I was just wondering, many folks (including me at first) wanted that viewer window back.
I was thinking this morning, it's still there isn't it? Just smaller?
I can see the source clip in one window and when I'm parked in the timeline I see the timeline in the main window.
It seems like people are saying that you can't see them both at the same time. You can't if you are scrubbing the source but if you are not you can right?
I'm looking at the source clip and the record clip at the same time
like I was before just the source clip is in a smaller window until I scrubb on it and then it becomes bigger.
So technically, you are looking at a viewer window just smaller right?
(until you scrub on it)
Is that because when you open up the inspector it takes up room.
You have the inspector open a lot, so is that why your "viewer" or source window is smaller, to make room on screen?
In old fc the viewer window became the text window.
In X when you work with text you can still see the source clip on screen at the same time. So the source material is technically on the screen more now than before right?
I guess I don't miss that viewer window because I can still see it. Smaller, but then bigger.
Does that make sense?
I think the problem with this set up is most acute for editors of things like drama or to be honest anything where you need to match action between one shot and another.
If you are trying to do a cut on action (or any of of a number of similar editing strategies where matching is critical), you need to be able to see both images at the same time at the same size.
Both parts of that are equally important. Yes in FCPX you can have or or the other, but the crucial missing thing is that you can't have both.
A much more mundane requirement that comes up for me all the time is that I need to replace one set of shots with identical footage from a different source, and because the timecode is different (or even sometimes the speed), the only way to do this is by eye-matching.
Eye-matching is virtually impossible unless you can see both images side by side at the same size at the same time. Sometimes it's fantastically hard to see the detail that is the only clue to the match.
Also absolutely essential for eye-matching, and indeed the more refined art of match-action cutting described above, is the ability to gang the source and the destination, which is a very serious missing part of FCPX for a few of us.
I don't miss the extra monitor.
I don't begrudge people who do, and I wouldn't mind if they gave me the ability to turn it on and off. I value my real estate with the one window.
I've had to do some shot matching. It's not too difficult to stack shots, apply a small scale or opacity to the top clip so you can see two clips in the window, then use the <> keys to bump the top clip, doing the bump/scrub, bump/scrub until you see the action matching.
And lastly.... my goodness! How did movies ever get made working on a moviola? Don't you just have one viewer window on that? Or a single-screen flatbed?
Don't live your life in a secondary storyline.
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
[Mark Morache] "And lastly.... my goodness! How did movies ever get made working on a moviola? Don't you just have one viewer window on that? Or a single-screen flatbed?"
It was sometimes called "cutting in the hand" - you help up both shots and you looked at them side by side and of course they were the same size and you could see them at the same time.
But I will admit that the frame size was pretty small, especially for 16mm!!!
See this short article about David Lean:
I'm old enough to add an historical note to the film editing question. I always used two moviolas. My preference for working with Kem was to gang two four plates. Avid was invented to operate as an analog to film editing so workflows would be familiar. As it has evolved, certainly pushed by FCP and advancements in digital technology, Avid has added features to make it more "computer like" but it usually retained the legacy features. Thus older users aren't forced to change their Avid habits yet can take advantage of new features if they wish. The real problem -- I think -- is that the added complexity of the program has made it less stable (although truth is most instability I personally experience comes from networking) and that if you come to Avid fresh, without all that history, you are looking at legacy features, intermediate features, new features. It's a lot to sort out and ultimately it isn't necessary. Hard for a new user to realize that, however, so the program must seem heavy handed and daunting. In terms of debates over software, my sense is one can get into a first and even second edit pretty quickly with almost any editing program. The real world test comes when an editor is in a cutting room with a director whose film is in trouble and two producers and four executives are in the room calling out change ideas they want to try, compare, and incorporate by mixing parts of this concept with parts of that while you, the editor, is getting your own fresh ideas and trying to slip those in too. If your program allows you to handle that with maximum speed and minimum perspiration and apologies, you're on to something.
[Simon Ubsdell] "If you are trying to do a cut on action (or any of of a number of similar editing strategies where matching is critical), you need to be able to see both images at the same time at the same size.
Both parts of that are equally important. Yes in FCPX you can have or or the other, but the crucial missing thing is that you can't have both."
Not traditionally no, but when if you take it down to the timeline you can get both shots side by side when you trim, I'm using this a lot at the moment for some drama scenes I'm editing.
I agree about gang though, I would be surprised if it wasn't added going forward
I miss it, but that doesn't mean it needs to be there all the time.
It should be able to turn on and off, just like the multi cam viewer. The space is there, the framework is there, it just needs to be implemented.
Most of the time, for me personally, when I'm working the viewer sits there unused. There are times when it is very important though, just like any tool, when you need you really need it. While I could get away with not using it, the process would be more laborious and cumbersome. User choice is key, so at least give us the option. We can call it the Event Viewer, and it will be shortcut assignable.
With the advent of the video out Beta, though, I have found that putting the viewer on the second display (which puts the Event and Timeline on the same window, with the Event above and the Project below, allows some really fast interaction with the source footage and timeline. It also forces me to pay more attention to my broadcast preview monitor. I quite like it, it's very "tight" and experimental, I have always said that working with FCPX sometimes feels like sketching. Then there are times (using scopes for example, or doing motion tab work) that having the viewer on the primary and Event on the second monitor is very helpful. So, I switch it around. I have a 17" monitor on the left, a 30" monitor in the middle, and my video monitor is on the right.
See screen grabs, ignore the test sequence:
I guess this is just a matter of style because when I cut sports that's all there is, is action.
We have to match a play from different angles all the time and I don't have a problem doing it with X
You have a player diving for a ball from mid-first camera then you cut x-mo on the same play.
That's most of what we do.
You don't want to see just one angle when you have all those cameras out there a game.
That's quite different to cutting drama though. When cutting drama we don't necessarily have the advantage of every take being covered by multiple cameras. In fact I've never cut multicam work. Rather we're trying to match eyelines, motion and body movements between takes that may have been shot hours or even days apart. Little things, like an actor shifting body position during one take but not another,can be massively jarring and you need to be able to see everything clearly to pick those problems.
I do a lot of eyematching because the recent trend in my part of the world is to cut videoassist footage and then give it to someone to reassemble. I don't actually look at the Viewer and the Canvas side by side most of the time looking at the broadcast monitor instead toggling between source and target with Q. That doesn't mean that I don't need the Viewer at all. I don't look at the FCP interface much then editing either. But when I need it it is there and gives me tons of visual feedback about the overall state of my project. My Viewer and Canvas are at the tiniest possible window size but my Browser and Timeline are huge.