FORUMS: list search recent posts

Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Aindreas Gallagher
Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 27, 2012 at 10:34:07 pm

Phillip Hodgetts wrote a piece echoing some of Larry Jordan's NAB takeaway - from Apple's near, but not quite at, NAB hotel suite sessions.

http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2012/04/some-final-cut-pro-x-data-points/

The comments were pretty interesting - full disclosure said bernstein, I actually was one of the ranters as swimtwobirds - frothing about the statement regarding Apple winning market share dominance. Phillip Hodgetts had posted that, based on his reading of the report:

“Final Cut Pro X – in the last 12 months – has gained the dominant position in the Pro market.”

if I'd been eating cereal, it might have gone flying at that moment. Instead I ranted at him.

Preamble and whatever - but there is an extraordinarily interesting exchange further down -

fantastic read at the link above - but highlights: (this will make this post massive)

Andy Mees:
given the database model and its ability to store multiple marked I/O’s within any given clip as favourites, then it would seem that retention of the (currently selected) in and out point would be supremely easy to implement if there was a will to do so … it is no more than an internal transparent retention of those currently selected points as a favorite (the current favorite if you will). On the face of it its doesn’t seem like it would be much of a stretch.
Cheers
Andy

Phillip hodgetts:
Actually it would be more difficult than you think as it’s a desire to a throwback of a design that only allowed one in and out on any give clip. FCP X has unlimited in and out via keywords.
Therefore an old-style I and O retained would be a backward step. As Greg said, if it’s important range to be retained, throw a favorite or keyword on it.
And non-programmers generally have a very bad idea of how much work something is to implement.

Andy Mees:
“And non-programmers generally have a very bad idea of how much work something is to implement.”
No doubt. But fwiw I am one (or have played one on TV).
“Therefore an old-style I and O retained would be a backward step.”
That’s more bizarre non-logic Philip. The idea of a persistent marked range (you can call it a favourite if you like) that I outlined above is far from a step backward, it simply provides additional, practical and (judging from user reaction) expected functionality using the model that is already in place. It only requires the will to implement it on Apple’s part.

Phillip Hodgetts:
A single persistent I/O would get in the way and conflict with all the other ways of setting persistent I/O – favorites and Keyword ranges. I just can’t believe people are so backward looking. me: (!!!!!)

Andy Mees:
Totally understand that you have your own working preferences Philip. Would you be willing to describe exactly how, for you, allowing a transparently persistent I/O would get in the way, and in what way (let alone all other ways) it would conflict with current methods of making range based selections?

Phillip Hodgetts:
From the programming point of view you’d have to create a third category to go with “Favorite” and “Keyword Range” that would be “Persistent I/O” points. How do they relate to the other two? Are you prepared for a complete rebuild of the database structure to accommodate it?

What happens when a Favorite and I/O range coincide (there’s an existing bug related to two keyword ranges covering exactly the same frames losing notes, for example).

In my opinion it’s a throwback thought for people who haven’t yet made the mental transition to FCP X

Andy Mees:
Is it your feeling that Apple’s FCPX designers have built the entire FCPX database model in a rigid or inflexible (and unrelational) manner?

Phillip Hodgetts:
Andy, the more we’ve thought and talked about this, the more Greg and I are convinced that it is a deliberate decision to NOT have In and Out points.
The more we’ve talked about it, the more we realize how impossible it would be to code around, but much more importantly how complex this would become for users.[[???]]
...Does FCP X edit the keyword range to the Project, or the In/Out range? Or some intersection of the two? When does I/O take precedence over a Favorite or keyword range?
It becomes an incredibly complex matrix of when one takes priority and in an app, from a company where the main focus is “simplify”, that would be anathema.

The more we discussed it last night, the more obvious it was that this is a deliberate decision and that it is the right decision.

---------------

super long post but madly interesting exchange? I was glued - I have edited it a bit but hopefully not Murdoch style.

Phillip Hodgetts holds a spruce cleanliness of basic software logical approach in common with Apple -

my own question would be whether editing practitioners require (or asked) anyone to provide them with such an unannounced sandblasting?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 27, 2012 at 11:22:06 pm

You hit i, you hit o, you hit f. Or you drag out a range, you hit f.

That range will stay with that clip forever, and you can have more than one favorited range per clip, and that clip can be represented across multiple keyword collections. That is, in my book, more persistent than anything, unless of course you delete that favorite on every instance everywhere.

End of story?


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 27, 2012 at 11:43:31 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "you can have more than one favorited range per clip, and that clip can be represented across multiple keyword collections. "

yes, maybe, but not really.

If you have an editing system, with objects entering into it that you apprehend - either they are entities that you recall prior actions to, or they are not.

I think FCPX is very clever, but I'm not sure the intellectual throughput refers to, or respects, the chain of events regarding specific video object entry.

FCPX feels like it wants to disperse all object entries into an undifferentiated tag data cloud.

that's interesting, but I find it a cold paradigm as an editor.

you can argue that it is marvellous in a GTD application, but I believe it is a miscue in a narrative assembly environment.

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


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 12:46:18 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "yes, maybe, but not really.

If you have an editing system, with objects entering into it that you apprehend - either they are entities that you recall prior actions to, or they are not.

I think FCPX is very clever, but I'm not sure the intellectual throughput refers to, or respects, the chain of events regarding specific video object entry."


Ok. Then define your object? The way you present it, your object is perfect. It's a clip that you have captured from tape, or a clip that perhaps you have logged and transferred with an initial set of ins and outs.

What if you don't have perfect "objects"? What if I have a group of objects, I want to make a new and redefined object, and then I want to segment that with more favorites?

What if the objects I receive are already one huge and flattened movie that I want to break up in to new objects?

[Aindreas Gallagher] "FCPX feels like it wants to disperse all object entries into an undifferentiated tag data cloud."

Only if you want to. You don't have to tag anything. You can keep everything on Event level and add multiple (and "persistent") in and out points (ranges) to the clips. Or you can text tag if that's your game, but you certainly don't have to.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "you can argue that it is marvellous in a GTD application, but I believe it is a miscue in a narrative assembly environment."

OMG what's a GTD? And why couldn't you use favorites in a narrative? Do you ever use extended markers in FCP <= 7?


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 1:03:06 am

[Jeremy Garchow] ""you can argue that it is marvellous in a GTD application, but I believe it is a miscue in a narrative assembly environment."

OMG what's a GTD? "


dude, jeremy sorry - it's you, as in one bud, i just refuse to say one because I'm Irish mate - whenever I say you in that fashion, it's a thought experiment, there is no you!


(although I am bitterly serious about data object entry and the need for a simplistic IO memory, spatial arrangement etc - needless to say ) :)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 6:15:05 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "dude, jeremy sorry - it's you, as in one bud, i just refuse to say one because I'm Irish mate - whenever I say you in that fashion, it's a thought experiment, there is no you!"

Well then, what would "you" might call a GTD?

Spatial arrangement is truly gone.

Simplistic IO = i, o, f. :)


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 5:40:55 pm

GTD = Get Things Done, relates to a class of productivity and notetaking App that generally relies heavily on semantic tagging for organisation.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 1:06:16 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "You hit i, you hit o, you hit f. Or you drag out a range, you hit f.

That range will stay with that clip forever, and you can have more than one favorited range per clip, and that clip can be represented across multiple keyword collections. That is, in my book, more persistent than anything, unless of course you delete that favorite on every instance everywhere.

End of story?"


Nope. ;)

Favorites/keyword collections are a powerful/flexible sub clipping system. I think it's one of FCPX's best features. But marking an in/out point is different than subclipping. In/outs are persistent, but temporary, like the clipboard. They don't need to be added to a subclip list and kept forever. It's a subtle difference, but the distinction is important and the utility is real.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 1:41:23 am

[David Lawrence] "Nope. ;)"

You can't triple stamp a double stamp.

[David Lawrence] "Favorites/keyword collections are a powerful/flexible sub clipping system. I think it's one of FCPX's best features. But marking an in/out point is different than subclipping. In/outs are persistent, but temporary, like the clipboard. They don't need to be added to a subclip list and kept forever. It's a subtle difference, but the distinction is important and the utility is real."

While I see how you can associate favorites with subclips, and when you sort the Event by favorites it gives you some semblance of subclips, they don't have to be. We should also disassociate favorites from keywords. They work very differently.

How do you define persistent? From what I understand of the word, temporary does not fit.


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 1:51:19 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "While I see how you can associate favorites with subclips, and when you sort the Event by favorites it gives you some semblance of subclips, they don't have to be."

