Legacy starting at V1, have used it constantly since, (on hundreds of projects) and I'm constantly surprised at what I still don't know about it.

That depth and utility was not there at the beginning. Trust me. It just wasn't. (As I've mentioned before not even JKL transport was in V1.)

David, with all respect, looking at the "data model" and trying to argue either for or against FCP-X in it's first iteration might be both fair and interesting, but I believe it can only relevant if it exposes "universal" truths. And I think those are few and far between at this stage.

Similarly, the magnetic timeline. If it proves annoying to more users than useful (or even tolerable) then it will drag down the success and adoption of the program.

I suspect it will not, because in my experience, it takes a couple of week to get used to - then it makes as much sense as any other timeline construct - and the editor moves on from "how does it work" to just doing the work.

"Considering an object container model when doing a dissolve?:" Why is that so different than "considering the underlying clip length when doing a dissolve? We ALL had to learn that the first time we tried to slap a dissolve on the end of a clip with no head or tail. The solution rapidly becomes OBVIOUS with trial, error, and experience. Just as with every iteration of every piece of software we operate.

To tie this back to the first few paragraphs, we worry too much, I assert, about missing features, keystrokes, and workflows. I totally get that these are the touchstones of our comfort as editors. Again and again we see, editors who came to want to do something at some point - only to discover that it was already there and missed — merely because they didn't see it, didn't initially need it, or merely conditioned themselves to do it another way, and never bothered to explore the alternatives. That's the story of individual editing. And it always will be.

The mistake, I believe, is to become so rigid in ones thinking that we generalize through the application of ill will, something that does things in a different way - until we have some time and space to see whether those things appear different when we gather the deeper knowledge of what they might provide us anew.

Glass half full? Glass half empty? One editors "Ick" is another editors "Interesting" and both are correct, based on their thinking and style, not on the water.

I embrace the "object container model when making a dissolve" idea. It's new to me. And I enjoy new.

FWIW.

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


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 4:26:49 am

[Craig Seeman] "Given that nobody has been using FCPX for more than a few months, there's a whole slew of workflows that people may be overlooking and therefore calling the program inadequate."

After working with FCP for over 7 years I find myself constantly finding new shortcuts and new ways of doing things; almost every time I work with a different editor I learn something new. The fear is that the goals of ease and simplicity that seems to have driven the design for FCPX will make these kinds of alternatives unlikely. It is precisely that which makes FCP difficult for novices to learn that is its strength - it's almost infinite ways of accomplishing almost anything. Ease and simplicity comes at a cost.

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


Return to posts index

Andreas Kiel
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 9:58:59 am

Adjustments layers can be inserted easily within FCPX - just create an empty title with Motion. As titles render 'down' all other clips you can apply color correction or whatever effect (which makes sense) to all the clips below.

Andreas

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 2:07:32 pm

[Andy Neil] "I guess then as an alternate example, You can look at how effects are built in Avid, specifically when an editor is used to just creating add edits in filler and applying an adjustment effect to an entire section of footage."

Oh, I completely agree. The Media Composer effects design is VERY long-in-the-tooth, but it has its pro and cons. I like the "adjustment layer" idea, but hate the difficult way you have to work when you stack filters on the same clip.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 2:52:52 am

[Andy Neil] "[Chris Harlan] "I think you are brazenly wrong here. The actual joy of FCP is/was that it allowed you to pursue any number of editing paradigms at pretty much any given time."

I'm sorry Chris. Perhaps you don't see my point. I'll try again with an example. Let's say your workflow in Avid MC is to pull sequences into the source monitor and cut complex edits into another sequence. How would you do the exact same workflow in FCP? You can't because while you can load a sequence into the viewer in FCP, when you edit it into another sequence, you're left with a nest, not the individual clips from the source sequence.
"


I did understand, Andy, and I think Oliver does a fine job of reinforcing my point about FCP's flexibility in the adjacent post, so I won't reiterate.


Return to posts index

Adam White
Re: Tracks
on Nov 22, 2011 at 10:31:17 pm

I totally agree!

