FORUMS: list search recent posts

Editing scenario

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 2:01:41 pm

I'm curious about how to best cut something like this in X. I'm currently editing it in 7 and honestly, it seems like anything trackless would make it a struggle, but I'll toss this out for comment.

This is a typical corporate presentation piece. The type companies run at the end of a large retreat, conference or meeting to congratulate folks on the past year's accomplishments. Components are usually a handful of sync sound bites, 3-4 highly edited pop/hip-hop tracks, animation/graphics, and lots and lots of B-Roll. Since the objective is to show as many people as possible, shot length is often 1-2 secs. and the overall length is usually 6-10 min. for the finished piece. So, often hundreds of B-roll shots. The structure is generally designed as alternating sections of sound bites (music dipped underneath) with sections of B-roll to music, often with music selection changes at the segment changes. Editing the music cues is as much a "DJ" function as it is editing.

The challenges are the things you have no control over. Client requested music, the need to re-arrange, add or remove images and sound bites based on corporate politics and other unforeseen considerations. Client changes their mind, but can't be there during the edit, so reviews and makes changes remotely (FTP, e-mail, sneakernet). Often repeatedly. The music is difficult to work with because it has lyrics and doesn't mix well under sound bites. Client requests music selection changes or clip changes that result in having to completely re-arrange or re-edit music. All of this is a normal part of editing, of course.

So in X, the idea of putting the sound bites on the primary storyline is hampered by the need to re-arrange/add/remove. That's because often you have to change order and placement, but not change the location of the B-Roll shots. When you change the music for a different piece, all B-roll shots (connected clips) have to be re-edited as the beat structure has changed. Doesn't seem to work to put the B-roll shots in a secondary storyline, as that's only connected at one point, so harder to re-edit. You can't work with compound clips, because all changes are interactive to other elements in the sequence.

I'm not saying this can't be done in X, merely that I haven't found a way that works better than with tracks. Auditions are a non-starter, because - 1) don't know what you have to prep in order to use Audition since you don't know what will change, 2) the client is generally reviewing long distance, so no one is there to preview the Auditions, 3) you don't have enough time to build all the permutations that Auditions would require. In 7, I find that I use empty places on the timeline as a scratch pad to park clips while I'm re-arranging elements. I also copy & paste groups of clips between sequences (yes, I know you can C&P clips in X).

In X, it seems like the best approach is to have only a gap/placeholder on the primary storyline and then build everything as connected clips That seems the most workable, but it's an incredibly, inefficient use of GUI space and the timeline is a complete mess.

The bottom line is how do you guys that have done this, tackle a similar project? Especially one in which each and every element in the project can be changed by the client and probably will be. Thanks.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 3:19:16 pm

I often cut sizzles like this. The only difference is mine tend to max out at about half the length, but with a similar number of shots. I also have a heavy added sfx layer. I can't even begin to imagine how to judiciously deal with something like this in X. I'd be willing to listen, though.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 3:57:25 pm

Lots of interesting questions there and a lot of very tricky challenges.

As you say, the cleint continously requiring changes that you can't possibly predict adds a much great level of complexity to this kind of job. Great of you're working by yourself on your own project because you can make the rules up before you start - but when you don't know what the rules are likely to be, that's when it gets hairy!

I did cut a small piece like this a while back in FCPX and I was amazed at how quickly I got in awkward spots once the client started picking at the edit and the music. (The worst part was trying to nbegotiate around transitions which quickly make a mess of your timeline and the ease with which you can manipulate it - or maybe that's just me.)

The only thing I would say from my experience is that the best way I have found to edit music (and let's face it most of the time most of the music we use needs editing) is to cut it in a secondary storyline. That makes both the actual music editing easier and the swapping out of different music choices and edits.

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


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 4:33:07 pm

If you need to keep the relative position of connected clips, but change the primary storyline, then you move the clips out of the primary first (command-option-up). You then replace the gaps that are left over, or add as new connected until your "committed", and then move those clips in to the primary.

The primary doesn't have to be all sound bytes or music only all the time, it can be both.

With tracks, the "driving" element of the edit bounces around from track to track (music, soundbyte w/video, soundbyte w/broll, whatever determines the length of that section/edit). In X, you add it to the primary, and everything else builds around that as the primary determines the length. Sometimes, you have to move elements in and out of the primary just as you have to rearrange tracks every once in a while.

As far as changing the shots because the beat structure changes, that happens in 7, too, no real difference there. It's still editing and you'll have to adjust timings.


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 4:20:17 pm

Sounds like a nightmare. Just use Premiere Pro... ;)

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 4:26:41 pm

There are certainly some issues that make editing this in X more difficult, but there are certain things I would do to make it easier.

First of all, I wouldn't edit the broll as connected clips. They would be in the primary storyline along with the bites. The only connected clips would be any clips that were used to cover part of the bite. If I had to swap sound bites around in my sequence, the only broll shots I would have to worry about would be the ones attached to the bite, and since often those shots are related directly to what was being said in the bite, chances are I would want them to travel with the bite anyway. If not, well, then I would temporarily compound the connected clips and slide them off the clip I was moving. Make the change and then slide the compound back and break it up.

For music, I'd be tempted to use a secondary storyline depending on how much music editing was required. The secondary storyline gives me the maximum flexibility for that. If I had to change the music, I'd create another secondary storyline to cut that music and just disable or delete the previous music. However, re-editing the broll segments would be easy because they would be in the primary storyline.

One of the workflows that editors use in a track system that is hardest to drop in X, is the notion that soundbites need to be in track 1, and broll shots in track 2. We do this in track systems because it makes it easier to keep track of things, and to make changes to bites. In X, it's actually easier NOT to do things this way because of the nature of connected clips.

That doesn't mean some changes might not require extra work, but it doesn't seem all that more difficult to me than editing in a track based NLE.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index


Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 4:34:29 pm

[Andy Neil] "
One of the workflows that editors use in a track system that is hardest to drop in X, is the notion that soundbites need to be in track 1, and broll shots in track 2. We do this in track systems because it makes it easier to keep track of things, and to make changes to bites. In X, it's actually easier NOT to do things this way because of the nature of connected clips."


This does raise the question which most of the time seems to be the hardest thing to get right, namely what actually DOES go into the primary storyline. A lot of the time you end up wondering whether it's not easier to dispense with the primary altogether, leave it as a gap clip (or several) and just have stuff hanging off it ...

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


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 7:00:11 pm

When hey demoed x at he super meet, Randy ( the designer) didn't mix broll in the primary. So they obviously weren't thinking that way. But if it's easier it's easier. Wouldnt putting it I the primary overwrite the interview visual? Or are people saying put the interview UNDER the primary, making IT connected to the broll? Same problem. Move or change broll and now the audio moves. Nope. The culprit here is connected clips. Connected clips should simply be an option, not a requirement. Like the magnetic timeline.

But it is very Apple. Everything works great as long as you do it Apples way. :)


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 7:29:35 pm

[Bret Williams] "When hey demoed x at he super meet, Randy ( the designer) didn't mix broll in the primary. So they obviously weren't thinking that way."

It's worth mentioning that connected clips in iMovie (yes, they are the same thing) are called Cutaways which I think shows that indeed you are right and that, in Apples' mind at least, B-roll is "meant" to be added as connected clips.

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


Return to posts index


Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 4:47:10 pm

Oliver,


I hear echoes of this thread in your question:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/23973#26781

... though you've posed the question differently (and probably in a more useful manner).

Most interesting to me in that thread were Jeremy's comments (hinted at here).

I do find this a bit shocking as I thought X was actually designed to make these sorts of complications easy to deal with (you seem to think they're more difficult). I also find the description of issues you face on this project as a pretty good glimpse of my everyday, so I'm also thinking I'm probably out of touch with what most editors face here?


Franz.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 5:13:29 pm

This brings up a BIG feature request for me that would help a lot in these scenarios. I just helped my wife cut a 4 min. wedding sizzle for her best friend and the lack of track locks drove me nuts. I'm used to not having track locks since normally I would use Sony Vegas for these types of cuts - but with Vegas I can right-click on any clip - audio, video, still and select "LOCK". This will lock the media in place until i unlock it. I can also highlight a group of clips and LOCK them or even GROUP them so they stay together.