What do you see as the differences? When would a favorite not be a subclip?

[Jeremy Garchow] "We should also disassociate favorites from keywords. They work very differently. "

Again, I'm curious what the distinction is. Aren't favorites just a special keyword with a special keyboard shortcut? If not, why not?

[Jeremy Garchow] "How do you define persistent? From what I understand of the word, temporary does not fit."

I think of it the same way as the clipboard. It's only persistent until the next action. But it remains if you don't change anything. Maybe persistent isn't quite the right term.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 3:34:35 am

[David Lawrence] "What do you see as the differences? When would a favorite not be a subclip?"

When you don't sort by favorites, or when you're sorted by list, not thumbnail.

[David Lawrence] "Again, I'm curious what the distinction is. Aren't favorites just a special keyword with a special keyboard shortcut? If not, why not?"

Keywords are text based sortable. Type the keyword in the sort bubble, get the appropriate results. Favorites don't work like that at all.

[David Lawrence] "I think of it the same way as the clipboard. It's only persistent until the next action. But it remains if you don't change anything. Maybe persistent isn't quite the right term."

So, in the Event, you browse a clip, you mark in, your mark out. You go to timeline, come back to event, range is gone.

If you have just hit f before you went to the timeline...?

I mean, that's really what we are talking about here. One keystroke.

In fcp7, I use extended markers the same way. Ins and out disappear in fcp7, too. They dissappear at different times, but they certainly aren't persistent.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 8:29:13 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "When you don't sort by favorites, or when you're sorted by list, not thumbnail."

I'm still not following. Sorting has nothing to do with whether it's a subclip or not.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Keywords are text based sortable. Type the keyword in the sort bubble, get the appropriate results. Favorites don't work like that at all."

OK, that's added functionality because the subclip is tagged with the keyword. They're both still subclips though.

[Jeremy Garchow] "So, in the Event, you browse a clip, you mark in, your mark out. You go to timeline, come back to event, range is gone.

If you have just hit f before you went to the timeline...?

I mean, that's really what we are talking about here. One keystroke. "


Hitting the F key is easy, but that's not the point. Why not simply keep marked In/outs on an object until the editor decides to change them?

The way in/outs are typically used, they're persistent, but disposable. Saving them in a list is unnecessary. If I have to save every in/out I mark as I build an edit, the list would quickly fill with garbage. It doesn't make sense for the way they're used.

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


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 3:38:08 pm

[David Lawrence] "I'm still not following. Sorting has nothing to do with whether it's a subclip or not.

OK, that's added functionality because the subclip is tagged with the keyword. They're both still subclips though.

Hitting the F key is easy, but that's not the point. Why not simply keep marked In/outs on an object until the editor decides to change them?

The way in/outs are typically used, they're persistent, but disposable. Saving them in a list is unnecessary. If I have to save every in/out I mark as I build an edit, the list would quickly fill with garbage. It doesn't make sense for the way they're used.
"


You know, who am I to tell you they aren't subclips? I guess subclips to me, are compared to fcp7s "make subclip" feature which I never use as it's limiting for me. I use extended makerers instead, and favorites is just like that, only better, in my opinion, as they are truly persistent. Favorites (as well as extended makers) are permanent reminders that I liked this part, even I'd I didn't use it right away.

If you don't like of the range goes away and don't want to be bothered with favoriting that range, you could simply add that clip to your timeline in which ever manner you want.

I find that favorites are not subclips, maybe they sort of can be, but as compared to fcp7, much better. If you think they are subclips and act like subclips, then so be it. To each their own. Sorting has everything to do with it, in my opinion.

Favorites are not keywords and are not assigned to a keyword if the clip is not assigned to a keyword. Keywords are blue, favorites are green. Keywords ave a defined name, favorites are just "favorites". You can search a keyword by name, you cannot with favorites, even if you rename them. You can sort favorites either within a collection, or just by event. You can put the clip in list mode and see all of the favorited sections of that clip and still keep the context of the entire clip, or you can sort by favorites to make little favorite bits (sort of like subclips, but without the subclip limits once added to timeline).

I find that hitting f brings a lot more functionality to the table and I'm over the temporary in and out points in the event. I'll admit, I wasn't used to them at first. I much prefer the persistent favorite ranges that are in FCPX today, but it's only my opinion.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 3:48:02 pm

I know you guys might not feel it, but I found this an interesting conversation to follow.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 5:18:08 pm

but isn't the use of favourites really just a patch?

In a sense doesn't it distort the use of favourites? - say if I have set an in to out so I can loop playback on a shot of a skaters move - I'm just analysing it right?

The final in to out represents the result of that edit test - but that's just me nodling - I want the in and out points associated with that action to remain - but this does not mean that it is in any way a nominated favourite.

If we are going to start default using favourites as the function of retaining in to out ranges, then it is no longer a favourite function. It is the "retain in to out" by pressing an extra key every single time.

The favourites list is no longer a favourites list, it is a random assemblage of every time I set an in to out point.

What it means is that it is an unsatisfactory hack, that distorts the feature.

Apple, as designer and publisher of the software should be able to resolve this, unless, as Phillip Hodgetts surmises - they are simply not in a position to do it, even if they wanted to.
To quote him; he views it as likely "impossible", which leads to other interesting questions about what road Apple have taken this editing software down, and whether there actually is an architectural problem with the database itself.

The reason I found the comment thread so interesting is that Andy Mees directly poses the question of whether or not Apple have made a fundamental mistake in the database model:

Andy Mees:
Is it your feeling that Apple’s FCPX designers have built the entire FCPX database model in a rigid or inflexible (and unrelational) manner?


That's the really interesting question here - this software is so unusual, it cannot retain in to out points without user intervention. If something as basic as the database model itself is wrong, then Apple will have some real problems rectifying it at this stage.

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


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 5:58:18 pm

You're going to feel how you're going to feel about it.

You see it as a hack, I see a feature as I actually "hacked" fcp7 to be used this way (truly persistent saved "ranges").

No one knows accept Apple if this represents a "broken" database. I tend to feel its not that dire.

You hit f, you have a temp favorite, you can always delete it, just like you can always set a new in/out in fcp7.

It simply works differently. Two means to the same end.

If you really like a range and want to keep it, keyword it. Don't favorite it.

This is why I think we should dissassociate favorites and keywords. They are very different.

You can also add markers to any of these. Markers are text searchable.

The Event system is always changing. It can be much more dynamic than a bin system. I welcome it, perhaps it just might not be your bag.

I don't see this is a glitch in the matrix. "You" can't keep wrenching fcpx to be fcp7. I know that phrase is now cliché.

Really if you don't want to favorite, just add the range to the timeline. Anywhere. The timeline will adjust for it. You decide you don't want it? Delete it.

Or you could simply just favorite it. Save it for later. You decide you don't want that favorite anymore? Hit 'u'. It unfavorites it. It's really f*cking easy. You have to think with intent. Excuse my, Irish.

Could Apple add temporary ranges, technically? Maybe. It would just mean it would have to store a range on all the dynamic clips everywhere in some sort of cache. Favorite allows it to add that decision to the database with intent. So what? Think of it as a "save" action.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 6:05:59 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You can't keep wrenching fcpx to be fcp7. I know that phrase is now cliché."

this really has nothing to do with FCP7 - the question is whether FCPX should be able to, or is capable of, retaining in to out points without user intervention in the form of keywords or favourites. The fact that it forgets the in to out markers the moment you click off a clip, unless you flood the favourites list with all your in to out points is, to my mind at least, unsatisfactory.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 6:56:55 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "this really has nothing to do with FCP7"

Uhm. Yes it does?

You are asking X to work like 7. It doesn't.

If the question is, "is there a way to "store" ranges in fcpx?"

The answer:

There's a way to "store" ins and out on browsed clips.

Fcpx calls them favorites.

You hit f to store, you hit u to unstore.

It's really easy and rather powerful, especially when you can combine them with keyword collections or markers.

It takes a bit of getting used to, but I have found that as the edit moves forward, those favorites really help me stay organized and provide constant reminders of what I have browsed and perhaps what I haven't.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 6:18:56 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You hit f, you have a temp favorite, you can always delete it, just like you can always set a new in/out in fcp7."

The nature of FCPX and Favorites is that just as one can add one with F, one can just as easily remove the Favorite with a U or, even reject if, after having examined it, you decide to reject it outright with Delete key.