I have seen many different editors work in very different ways on FCP7. It accomodates many different ways of working, because it's a pretty open framework.

This is essentially why I think so many editors are nervous or outright hostile to X. That freedom has been taken away.

I also have serious doubts about whether the editing paradigm found in X is a solid foundation for new editors learning their craft. I'm sure some will get very good at getting great results from it, but if X continues to be so at odds with the other NLE's there is going to be a big divide in the editing community that I can't see is going tp be helpful for anyone.


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 8:25:24 am

[Andy Neil] "Every NLE has rules and functions that can't be adjusted or worked around. You can't put video tracks into the audio tracks area of Avid or FCP, nor audio in the video sections. Of course, you could counter with, "why would I WANT to?" but the point remains that those NLEs FORCE you into tracks, they force you into a particular way of compositing and editing."

This seems to be arguing for arguments sake. FCS has a ton more flexibility and that is the only point that remains..."I can't put an audio track in a video track", I mean honestly...

[Andy Neil] "You talk about how you "have to create slugs and roles and compound clips if I even want to attempt to do 'what I want'." But if you want to export all the SFX stems for your project in FCP or Avid, you HAVE to organize them onto the same tracks. You can't just tell your NLE to export only SFX regardless of where they are. It's not extra steps in FCPX, it's just a different workflow contingent upon the way the program is designed."

How an NLE functions in it's output is far outweighed on how I can create and the flexibility in my canvas. One of the functions I enjoy is duping a sequence spend the 5 seconds deleting unwanted tracks, binning the sequence with the appropriate tag. Everything is neat and tidy. And if desired I can choose to operate a different way...what you call "extra steps" isn't locked into any particular way of doing things. Not so much with X. Which I don't care for. That's my personal preference, my thoughts are my own...


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 4:25:45 pm

[Jaimie Franklin]"This seems to be arguing for arguments sake. FCS has a ton more flexibility and that is the only point that remains"

You're just being dismissive. And you're ignoring my point. You see FCP as some completely open system that allows you to work however you want and FCPX as a completely closed system that forces you into a particular workflow.

I'm saying that BOTH programs force you to work within the rules they are designed around. You proved my point when you said,

[Jaimie Franklin]"One of the functions I enjoy is duping a sequence spend the 5 seconds deleting unwanted tracks, binning the sequence with the appropriate tag."

because you're describing a workflow you've been forced to adopt in FCP to cover the need of exporting individual stems. Of course you are forgetting to calculate all the cumulative time you spent placing SFX and music and other audio elements on dedicated tracks and rearranging them during your edit so that it only took "5 seconds" at the end of your edit to delete unwanted tracks.

I get that you prefer to work in FCP7. Personally, I like FCP7 a lot. I always have. And it's certainly true that FCPX has shortcomings. But it's not a closed system. I don't see how it can even be considered that since Apple is promising multicam editing next year. I just don't agree with venerating FCP for the sake of tearing down FCPX.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 5:28:38 pm

[Andy Neil] "I'm saying that BOTH programs force you to work within the rules they are designed around"

Yeah, and both the old Soviet Union and Costa Rica forced you to work within the rules they are designed around, as well.


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 5:51:27 pm

[Andy Neil] "You're just being dismissive. And you're ignoring my point. You see FCP as some completely open system that allows you to work however you want and FCPX as a completely closed system that forces you into a particular workflow."

Am I? Your example is I can't bring audio into a video track and that, in some X defenderese, is a logical defense or point.....? Which was completely dismissive of the examples I gave that FCX suffers from that I do not enjoy...do we honestly need to make Harry Carry out of it?

If I want to bring in a video clip or audio clip I have to make a relationship to other clips first. I almost want to pull my hair out having to explain this...all over again and again...this is not conducive >FOR ME< to be creative in a fluid, quick and enjoyable way. FCS doesn't have flexibility issues, despite the "forcings" you are concocting or imagining throwing at it...which ironically, you were wrong on...

