FORUMS: list search recent posts

One Single Change

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Jim Giberti
One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 2:12:36 am

I've had the opportunity to do a bunch of stuff in FCPX over the last several months and recently have been reworking a lot of projects in FCP7.

So I've had plenty of time to discover the strengths and weaknesses of X and now a good opportunity to see them in direct comparison with 7, including "on-board" audio post in X and external audio post in Digital Performer with 7. I think I've been fairly agnostic to this point, while talking about some of the things that I really like about FCPX.

FWIW, here are my opinions on the basic paradigm issues (as I see 'em, sorry if it's a bit of a tome.)

Is the Magnetic Timeline better?
No. It's different and it's a nice concept in some instances and counterproductive in others.

Is the trackless concept better?
No. In some instances using CCs as bins for both organization and group FX is great. In other instances the lack of tracks is very counterproductive.

With the caveat that it's still way too buggy and immature - In essence I really like FCPX. I like the look, the feel and access to the main creative tools, and use of real estate. I especially like the ability to keep projects "in-house" right through finishing and mastering - some projects.

The creative process is, at it's essence, about pushing beyond limits and restrictions.
Well, not surprisingly, magnetism can be restrictive.
Conversely, the ability to easily define linear order is not restrictive.
It's all about context.
A visionary concept should allow for a workflow that's easily adjustable to context.

So, if it's so obvious to a simple guy like me, it can't be that big of a concept.
It's the 21st century, it's about choices, not boxes.

Magnetic Timelines and trackless editing can be liberating in some instances.
They are confining in others.
Ironically, sometimes they create a box, other times they actually increase complexity.
It depends on the project, workflow and creative style.

Track based editing with no magnetism is liberating in other instances, offering complete control and fluidity during the proces.

Both concepts work, but not at the same time or for all needs. That's why a basic choice is obviously better.

Fortunately, better is quantifiable - just ask users what's better for them.
I bet the opinions would run sort of like this: Sometimes magnetic/trackless is better and sometimes track based is better.

So, it can't be better to restrict users to one better way of doing things in the name of another better way of doing things?
They're both better, depending on what they're compared to, in context.
The best creative environment will always offer more, not less, options.

My single change:
One button - Magnetism Off/Track Grid On.

Everything else can stay essentially the same and Apple would offer the best creative environment on the market, IMO.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 2:44:47 am

[Jim Giberti] "So, it can't be better to restrict users to one better way of doing things in the name of another better way of doing things?
They're both better, depending on what they're compared to, in context.
The best creative environment will always offer more, not less, options.

My single change:
One button - Magnetism Off/Track Grid On."


Excellent and well balanced post, Jim. I agree.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 2:52:06 am

I should add, one additional thing I'd love to see is some kind of Fairlight-like layering for tracks as Michael G. often describes.

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


Return to posts index


Lance Bachelder
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 5:51:27 am

Totally agree with your post. Sony Vegas has had the magnetic timeline for years and I love it and use it all the time but it's an OPTION! I have it turned OFF probably 90% of the time while cutting. In Vegas you can also choose to use it on a single track or the entire timeline - of course you need "tracks" for that option.

I think Apple has a great foundation with the current version and now it's time to start listening to users and make the little changes here and there that can make it a great NLE. Let's hope Apple is listening...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

Dominic Deacon
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 6:05:13 am

Yes a couple programs have a ripple mode. I've asked this a few times now and not been able to get an answer yet: In practice is FCPXs magnetic timeline really that different to editing in tracks locked/ripple mode in a program like Vegas or Edius?


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 10:20:22 am

FCPX Magnetic thingy is a bit more powerful than Vegas version which like you say is a "ripple" mode. It can be easier to knock clips out of sync in Vegas but there are sync indicators - something lacking in FCPX. It's so nice to just right-click to re-sync stuff. FCPX and Vegas both allow you to stack video and audio tracks over/under each other but Vegas has dedicated video and audio tracks which makes it easier when rippling. Don't like that video and audio can live on same "track" in FCPX.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index


Chris Harlan
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 3:27:33 am

Terrific overview.

[Jim Giberti] "My single change:
One button - Magnetism Off/Track Grid On.
"


That would get me involved pretty fast.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 4:40:02 am

Who can argue with this?