Basically . . .
F saves the In/out (Range)
U removes it (FCP7 Shift X if my fading memory serves me)
Deletes adds the ability to temporarily make something gone (persistent invisibility until one decides otherwise)

I think people are bothered by having to hit the F key all the time as it's too easy to wander off and lose the range. Over time, hitting that extra key or the extra work when one forgets, can cumulatively slow people down during a session. Having to be conscious of such almost seems antithetical to a "the app gets out of the way to let you edit" philosophy. Personally the only answer that might fall within FCPX's model (or programers model for it) is the "auto favorite."



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 6:35:17 pm

yes exactly - its hard to see why there could not be a default private favourites list that we don't see, but that is populated with the current set in out points per clip, if I go to make a favourite or keyword the range at a later point, then it would be deleted from the private auto favourite list.

As you say - auto favourite, but I don't even see why I would have to know. I would simply have persistent in to out points. Certain people saying for the thousandth time, that misgivings about a shortcoming in this application represents nostalgia for FCP7, I find frankly irritating and completely redundant at this point.

Like I say - I was very surprised that Phillip Hodgetts, after thinking about it, felt it was likely impossible. there has to be way to get it going, unless there is, as Mees wonders, some real, serious problems with the database architecture.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 7:04:08 pm

It's obvious you haven't tried this.

You should try it. Not just open a clip and hit f, but actually go through and entire edit that takes a week or more.

Learn the keyboard shortcuts. It's not that bad, and perhaps might work differently than what you might be used to in whatever editing NLE you came from before fcpx.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 7:08:30 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "it's obvious you haven't tried this."

is it now?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 7:58:45 pm

Yeah.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 8:09:25 pm

i know the shortcuts pretty decently Jeremy - couching another persons different point of view in ignorance, nostalgia for an EOL product, or lack of skill or awareness becomes increasingly irritating over time.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 8:31:05 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "i know the shortcuts pretty decently Jeremy - couching another persons different point of view in ignorance, nostalgia for an EOL product, or lack of skill or awareness becomes increasingly irritating over time."

And so does saying "persistent in and outs" when favorites, or whatever you want to call them, are exactly that, Andy.

They hang around until you delete them. They are persistent.

If you didn't know how fcp7 worked, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We can agree on that, right?

I'm not saying that favorites is the best way to handle things, but right now, today, it's how it works in fcpx.

It has noting to do with skill, nothing to do with couching my ignorances, or lack of awareness.

It's how it works. Today. It is quite literally the buttons you need to push to save an in and an out.

The PPro time in works differently, too, as does an avid timeline. They have their own buttons, these are fcpx's buttons. Ii is really that easy, no?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 8:34:57 pm

Woops. I failed again.

Sorry, wrong thread.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 6:51:22 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I think people are bothered by having to hit the F key all the time as it's too easy to wander off and lose the range. Over time, hitting that extra key or the extra work when one forgets, can cumulatively slow people down during a session. Having to be conscious of such almost seems antithetical to a "the app gets out of the way to let you edit" philosophy. Personally the only answer that might fall within FCPX's model (or programers model for it) is the "auto favorite.""

I guess I see it differently. When I mark something, it's usually for a reason.

In 7, there many times I don't mark a clip with an extended marker, and I then have to try and figure out where that one slice of footage is amongst bins and folders. In X I can simply hit a favorite and come back later. It will get me so much closer, faster then double clicking and scrubbing a ton of clips in 7.

Also, auto-fave would turn in to a mess. Then how do you know which ones are truly your faves, and which one is just the auto-fave? Does that mean when I click on a clip and the whole range is selected, is that now my auto-fave?

Or are you saying that auto-fave would be a different color/schema all together?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 8:03:35 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I guess subclips to me, are compared to fcp7s "make subclip" feature which I never use as it's limiting for me. I use extended makerers instead, and favorites is just like that, only better, in my opinion, as they are truly persistent."

I agree. I don't use subclips in FCP because I find them inflexible. FCPX is much better with its approach. No question.

[Jeremy Garchow] "If you don't like of the range goes away and don't want to be bothered with favoriting that range, you could simply add that clip to your timeline in which ever manner you want. "

I call that making an edit. That's not what I necessarily want to do at the time.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I want the in and out points associated with that action to remain - but this does not mean that it is in any way a nominated favourite.

If we are going to start default using favourites as the function of retaining in to out ranges, then it is no longer a favourite function. It is the "retain in to out" by pressing an extra key every single time.

The favourites list is no longer a favourites list, it is a random assemblage of every time I set an in to out point."


This idea is key. Setting in/outs often have nothing to do with the range itself. Range is implicit when setting in/outs, but very often, the editor is using in/outs to set up the next edit. The focus is on the in/outs as transition points. The range just comes along for the ride.

Favorites/keywords emphasize and save the range. There's nothing wrong with this, it's a totally useful thing. But it's a different thing than an in/out.

We set In/outs constantly as a means of setting up the next edit. Hundreds of times during a session. It's very specific to the immediate context. It's a tool and nothing more. Aindreas is exactly right. If every in/out has to be marked as a favorite, than favorites become completely meaningless.

Like I said earlier, the distinction between range and in/out is subtle and one that is easily lost on non-editors -- and just to be clear, I'm defining non-editors as those who spend less than 90% of their time cutting. I don't know any advanced editor who thinks about an edit in terms of ranges. It's all about the cut. In/outs are about marking the cut and taking action right now, in context. It's a different way of seeing that comes from years of experience.

Again, favorites/keywords are good things. I like them. And if they do everything you need, fantastic. I actually think we're talking apples/oranges. In/outs are different thing with a different emphasis used for a different purpose.

I don't see any reason why in/outs and the favorite/keywording system couldn't co-exist. I also have a background in programming (it's been a while but still) and I disagree with Hodgetts' assessment. I think it's a UI decision, not a technical one.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 8:49:13 pm

[David Lawrence] " That's not what I necessarily want to do at the time. "

I understand. Every software requires work arounds. This is one of them in fcpx if the f button doesn't work.

[David Lawrence] "We set In/outs constantly as a means of setting up the next edit. Hundreds of times during a session. It's very specific to the immediate context. It's a tool and nothing more. Aindreas is exactly right. If every in/out has to be marked as a favorite, than favorites become completely meaningless."

I don't see it that way, so I'm the weird one.

[David Lawrence] "Like I said earlier, the distinction between range and in/out is subtle and one that is easily lost on non-editors -- and just to be clear, I'm defining non-editors as those who spend less than 90% of their time cutting. I don't know any advanced editor who thinks about an edit in terms of ranges. It's all about the cut. In/outs are about marking the cut and taking action right now, in context. It's a different way of seeing that comes from years of experience."

The area between a range, and an in/out is essentially the same isn't it? Why does it always have to be so different? Yes, it operates a bit differently, but the idea of marking an in/out or a range, even three point editing, is pretty much the same in x as 7. Really. I guess it just doesn't bother me. I find it useful, and X actually works much better than 7 as its faster than using extended makers which are great, but very slow. Set marker, play, extend marker (option tilde) When I go back to that marker later, shift up, in, shift down, out, f10 (or 11 or whatever I need).

With x it's in, out, f.

To clear the favorites, select whole clip 'c', then hit 'u'.

When going back to that clip, I click on the little green line, or find the favorite from the list. The in and out points are then selected, and I assemble, or add to the end, or attach, or whatever I need. It's very very easy and I don't mind it. Then in and outs have been saved since the last time I touched them. It could be seven days from now, it could be seven minutes from now. The ins and the outs remain.

[David Lawrence] "I don't see any reason why in/outs and the favorite/keywording system couldn't co-exist. I also have a background in programming (it's been a while but still) and I disagree with Hodgetts' assessment. I think it's a UI decision, not a technical one."

Perhaps they could. I don't know. It seems to would create a mess of a cache. Since you can't have overlapping favorites, how could you have an overlapping auto-favorite? Seems messy.

what is needed is range based exporting from the Project (Or Event). That in and out is sorely needed.

I'd much rather have the audio editing get fixed then worry about hitting the f key. It sjust not a big deal, and contrary to what you and Andy argue for, persistent ins and outs do exist in fcpx, you just have to learn to use them.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 8:20:01 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "In X I can simply hit a favorite and come back later. It will get me so much closer, faster then double clicking and scrubbing a ton of clips in 7."

Agree but . . .