The LOCK and GROUP features would be awesome to have in FCPX and ease the pain of not having actual tracks. For instance once you have your music edited you can then LOCK it in place and cut away with or without the magnetic timeline - this makes it easy to cut to music similar to locking a track in FCP7. Actually the GROUP/UNGROUP feature is now just a right-click away in Premiere CS6 - something Vegas has had for over a decade...

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 7:02:52 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "The LOCK and GROUP features would be awesome to have in FCPX and ease the pain of not having actual tracks. For instance once you have your music edited you can then LOCK it in place and cut away with or without the magnetic timeline - this makes it easy to cut to music similar to locking a track in FCP7."

You already have grouping with compound clips, it sounds like you're asking for grouping more like Premiere Pro's, where the group of clips doesn't get nested, yes? I agree that would be useful in FCPX.

As far as locking in place, that brings up the question of what place to lock to.

I guess you could derive relative sync relationships between connected clips and lock them relative to one another; then slide clip connection points as any changes are made in the primary.

I think that would do what you're asking for but it seems like it breaks the notion that connected clip relationships to the primary have any real meaning. At that point it's also fighting the notion of relative time as defined by the single primary. Locking is easy with absolute, external time as defined by tracks but it starts getting weird when time is relative.

I find these questions really interesting and am curious what the solutions are in FCPX. This thread is a great example of the kind of real-world problems that I don't think the FCPX engineers and UI designers thought about when they designed the FCPX timeline. Maybe it'll all be fixed 10.0.5.

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


Return to posts index


Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 7:32:50 pm

[David Lawrence] "This thread is a great example of the kind of real-world problems that I don't think the FCPX engineers and UI designers thought about when they designed the FCPX timeline."

I think what's interesting is that Oliver is describing a type of editing that some of us are very familiar with which is intrinsically very fiddly.

I have noticed that the editors who are most happy with FCPX tend to be those who work in documentary or corporate where (and this is not at all suggesting the work is any less "creative" or demanding) these kind of complexity issues don't have to be faced to anything like the same degree.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 7:45:42 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I have noticed that the editors who are most happy with FCPX tend to be those who work in documentary or corporate where (and this is not at all suggesting the work is any less "creative" or demanding) these kind of complexity issues don't have to be faced to anything like the same degree.
"


Oliver is actually talking about a corporate video, it's also a little patronising to suggest that corporate videos don't have the same complexity as broadcast. In my 20 years of experience they are often MORE complex.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Professional"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 8:08:19 pm

[Steve Connor] "Oliver is actually talking about a corporate video"

Yes, my mistake.

[Steve Connor] "it's also a little patronising to suggest that corporate videos don't have the same complexity as broadcast."

I certainly didn't mean to sound patronising (and I did specifically include a disclaimer) but if I did then apologies.

I think though there is a difference let's say rather between long form documentary editing and short form advertising type editing (which is more the kind of thing Oliver was describing even though it's technically a "corporate") - and this might be where FCPX suits the former rather better than the latter. Complexity in this case is not about whether one or the other is more creatively demanding but rather about the level of intricacy that is called for in the actual cutting.

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


Return to posts index


Lance Bachelder
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 7:56:17 pm

Yes I'm talking about grouping - not nesting or making a compound clip. Vegas has had this for over 10 years and I use it all the time - Adobe just added this to CS6. Additionally in Vegas you can select a cup or group of clips and ungroup them or maker a smaller group. It' also quick to highlight the group and ungroup when no longer needed.

As far as locking clips in place I use this as a temperory thing when I', working on a particular section of a cut or when sound designing - I'll often lock picture and dialog then begin sound design etc.

These are simple features to ad to the right-click menu and just give Editors another option - no one is required to use them.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 8:14:44 pm

[Lance Bachelder] "Vegas has had this for over 10 years and I use it all the time - Adobe just added this to CS6."

Actually, grouping is in CS5.5 as well. It's a useful feature and something I've always missed in FCP.

A couple ideas that would make it even better:

1) some sort of auto-coloring to make groups stand out visually.

2) if they could implement some sort of object collision avoidance behavior (i.e. automatically jumping tracks over or under existing clips while being slid along the timeline – at the editor's discretion – then I think you'd get the best of both tracked and trackless worlds. It would give you the flexibility of connected clips without the limitations.

Off to the Adobe feature request line!

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 8:48:15 pm

[David Lawrence] "some sort of object collision avoidance behavior "

I think, for me, the thing of it is that when I have any kind of collision its usually because I have two things that are fighting for a space that only one of them belongs in. So, one of them has to go anyway. I just really don't understand the fracas over clip collision at all. It seems to me that it is mostly the same amount of editing whatever you do. The sfx of the hand grenade pin being pulled still has to be cut and placed back where it was taken from to rest under the transition that precedes the clip you just pulled. The mother-in-law's scream still needs to be trimmed back and faded out so that it is not continuing into the turtle race that comes after where you are inserting in to. The humming nuns from the clip just prior will also need to be trimmed back and faded. Everything still needs to healed a bit, doesn't it?


Return to posts index


TImothy Auld
Re: Editing scenario
on May 18, 2012 at 4:52:01 pm

I never really understood that either. And the "no more clip collisions" comment got one of the biggest rounds of applause at the Supermeet two years ago.

Tim


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 18, 2012 at 5:02:03 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I think, for me, the thing of it is that when I have any kind of collision its usually because I have two things that are fighting for a space that only one of them belongs in. So, one of them has to go anyway. I just really don't understand the fracas over clip collision at all."

Clip collision is only half of the benefit of the magnetic timeline. The other half is simplified selection.

With a traditional timeline, you have to make a complicated selection based on implied clip relationships when you want to make an edit around that point in time. With the magnetic timeline, because those clip relationships are explicitly defined, so making an edit around the parent automatically deals with the children correctly.


[Chris Harlan] "Everything still needs to healed a bit, doesn't it?"

Sure, but FCPX preserves all the original durations for you to massage, whereas FCP7 will clobber some of them in collision.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Editing scenario
on May 18, 2012 at 5:52:05 pm

[Walter Soyka] "llision its usually because I have two things that are fighting for a space that only one of them belongs in. So, one of them has to go anyway. I just really don't understand the fracas over clip collision at all."

Clip collision is only half of the benefit of the magnetic timeline. The other half is simplified selection.

With a traditional timeline, you have to make a complicated selection based on implied clip relationships when you want to make an edit around that point in time. With the magnetic timeline, because those clip relationships are explicitly defined, so making an edit around the parent automatically deals with the children correctly."


I certainly get all of that. I guess my point is that a lasso is much more useful to me. It clumps things together in a very temporary relationship, which is far more useful to me than that clump having a permanent relationship. It would be nice to have a command where I could group or ungroup lassoed clumps, at my will, but I prefer a simple lasso over the magnetic timeline any day.


[Walter Soyka] "[Chris Harlan] "Everything still needs to healed a bit, doesn't it?"

Sure, but FCPX preserves all the original durations for you to massage, whereas FCP7 will clobber some of them in collision.
"


Yes, but temporal relationships are far more important to me than any damage done by an overlay. And, when I want to move everything out of the way, using a combo of ctrl V (to split the time line) and the t key is no biggie. It's a couple of keystrokes and I know where everything is. I also don't have to worry about a lot of ancillary stuff like which clip the sfx that covers the transition is actually attached to. If its lassoed, it comes along. If its not, it doesn't.

It just seems to me that the magnetic timeline is giving up an undue amount of control for a modicum of speed in certain circumstances. And, I would further argue, that in my particular circumstances--which requires a high amount of interweaving in a short amount of time--that it doesn't offer any speed value at all.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 18, 2012 at 6:12:54 pm

[Chris Harlan] "It just seems to me that the magnetic timeline is giving up an undue amount of control for a modicum of speed in certain circumstances. And, I would further argue, that in my particular circumstances--which requires a high amount of interweaving in a short amount of time--that it doesn't offer any speed value at all."

Are you giving up control -- or are you changing how you control it? The magnetic timeline has its physics, and if you need to change them, can't you just move the clip in question in or out of the primary as required? Wouldn't that be more or less the same as making a complicated track-based selection?

As for speed, I would think that there could be some gains if you spend a lot of time moving sections around in time; you still have to make the trims after an edit as you would in FCP7, but you don't have to make the initial selections every time.