"Magnetism" (which I enjoy and enhances my work) remains...

And in a circumstance where someone want it off, they can turn it off.

Everybody wins.

(Probably there's an engineer somewhere at Apple reading this and groaning while thinking how "non-trivial" this would be to implement, but the dream is sure nice!)

"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

Michael Gissing
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 4:48:00 am

If Apple are reading and groaning Bill, then it really doesn't matter. Years ago the software guys at dSP offered to teach me to program so I could experiment with their DAW. I said no for the simple reason that if I understood what was easy and what was hard, it would taint my ability to ask for what was good and an improvement from a users point of view.

So regardless of hard or easy, Apple really need to listen to this sort of feedback. I know I have a particular bias but general reading accross this and other forums plus talking to lots of editors who don't post, the magentic vs tracks debate is the single biggest divide and regardless of updates and missing features being restored, this single button fix is the most important thing.


Return to posts index


Jim Giberti
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 6:18:33 am

Thanks, David, Chris. I was kind of dreading going back into FCP7 after the hiatus. But once I got back to it, it wasn't a situation where 7 felt kludgy with old fashioned conventions. It's more the realization that some established conventions are outmoded while others are well evolved.

At the same time, I like and understand the new media, metadata, GUI, the Inspector, groups...concepts like in Motion, it all works, they've got me onboard. So just shut off the magnet and turn on a grid when you want and it really makes sense.

Even wonderfully evolved cameras like the Canon 5D3 that captured much of "Act of Valor", have full auto controls. In fact we had to lobby Canon heavily for a year to get manual control for HD - the very thing that's made the camera iconic. Auto controls are great for casual users of pro cameras and for pros who, in a pinch, can utilize them in fast changing and uncontrollable circumstances.

It's great for FCPX to have the same "auto" control. But in many circumstances it's just not a pro feature because, in the name of redundancy, pros will always demand full manual control.

It's like autopilot. What a wonderful technology, in so many ways superior in it's ability to manage routine flights. But find me a pilot who would allow it to permanently override his ability to fly the plane as he needs in different circumstances.

Pros will always want full manual control of their cameras and every tool they use to create with - for all the obvious reasons.

Canon is a big company with a different, but no less private, culture than Apple's certainly. We were told they would never modify the camera for full manual control...it would never happen. But a lot of us wrote pieces and had conversations with management and they evolved it within a year. It made sense. Of course it did. And it ushered in a revolution.

Not to get all grandiose, but Apple could really help usher in an X revolution with a Full Manual upgrade like Canon delivered.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 7:14:21 am

While I agree with your assertion that the trackless and magnetic aspects of FCPX are strong in some places and weak in others, and that this is also true for any NLE (where said NLE has strong aspects and weak aspects), I don't think instituting an OFF switch (or ON switch in the case of tracks) is a doable change.

This is because FCPX treats audio differently than other NLEs, and you can't institute a track system without adjusting the entire audio paradigm. The closest you might get is something where you can have multiple independent storylines for your project (similar to how the new multicam angle editor looks). But audio would still need to be embedded in the video clips. To edit audio on separate tracks would require breaking apart the clips and moving those audio tracks to their own storylines. That would be a long workaround.

For that reason, I'm not sure track lovers would be happy with any track style implementation. At least when it comes to audio. Personally, I wouldn't mind having the ability to create independent storylines occasionally, but I don't miss it much when I edit in X. I'd actually be happier with a modifier key that I could press to hold a connected clip in place while I slip the primary clip below it. Then I can keep the advantage of connected clips, while gaining the ability to adjust those clips separate from each other.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 8:48:18 am

[Andy Neil] "a modifier key that I could press to hold a connected clip in place while I slip the primary clip below it"

An auto-gap function/key?

What do you mean?

Thanks!


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 10:17:35 am

We've covered the tracks thing before, multiple fixed primaries or secondaries would work and I can't see how that would be difficult to achieve in light of the new angle editor.

I'm happy with trackless, but it does seem stupid not to have the option of fixed tracks

Steve Connor
"FCPX Agitator"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 8:18:26 pm

[Richard Herd] "An auto-gap function/key?

What do you mean?"