Typical working situation is one marks a range in the Event Browser and then one goes off to check something in the timeline or another clip in the Event Browser without hitting the F Key. The problem is hitting the F is one more keystroke and it's forgotten too often. For many, hitting the F key interrupts the stream of conscious when one wants to check something else before going back to a range.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Also, auto-fave would turn in to a mess. Then how do you know which ones are truly your Faves, and which one is just the auto-fave? Does that mean when I click on a clip and the whole Range is selected, is that now my auto-fave? "

It "auto favorites" ONLY when one moves to another clip. It doesn't replace the act of favoriting. It's an additional method to favorite. When you get back to the clip, if you don't want to retain the Favorite you select U just as one might hit Shift X to clear in/out in FCP7. If you don't hit U it remains in your Favorites. In FCP7 if you don't hit Shift X that persists as well. One might even make Auto Favorite a Preference Option to be used by those who want a Range to be persistent.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 8:55:44 pm

[Craig Seeman] "It "auto favorites" ONLY when one moves to another clip. It doesn't replace the act of favoriting. It's an additional method to favorite. When you get back to the clip, if you don't want to retain the Favorite you select U just as one might hit Shift X to clear in/out in FCP7. If you don't hit U it remains in your Favorites. In FCP7 if you don't hit Shift X that persists as well. One might even make Auto Favorite a Preference Option to be used by those who want a Range to be persistent."

But this implies you only want one favorite, or marked range per clip? I think that fcpx offers a better way with allowing more than one in/out range to be marked/saved and recalled very easily upon return to that clip.

How would fcpx then keep track of what you marked earlier, and what is now selected? You can't have overlapping favorites now, so this would mean this auto favorite would simply delete the work I have done earlier when marking favorties.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 9:32:52 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "How would fcpx then keep track of what you marked earlier, and what is now selected? You can't have overlapping favorites now, so this would mean this auto favorite would simply delete the work I have done earlier when marking favorties."

I actually think it's pretty easy from a UI standpoint. All they have to do is make the yellow range area stay put one you set it. Clicking outside a range should not turn the range off or select the entire clip as it does now. Leave that decision to the editor. Simple. Or just add brackets or some other visual indicator to the object. It's not a big deal.

The problem as I see it is that the UI designers tried to combine range selection with marking in/out. To an engineer, they may seem to be the same thing, but they're not.

[Jeremy Garchow] "what is needed is range based exporting from the Project (Or Event). That in and out is sorely needed."

Yes!

[Jeremy Garchow] "'I'd much rather have the audio editing get fixed then worry about hitting the f key. It sjust not a big deal, and contrary to what you and Andy argue for, persistent ins and outs do exist in fcpx, you just have to learn to use them."

Agree multi-track audio is a priority. It's currently a mess and I'm curious how they'll fix it. I have a couple hunches but we'll have to wait and see. The big question will it be better than anything we've seen before.

[Jeremy Garchow] "contrary to what you and Andy argue for, persistent ins and outs do exist in fcpx, you just have to learn to use them."

So are you saying this is true for Larry Jordan as well?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 9:59:54 pm

[David Lawrence] "I actually think it's pretty easy from a UI standpoint. All they have to do is make the yellow range area stay put one you set it. Clicking outside a range should not turn the range off or select the entire clip as it does now. Leave that decision to the editor. Simple. Or just add brackets or some other visual indicator to the object. It's not a big deal."

So this means you add yet another, for lack of a better word, paradigm.

I don't want my marked favorites deleted. So this in and out would need to not compete with favorites. Right now, they are related.

Can you please explain to me this razor thin subtlety or marking in and out vs marking a range? The end result is the same?

[David Lawrence] "So are you saying this is true for Larry Jordan as well?"

I don't know what you mean by this....


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 10:19:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I don't want my marked favorites deleted. So this in and out would need to not compete with favorites. Right now, they are related."

Only if you hit the F-key. I'm just suggesting that the specified range can be made sticky. It's not the same as saving it.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Can you please explain to me this razor thin subtlety or marking in and out vs marking a range? The end result is the same?"

It's a different editorial emphasis and intent. If I'm selecting a range, my focus is on the range of content. I may want to stash it and favorites/keywords are a great tool for that.

When I mark in/out, I'm thinking primarily of the cut -- the transition points. I'm thinking cut, play thru, cut, but I really don't care about the stuff in the middle. Yes it is subtle. It took years of practice but when I noticed I was thinking this way, I also noticed my editing had jumped to whole different level, vastly better than before.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I don't know what you mean by this...."

From Larry's latest blog post:
"I asked when Apple would support retaining In and Out (Start / End) markers in clips in the Event Browser. They refused to comment, but stressed that while these were the four features they were announcing, these four would not be the only features released. Retaining Ins and Outs on clips is SO useful, I will continue to bang the drum for Apple to add these."
By your reasoning, since Larry hasn't fully embraced your suggested workarounds, it must mean that he hasn't spent time to properly learn the tool and is stuck in old ways of thinking. I don't think you really believe this. Why do you think he finds it SO useful?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 10:39:52 pm

[David Lawrence] "Only if you hit the F-key. I'm just suggesting that the specified range can be made sticky. It's not the same as saving it."

I see. You're proposing to not mark the range, like a favorite physically marks the range in the thumbnail.

As soon as you touch that clip though, your old range is gone.

[David Lawrence] "It's a different editorial emphasis and intent. If I'm selecting a range, my focus is on the range of content. I may want to stash it and favorites/keywords are a great tool for that.

When I mark in/out, I'm thinking primarily of the cut -- the transition points. I'm thinking cut, play thru, cut, but I really don't care about the stuff in the middle. Yes it is subtle. It took years of practice but when I noticed I was thinking this way, I also noticed my editing had jumped to whole different level, vastly better than before."


I'm sorry, David. I'm totally lost here. I am reading this as it took years of practice you use in and out?

[David Lawrence] "By your reasoning, since Larry hasn't fully embraced your suggested workarounds, it must mean that he hasn't spent time to properly learn the tool and is stuck in old ways of thinking. I don't think you really believe this. Why do you think he finds it SO useful?"

Oh boy. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

The issue here, is that persistent in and out points do exist in FCPX. You guys want some sort of temporary in and out system, analagous to fcp7, but don't tell Andy that as it has nothing to do with EOL software.

I have no idea what Larry Jordan knows or doesn't know. It's all new software, and requires a different way of working sometimes. Maybe he doesnt like favorites, but if one could explain them as persistent in and out points by hitting the f key, maybe he'd have a listen? I would say that retaining in and out points in the Event is entirely possible, it just might not work like you expect it to work.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 12:35:30 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I see. You're proposing to not mark the range, like a favorite physically marks the range in the thumbnail.

As soon as you touch that clip though, your old range is gone."


Yes, that's essentially correct. It's a different kind of marking. It's not permanent in the same way as extended markers or favorite/keyword ranges. It's specific to the context of the in-process edit. In other words, range shouldn't disappear just because I clicked outside of it. What if I'm working fast and I accidentally click when I didn't mean to. Poof, it's gone. That's lame.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm sorry, David. I'm totally lost here. I am reading this as it took years of practice you use in and out?"

No, in/outs were the first thing I learned about editing. I'm talking about a different way of seeing editorially. It's the difference between seeing/feeling the cut while selecting vs defining and assembling content chunks then fine tuning after. In my experience, there's a different mindset at work. Naturally, YMMV. I apologize for not explaining it very well. It's really not about the tool, it's a different way of seeing. Just out of curiosity, what percentage of your time would you say is exclusively devoted to creative editing?

[Jeremy Garchow] "Oh boy. Please stop putting words in my mouth."

(Sigh) here are your words:

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's obvious you haven't tried this.

You should try it. Not just open a clip and hit f, but actually go through and entire edit that takes a week or more.

Learn the keyboard shortcuts. It's not that bad, and perhaps might work differently than what you might be used to in whatever editing NLE you came from before fcpx."


[Jeremy Garchow] "The issue here, is that persistent in and out points do exist in FCPX. You guys want some sort of temporary in and out system, analagous to fcp7, but don't tell Andy that as it has nothing to do with EOL software. "

If as you say, it's obvious that Aindreas hasn't tried it and we need to get used to working differently, why wouldn't that also be true for Larry, since he's arguing strongly with Apple for real in/outs?

I'm just asking you to think about why this is important for a master trainer, experienced editor and FCPX supporter like Larry.

Aindreas and I are saying in/outs are different than a persistent favorite/keyword range. Favorites/keywords are great but they're not a substitute. It has nothing to do with EOL FCP 7 or any other NLE. In/outs are a basic element of the grammar of editing.