Then again, I only know what I need -- I have no idea how it would impact your specific workflow.

I would have thought, though, that clip connections, especially with SFX, were practically made for you. For example:

[Chris Harlan] "The sfx of the hand grenade pin being pulled still has to be cut and placed back where it was taken from to rest under the transition that precedes the clip you just pulled."

Connect the pin pull to the right frame of the visual once, and you never need to think about that SFX's placement again.

This goes back a bit to Oliver's original question: is there a structure that you can use in your project that will minimize the amount of timeline acrobatics you have to do?

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Editing scenario
on May 18, 2012 at 8:45:35 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Are you giving up control -- or are you changing how you control it? The magnetic timeline has its physics, and if you need to change them, can't you just move the clip in question in or out of the primary as required? Wouldn't that be more or less the same as making a complicated track-based selection?
"


But what's complicated about making a track based selection? Just lasso. If I don't want to bring my music tracks, lock them and then lasso the rest. But, hey, that's me. And, as to it being more or less the same--well, that's sort of my point. I don't understand the need to re-invent the wheel. Other than just to do it. Now maybe if I had larger, more independent segments to deal with, I'd feel differently. But generally, I don't. Most of what I work on overlaps and interacts in ways that don't really lend themselves to easy segmentation.

[Walter Soyka] "I would have thought, though, that clip connections, especially with SFX, were practically made for you. For example:

[Chris Harlan] "The sfx of the hand grenade pin being pulled still has to be cut and placed back where it was taken from to rest under the transition that precedes the clip you just pulled."

Connect the pin pull to the right frame of the visual once, and you never need to think about that SFX's placement again.
"


No. But this is where it gets difficult for me to articulate, and its not a good day for it. But, let me try. If my goal were to give a specific visual a SFX, you'd be right. Pinning it to a frame would be gold. But that, really, is only a small part of my concern. In the case of a transitional SFX, like we are talking about above, I probably want something like the following to happen: A) I want the sound to match the image at the beginning of the transition. B) I want the sound to be relational to underlying music--say a swell or ramp--so that it sits just so. C) I want to crossfade to a second sfx--say a swish--partway through the transition (lets say the transition is a 20 frame Wind Blur), so that the sound itself is now becoming something else. D) this second sound is probably the one that I am most interested in timing to the beat, so the crossfade between the two sounds is going to be finessed to deal with that beat, E) coming out of the transition--which I have now retimed to 16 frames to make the earlier rhythm requirements work--I might be trying to work in sound (a last minute discovery) from the SOT track--lets say a crossfade from the swish to the rustling sound of the protagonist's wind breaker as he swings around--but F) I have to retime the entire transition to 24 frames to make the effect work, and retime the other details. Then, G) it occurs to me that the swish might not be needed because a filtered version of the rustling windbreaker might make a better transition. But, I'm not sure yet, so I want to leave everything in place, create a sound from the windbreaker, and then crossfade it with both the first sound and the natural sound of the wind breaker. H) Nope. Back to plan A.

I believe that a tiered (tracks) relationship to absolute time is a far easier way to work this all out than a hierarchical relationships between clips. I have no doubt that I could find a way to cut the above in FCP X, and after much practice I might find it passable. I concede that if my years of work and experience had come through using X, I might find it just as easy.

But what do I gain by completely rethinking the way that I work? And that was the point of my earlier post. I see no value in it. None. Sure, if I have no experience, plopping this glop of stuck together stuff over between these glops is a lot easier, and I'm less likely to make a mess. But for me? I don't see it. And its not because I haven't been looking.


Return to posts index

Lance Bachelder
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 9:33:13 pm

Auto coloring of groups would be awesome.

Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California



Return to posts index

stevez
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 7:50:52 pm

I actually think editing nightmares like this is where X can shine.

What I have found that works best for me is to connect my music bed first to an empty primary storyline. This will create a gap clip the length of my music bed. Now I would find my select sound bites and overwrite (d) to my primary storyline.

After I have my selected sound bites in, I can then connect the Broll. I like to create another story for my Broll, this way I can just move the whole thing as needed, and trim, ripple, roll. A useful feature I found is toggle storyline mode (g). After connecting your first clip, the next clip you drag from the browser to the timeline, if you hold G and place the clip next to your previous connected clip it will create a secondary story line for you

Another reason for placing it in the secondary story lines is the ability to change the connection point (command + option + click) for all when needed. I use the connection point almost like a lock track. I can move the connection points of my music bed and secondary stories (Broll) to the same gap clip in the primary, and that way they stay synced and don't move around on me when I trim, ripple, roll the sound bites in the primary.

When the sound bites need to be moved to another location, the position (p) tool is great. Also replacing them is easy with overwrite without effecting any of my already synced broll edits to the music.

I have grown to realize that the position tool is very useful, and I use it for almost all timeline editing now.

I have also come to like not having tracks. Instead of having to scroll to see my audio track(s) and how to line up my edits. I can now just bring the audio to the top and view it there while I edit my Secondary stories.

I do wish that I could choose what story lines a connected clip could be attached to, instead of just the primary.

Just my 2..

sz


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 9:59:50 pm

[stevez] "I actually think editing nightmares like this is where X can shine."

I want to be clear that in no way do I consider this a "nightmare". It's pretty much what every editor deals with when the client variable is introduced. I don't expect a client to understand the issues they introduce when they make a request. Changes result when they see the product they asked for. They have the right to ask for adjustments when it wasn't what they thought it would be in their mind's eye. It's our job to be the specialists and accomplish the goal. It's the software's job to get out of the way.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 6:42:26 pm

There is a lot of debate about the Primary track in FCPX but for me use of the primary is something that became second nature after I spent time cutting in FCPX, I decided to use it in exactly the same way as I used track 1 in FCP classic i.e usually for narrative or structural elements. If I'm cutting to a music track I always attach this to a gap clip at the start of the edit, in FCP7 I would always put this on track 3 & 4.

You eventually find yourself getting used to the decisions required for moving, adding or deleting clips in it. Like any NLE you need to fundamentally understand what the consequence of every edit you do has on the timeline.The primary still gives you same options as you had in FCP7 they are just available in a vastly different way sometimes. I use the Position tool a lot, gap clips are much more important, especially when you wish to keep B Roll in place. I also use "lift from storyline" a lot as well

Initially it's not anywhere near as intuitive as tracks of course but it's surprising how the logic of it (or not depending on your viewpoint) eventually kicks in, most of the time I find the primary works WITH me but occasionally it'll throw up a roadblock or two, but I got those in FCP7 too.

Just dropping a gap clip in the primary and building everything as connected clips is not the way to go, you may as well just use Premiere Pro as suggested earlier.

Steve Connor
"FCPX Professional"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 7:29:59 pm

At what point will there be a unanimous call of 'yep, trackless was a mistake'.

Personally i think there's nothing wrong with trying stuff and even less wrong with going 'ok, a circle is the correct shape for a wheel.'

Sure FC10 has elements of power and oooh and aaah, but ultimately wasn't it designed on Randy's ideas of how to cut his home movies? Apple are so far down the line of producer high quality tech that I don't think they could produce a bit of consumer hardware that wasn't powerful... but do you/we/anyone actually think Apple contemplate anything they do with the wants/needs of the minority of 'Pros' and the diversity and demands of 'Pro' ways of working/needing to work (as with this case)?

It seems every time someone says 'Apple are a consumer company now that make toys for the middle classes' they get shouted down with examples of tech this and spec that, but, Apple are a consumer company now that make toys for the middle classes. And that is what this software reflects. They can try and crowbar in 'Pro' features/requests/needs all they want, but at its heart, this is a piece of consumer software where 'cool' was more important than 'practical application'... which is, pretty much, Apple's modus operandi these days.

I think if everyone just acknowledge this and had a group hug, we'd all run a far lower risk of developing ulcers.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 7:42:31 pm

[Jules bowman] "They can try and crowbar in 'Pro' features/requests/needs all they want, but at its heart, this is a piece of consumer software where 'cool' was more important than 'practical application'... which is, pretty much, Apple's modus operandi these days."

So what isn't "Pro" (here we go again) about it?

What "Pro" things can't I do in FCPX that I can in other NLE's?