[Andy Neil] "I'm saying that BOTH programs force you to work within the rules they are designed around. You proved my point when you said,"

I didn't prove your point, I gave you an example. I can mute the tracks, I can send them to STP, I can move them independently, I can slide them around while finding the right spot without annoyance. And I said, how I export is secondary to the control and flexibility to how I work...so who is being dismissive here?



[Andy Neil] "I get that you prefer to work in FCP7. Personally, I like FCP7 a lot. I always have. And it's certainly true that FCPX has shortcomings. But it's not a closed system. I don't see how it can even be considered that since Apple is promising multicam editing next year. I just don't agree with venerating FCP for the sake of tearing down FCPX."

Again, now you are just inventing an argument I never made. Although having locked aspect ratios is exactly that. I never said it was "closed off" I said I do not like having to work in a timeline that is not flexible. And by that I have spelled out my reasons and don't feel the need to defend this further especially when your arguments aren't very well thought out nor account for 90% of what I have posted.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 5:58:51 pm

[Andy Neil] "Of course you are forgetting to calculate all the cumulative time you spent placing SFX and music and other audio elements on dedicated tracks and rearranging them"

You mean the part called "editing"? ;)

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


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 6:04:00 pm

[David Lawrence] "You mean the part called "editing"?"

That's so 1999


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 6:25:46 pm

[David Lawrence] "You mean the part called "editing"?"

Please. If that were called 'editing', then I wouldn't have to clean up 70 percent of the sequences I get handed on a weekly basis. :-)

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 6:37:18 pm

[Andy Neil] "[David Lawrence] "You mean the part called "editing"?"

Please. If that were called 'editing', then I wouldn't have to clean up 70 percent of the sequences I get handed on a weekly basis. :-)

Andy
"


So, there are sloppy editors. You think they are going to be any better with Roles? At least with tracks, you can see what is in the wrong place.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 7:53:56 pm

[Chris Harlan] "So, there are sloppy editors. You think they are going to be any better with Roles? At least with tracks, you can see what is in the wrong place."

But then you have to fix it and almost reposition everything.

With Roles, you simply select what you want and reassign it. You don't have to move anything.

I see what you're saying, but there's two sides to this coin.

I've said it before and I will say it again. FCPX does not prevent you from editing or needing to edit, the processes are just different.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 8:12:02 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "But then you have to fix it and almost reposition everything.

With Roles, you simply select what you want and reassign it. You don't have to move anything.

I see what you're saying, but there's two sides to this coin.
"


I'm not trying to argue against Roles, here. You know my qualms about visual representation, and you have suggested a variety of ways that my concerns could be ameliorated in future versions. If stuff like that happens, I might even like Roles. I'm just reminding folks that Roles isn't de facto faster--that work still needs to be done to use it. In a traditional timeline, if you start out by putting things in the proper track as you place them on the timeline, you don't need to worry about reassigning them later.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 7:19:00 pm

[Andy Neil] "Please. If that were called 'editing', then I wouldn't have to clean up 70 percent of the sequences I get handed on a weekly basis. :-)"

LOL, sounds like you need to find better assistants! ;)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 7:02:06 pm

[David Lawrence] "You mean the part called "editing"? ;)"

Ouch! Here we go again.

I know this is anecdotal, but after playing around in X for a long while and assembling an edit, and then going back to FCP7, it is amazing how much slower 7 feels. I'm not jut talking about effects/rendering/computing speed, I am talking about how many clicks it takes to get something done, and now I am sort of forced to pay attention to those clicks because I am constantly and naturally comparing it to how much faster certain processes would be in X.

I hear you about the dissolve in a container thing, but that has been reduced to one shortcut (just add the dissolve and the container appears) and it also allows the ripple behaviors that some people might want to be constrained just to the container. Yes, it's a different method but it does make sense if you try and use it like it is intended and not how FCP7 works. I simply can't use FCP7 like FCPX because there's no way to tell FCP7 to do what I want it to do, and the more I play with FCPX, the more I cannot wait for broadcast monitoring in FCPX so I can really start to really bang on it for paid gigs.

An example is that I had ten or so selects on an FCP7 timeline, I put the parts that I wanted to keep on v2, and then wanted to delete the fat on v1. So I selected v1, deleted, then had to move all clips down to v1, then delete the gaps in between one by one. I then had to copy and paste those in to my main edit timeline.