Yes, in/outs contain a range, but they're made with a different intention. There's no need to keep them in an ever growing list. It makes the list cumbersome and meaningless. The fix is simple -- just maintain the yellow selection area or add temporary brackets on objects until the editor intentionally decides to change them.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I have no idea what Larry Jordan knows or doesn't know. It's all new software, and requires a different way of working sometimes. Maybe he doesnt like favorites, but if one could explain them as persistent in and out points by hitting the f key, maybe he'd have a listen? I would say that retaining in and out points in the Event is entirely possible, it just might not work like you expect it to work."

Funny that no matter how experienced the critic -- whether it's Larry Jordan or Oliver Peters -- anyone who points out an obvious missing feature is still holding it wrong. Whatever.

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


Return to posts index

Alex Hawkins
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 11:19:46 am

[David Lawrence] "No, in/outs were the first thing I learned about editing. I'm talking about a different way of seeing editorially. It's the difference between seeing/feeling the cut while selecting vs defining and assembling content chunks then fine tuning after. In my experience, there's a different mindset at work"

Exactly. Editing is about the cut, not the range.

I know when I'm editing alot of the time I just want to select an in point on various clips (takes) of a scene and see if that works with what I've got on the timeline so far. I'm not concerned about the out point at this stage. I'll worry about that later. But first, does this CUT work?

So I've got 20 clips in a bin, 4 angles, 5 takes each of a scene. I just want to scrub, mark in, next clip, scrub, mark in, next clip and so on and then come back and slap each clip down see if it works, moving through like that. Out points I worry about on the timeline.

Maybe that sounds messy but I can do it pretty quickly and it works for me.

Simple as that.
FWIW.
YMMV.

My 2 cents.

Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 3:47:06 pm

[David Lawrence] "Just out of curiosity, what percentage of your time would you say is exclusively devoted to creative editing?"

Well, if I'm not on a shoot, I'd say 85-90% with the other 10% finishing.

I edit a lot. Why? Because I like FCPX and can relate its methods, I'm not a creative editor?

[David Lawrence] "If as you say, it's obvious that Aindreas hasn't tried it and we need to get used to working differently, why wouldn't that also be true for Larry, since he's arguing strongly with Apple for real in/outs?"

Guys...

You are saying that resting ins and outs isn't possible, or doesn't work the way you expect.

I'm saying it is possible, and works fairly well if you know what you're doing and give it a shot.

It's not perfect, it might not be ideal, but they are there.

I have no idea what Larry Jordan needs or wants. I have no idea how much he edits creatively. He should bang the drum. But despite what he says, persistent ins and outs do exist by setting a favorite. He doesn't mention that so I can't tell if he's used or tried this method. It certainly works different when compared to other NLEs.

[David Lawrence] "Yes, in/outs contain a range, but they're made with a different intention. There's no need to keep them in an ever growing list. It makes the list cumbersome and meaningless. The fix is simple -- just maintain the yellow selection area or add temporary brackets on objects until the editor intentionally decides to change them."

But David? This ever growing list is cancellable by hitting u. That's why I said we need to disassociate keywords from favorites. Favorites, in my use, are much more temporary. Keywords are more permanent, at least that's how I use them.

Again, I'm not saying that favorites are an ideal way to store an in and out, but is a way.

You say it's not possible, I say it is, and it involves a rather different process that, say, how fcp7 does it.

[David Lawrence] "Funny that no matter how experienced the critic -- whether it's Larry Jordan or Oliver Peters -- anyone who points out an obvious missing feature is still holding it wrong. Whatever."

Huh?

I'm not saying anyone is holding it wrong. I'm not saying favorites are the best method. I'm not saying it shouldn't change.

But today, right now, of you want persistent (and truly persistent, not sort of persistent) ins an outs, there is a usable method employed in X. When you say it's not possible, I call that bluff becuase it is possible.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 30, 2012 at 12:11:02 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Well, if I'm not on a shoot, I'd say 85-90% with the other 10% finishing.

I edit a lot. Why? Because I like FCPX and can relate its methods, I'm not a creative editor? "


No no, just curious. We all multitask so I'm just curious about where you're coming from. Like when we had that conversation about DAWs and when you told me you didn't used DAWs professionally, a lightbulb went off for me as to why we were seeing the need for tracks so differently. Just wondering if something like that might be happing again.

[Jeremy Garchow] "But today, right now, of you want persistent (and truly persistent, not sort of persistent) ins an outs, there is a usable method employed in X. When you say it's not possible, I call that bluff becuase it is possible."

Nobody's bluffing. I really think we're talking about two entirely different things. Simon nailed it in this post. This quote is especially relevant:

[Simon Ubsdell] "I am afraid that the apologists who will tell you that Favorites take care of the lack of persistent In AND Out haven't thought about those editors who only want one of those and don't want to have to be bothered about both.

If I have to use Favorites (when I don't care where either my In or my Out is respectively) I will have "favorited" the entire clip either from the In point to the end of the clip or from the Out point to the start of the clip respectively.

That's why it's not good enough. Yes, if you always needed to set BOTH In AND Out then favoriting solves the issue (if you like that kind of thing). But for editors like me it really doesn't work at all."


See also Alex Hawkin's post.

Maybe language is getting in the way here. We're using the same terms to discuss about two conceptually different things.

A range has a persistent start and end.

A range must have both a start and end.

A favorite is a persistant range.

This isn't the same as a marked in and/or out.

In and/or outs mark the cut point.

In and/or out marks can be used together or separately (you can have an In without an Out and visa versa).

In and/or out marks only define a range when used together.

[Simon Ubsdell] "You aren't really setting Ins and Outs in any traditional sense - you're just substituting a keyboard manoeuvre for a mouse action defining a range in the iMovie sense. It's equally obvious why the "undefined" range point will default to either the end of the clip or the start. "

Bingo. Apple's UI designers are trying to map familiar terms and key bindings onto a different function. The fact the menu commands for I and O are "Set Selection Start" and "Set Selection End" means even Apple realizes this is different functionality. Otherwise, they could have called it "Mark In" and Mark Out". Or perhaps they should have used the S and E keys. The name change is intentional. The problem is they're conflating related functions that have different behaviors and usages.

In summary:

Start and End always define range and must be used together.

In/Out defines the cut. They can be used together or separately. When used together, they define range implicitly, but range is often not the focus.

Apples and oranges.

I think favorites are powerful, useful and really great, but they're not a substitute for what we're asking for with persistent in/out marks. I won't be surprised when Apple adds this back just like they've announced a future source monitor. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 30, 2012 at 2:07:44 am

Yeah, I edit. I'm in the chair. I use NLEs to create content from scratch all day every day. I also wear other hats becuase we are small, so we all have to. I see why you asked now.

First, I have to apologize for my perpetual badly written language and typos. The cow, the iPhone and long posts is not an easy editing task.

But I am not an Apple apologist (that's to you, Simon). ;) They need to fix things.

Here's how I see it and stop me if this has been said before.

I understand the distinctions you and others are making between a range ins/outs, similar to what we talked about with tracks vs roles in that earlier conversation you mentioned. The problem there is that Roles do not eclipse track functionality and usefulness in FCPX today. Multitrack audio handling is not as convenient in FCPX as its a bit jumbled. This is not to say that it won't get better. I think that with some serious tooling, audio Roles and their functions will be a legitimate track alternative. But, it's speculation and only my opinion. And Apple needs to take this very seriously.

The distinction we are making here between io/range is much more subtle.

Yes, when you set an out, an in is already set and vice versa. But...

You can still perform three point edits and backtimed three point edits in X.

You can mark a start and an end and have that selected material moved to the primary in a variety of ways.

It falls apart when needing to add to secondaries though. If the range also acted as a target system (like track patching) it would work a bit better. But keeping this as a comparison...

Where they differ is in the operation. In fcp7, the selected in/out or both remain on the clip without user interaction.

On FCPX, they will not remain unless there is user interaction (favorite). It's a big difference, but all the same functions are there.

If you need to mark one spot in the clip, you can use a marker to come back to later. I do this in fcp7 constantly as I change the ins and outs constantly. It's also why I use extended markers. They show up in the viewer, the bin, the timeline.

I guess it's all on how you use it, and obviously everyone has their own methods, but FCPX uses ranges as very temporary markers, but there are a number of really useful systems in place to keep your thoughts together.

I also approach this from what you can do and what you can't do.

When you say there aren't persistent in and out markers, I say that's not exactly true. There are and they easier to use and recall than in 7.