Steve Connor
"FCPX Professional"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 8:08:33 pm

Just read this thread Steve. It wasn't designed with a wide range of editing needs in mind. As I have said before I can cut paying jobs on pinnacle studio. That, within this 'what isn't pro about it' reasoning makes pinnacle studio pro. But it is a consumer conceived bit off software.

So is FC10. Sure you can make money using it. As you could with iMovie. But it was still conceived of as a consumer app and will, forever, have limitations for all who don't do things within the limited parameters of apple's perceptions of what editing is or needs to be.

My ultimate point is that it was conceived for consumers/prosumers and the basic premise of trackless events limits it's use unless you're willing to do the splits whilst juggling 7 hand grenades and whistling your national anthem through a porcelain recorder.

That's great if you only need to do editing which fits in their perception of what editing is, but from day 1 this didn't enable me to do things how I do them, and nope, not changing because Apple say jump, and as time has passed mo and more people have thrown up examples of its limitations.

Love it Steve, please do. And anyone else, love it, find apple cool and funky, stand where the puck is being hit, really, do. But this was not designed within the myriad of diverse needs of the professional editing world. And by professional editing world I do mean the established post houses who make most TV and film. I mean traditional. I mean the sector that kids wanting to edit generally aim towards working in. I mean the pro's. The ones who get asked stuff by companies and little folk like me and you.

FC10 was conceived in an insular bubble by people wanting to realise a vision, not by people wanting to improve a bit of software used by millions.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 8:39:37 pm

[Jules bowman] "and the basic premise of trackless events limits it's use unless you're willing to do the splits whilst juggling 7 hand grenades and whistling your national anthem through a porcelain recorder."

Which is how I feel when I use Avid, but then again I don't know how to use Avid anymore


[Jules bowman] "That's great if you only need to do editing which fits in their perception of what editing is, but from day 1 this didn't enable me to do things how I do them, and nope, not changing because Apple say jump, and as time has passed mo and more people have thrown up examples of its limitations."

You're right, using FCPX requires you to change the way you think, if you don't want to then that's cool, Adobe will be happy to take your money

[Jules bowman] "Love it Steve, please do. And anyone else, love it, find apple cool and funky, stand where the puck is being hit, really, do. But this was not designed within the myriad of diverse needs of the professional editing world. And by professional editing world I do mean the established post houses who make most TV and film. I mean traditional. I mean the sector that kids wanting to edit generally aim towards working in. I mean the pro's. The ones who get asked stuff by companies and little folk like me and you."

I don't use it because I find Apple "cool and funky" neither I expect to the other people on here who use it. We use it because we like it.

So apart from having to re-learn some aspect of editing, what do you think FCPX is lacking that makes it "Consumer" and not "Pro"?

Steve Connor
"FCPX Professional"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 8:49:08 pm

Tracks. And grown up naming conventions :)

And adobe have my money. They also talk to me, gave me a hug, wiped the sweat off my brow and have already reduced my heart rate.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 8:50:11 pm

[Jules bowman] "Tracks. And grown up naming conventions :)

And adobe have my money. They also talk to me, gave me a hug, wiped the sweat off my brow and have already reduced my heart rate."



You'll have to do better than that! BTW Adobe have my money too

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 8:55:00 pm

[Steve Connor] "what do you think FCPX is lacking that makes it "Consumer" and not "Pro"?"

the fact that it is directly based on the methodology, GUI and workflow of iMovie. And steve - iMovie is a consumer product.

FCPX has simplistic, modal (connected editing mode vs primary editing modes), metaphorically reduced use case scenario/my first colouring book simplifications of the underlying track structure.

FCPX is directly based on, and flows out of iMovies methodology, in events, draggable marquee selections, trackless workflow, connected clips, direct links into iphoto and itunes, horribly simplified audio handling, horribly unusable waveforms.

FCPX is a souped up iMovie. It is, by definition, and the fact that it is trying to empower consumer hobbyists to step it up a gear by employing near identical methodologies to their free consumer video product, a prosumer solution. it is trying to lead consumers into more powerful capabilities, while still offering them the simplified hand holding amateur software environment they are used to.

Its kind of painful watching apple trying to tack multicam and some kind of xml spec on this thing. I literally think they are mostly doing it for PR reasons given the nuclear scale of the blowback they received.

but that in short is why its semi-amateur software - it adheres to the logic and simplifications and reduced use case of amateur software - at best its prosumer. In that context 300 is actually fairly expensive for the target market?

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 8:00:35 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "the fact that it is directly based on the methodology, GUI and workflow of iMovie. And steve - iMovie is a consumer product.

FCPX has simplistic, modal (connected editing mode vs primary editing modes), metaphorically reduced use case scenario/my first colouring book simplifications of the underlying track structure.

FCPX is directly based on, and flows out of iMovies methodology, in events, draggable marquee selections, trackless workflow, connected clips, direct links into iphoto and itunes, horribly simplified audio handling, horribly unusable waveforms.

FCPX is a souped up iMovie. It is, by definition, and the fact that it is trying to empower consumer hobbyists to step it up a gear by employing near identical methodologies to their free consumer video product, a prosumer solution. it is trying to lead consumers into more powerful capabilities, while still offering them the simplified hand holding amateur software environment they are used to.

Its kind of painful watching apple trying to tack multicam and some kind of xml spec on this thing. I literally think they are mostly doing it for PR reasons given the nuclear scale of the blowback they received.

but that in short is why its semi-amateur software - it adheres to the logic and simplifications and reduced use case of amateur software - at best its prosumer. In that context 300 is actually fairly expensive for the target market?
"


Interesting thoughts but I'll ask you the question as well, in edit terms what CAN'T you do in FCPX that in turn makes it "semi-amateur"? and you can't regurgitate the usual battle cries of "there's no tracks, they called things different names, it looks like iMovie, Apple mad me sad when they dropped FCP7"

In down and dirty editing what can't you do in FCPX that is vital for "Professional" editing that you can do in other NLE's

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 2:39:56 pm

In truth Steve - you are a pro, to some degree I am too - either one of us, if push comes to shove, could produce workable strategies to deal with the most egregious shortcomings of the software.

but all you are doing is presenting the software with scenarios that weren't envisioned in it's design - FCPX is intended to guide novices into somewhat more complex workflows. hence it's *safe for four and up* auto collision avoidance, auto b-roll clip linking, friendly routes into your itunes music collection, friendly routes into your iphoto snaps, friendly dated events structure you're familiar with from iphoto.

You can get it to perform in the scenarios outlined in the original post, because we generally know how to get things done, but some of the solutions you read here sound crazy - does this sound anything like a sane NLE?

If you need to keep the relative position of connected clips, but change the primary storyline, then you move the clips out of the primary...then replace the gaps that are left over, or add as new connected until your "committed", and then move those clips in to the primary

chances are I would want them to travel with the bite anyway. If not, well, then I would temporarily compound the connected clips and slide them off the clip I was moving. Make the change and then slide the compound back and break it up..

A useful feature I found is toggle storyline mode (g). After connecting your first clip, the next clip you drag from the browser to the timeline, if you hold G and place the clip next to your previous connected clip it will create a secondary story line for you

I can move the connection points of my music bed and secondary stories (Broll) to the same gap clip in the primary, and that way they stay synced and don't move around on me when I trim, ripple, roll the sound bites in the primary.


to be frank Steve - some of that sounds pretty mad. What is going on there? are we being serious? does that actually sound like the workflow of a robust non-linear editing system? read it uninitiated and it reads like crazed gibberish nearly. FCPX was built for highly simplistic idealised workflows.

I've said it before - I don't actually view FCPX as an NLE - its a DAM, its an expression of effects rigging in motion, and its a hand holding environment to allow novices - coming specifically from imovie - to advance into somewhat more complex workflows based on the highly specific, and frankly weird workflows of iMovie.

FCPX can be described as any number of things, but, to my mind at least, it bears no resemblance to a functioning, professional non-linear editing system.

It's just far too weird, and too limited by its crass simplification of the underlying track structure.

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


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 3:30:08 pm

[Steve Connor] "In down and dirty editing what can't you do in FCPX that is vital for "Professional" editing that you can do in other NLE's"

You cannot export a range.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 4:44:08 pm

[Richard Herd] "You cannot export a range.
"


Yes you can, it just takes two more very simple steps.