Well, I've thought specifically about this; here's what I mean:

Suppose you have 3 clips in your primary storyline and 1 clip connected to the 2nd (middle clip).

In my ideal world, you could hold down say, the option key, and with the trim tool active, slip the 2nd clip's IN/OUT point, but the connected clip above would remain in it's temporal position in the timeline. Right now that connected clip is always attached to the specific frame you connected it on that primary clip. If you slip the primary clip, the connected clip slides to maintain that position relative to the clip.

But sometimes, you want clips to maintain position relative to the overall timeline. This is what I see as the primary reason why people want a "tracks" option in FCPX.

But my "Option" solution would work more than just slipping clips. Think of holding option down as putting a freeze on all clips in the timeline minus whatever you have selected.

In my example, I could have the selection tool active, select clip 2, hold down option and swap it's position with clip 1. Now the connected clip would be attached to clip 1 instead of clip 2.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 27, 2012 at 10:13:07 pm

That's a fine idea!


Return to posts index


Jim Giberti
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 27, 2012 at 10:45:00 pm

[Andy Neil] "I wouldn't mind having the ability to create independent storylines occasionally, but I don't miss it much when I edit in X. I'd actually be happier with a modifier key that I could press to hold a connected clip in place while I slip the primary clip below it."

For starters, I'd just like clips to stop moving vertically when a gap appears. I don't want clips so desperate to be near the center of gravity that they rush toward every opening.

It's why I've decided that tracks are simply a preferable way to organize and edit in many instances.
I find myself doing elaborate things to contain clips in secondary storylines and compound clips that was never a consideration before we went trackless and magnetic.

Here's the real thing, as I try and work through this all in real time on tight schedules. I'm a tweaker and a massager. I don't know any good creative who isn't. I constantly go back and adjust dozens of EQs and Compression and FX if I'm mixing a song and do the same with film and video. It goes on for days and weeks.

I was initially enamored by the grouping potential of Compound Clips. But after working with them for months, I realize that it is profoundly stupid that I can't open a group and work with it in context of my project - only in context with it's group.

That's simply primitive. We moved beyond that level of guess work decades ago with things like basic mixing consoles. There are simply too many flaws with the X concept as it has been implemented, too many things that aren't a better idea than what we're already good at.

And I can't see how making things stay somehow violates the important improvements of X.

I have eight Labradors and every one of them learned to stay as a first command.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 28, 2012 at 12:51:30 am

[Jim Giberti] "Here's the real thing, as I try and work through this all in real time on tight schedules. I'm a tweaker and a massager. I don't know any good creative who isn't. I constantly go back and adjust dozens of EQs and Compression and FX if I'm mixing a song and do the same with film and video. It goes on for days and weeks."

I constantly tweak things as well. I don't find that the lack of tracks makes this any more difficult. I stay organized with roles and tweak away. That said, there is definite room for improvement for audio editing in general.

[Jim Giberti] "And I can't see how making things stay somehow violates the important improvements of X."

The staying part doesn't violate FCPX's paradigm (horizontally that is). But any track style editing that could be incorporated would need to allow for the basic parent/child relationship that is the foundation of X's structure as well as the audio embedded model that exists. It would need to be a hybrid feature like independent storylines that can accommodate connected clips as well.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 28, 2012 at 2:00:04 am

First of all Andy, I think this is a really relevant discussion, perhaps even more so for me because of all the 7 vs X comparison I've had the last month or so. I don't see it as rehashing the track thing

I think now that we've had a chance to really work and compare, it's a good time to assess.

[Andy Neil] "The staying part doesn't violate FCPX's paradigm (horizontally that is). But any track style editing that could be incorporated would need to allow for the basic parent/child relationship that is the foundation of X's structure as well as the audio embedded model that exists. It would need to be a hybrid feature like independent storylines that can accommodate connected clips as well."

Like I said in another post, like with the Canon 5DII, I just want manual control. I don't want to work in "program Mode". I want to shut off auto-pilot and fly my own plane.

The inherent design that makes vertical items, whether they're clips, audio or graphics, simply drop into any free space in a gravitational manner is a logistical failure from a complex organizational standpoint.
It just is.
It's interesting because if you read Edgar Rothermich's FCPX graphic manual he focuses on the concept of the spreadsheet as his working analogy for the X paradigm. Well, spreadsheets are ultimately linear as he discusses at length...and for good reason.