In FCPX, I simply select the clips I don't want and delete them, and everything follows along, and I wouldn't have to do this in a sequence, I could do this work in a compound clip in the event. I find the event to be a remarkably great place to prep footage either with naming and such, or even pre-edit functions (like pre-edting VO selects instead of editing it on the timeline, slamming certain scenes together in a compound and putting them in a Project for fine tuning after braking apart if need be). This is something I "can't" do on one clip in FCP7, or I simply have to do it differently. I personally find X to be more efficient in a lot of aspects of the mechanics of the edit. The Event is an organizational tool, and it's not just about naming clips/collections, it also functions to prepare clips for the timeline. And the Project is for placing these things purposefully in time. It is way different than how FCP7 works, and I simply can't do some of the things in 7 that I can do in X, so isn't 7 forcing me to do things that I might not necessarily "want"?

It is little things like this that add up, and it really is only going from X to 7 that you really start to notice them. I know you will argue the reverse, but it has been my experience. I still miss the organizational function of tracks, but that's about all I "miss" from tracks. A second viewer would be nice some of the time, but isn't necessary all the time.

I had to conform a bunch of shots from low res proxies to high res finals by hand the other day in FCP7 and I will admit, it would have been a lot harder in X to perform that particular set of moves as there's no playhead replace which I miss dearly in X , and the Viewer made it fall down easy and fast. It still wouldn't stop me from working in X.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 11:48:33 pm

[Jamie Franklin] "The relationship of control and the editor is wiped away and the FCXers will argue that's the way it's supposed to function...but for some, that's just puzzling. It doesn't *have to* function this way..."

Jaime,

You've clearly at ease with the idea of the "traditional" timeline where if something isn't on the timeline, that is a single state representation of nothingness.
Cuz, in Legacy a blank spot on the timeline is precisely that. Nothing. And you can't do a damn thing about it.

In X, it's something. (A gap clip, to be precise) As something it can take on attributes.It can be tracked, it can be accounted for. It can connect to stuff. When it's nothing - nothing is possible except that it sits there.

That this doesn't "work" for you is no indication that it doesn't work for some of us.

Simple as that.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 11:53:22 pm

[Bill Davis] "When it's nothing - nothing is possible except that it sits there. "

Another way to look at it is if it's nothing, I don't have to think about it. One less thing to deal with.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 12:13:35 am

[David Lawrence] "[Bill Davis] "When it's nothing - nothing is possible except that it sits there. "

Another way to look at it is if it's nothing, I don't have to think about it. One less thing to deal with.
"


You made me laugh, David! Thanks.

"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

Chris Harlan
Re: Tracks
on Nov 20, 2011 at 11:59:10 pm

[Bill Davis] "Cuz, in Legacy a blank spot on the timeline is precisely that. Nothing. And you can't do a damn thing about it.
"


Not quite true. It's Black. And, frankly, the fact that I didn't have to generate slug every time I wanted black was a godsend. It was always fun to watch someone coming from MC to FCP as they were just starting out, generating slug after slug to be used for black. I, personally, was thrilled to have a timeline smart enough to hold your place in time and auto-generate black.

[Bill Davis] "In X, it's something. (A gap clip, to be precise) As something it can take on attributes.It can be tracked, it can be accounted for. It can connect to stuff. When it's nothing - nothing is possible except that it sits there.
"


That's what slug is for.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 12:03:25 am

[Chris Harlan] "Not quite true. It's Black. And, frankly, the fact that I didn't have to generate slug every time I wanted black was a godsend. It was always fun to watch someone coming from MC to FCP as they were just starting out, generating slug after slug to be used for black. I, personally, was thrilled to have a timeline smart enough to hold your place in time and auto-generate black."

Amen!!!

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 12:15:39 am

[Chris Harlan] "
That's what slug is for.
"


There was a "locate slugs and output their aggregate time" in Legacy?

I never found THAT. Man that would have been useful.