They might not look like in and outs of yore, but they are similar in function.

Perhaps Apple will add the more traditional in/out functions back in, but on the event side, there's not much that you can't do with ranges.

The timeline side, as has been mentioned, needs a few more tweaks.

This thread started about ins/outs remaining on browsed clips and how the database is so beyond repair that they aren't even possible. I believe that's a bit of an embellishment. There's plenty not to like and disagree with in X, but even though it requires a keystroke, "persistent ins and outs" do exist.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 10:20:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Can you please explain to me this razor thin subtlety or marking in and out vs marking a range?"

it's not razor thin bud. retained in out points are exactly that and no more - they are - precisely - cut point marks - tagging a range and ascribing it a keyword or favourite moniker is a different action - you are sending a range/subclip to either a keyword collection, or a favourites list. that is an action you perform using the in out marks.

Put another way way, the in out points form the basis of any number of actions - edits to timeline, tagging, basic mental notation - but if you click off the clip in FCPX by accident - you will be unable to perform any of those actions because the application has immediately dumped the in out points once you select another clip - in that sense, you have one chance to do anything with in out points in FCPX, they cannot independently persist - it is not so in any other editing application.

this application, as an editing application. needs to be able to retain in out points on a clip without the process of packaging a range off to a keyword collection or a favourites collection.

I'm going to go full Bill Davies on you here Jeremy:

Simple as that.

Boom.

david referenced Larry Jordan because he specifically requested that Apple look into retaining in out points without the user being required to tag the current in out points into a favourite or other tag. Also there are other people on this thread who would like to see this basic functionality re-introduced into FCPX.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 3:24:46 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Put another way way, the in out points form the basis of any number of actions - edits to timeline, tagging, basic mental notation - but if you click off the clip in FCPX by accident - you will be unable to perform any of those actions because the application has immediately dumped the in out points once you select another clip - in that sense, you have one chance to do anything with in out points in FCPX, they cannot independently persist - it is not so in any other editing application."

Look.

If you want to retain your ins and outs, you hit the f key.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying its the ideal way that the program should work, but you can retain ins and outs, multiple ins and outs in fact, by setting a favorite.

Boom.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 12:40:32 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "But this implies you only want one favorite, or marked range per clip? I think that fcpx offers a better way with allowing more than one in/out range to be marked/saved and recalled very easily upon return to that clip."

No. This isn't instead of the I/O F workflow. This is an additional method. It has no impact an other ranges I've created previously in the same clip.

Normally when organizing one might create keyword collections, smart collections, favorites of course. There's are times in the decision making process where I select a range in the event browser but, before making the edit, I either find myself going to the timeline or, sometimes, to another clip in the event browser to check something. At that point you've lost your range in the clip you initially selected in the event browser. Sure you could remember to this the F key but all to often, some of us have a tendency to check something someplace else and lose the range. The problem is in those situations, hitting the F key, puts a mental brake, an interrupt, in my thought processes.

Hitting the F is fine for organizing but there are times when editing, it's an abrupt interruption.

AutoFavorite is an additional way to create a Favorite (saved range aka saved I/O). It allows you to mark the range, move to something else and by moving to something else, that range is favorited.



Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 12:57:00 am

Not retaining your last marked in and out point is just irritating, I know the theory and why they didn't choose to factor it in but it still seems a little silly.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Professional"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 3:51:26 pm

[Craig Seeman] "Normally when organizing one might create keyword collections, smart collections, favorites of course. There's are times in the decision making process where I select a range in the event browser but, before making the edit, I either find myself going to the timeline or, sometimes, to another clip in the event browser to check something. At that point you've lost your range in the clip you initially selected in the event browser. Sure you could remember to this the F key but all to often, some of us have a tendency to check something someplace else and lose the range. The problem is in those situations, hitting the F key, puts a mental brake, an interrupt, in my thought processes."

I guess since this is the way that FCPX works, I literally hit i,o,f when setting ins and outs in the Event.

It's much easier to simply save it up front. I don't worry about it, I save the favorites range and move on.

If I don't want it later, I hit u.

I guess I have made it part of my workflow and don't really think about it anymore.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 4:02:08 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I guess since this is the way that FCPX works, I literally hit i,o,f when setting ins and outs in the Event. "

I remember 9 out of 10 times. That 1 in 10 frustrates me. I like the way FCPX works compared to other NLEs but that's mostly because it does what I want without much effort on my part . . . until I want to expend the effort. This is the one thing that keeps burning me often enough to slow me down. I don't expect them to do what I think is a radical change in the function. I like Favorites. I'd wish they would be created automatically when I move off a clip so there's one less thing I have to think about when my creative editing brain is in that mode. I want FCPX to be less keystrokes and in most cases it is. This is one of those exceptions.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 4:43:10 pm

[Craig Seeman] "I remember 9 out of 10 times. That 1 in 10 frustrates me."

I hear that.

I'd much rather have audio editing/channel manipulation improved.

Talk about frustrating...


Return to posts index

Andy Mees
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 4:07:18 pm

Hey Jeremy
When you review your favourite, are you able to refine it easily... does I, O, F still work on (within) an extant favourite?
Cheers
Andy


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 4:37:34 pm

[Andy Mees] "Hey Jeremy
When you review your favourite, are you able to refine it easily... does I, O, F still work on (within) an extant favourite?
Cheers
Andy
"


For me, it depends.

Sometimes I keep the favorite forever and simply refine it in the timeline, and this usually is dialog. I keep the overall general line marked as a favorite, and do the editing in the Project.

If it's a line or take that I know I will use or come back to later, or if it was a particularly good line/take, I usually end up keeping it. For a long time.

If I'm timing out broll, where the cut is more precise, or the clip is more transitory and not as fixed as dialog, I'll clear the favorites.

I use the favorites temporarily and permanently. It seems the permanent ones usually tend to be dialog based clips. I rarely use keywords on a range, I use favorites instead.

But there's no hard and fast rules, it just the way I seem to use it.

I rather like the Event system. I found favorites rather organic since I use FCP7's extended markers as more permanent flags in my projects.

With broll/cut aways though, since those are constantly changing, the timing constantly moving around in the earlier stages of the sdit, I clear the favorite much more often.

If you have a favorite already set, you can't set another favorite on top of it, i.e. favorites don't overlap. Keyword ranges can, though.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 1:43:04 am

[David Lawrence] "It's a subtle difference, but the distinction is important and the utility is real."

I would have to say amen.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 2:28:16 am

I use I/O marks on clips kinda like a 'hold on one second' type of mark. I don't need a marker, a favorite or a sub clip I just need to hold my place for a second while I briefly go look at something else and come back.

Having the I/O marks disappear to me is like a tabbed browsing environment where every time you move to another tab the tab you just left would automatically scroll back up to the top of the page. Imperfect analogy, but aren't they all...


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 27, 2012 at 11:24:39 pm

You left out my comment that I posted there which I thought would be an easier fix.
AutoFavorite
Click on something else (actions that would normally remove the range) and it saves the last selected range (In/Out) as a Favorite. This wouldn't have impact on the database at all.

BTW I understand Larry Jordan also brought this up with Apple


I asked when Apple would support retaining In and Out (Start / End) markers in clips in the Event Browser. They refused to comment, but stressed that while these were the four features they were announcing, these four would not be the only features released. Retaining Ins and Outs on clips is SO useful, I will continue to bang the drum for Apple to add these.




Return to posts index

Bobby Mosca
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 27, 2012 at 11:46:49 pm

[waves hand]

You don't need persistent in/out markers...

These aren't the reference points you're looking for...

Move along.


Return to posts index

Chris Kenny
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 12:07:39 am

Phillip's technical objections aren't very sensible (I do write code). But I do see the argument he's making. You're not quite setting in/out points in FCP X the way you are in FCP 7. You're selecting a clip range, on which you can then perform various actions. This is the language the documentation uses, it's how things are visually presented, and it's compatible with the 'primary' way in which such ranges are specified -- by dragging. Hell, it's right there in the menus. The menu items for which the 'I' and 'O' keys are shortcuts are not 'Mark In' and 'Mark Out', as in FCP 7. They're 'Set Selection Start' and 'Set Selection End'.

People keep asking why FCP X doesn't preserve in and out points, but the app doesn't acknowledge such a concept in the first place. And if you ask instead why FCP X doesn't preserve selections, well, that's standard behavior -- most apps don't preserve selections when you open/close a document or navigate away from a view and back.