There's a real conflict going on within FCPX that Apple simply didn't resolve before bringing it to market. The parent/child, group/nesting concept has real value. But to the extent that it removes the easy ability to organize information into linear fields that make immediate visual sense, it's more of a potential than a finished concept.

It simply needs to do both.
There is no way that random stacks of information work better than linear organization unless you strictly want to see things in chunks of information ONLY as they relate to a primary object.

That's way too limiting for day to day professional use.
Apple's needs to solve this dilemma if they want this to be a future product.
As someone who's enthusiastically used both X and 7.

And working with metadata, keywords and search fields is great, but it's not a replacement for real time, see everything in front of you in an organized way, layout of information. Metadata is an adjunct to the creative process, not a new way to approach it.

As someone who works in design, film and music, I can't imagine a better way to make creative decisions than to have all my "data" organized clearly in front of me, in real time.

That is the optimum way to compare, assess and spark creative ideas.

Oh, and for things to stay where I put them.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 28, 2012 at 2:20:47 am

This is where Zones would come in to play.

I think having a trackless visually organized timeline is possible, Apple just needs to take the metadata to the next level and allow sorting timeline clips by Role or otherwise, and give each Role a spatial equivalent on the timeline.

If we're going to do this, let's really do this, you know?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 28, 2012 at 3:15:46 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think having a trackless visually organized timeline is possible, Apple just needs to take the metadata to the next level and allow sorting timeline clips by Role or otherwise, and give each Role a spatial equivalent on the timeline.
"


I like that Jeremy.

Yes let me organize my projects with Roles that have a parallel relationship to the Primary. Then I get the benefit of that form of data organization, searchable and in list form as well as the missing visual association, in realtime, to my project.

We don't design with metadata. Metadata is just a newer word and system for reference files. Ultimately it's about getting as much of what the metadata refers to, in front of you, in order to make ongoing creative decisions.

And the next thing we want to do as organized thinkers is arrange all of that stuff in logical categories for quick assessment and manipulation.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 28, 2012 at 3:56:22 am

[Jim Giberti] "We don't design with metadata. Metadata is just a newer word and system for reference files. Ultimately it's about getting as much of what the metadata refers to, in front of you, in order to make ongoing creative decisions.

And the next thing we want to do as organized thinkers is arrange all of that stuff in logical categories for quick assessment and manipulation."


Agreed. When you bust it down to essentials, tracks are metadata really, they just have a place in space. Selectable and dynamic metadata could even be more powerful (in my opinion) but it definitely comes at the cost of more complexity...under the hood, in the XML, in other applications, etc.

Great databases are, well, great. Bad ones are a chore to use.

Apple has their work cut out for them to design this data in to a visual method that is at once powerful, but not a chore to use, advantageous to the people that need it, but stays out of the way for the people that don't need it.

I think a controllable spatial representation of "data", and the advantages of the trackless timeline will actually serve us well. We just have to see what Apple his in store (if anything).

I just hope that are thinking conceptually about these issues as we are.

We all know, multichannel audio is a chore.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 28, 2012 at 3:03:31 am

[Jim Giberti] "The inherent design that makes vertical items, whether they're clips, audio or graphics, simply drop into any free space in a gravitational manner is a logistical failure from a complex organizational standpoint.
It just is."


That's your opinion and I respect that. I'm just saying that I don't have a problem staying organized using Roles, Index and Timeline views. And in some ways, not worrying about what track a particular clip is assigned to can be a freeing and speedy way to edit. And BTW, the timeline doesn't place things in random order at all. There is a method to it. I know it's not what you're used to or want, but its unfair to say it's random.

Still, I suppose it's possible to create a kind of virtual track (or zone as Jeremy calls it) where you can reconcile a static vertical position that only adjusts in circumstances where clips collide. If you edit a connected clip, it defaults to the closest position to the primary storyline, but then with a shortcut like OPT+up or down arrow, you can push the clip into a lower or higher vertical clip position. They would stay there unless pushed by a clip collision.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 28, 2012 at 3:51:13 am

[Andy Neil] "And BTW, the timeline doesn't place things in random order at all. There is a method to it. I know it's not what you're used to or want, but its unfair to say it's random."