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 6:49:44 pm

What are the steps?

Thanks!


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 7:09:02 pm

[Richard Herd] "What are the steps?"

Create a new Project in your event called let's say "Exports"

Select the section you wish to export and copy it to the "Exports" project and export from there.

Yes it's a workaround and I'd rather not do it, but it's not that time-consuming to do

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 7:23:44 pm

Good idea!
Thanks!


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 8:06:04 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "the fact that it is directly based on the methodology, GUI and workflow of iMovie. And steve - iMovie is a consumer product.

FCPX has simplistic, modal (connected editing mode vs primary editing modes), metaphorically reduced use case scenario/my first colouring book simplifications of the underlying track structure.

FCPX is directly based on, and flows out of iMovies methodology, in events, draggable marquee selections, trackless workflow, connected clips, direct links into iphoto and itunes, horribly simplified audio handling, horribly unusable waveforms.

FCPX is a souped up iMovie. It is, by definition, and the fact that it is trying to empower consumer hobbyists to step it up a gear by employing near identical methodologies to their free consumer video product, a prosumer solution. it is trying to lead consumers into more powerful capabilities, while still offering them the simplified hand holding amateur software environment they are used to.

Its kind of painful watching apple trying to tack multicam and some kind of xml spec on this thing. I literally think they are mostly doing it for PR reasons given the nuclear scale of the blowback they received.

but that in short is why its semi-amateur software - it adheres to the logic and simplifications and reduced use case of amateur software - at best its prosumer. In that context 300 is actually fairly expensive for the target market?
"


Interesting thoughts but I'll ask you the question as well, in edit terms what CAN'T you do in FCPX that in turn makes it "semi-amateur"? and you can't regurgitate the usual battle cries of "there's no tracks, they called things different names, it looks like iMovie, Apple mad me sad when they dropped FCP7"

In down and dirty editing what can't you do in FCPX that is vital for "Professional" editing that you can do in other NLE's

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 10:12:49 am

Steve, I'm sure you can do almost anything in FC10 eventually, it's just as I said before, you need to be a contortionist to do it.

Their biggest cock up was the trackless thing. Clip collision, as described above, is something that makes sense and something I tout of when the whole thing was released, but instead they took a good idea and made it into something that isn't usable for many many editors, or something that many many editors don't want to use because of its limitations and the need for workarounds. The fact there are all these discussions about primary this, secondary that, connected the other when none of these issues ev existed for the.... Woah, magnetic timeline.... Makes a pretty good case for it being folly.

I bet you there could have been tracks and clip collision that made things move around like a magnetic timeline (though do magnets move like that?) so you'd have had a useful tool for the very few times you did have that clip collision issue, you'd be able to lob clips at the timeline and other clips would make way for them, which would be great, but you'd have tracks and all the advantages that come with them.

And no one will convince me that they couldn't have done that. They just didn't want to. They wanted to do it this way because for randy's home movies, that's all that was needed.

As I said before. Trackless was folly. Seriously, you give me tracks and stop calling projects, etc by silly names and I am giving it more of a consideration than I am now. Though the bugs and bloat and all that other crap people go on about is still off putting, but I would have at least been trying it.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 10:46:33 am

[Jules bowman] "Clip collision, as described above, is something that makes sense and something I tout of when the whole thing was released, but instead they took a good idea and made it into something that isn't usable for many many editors, or something that many many editors don't want to use because of its limitations and the need for workarounds. The fact there are all these discussions about primary this, secondary that, connected the other when none of these issues ev existed for the.... Woah, magnetic timeline.... Makes a pretty good case for it being folly.

I bet you there could have been tracks and clip collision that made things move around like a magnetic timeline (though do magnets move like that?) so you'd have had a useful tool for the very few times you did have that clip collision issue, you'd be able to lob clips at the timeline and other clips would make way for them, which would be great, but you'd have tracks and all the advantages that come with them.
"


Fixed track options would have certainly helped the software gain wider acceptance and I do understand why some people aren't comfortable with trackless.

I still wouldn't be surprised if tracks or something similar make an appearance in FCPX in the future though.

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 10:58:23 am

Indeed, it is a possibility. As I said, I think trackless was folly. And if they came I would be curious then to have a look. But thing is, by then will I care? I've started wrapping my head around PP CS6. Sure it is missing little things i'm used to in FCP7 but they do listen to feature requests so in time I imagine those will come back and on the whole it is great. it has little things FCP didn't have. Even without the right graphics card it runs nicely. The layout options of the windows is blinding and i'm loving those across my two monitors, etc. etc.

For me there isn't a need to know all editing software as I'm self contained, so one is fine and to be honest my love affair with apple has died. I'm personally pondering whether to shift to PC when my work station needs upgrading, and the answer is probably yes because I do believe Apple see the buck in consumer stuff and I simply cannot and will not trust them again. This whole debacle is costing me time and money, both of which are mine to use as I see best and thus being forced by apple to waste both is a tad annoying.

Personally, I think, and will always think, apple cocked up. They believe their own hype and they don't really appear to listen to the negative voices because, y'know, they're huge dude and X million units of YZ and A shifted by the third quarter validates everything they do.

I truly believe as time passes FC will slip further and further down the pecking order for top end editing and as such it's reputation within the mid and lower ranges of editing will be diminished. I bought FCP in the first place because of the adoption by top end editing. For that same reason I chose not to start with PP. I do truly believe the next 3 years will see those two swap places.

So again, by the time they sort things out, will I care? Sadly, I think not.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 3:40:59 pm

I'll say it again. You can do tracks in X. The Jim Giberti technique works well.

The confusion is they aren't called tracks. They are called "secondary story lines."

The other important thing folks keep skipping is "P." The letter P on the keyboard, turns of magnetism. It lets you "Place" the clips.

Oh yeah, one more thing: select a clip in the timeline and hit Shift-F, and the clip appears in the browser with the I and O marked.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 5:30:52 pm

[Steve Connor] "Interesting thoughts but I'll ask you the question as well, in edit terms what CAN'T you do in FCPX that in turn makes it "semi-amateur"? and you can't regurgitate the usual battle cries of "there's no tracks, they called things different names, it looks like iMovie, Apple mad me sad when they dropped FCP7"

In down and dirty editing what can't you do in FCPX that is vital for "Professional" editing that you can do in other NLE's"


Steve, I agree with you. Since the latest version, its really a matter of taste. There are things like sync marks that might be major for somebody but not for somebody else. Its really now about how well the tool fits you and the degree to which you are willing to re-imagine your own habits and approaches. You can certainly argue that this sort of work or that sort of work will require fewer key strokes or fewer work-arounds than in other bits of software, but I'm guessing there is little or nothing that can't be accomplished on one that can't be accomplished on another.

However stimulating it has been to contemplate it, I'm personally glad that I don't have to rethink how I edit. Pr6 and MC6 promise that. So, as Laurie Anderson says "Let X=X."


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 5:38:58 pm

+1 for Laurie Anderson.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 6:01:41 pm

[David Lawrence] "+1 for Laurie Anderson."

How can you not?!


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 5:50:42 pm

[Chris Harlan] "Steve, I agree with you. Since the latest version, its really a matter of taste. There are things like sync marks that might be major for somebody but not for somebody else. Its really now about how well the tool fits you and the degree to which you are willing to re-imagine your own habits and approaches. You can certainly argue that this sort of work or that sort of work will require fewer key strokes or fewer work-arounds than in other bits of software, but I'm guessing there is little or nothing that can't be accomplished on one that can't be accomplished on another."

I think that sums things up nicely Chris

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 12:21:29 am

[Steve Connor] "In down and dirty editing what can't you do in FCPX that is vital for "Professional" editing that you can do in other NLE's"

Unless I'm misinformed you can't readily deal with production audio split over multiple channels and multiple sources.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 12:22:59 am

[Herb Sevush] "Unless I'm misinformed you can't readily deal with production audio split over multiple channels and multiple sources."

You can, but it's not pretty. One of the main 4 bullet points Apple has been touting in the coming update.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: Editing scenario
on Jul 22, 2012 at 8:16:43 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "FCPX is a souped up iMovie. It is, by definition, and the fact that it is trying to empower consumer hobbyists to step it up a gear by employing near identical methodologies to their free consumer video product, a prosumer solution. it is trying to lead consumers into more powerful capabilities, while still offering them the simplified hand holding amateur software environment they are used to."