"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

Chris Harlan
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 1:04:11 am

[Bill Davis] "[Chris Harlan] "
That's what slug is for.
"

There was a "locate slugs and output their aggregate time" in Legacy?

I never found THAT. Man that would have been useful.
"


Bill, I'm sorry. I haven't a clue what you are talking about. A beat ago you were simply talking about assigning attributes. Where did "locate slugs and output their aggregate time" come from? Is that just out of the blue? Or did I miss a post? And why on earth would any one want to do that as some sort of automated routine?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 2:45:07 pm

Chris,

X can do that. Since a gap clip is a "thing" rather than "nothing" the database recognizes the entity and can manage it.

Simple as that.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 5:22:57 pm

[Bill Davis] "Chris,

X can do that. Since a gap clip is a "thing" rather than "nothing" the database recognizes the entity and can manage it.

Simple as that.
"


And in FCP slug is a "thing" rather than "nothing" the program recognizes the entity and can assign filters to it, rename it, etc. Your weird argument about spitting out aggregate length is sophistry, and nothing more. Why, exactly, would someone want to do that?


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tracks
on Nov 22, 2011 at 5:04:38 pm

[Chris Harlan] "And in FCP slug is a "thing" rather than "nothing" the program recognizes the entity and can assign filters to it, rename it, etc. Your weird argument about spitting out aggregate length is sophistry, and nothing more. Why, exactly, would someone want to do that?"

The difference, Chris, is that in Legacy it's a ONE way street. You can talk to a slug. But a slug talks to nothing. (actually just like ALL clips in Legacy)

The whole point of the DB in X is that it's based on 2-way communication. Not only do you talk to your clips (apply filters, etc.) but once you do, the clips reflect that information BACK to the database from which they sprung.

For example, change the order of a clip on the timeline, and the ORDER of that clips changes in the Timeline Index (for example) as well.

In many ways this is one of the most fundamental ways that X is different from Legacy.

And if you haven't come to understand that yet, perhaps you stopped your examination of FCP-X a bit too soon?

"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

Chris Harlan
Re: Tracks
on Nov 22, 2011 at 8:00:12 pm

[Bill Davis] "And if you haven't come to understand that yet, perhaps you stopped your examination of FCP-X a bit too soon?
"


And perhaps you've drunk way, way too much Kool-aid.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Tracks
on Nov 22, 2011 at 10:40:28 pm

[Chris Harlan] "And perhaps you've drunk way, way too much Kool-aid."

So the observation that one program has single direction information flow - and that the new verson of that program has bi-directional information flow — and that might be interesting to people trying to decide between them — is, in your mind, roughly equivalent to duping men, women and children into drinking a poison laced beverage?

Interesting the way your mind works, Chris.

"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

Chris Harlan
Re: Tracks
on Nov 22, 2011 at 11:21:46 pm

[Bill Davis] "[Chris Harlan] "And perhaps you've drunk way, way too much Kool-aid."

So the observation that one program has single direction information flow - and that the new verson of that program has bi-directional information flow — and that might be interesting to people trying to decide between them — is, in your mind, roughly equivalent to duping men, women and children into drinking a poison laced beverage?

Interesting the way your mind works, Chris.
"


It's not the way my mind works, Bill; it's the way you use sophistry, straw-man arguments and non-sequiters to spar here. It makes it difficult to communicate with you. Its frustrating, and I just decided to give up. Have fun using FCP X to "locate slugs and output their aggregate time." I really don't know why anyone would want to do that, but it seems important to you.


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 8:32:23 am

[Chris Harlan] "Not quite true. It's Black. And, frankly, the fact that I didn't have to generate slug every time I wanted black was a godsend. It was always fun to watch someone coming from MC to FCP as they were just starting out, generating slug after slug to be used for black. I, personally, was thrilled to have a timeline smart enough to hold your place in time and auto-generate black."

^ This

Not a moment goes by in X where I find things like this to truly appreciate in 7.

The irony is, I complained a bit too much with 7, and X really brought to light how well it brought home the bacon. And when I open her up now there is a whole new appreciation for her.