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to sound like it's an accidental placement, but you're point is mine - if it's not where I want it then it's not manual control.

It's very much a form of auto or program mode that assumes, to the best of it's ability, what the user wants in an average situation. Program mode, auto exposure, auto gain - the things DSLR filmmakers pleaded with Canon to restore, and they quickly did, to HD.

Roles are great, but they don't replace the ability to visually assess your creative in front of you which is certainly a standard practice of visual artists. They give you a mental, representational organizational tool...a way to define your intent. Combine that with a spatial, real time reference to your project and you've got something much better than what it is now, because it offers both valuable ways to organize and create.

It's why Motion is a more sophisticated interface IMO - it intelligently offers a very dualistic approach to creative development - with groups and parent/child relationships that can be opened and closed in one tab and a linear timeline representing the same information that can be opened or closed in another.

It's a good debate Andy, and I appreciate your ideas.


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 28, 2012 at 4:32:19 am

[Jim Giberti] "It's a good debate Andy, and I appreciate your ideas."

I agree. I also think there are some great ideas in general in this thread, and hopefully Apple has been considering some of the same ideas as they move FCPX forward.

It's one thing to dismiss an idea because someone just wants their old style of editing back, but Apple should realize that there are some legitimate concerns regarding how editors edit that can't be easily reconciled simply by telling us to think differently (see what I did there?) ;-)

I think and hope that more control over the interface will added as FCPX matures. I like Jeremy's idea of zones; mostly because it doesn't require changing how I already like to edit in X. I don't really want tracks back, but there's room to modify the timeline arrangement with more manual control for those who like to organize that way.

[Jim Giberti] "Roles are great, but they don't replace the ability to visually assess your creative in front of you which is certainly a standard practice of visual artists."

I will however, disagree with you there. Roles do allow you to visualize your your creative work. You can minimize clips that aren't necessary and expand and highlight those you want to work with even if they aren't on the same "track" making it very to see at a glance. Here's a pic of what I mean.



Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 3:28:14 pm

I agree. AND after I saw the sneek peek, that was my only conclusion then too. "Looks promising, as long as you can turn off that magnetic timeline." I mean, a knowledgeable editor knows how to swap clips/sections and ripple in much the same way in FCP 7. And I think tracks is a no brainer.


Return to posts index

Jim Glickert
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 24, 2012 at 8:58:41 pm

The magnetic timeline is the single biggest deal killer for me. (I don't like the absence of a source viewer, but I could survive without it.) When editing, I often use my timeline something like a scratchpad, and tracks make that possible.

If Apple allowed the ability to turn the magnetic timeline "off", I might consider coming back. However, after now having adopted Premiere Pro, I'm finding that I love its integration with After Effects. Going back would be tough, especially if Motion crashed as much as it did when I used FCP 7 simultaneously.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: One Single Change
on Feb 25, 2012 at 5:08:07 am

[Jim Giberti] "My single change:
One button - Magnetism Off/Track Grid On."


[Jim Giberti] "The best creative environment will always offer more, not less, options."

Thanks for the write up, Jim.

I'd like to offer my point of view, if I may. I think it is relevant to this thread.

I'm sure it won't come as a shock at this point, but I'm not entirely sure if tracks are needed.

But you are right, options are needed, and I would like more of them, too.

I think the magnetic timeline, or just the FCPX editing system in general is not complete. It is young, it is not mature. The overall app speed of 10.0.3 has actually gone downhill for me. Processes are much more clunky and I get more beachballs (although, fewer actual crashes).

We need more options in Roles, we need more options in the timeline to leave things where they are (without necessarily implementing a "grid mode"). We need to be able to optionally edit multichannel audio without a compound clip dance, we need the option to be able to use the timeline index to manipulate a mass of sorted clips, we need an optional clip targeting system, we need optional timeline organization (if Roles are supposed to replace tracks, then let us drag a Role in the stacking order we want so the Role that we choose is always on top, for instance). We need options to be able to change the physical size of individual clips, we need the option to break clips apart, but not necessarily attach to the primary, rather to the parent video clip.