Haha....you are funny....I am sure the same was said by "pros" when the NLEs came out on Amigas and Pentium2 computers that were suddenly affordable. Or when we started shooting broadcasts with DV-cameras.....the shockwaves in the industry can still be heard...and amplified recently with the DSLR revolution. A lot of people who started on miniDV are now on F3s and C300s and REDs. All the power to the people, if you ask me. So if someone comes from iMovie fine.

I have tried iMovie once with my son. It is unusable for me and VERY far from anything any NLE does. It has events, yes. But so does any other NLE, only they call it Project library or something else.
The difference is how you fill these bins and how this helps you in the end to make better editing decisions. Had Apple called it Project Library and the Project Library Timeline Library would that make you happier? Hanging on these semantics is a bit childish if you ask me and most of your complaints about FCPX are matters of taste. If you tried it and don´t like it and have nothing constructive to add why do you come back to an FCPX forum? I mean I tried AVID, didn´t like it and don´t hang out over there bashing their tool. It works for them. Fine.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Editing scenario
on Jul 22, 2012 at 9:37:09 am

alban - i posted this over two months ago - what are you doing? reading three months worth of the forum? And venting spleen at ancient comments? Its a little weird alban.

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


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: Editing scenario
on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:48:55 pm

No i usually work and don't troll forums. I got pointed at that particular thread yesterday and saw your comments which are ......uhm..... let's call them funny.



Return to posts index

Michael Garber
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 9:47:04 pm

[Steve Connor] "So apart from having to re-learn some aspect of editing, what do you think FCPX is lacking that makes it "Consumer" and not "Pro"?"

Reliability. I have found more bugs and strange behavior in X than I care to elaborate on here. That is the line in the sand for me.

Michael Garber
5th Wall - a post production company


Return to posts index

Greg Andonian
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 7:15:05 am

Michael Garber "I have found more bugs and strange behavior in X than I care to elaborate on here. That is the line in the sand for me."

Then why are you using an FCPX logo for your avatar? ;)

just sayin'...

______________________________________________
"THAT'S our fail-safe point. Up until here, we still have enough track to stop the locomotive before it plunges into the ravine... But after this windmill it's the future or bust."


Return to posts index

John Godwin
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 9:50:12 pm

"It wasn't designed with a wide range of editing needs in mind. As I have said before I can cut paying jobs on pinnacle studio. That, within this 'what isn't pro about it' reasoning makes pinnacle studio pro. But it is a consumer conceived bit off software."

Actually Pinnacle Studio is derived from Liquid, which was designed to compete head to head with Avid. Should have won, too.

I'm beginning to think that, considering the depth built into FCPX and the obviously unfinished nature of it, that we should consider introducing what I'll call the Pro Rule. (Also based on the considerable discussion of who is and who isn't a pro.)

So, the Pro Rule is that when your argument is that something isn't Pro, or that someone isn't Pro because they don't do the same exact things you do, you automatically lose. That way these endless circular threads that devolve into that discussion might instead stay on topic as shown in this thread, where the original question was not "Is FCPX Pro" but was "How would you handle this scenario in FCPX?"

Or not.

Best,
John


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 7:58:19 pm

[Jules bowman] "At what point will there be a unanimous call of 'yep, trackless was a mistake'.

Personally i think there's nothing wrong with trying stuff and even less wrong with going 'ok, a circle is the correct shape for a wheel.'
"


Part of it is that for a number of people, its not a mistake. It really does offer a faster way for them to do what they do. That's certainly not the case for me. I'm very rhythm oriented, I do a lot of complicated sound work, and precision timing is essential. Tracks are clearly he best choice for me. But I also have to acknowledge that there are a large number of people for whom the timeline is not the heartbeat of the piece.

[Jules bowman] " but ultimately wasn't it designed on Randy's ideas of how to cut his home movies?"

That might be a little harsh, but after watching his Antarctica jaunt, I have to say the thought has occurred to me. It also occurred to me that X seems to be very photographer friendly.


[Jules bowman] "Apple are a consumer company now that make toys for the middle classes."


But they is great toys!


Return to posts index

Michael Sanders
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 7:34:06 pm

"If I'm cutting to a music track I always attach this to a gap clip at the start of the edit, in FCP7 I would always put this on track 3 & 4."

Same here. I've done quite a few of these now in X and that seems to work best. I put in a generator at the start ( white black etc) and attach the music to that. Then most of the stuff goes in the primary.

For cutting projects like this X can be a real time saver. Being able to reject material the client doesn't like is very useful. And being able to range a section of music and with one drag of the mouse fade it down is great.

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 8:49:24 pm

It's beyond absurd that there are 24 replies from "yeah - this is a big headache" to "you hurt my feeling saying something bad about something FcPX doesn't do....

The bottom line is - this problem (and many others) didn't exist before FCPX. And in fact doesn't exist in any other NLE (well maybe IMOVIE)

When Apple makes this as usable to do what you could easily do before --

without twisting yourself into a pretzel

The "pros" will stop making the other "pros" feel bad about their choice and just use it.

In the meantime FCP7 PP6 and Avid are all working just fine

Who has time to waste on an application that doesn't do what you need?

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 8:51:20 pm

[Andy Field] "Who has time to waste on an application that doesn't do what you need?
"


Exactly, I don't like Avid, yet I don't feel the urge to keep moaning about it on forums :)

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 9:21:38 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I did cut a small piece like this a while back in FCPX and I was amazed at how quickly I got in awkward spots once the client started picking at the edit and the music. "

I'm finding that when the client asks for the usual number of changes and wants to see you perform them, it's easy to get tied into knots with X. That's because you are trying to be expedient without necessarily keeping a "clean" timeline.

[Andy Neil] "First of all, I wouldn't edit the broll as connected clips. "

Actually that sounds like the best approach. Music would be connected clips. That makes it easier to move b-roll segments and soundbites around via the magnetic timeline.

[Andy Neil] "One of the workflows that editors use in a track system that is hardest to drop in X, is the notion that soundbites need to be in track 1, and broll shots in track 2."

Ironically I never edited this way until FCP. When I first started with NLEs (Avid), I'd come from years of linear. So, my Avid timelines were always only with clips on V1. In linear, you never had a V2 or higher track. Everything was a "primary storyline", though "magnetic" in a different sense of the word ;-) It's funny that X has put us back into a mindset that seems somewhat reminiscent of what we did 25+ years ago.

[Simon Ubsdell] "This does raise the question which most of the time seems to be the hardest thing to get right, namely what actually DOES go into the primary storyline"

That's been my point. I'm trying to develop a working strategy for how to tackle the timeline. Something that I've never had to do with any other NLE.

[Steve Connor] "There is a lot of debate about the Primary track in FCPX but for me use of the primary is something that became second nature after I spent time cutting in FCPX"

I think X's design is optimized for the sort of shows with soundbites and bridging B-Roll shots. Then add music and SFX that lay underneath. Doesn't work well with these sort of hybrid ideas.

[Bret Williams] "When hey demoed x at he super meet, Randy ( the designer) didn't mix broll in the primary. "

With all due respect, that was a demo and what was shown was designed to demo well. Same for every polished demo you've ever seen. I'd be willing to bet that any one of us could sit over Randy's shoulder and "play client" and turn that demo into a mess in 10 minutes or less ;-)

Good ideas though. Keep 'em coming. Thanks.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 9:49:25 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I'd be willing to bet that any one of us could sit over Randy's shoulder and "play client" and turn that demo into a mess in 10 minutes or less ;-)
"


Ya think? ;-)


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 10:01:18 pm

[stevez] "I actually think editing nightmares like this is where X can shine."

I want to be clear that in no way do I consider this a "nightmare". It's pretty much what every editor deals with when variables are introduced. I don't expect aclient to understand the issues they introduce when they make a request. Changes result when they see the product they asked for. They have the right to ask for adjustments when it wasn't what they thought it would be in their mind's eye. It's our job to be the experts and accomplish the goal. It's the software's job to get out of the way.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 10:06:10 pm

[Oliver Peters] "when variables are introduced. I don't expect aclient to understand the issues they introduce when they make a request. Changes result when they see the product they asked for. They have the right to ask for adjustments when it wasn't what they thought it would be in their mind's eye. It's our job to be the experts and accomplish the goal. It's the software's job to get out of the way."