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 7:55:10 am

dbl post


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 8:00:57 am

[Bill Davis] "That this doesn't "work" for you is no indication that it doesn't work for some of us"

/sigh

I said that in my post...but thanks, haven't heard that one in a couple of weeks...



[Bill Davis] "You've clearly at ease with the idea of the "traditional" timeline where if something isn't on the timeline, that is a single state representation of nothingness.
Cuz, in Legacy a blank spot on the timeline is precisely that. Nothing. And you can't do a damn thing about it.

In X, it's something. (A gap clip, to be precise) As something it can take on attributes.It can be tracked, it can be accounted for. It can connect to stuff. When it's nothing - nothing is possible except that it sits there."


It gets exhausting responding to your posts Bill. I have more control over the timeline in legacy. I like it better. A LOT better. That's all that matters to me. I asked a question, I got a thoughtful answer, I responded in kind.

Does it need further psychoanalysis and some existential gobbledygoop on top?


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 1:51:06 am

[tony west] "Somebody decided that the timeline could be consolidated by combining video and audio as one track. A bold move."

FWIW - Apple is hardly the first to do this. It was done by other NLE vendors years ago and discarded.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 6:04:34 am

i know they didn't invent it, but I think they perfected it.

Unlike the other, X won't be discarded and if you lived in my city I would challenge you to a cash money bet on that.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Tracks
on Nov 21, 2011 at 4:18:01 pm

[tony west] "I was working on FC 6, and I don't have "normal jobs".

I could be on anything from sports to corporate to a Doc I just started shooting.

For sports it's typically the talent's VO, nats (bat crack) the call of the game, music and maybe player VO

That under player highlights and graphics

What kind of projects do you work on?"

Half of my jobs are a kind of video reports (like some 15 minutes documentaries) on development projects that can verse on health, micro-credits, education and so.
The last one had ITWs in five languages and was delivered in English and Lao versions. They are basically the same contents, changing only subtitles and "upper thirds", although some trimming is always needed because normally the local language takes a 20% longer than the English.
A nice intro and end and not much more. The end with pictures, titles, logos, etc may have from 8 to ten layers.
I de-noise all the picture and CC.

Nothing special in the product, but the way i have to work is more sui generis.
When I start to edit I have no much Idea of how the final movie will look, and everything can be changed in the lat moment. Therefor I need to have in front of my eyes everything when I open my project.

When I take a job, 90% of the times I have not just not any script but neither much info or directives on what I have to do apart of the subject and the need to please my client and the local authorities.
Some times a get a paper with few lines with a general idea on what my customer want; some time I get a ton of papers that my customer expect me to condensate in the film.
Normally my customers (UN agencies or NGOs) are based in remote areas and they have nobody to help me and fallow the production, so I have to go to the field and try to gather the information necessary to tell the story and shot anything it could help me with that job. I shot many things that at first sight may don't seems related with the subject, but who knows?. For sure I won't have the opportunity to go back there and shoot if I need something else.
later on I may be able to get some extra information later on from my clients through Internet, but no much more.
I need to get the ITWs translated on the field because back in town would be almost impossible to find translators.
Back home I have to try to put all that together. I write a draft text that together with the ITWs will make the spine of the story. I record a draft voice over at home, and I cover that with the pictures that more or less fit with the text but without caring much on the rhythm, trimming or selecting the best picture.
Then I send that to my customer (Vimeo) and I start a Ping-Pong of corrections and conforming (some times sharing screens with Skype).
The videos normally have not a very well defined target audience. They are for visibility and to tell to the donors and stake holders what have been achieved, so I have to try from a some time very technical and little appealing subject (micro-credits, the reform of the local administration..), to make a short movie that more or less anybody can fallow and understand. I have to try to avoid a lineal story which is the normal tendency of my functionaries customers. Thanks God the environment, locations, and the minorities I work with help to put a certain documentary ambience on the movies.
So for me fast editing is not a concern, but being able to see what is done and what remains to be done, and being able to move elements up or down, left or right, wherever I want in my time-line.

[tony west] "A good editor knows that great footage make the project."
I do not agree at all with this.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

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