Perhaps there would be less confusion on this point had Apple not kept the 'I' and 'O' keyboard shortcuts. They could have used 'S' and 'E' or something (for 'start' and 'end').

Mind you, the fact that apps don't normally preserve selections doesn't mean Apple couldn't make an exception for FCP X -- it wouldn't really interfere with anything fundamental. But it does explain why Apple didn't think this was necessary. Perhaps if enough people harass them on this subject they'll add it anyway.

--
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 2:50:48 am

Same old argument again and again and again.

"I was happy the way things were and I don't like change."

Verses

"I'm willing to alter my expectations in order to approach traditional processes in new ways."

Both defensible positions. Neither "wrong."

But those in the first group are still grappling ( if not downright struggling) with the FCP changes - while the second group has long since stopped fighting the war that's over (7 is EOL + a year now) and moved on to elevating mastery of the new process.

The only given is that X will never satisfy them - because the real hurt was never the product itself -it was the way they came to believe Apple had betrayed them emotionally by taking away their defining tool.

I guess,"victim" can sometimes be seen as a very alluring role - but I'm personally not very attracted to it.

The world changes.

As Kurt Vonnegut famously summed it up so long ago...

"... and so it goes."

"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

Don Walker
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 3:06:10 am

I would really like to have X remember the ins and outs in the various clips in the events, but more importantly on the storyline of the project. I can deal with the issue with favorites in the events but it is maddening to set my in point and out point (or selection start and end) in the primary storyline, go look at something else and then come back and find the marks gone....... That needs to be fixed!

don walker
texarkana, texas

John 3:16


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 3:13:40 am

I like how neither position is 'wrong' yet if you fully embrace X you are 'elevating' where as if you haven't fully embraced X you are struggling and have a victim mentality.

Your right Bill, same ole, same ole.


-Andrew

2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5)



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 4:43:04 am

[Bill Davis] "The only given is that X will never satisfy them - because the real hurt was never the product itself -it was the way they came to believe Apple had betrayed them emotionally by taking away their defining tool.
"


Oh, dear God. Dr. Bill, you can see into our very souls!


Man, you are good for a laugh now and again. That is some funny stuff!


As to FCP7, it may be EOLed but it is still VERY much alive in LA. In fact, people are still buying it. I think it'll take another year, maybe two before it gives out.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 4:46:01 am

Bill, This is for you:







Return to posts index

Thomas Frank
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 9:21:56 am

Wait a minute here FCPX does keep its in and outs similare to FCP7.

FCP7
Create your In and Out in your master clip add it to the timeline adjust your ins and outs on the same clip and ad that portion into the timeline.
Double click the clip in the timeline it will open up in the viewer with the ins and outs the same with the second clip from the same master clip.

FCPX
Mark your In and Out throw that guy in your timeline adjust the Ins and Outs from the same clip add it in your timeline.
Select the clip on your timeline and hit shift F you will get your In and Outs in the Event library.
Not sure what the issue is?



Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 30, 2012 at 12:27:14 am

[Thomas Frank] "FCPX
Mark your In and Out throw that guy in your timeline adjust the Ins and Outs from the same clip add it in your timeline.
Select the clip on your timeline and hit shift F you will get your In and Outs in the Event library.
Not sure what the issue is?"


That's what I was going to say.


Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 2:35:24 pm

Honestly, don't feed the animals. I see bill as little more than a waste of opposable thumbs if truth be told, and find his signature nothing short of glorious irony.

The only consistent is his delusion that somehow those that dislike FC10 are somehow backwards and unable to move on with life whilst those who embrace the work-arounds are somehow so mentally deft and adept that really now, people should be in awe.

I've moved on. I moved on about 30 minutes after engaging with the ugly bugger when auto save did nothing of the sort and lost everything I had done. No manual save, lmao. But if we challenge it or slag it off of suggest that it is shit and not fit for purpose for us, well, we're incompetent or backwards or incapable of wrapping our little heads around this earth shattering bit of software. Er, yeah, right Bill.

Perhaps you're just foolish enough to think the emperor's new threads are hipster fashion. We are all aware the fool is butt naked Bill, and we giggle at your inability to see it.


Return to posts index

Alex Hawkins
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 11:03:49 am

[Jules bowman] "I've moved on. I moved on about 30 minutes after engaging with the ugly bugger when auto save did nothing of the sort and lost everything I had done."

Me too. After one project where every time I clicked off a clip it didn't retain my in or out points.

I have, however not moved on from this forum, which, much to my delight, gets more interesting and intriguing every day.

Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on May 1, 2012 at 5:00:07 am

[Jules bowman] "Perhaps you're just foolish enough to think the emperor's new threads are hipster fashion. We are all aware the fool is butt naked Bill, and we giggle at your inability to see it.
"


Giggle if you like, but

And let me make this crystal clear so there's not mis-understanding...

You - do - not - understand - how - to - edit - in X.

Period.

You can absolutely "save" in and out points for any edit. You simply select a range and apply a key word to it.. You do it in the Event Browser. You do it before you start putting clips in the timeline. Doing it this way preserves your in and out points for EVERY edit you'll ever do with the clip from that point into the future. These are "saved edit points" Period. They're precise. They are persistent. They are re-usable. You can use these persistent in and out points to do 3 point editing all day long. You can used the IN - and/or you can use the OUT - and you can do a 3 point edit from an IN or an OUT on your primary storyline using either a standard insert or even a back timed insert.

I'm sure you don't believe me - so here's a Steve Martin lesson show you how.





I'm so tired of people who keep coming here and trying to tell me that I can't do stuff I do all day long simply because it doesn't work right in the timeline in EXACTLY the way they are used to it working and they simply can't break out of their pre-conceptions long enough to look at whether the new way might actually be valuable if they can just stop being so intransigently stuck on how they think the want it to work. (Yeah, yeah, who am I to tell you how to edit - I get it. But the reality is that YOU are the one trying to edit with X and having trouble. I'm not.. And in your frustration, you're the one coming here in the public square to tell us you "can't" do something (in this case, "preserve in and out points") that is pure BS.

If the software keeps in and out points - it keeps in and out points. If you can't figure out how to make it work for an edit, and I can - it's on YOU. Not on the software. All that means is that X doesn't work the way YOU think it should. You see that as the programs failure. I see it as yours.

It works in X the way it works in X.

If you are not adaptable enough to use the software it the way the software is structured, it's NOT the software's fault.

It's your fault.

That my sound harsh and dismissive and even downright rude, but I'm merely matching rude with rude based on your not very subtle attempts to besmirch me as an individual that appear directly above this post.

I think you don't like X because you just can't figure out how it actually works - and that's making you frustrated.

I understand that. After 10 months, I'm still learning it. So I know it's not easy.

The difference between us is that I know enough about how it works to understand whether or not it actually does something objectively confirmable like "save in and out points" - and you got stuck when you thought it didn't do it because it simply asks you to do it in a different operating part of the software that will be more powerful as you learn how to work with the new design.

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

Jules bowman
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on May 1, 2012 at 7:17:28 am

So let me get this. I can mark an in point on a clip and drag it to the timeline to see if it works and then I can quickly click on another clip and mark an in point and drag that to the timeline and decide I liked the first one did click back on the first clip because I preferred that and the marked in point I made ten seconds ago is still there for me to drag it to the timeline?

Well that's great because I thought I would have to create a favourite of that first in point which would then get stored in a favourites section despite it not really being a favourite because I didn't even know if I liked it when I created it and needed to make it a favourite and then when I wanted to use it instead of just going back to the clip I Had just clicked on I would have to find the favourite I wanted amongst the other favourites that had been collated over the entirety of a long edit with many decisions and choices being tried and mulled over, which would just be stupid compared to the in point simply being still there after I clicked one other clip to have a look.




And who exactly were you making that point crystal clear to? I have posted enough times I stopped trying 10 when the auto save failed to do anything of the sort. Still, doesn't stop my opinions on it, its paradigm and you being valid mate. Last time I checked I - DID - NOT - KNOW - HOW - TO - BUILD - AN- ATOMIC - BOMB and yet I still think they are stupid, disgusting and those that even consider using one are the lowest form of pond life despite them once being a new paradigm of warfare.

That point not valid Bill?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on May 1, 2012 at 11:42:15 am

[Jules bowman] "So let me get this. I can mark an in point on a clip and drag it to the timeline to see if it works and then I can quickly click on another clip and mark an in point and drag that to the timeline and decide I liked the first one did click back on the first clip because I preferred that and the marked in point I made ten seconds ago is still there for me to drag it to the timeline?"