Well said.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 10:09:58 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I want to be clear that in no way do I consider this a "nightmare". It's pretty much what every editor deals with when variables are introduced. I don't expect aclient to understand the issues they introduce when they make a request. Changes result when they see the product they asked for. They have the right to ask for adjustments when it wasn't what they thought it would be in their mind's eye. It's our job to be the experts and accomplish the goal. It's the software's job to get out of the way."

Agreed. You're just describing business as usual as far as I'm concerned. And changes and versions are just part of the normal process.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 9:11:26 pm

[Oliver Peters] "They have the right to ask for adjustments when it wasn't what they thought it would be in their mind's eye."

And managing client expectations has never been easier, in X. You simply select the proper pre-set called the "client is happy." ;) There's also a preset for "invoice is paid on time."


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 7:29:21 am

[Oliver Peters] "Ironically I never edited this way until FCP. When I first started with NLEs (Avid), I'd come from years of linear. So, my Avid timelines were always only with clips on V1... It's funny that X has put us back into a mindset that seems somewhat reminiscent of what we did 25+ years ago"

I was brought up the same way Oliver. I hadn't thought along those lines, but there does seem to be a correlation. Back in those days, I was working on Avid Newscutter which only had 3 usable video tracks to begin with so V1 was pretty much used for everything.


[Brett Williams]"Wouldnt putting it I the primary overwrite the interview visual? Or are people saying put the interview UNDER the primary, making IT connected to the broll?"

What I was specifically saying was not to edit broll as a connected clip simply because it's broll. Of course a cover shot would be edited as a connected clip if there was already a sound bite in the primary, but for the sections of the video (as outlined in the OP) where it was just broll over music, I would edit the broll into the primary storyline. The music in the example would be either as a connected clip, or secondary storyline (depending on the amount of music editing which was necessary. What you would be left with is a filled primary storyline with a few connected clips over long sound bites, and a secondary storyline holding the music similar to this mock up I've made.



In this example, the clips in the primary storyline with embedded audio are the soundbites. Mixed in there are broll clips with no audio, and also a few connected clips of broll where needed. The music was edited in a secondary storyline.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Jules bowman
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 11:42:21 pm

But the forum is called FCPX or Not: The Debate


Return to posts index

John Godwin
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 11:46:33 pm

I'm just suggesting "use FCPX or not", which seems useful, as opposed to "is FCPX pro", which is merely endless. But it's only my opinion.

Best,
John


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Editing scenario
on May 13, 2012 at 11:22:47 pm

[Andy Field] "The bottom line is - this problem (and many others) didn't exist before FCPX. And in fact doesn't exist in any other NLE (well maybe IMOVIE)"

Amen Andy, especially coming from someone who knows the app and has written insightful stuff about it.

FWIW it echoes about everything I've written about X as someone who's shop is producing with it 7 days a week.

It could really be something if Apple got over their vision thing and understood both the opportunity and the obligation regarding the other half of what the app needs to do in order to work as a true professional app.

I'm defining "professional" as an NLE developed for the spectrum of professional use not a demographic niche. If ever there was an instance and a time when a company could have it's cake and eat it to, this would be it.

I mean this with all due humility.
One day in Cupertino with their team and I could give them all the consulting and direct input they would need to satisfy most every dissenter on this board - without spoiling their party.

I say this because I've listened to virtually every intelligent argument, frustrated 7 user and creative suggestion and because I've worked through FCPX's shortcomings on project after project.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 1:02:06 am

[Jim Giberti] "It could really be something if Apple got over their vision thing and understood both the opportunity and the obligation regarding the other half of what the app needs to do in order to work as a true professional app."

I do believe there's some internal movement at ProApps in that direction. I would doubt that they'll give us tracks back, but who knows. In any case, there is a large group of "pros" - in any way one would like to define that term - who are very interested in seeing Apple succeed with FCP X. Part of that is a natural tendency to like all things Apple. It's also that there's a lot to like in X. From the POV of people trying to use X, it doesn't seem like it's that far off from being useable for a wide of of projects, some of which it isn't yet quite right for.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 2:52:04 am

Is there a way you can post a pic of your timeline, Oliver?

I do think that FCPX takes a lot of learning, as does any "new-to-you" NLE. FCPX does present a new and unique way to approach an edit. The biggest "hang up" for me personally, is multichannel audio. Right now, it's far from efficient. As far as moving edits around in a timeline (read: client changes) are not impossible in X.

There are ways to hold pieces and parts of the timeline in place. Jim uses secondary storylines for track like behavior. I think this works well for music.

Sometimes you have to think a few moves ahead in order to keep things where they are in time, and it all has to do with the relationship to the primary.

With 7, all clips have a relationship (mostly) to time. It's a big difference.

I'm not saying one is better over the other, although it is true, one is certainly more familiar to manipulate.

Connections, as we've pointed out before, represent the biggest challenge. If we could break apart audio/clips and attach them back to the video/clips that are secondary without compounding, instead of only to the primary, it would help. Or, if FCPX would show all channels upon clip "expansion" it would also go a longer way than the current method of semi-permanent clip "mix downs".

Yes, sometimes things seemingly take more moves than a track based scenario, but other times, it takes less moves, so there's a trade off.

There is a way to "lock" clips in time, and it usually involves keeping the primary in place, and sometimes it involves grouping a clip through a variety of methods, and perhaps changing the attach point. It might also be best to temporarily move certain clips out of the primary all together, work in connected clip space, and then when ready , commit relevant clips back to the primary. You have to know that if you move a "master" clip that has attachments, it will effect the connected clips and you have to make plans, in advance, to do so. 7 works the opposite way, really. You make the change, and move to clip relations later, whether that involves a company move of all clips before/after, further trimming, or perhaps swapping track positions.

In 7, it usually is done by deleting/replacing a clip and then moving all clips by selecting all forward/backward. This process in X is different, and in some ways more simple, you just have to think about the manipulation a bit sooner than you do with tracks, so it appears to be "more difficult".

The X timeline is far from perfect, we have been clamoring for tighter control for almost a year now. Apple says they are listening and doing something about it. We'll have to see...

I find moving bunches of clips around to be fairly "easy", multichannel audio on the other hand is a bit of a chore. X could use a "clip swap" command that keeps the connected clips in place in time, but moves the primary clips only.

Plussed out Roles could help here as well, perhaps if Roles could be channel based in the context of one clip, and then we had a Role based channel mixer.

Would it be ultimately better than tracks? Dunno, it's a personal decision at that point, and it will be up to Apple to implement a workable system.

I find the Event clip sort and organization to be pretty great for my needs, I do think it's more powerful than bins, but that's how I work and might not work for everyone.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 3:33:24 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Sometimes you have to think a few moves ahead in order to keep things where they are in time, and it all has to do with the relationship to the primary."

This in a nutshell is why I currently consider the current magnetic timeline bad design. I want to edit, not play a game of chess with my NLE. But that's just me.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 4:04:14 am

[David Lawrence] "This in a nutshell is why I currently consider the current magnetic timeline bad design. I want to edit, not play a game of chess with my NLE. But that's just me."

And that's fine.

It's tough to learn a new way when we have been used to it another way for so long.

The way I approach it is that it might be a better way, and perhaps the traditional way hasn't been the most efficient, just the most ubiquitous and accepted.

Jury is still out for me, and there's more work to be done by Apple.

With 7, if I need to do clip surgery, I will usually throw the new clip on a top most track, and bottom most audio track and secure everything in.

Or, I'll pre-cut a place for it and arrange room or space for the timing of the new incoming clip and it might involve moving part of the entire timeline.

That can take many steps especially when track patching/auto select is involved.

X can do edits like this in fewer steps. But, I have to know what I want, and learning that process takes time. The more I do it, the less I think about it. My intentions become more clear.

Editing is all a chess game, but X's methods aren't quite muscle memory yet. So that hesitation and unassuredness might be perceived as difficulty, or application design faultiness. And in certain cases, like multichannel audio, there are real road blocks and convolutions. No doubt about that.

I know people say its oversimplified, and for certain aspects it is, but in others situations, it's not.