FCPX needs more power.

I feel like in this current state, the magnetic timeline, or the FCPX modus operandi/pair of dimes, isn't fully functional and for that, it is limiting at certain required tasks. I think Apple needs to carry through with their plan. They need to really push this thing out of the nest and take a chance at flight. Give us back the timeline power. With that power, we will have options. I really appreciate the use of text data to control, sort, and manipulate timeline data. I think that this method can be a truly powerful (and dare I say, better) way to work, eventually. The problem is that the power isn't there, therefore the options aren't there. I think the easiest thing to want to do is fall back on a familiar pattern, and that would be tracks. We all know how they work and what needs to happen, but are they better? Right now they are in some cases, but does that mean they always will be?

I'm not sure that tracks are necessarily the answer. First of all, it would damn near impossible to simultaneously program the trackless timeline and a track based timeline, or at least I'm not sure if it would be worth the engineering effort. I would say they should pick one, and then make it the best it can be. I would really like to see a magnetic timeline that was fully functional, as it seems rather obvious to me that this method is incomplete, which doesn't necessarily mean it's illconceived.

Thanks for writing, Jim.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Michael Garber
Ol' Magneticy
on Feb 25, 2012 at 8:40:41 am

Excellent post, Jim.

I've thought a lot about ol' Magneticy (as I've started calling it) lately. The dividing point for me on all of this is that I am insanely fast at editing in FCP legacy. I didn't need a new way to edit. But I got one, anyway, so I'm learning it as fast as I can while I'm simultaneously learning Avid and Premiere. (Man am I tired... seriously!)

That said, I had an interesting idea for ol' Magneticy. I've emailed Apple and I've mentioned it a few other places. I doubt that we'll get rid of the magnetic timeline in any soon-to-be releases. But here's what I speculate might happen: role views. These would be ways to organize roles in virtual lanes.

So imagine a bucket for audio that contains all the VO. It would probably be kind of like angle lanes in the multicam viewer. Let's say that you have some audio that doesn't have the correct role on it. Once you drag it into the specified virtual lane, it would automatically get the designation. If you moved it to the music lane, it would change the role to music. Mind you, I see how this could be limiting, as well.

One of my main problems with ol' Magneticy is that the timeline just looks infuriatingly cluttered. I can't make immediate sense of what is where when a timeline is zoomed out all the way. Clips collapse so much that you can't see names of clips or pictures. Secondary storylines make 2nd layer video clips uneven and confusing to look at. It's really a mess.

One thing that I love to do (I guess for spite!) is to use 7 to X to bring over stuff I've edited just to see what it "should" look like in X. Inevitably, it looks totally confusing in the X timeline. I've sent Apple a comparison image of an X timeline and a 7 timeline to explain my frustration. This is not meant to sleight Philip Hodgetts. I think he is doing a great job with 7 to X.

In addition, the tracks get so thick that I'm always panning up and down to find something. I hate the clips' rounded edges in the timeline. It feels like playing with duplo blocks. I guess I'm a Lego man at heart. If they can allow us to break off the windows, then I could have the inspector hover like a HUD in Motion. That would be very helpful.

So, to sum up, there needs to be some sort of role organization. I think we've started to see a germ of that in 10.0.3. And maybe, there will eventually be a way to turn off connected clips. Then maybe I'll start to give ol' Magneticy a chance on a job.

Michael Garber
5th Wall - a post production company


Return to posts index

Morten Schmidt
Re: Ol' Magneticy
on Feb 25, 2012 at 10:08:56 pm

what about the position tool? it seems to disable the magnet!



Return to posts index

Michael Garber
Re: Ol' Magneticy
on Feb 26, 2012 at 1:03:32 am

it kind of does. but it doesn't help when i'm slipping video on the primary storyline with a connected clip on top. that's one of the things that drives me nuts about ol' magneticy.

Michael Garber
5th Wall - a post production company


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Ol' Magneticy
on Feb 25, 2012 at 10:34:40 pm

[Michael Garber] "If they can allow us to break off the windows, then I could have the inspector hover like a HUD in Motion."

That's a great idea, and they can keep the dedicated Inspector panel and just allow for a shortcut call up of a floating HUD a la Motion.


Return to posts index

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