I'm sure that you won't to hear this, but this is a perfect case for the use of Auditions.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on May 2, 2012 at 4:01:42 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm sure that you won't to hear this, but this is a perfect case for the use of Auditions.

Jeremy

"


Jeremy - don't waste your time.

To some people, the fact that first gear is no longer the lower left part of an H pattern simply is too much to wrap their brains around - to them it means first gear is GONE, period.

You can tell them how to shift into it. But they won't be happy until it's back where they've been conditioned to expect it.

Yeah, this is simplistic. And yeah, the changes in X are much more complex and deep than this. But some folks either can't or won't stretch their brains around the new processes or possibilities.

How do you expect them to move to Auditions when they can't even get past magnetism?

Just isn't going to happen.

I'll try once or twice to help them shift their thinking - but after that - I'm afraid I'm just going to go back to working with the people who are open to the reality of the software and who can get past their personal sense of betrayal.

Life's too short. I'm producing and directing a 16-camera DSLR and GoPro shoot on Saturday - so as much as I enjoy trying to help others, I just don't have time to waste on those who can't stretch their thinking enough to understand the basic stuff the rest of us figured out six months ago.

Sigh.

"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

Alex Hawkins
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 10:51:40 am

[Bill Davis] Same old argument again and again and again.

"I was happy the way things were and I don't like change."

Verses

"I'm willing to alter my expectations in order to approach traditional processes in new ways."

Both defensible positions. Neither "wrong."

But those in the first group are still grappling ( if not downright struggling) with the FCP changes - while the second group has long since stopped fighting the war that's over (7 is EOL + a year now) and moved on to elevating mastery of the new process.

The only given is that X will never satisfy them - because the real hurt was never the product itself -it was the way they came to believe Apple had betrayed them emotionally by taking away their defining tool.

I guess,"victim" can sometimes be seen as a very alluring role - but I'm personally not very attracted to it.

The world changes.

As Kurt Vonnegut famously summed it up so long ago...

"... and so it goes."


Gee Bill that's a really helpul post. Adds alot to the overall discussion.

[Bill Davis] ""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"

Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 30, 2012 at 2:11:39 pm

[Bill Davis]

"I was happy the way things were and I don't like change."

Verses

"I'm willing to alter my expectations in order to approach traditional processes in new ways."

Both defensible positions. Neither "wrong.""



Bill,

I have to say you continue to astound me.

I'm constantly flabbergasted that you can read these forums and only see two perspectives represented.

Franz.


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 28, 2012 at 10:09:46 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "my own question would be whether editing practitioners require (or asked) anyone to provide them with such an unannounced sandblasting?"

Even as one who enjoys using X I really enjoy reading your post Aindreas. You are a smart dude and a crafty writer. You also make great points.

This annoyed me like many others at first.

While I like the favorites and the option to add multiple in's and out's, like many editors I like to avoid adding keystrokes if I don't have to. (hitting F all the time)

X will remember the I and O as long as you don't "click" on another source clip. (or within that source clip)

Since I know it acts this way I avoid doing that and use the skimmer if I want to look at another source clip after I have made a selection. (that's the beauty of the skimmer. Not as much clicking)

Once I have made an I and O I drop that clip in the timeline and it's easy for me to change the I and O from there. It's not going anywhere once it's in the TL.

When I would try to change the in and out in the source window that's when the frustration came in.

It's kind of hard for me to explain it but since I have been working this way the muscle memory has taken over and I don't even think about it anymore.

This is not to say people should do it this way or right or wrong.

The more I use this program the more comfortable I feel with it.

I just wanted to share my personal story on this issue.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 12:58:12 pm

absolutely dude, and really, shift F covers a lot of instances where one might require the persistence, I mostly found it interesting in terms of the application being so radically different that it may not be in a position to offer persistent in out cut points even if Apple were of a mind to provide them.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 12:52:20 pm

I really hate to disagree with you Aindreas, because you are so often dead right about so many things, but here goes.

The real issue isn't that FCPX doesn't allow for persistent Ins and Outs, it's way simpler than that.

FCPX doesn't allow for persistent Ins OR Outs.

It's only about 5-10% of the time that I have any interest in setting Both an In and an Out in the Browser whatever NLE I am using.

(It's called 3-point editing for those who perhaps aren't familiar with the concept. I like my In AND Out to be set in the timeline not in the Browser - I like the Browser to give me just an In OR an Out.)

And I am afraid that the apologists who will tell you that Favorites take care of the lack of persistent In AND Out haven't thought about those editors who only want one of those and don't want to have to be bothered about both.

If I have to use Favorites (when I don't care where either my In or my Out is respectively) I will have "favorited" the entire clip either from the In point to the end of the clip or from the Out point to the start of the clip respectively.

That's why it's not good enough. Yes, if you always needed to set BOTH In AND Out then favoriting solves the issue (if you like that kind of thing). But for editors like me it really doesn't work at all.

Let's be clear about why FCPX works the way it does in terms of range selection. Range selection is unquestionably (if you know what you're talking about) a legacy of FCPX's iMovie origins. iMovie works with ranges ONLY and does not allow you to "set Ins and Outs". What clearly happened (to my mind) with FCPX is that in order to graft on a veneer of "pro" functionality Apple realised that they would have to implement some way of setting Ins and Outs. But this is simply a disguise for the underlying iMovie architecture - which hasn't changed. You aren't really setting Ins and Outs in any traditional sense - you're just substituting a keyboard manoeuvre for a mouse action defining a range in the iMovie sense. It's equally obvious why the "undefined" range point will default to either the end of the clip or the start.

Aindreas is quite right to suggest that the problem is architectural - and the "faulty" architecture comes from iMovie.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 1:15:46 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "you are so often dead right about so many things,"

niiiiiiice. you do get that I'm bluffing in a convincing tone of voice 90% of the time right?

you're right in what you say - I shouldn't use the word range at all - as you say, and Lawrence says up there too - It's really about the cut point. And a guy who cuts drama makes your point another way - if there are a bunch of takes, you're going to slap ins on the lot of them in sequence and then stamp them to timeline to see how they each perform coming off the previous shot - he doesn't particularly care about the out yet, that cycle of quickly iterating the in point across multiple cuts is completely lost in X as it will flush the in points in sequence.

It goes again to a fundamental point about who made this application, and who they made it for. This isn't even saying that Apple, or Phillip Hodgetts, aren't sensitive to the needs of editors, I think they don't understand what editing is, at least not from an editor's perspective - they see it is a categoristion and workflow conundrum, they both see the X system of ranges and tagging as inherently superior - as a media categorisation system. In a sense, I don't think Apple have built an editing system - its a digital assets management system, its a database, its a nodal parent child hierarchical time based media editor, its a template expression of very powerful effects and design rigging in motion, its all these things, but when I work in X I feel like I'm doing all those things I mentioned, but particularly in the event and keywords, and frankly in the timeline too, I feel like I'm manipulating objects in cool ways, but I don't feel like I'm engaging in the process of picture and sound editing as I understand it.

see? didn't that sound convincing?

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 3:48:38 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "see? didn't that sound convincing?"

Always 100% convincing to my ears ;-)

I should also have added to my previous post something that someone else brought up and is quite a big thing for me and that's that I am always using Ins (and sometimes Outs) as temporary markers both in the Browser and the Timeline.

The non-persistence of Ins and Outs in the Timeline is perhaps a bigger issue altogether than the fact that they won't stick in the Browser. In fact, it's a massively annoying issue in the Tinmeline - and no amount of "favoriting" is going to sort that out.

Again, blame the iMovie architecture. That's really what's at the root of this and so many other issues.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on Apr 29, 2012 at 7:30:47 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "The non-persistence of Ins and Outs in the Timeline is perhaps a bigger issue altogether than the fact that they won't stick in the Browser. In fact, it's a massively annoying issue in the Tinmeline - and no amount of "favoriting" is going to sort that out."

The timeline is a whole different story. I hope Apple puts some effort in to it as I think it needs the most help from a usability stand point.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple engineers versus an editor's ability to set persistent in to out points in their footage.
on May 10, 2012 at 12:29:06 pm

Just like to add.

I've been using FCPX for a while now and I'd always been annoyed by the lack of persistent in/outs. I knew about favourites but didn't like the idea of using it much. Since reading this discussion I tried using the "F" key when editing and now I'm used to it I can't imagine not having it!

I particularly like the fact that in filmstrip view marking a range as a favourite leaves a green bar at the top that when clicked on recalls the in/out point.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Professional"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

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