Perhaps people don't like the unfamiliarity. That's totally understandable. It's a lot to learn.

You were involved in an earlier discussion about grouping as it pertains to Pr and Vegas. X is all about grouping, yowzas. And it's all visually grouped and there's several ways to group elements. Does it look like Adobe/Sony's method? Nope. Do you have to learn to control them? Yes, absolutely. Do favorites look like persistent in and out points? Not in the familiar sense, but the very ideas are the same despite the different methodologies of use. I'm sure I'll get punched right in the nose for that, but it'll heal.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 8:02:28 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's tough to learn a new way when we have been used to it another way for so long.

The way I approach it is that it might be a better way, and perhaps the traditional way hasn't been the most efficient, just the most ubiquitous and accepted.

Jury is still out for me, and there's more work to be done by Apple. "


Agree old habits can be tough to shed, especially when they've been ingrained over many years. But that doesn't necessarily make learning something new more difficult.

In the Apple universe, a well-designed product should be simple to to learn, even if it's completely different than everything that came before it. Think of the iPhone, for example. Or the iPad. So simple, a toddler can pick it up.

Or a cat.




For me, all the roadblocks I hit in FCPX feel like places where the designers weren't paying attention. Either thru over-simplification, or by making narrow assumptions. Jim's tracked timeline workaround is a wonderfully creative solution to a problem that a good design wouldn't have created in the first place.

[Jeremy Garchow] "You were involved in an earlier discussion about grouping as it pertains to Pr and Vegas. X is all about grouping, yowzas. And it's all visually grouped and there's several ways to group elements. Does it look like Adobe/Sony's method? Nope. Do you have to learn to control them? Yes, absolutely."

Grouping is a great thing. Always one of my biggest complaints about FCP Legacy was its lack of real groups and the stupid way it handled re-linking multiple clip selections.

I like how tagging with keywords work in X. It's awesome and aI hope Adobe is taking notes. Compound clips I'm not so impressed by. It's really just a new, fancy name for nests, except for some reason they're much less efficient. I'm amazed that almost a year later, the bloat issue is still completely unaddressed. I would think this should be Apple's highest engineering priority. You shouldn't have to tiptoe around using them.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Do favorites look like persistent in and out points? Not in the familiar sense, but the very ideas are the same despite the different methodologies of use. "

I figured out why this issue seems to be so polarizing but I never got around to answering in the other thread. I'm gonna get a bit design geeky on you so please humor me:

You're absolutely right when you talk about favorites having the same ideas and functionality as persistent in/out points.

The problem lies in the disconnect between functionality and intentionality.

There's a huge difference in intent between specifying "favorite" (i.e. saying this is something I "like" or want to keep) and marking a cut point for just right now.

This disconnect between functionality and intentionality is why so many people are clamoring for persistent in/out marks. It's not that you can't achieve the same functionality, you certainly can. What people are asking for are tools that match their more specific intentionality. And it just so happens that this intentionality is one of the core actions in the editing process itself.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Jury is still out for me, and there's more work to be done by Apple. "

Agreed. The good news is that now that they have some serious competition from both sides - Adobe from the bottom up and Autodesk from the top down - they're gonna have to up their game. Should be good for everyone.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 3:59:16 pm

[David Lawrence] "For me, all the roadblocks I hit in FCPX feel like places where the designers weren't paying attention. Either thru over-simplification, or by making narrow assumptions. Jim's tracked timeline workaround is a wonderfully creative solution to a problem that a good design wouldn't have created in the first place."

lolcats


People seem to think fcpx is complete. It's not.

I have said from the beginning, that the timeline is what is going to change about fcpx. But let's look at what it does do well, professionally.

First, is media management. Once learned, fcpx has some very useful ways of keeping your media tidy, transcoding in the background while allowing you to work on the material as its transcoding, and the software switches to the optimized media when it's complete. It allows you to move media around, fairly easily, and mount projects/events on other machines super easily. I allows the sharing of big swaths of media, but not duplicating that media into the event.

It has SAN Locations which allow a manual check in/out process that is, in my opinion, better than most NLEs in terms of a built in workflow. It's right there in the file menu. What iMovie user gives a hoot about a SAN? How many fcp legacy users do?

Fcpxml, while still needing functionality, is already pretty decent. You can get to resolve, RCX, smoke 2013, and via through a bit of jockeying/paid apps, you can get OMF/fcp7 XMLs/EDL. Is that professional, or no? Bad design?

If you like it, then Event structure is very well thought out. It is useful, very powerful, and keeps thngs as messy or as organized as you want. It is dynamic and allows multiple descriptors per clip, and by its very design allows multiple "locations" of clips without actual duplication. This is very useful to me.

So, you can tell where the development time has gone. It has gone in to very professional features that iMovie converts will never use.

The timeline, needs more development, and in my opinion, it will probably get there. Apple even said they are working on it.

I mean this with all due respect, and I know adobe can take it, but have you media managed anything, or used any sort of interchange out with Pr yet? How about relink of avchd media, or any media for that matter?

These things matter to us in a "multiuser" environment, we switch users/projects and have offsite and onsite edits happening. Fcpx makes these types of processes extremely easy to share.

When we were talking the other day about the timeline being "just the surface" of an NLE, I wasn't kidding. I spend most of my time editing in a timeline, but these back end features, the ones that will stop you in your tracks if everything isn't lining up, are important to me and our business. While it takes a bit of getting used to, this part of fcpx works very very well and it is things that iMovie heros have zero use for. While I agree that the timeline needs some beefier controls, the backed of fcpx is looking to be rather robust. That's important to someone like me.

[David Lawrence] "This disconnect between functionality and intentionality is why so many people are clamoring for persistent in/out marks. It's not that you can't achieve the same functionality, you certainly can. What people are asking for are tools that match their more specific intentionality. And it just so happens that this intentionality is one of the core actions in the editing process itself."

I'm sorry man, but Fcp7 in and out marks aren't even persistent. Fcpx's are if you just hit f. I will argue this in to the ground.

Ins/outs don't work like fcp7, it doesn't look like fcp7, it actually works a bit better than fcp7, unless you use extended markers (which I do in 7 a lot). X allows actual persistent in/out, when 7s last until you hit another in, or clear in/out in the browser. So, really, what is your intention? Persistent, or sort of persistent sometimes? If hitting 'f' is too much task, than yeah, fcpx will never fit.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 4:18:13 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "you can get OMF/fcp7 XMLs/EDL"

Can I XML to After Effects? The one thing that's been very painful is getting footage into AE. (Paint Roto tool is what I need. If you know another option, I'm open to that too.)

Thanks!


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 4:31:28 pm

[Richard Herd] "Can I XML to After Effects?"

Foolcut broke in fcpx 10.0.3

http://foolcolor.net/foolcut

AE CS6 has AutoDuck in it.

You need Xto7 to generate an XML that should import to AE cs6.

If you don't have cs6, you can import the XML to Pr and dynamic link to AE cs5.5, or download proimport AE for free.

http://www.automaticduck.com/products/piae/

Or you can try using davinci to generate an XML, but that's not optimal.

Adobe, as of today, does not support fcpxml anywhere.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 4:33:54 pm

I'll try da vinci. Good idea.

Thanks!

Any hope that X will compete with Smoke? (Camera layers, expressions/scripting, lighting, etc.?)


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 4:36:22 pm

[Richard Herd] "Any hope that X will compete with Smoke? (Camera layers, expressions/scripting, lighting, etc.?)"

Not a chance in the world. Smoke is an entirely different type of product with a different target user in mind. Completely different development mindset and completely contrary to the type of software Apple designs in-house.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 4:41:13 pm

[Richard Herd] "Any hope that X will compete with Smoke?"

No. I do think that fcpx will be an excellent companion app to smoke 2013.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 4:26:04 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "People seem to think fcpx is complete. It's not.
I have said from the beginning, that the timeline is what is going to change about fcpx. But let's look at what it does do well, professionally."


I don't know about that. Timeline/editorial design is such a fundamental part of creating editing/compositing software that it's the first thing you do, not the last. I firmly believe that what we have in X is exactly how it was intended, not a stop on the way to something else.

OTOH, I do believe it will change and improve, but only because the ProApps team has had their collective hands slapped by senior management after the continued flak they've been getting over the state of X.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 4:49:42 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I don't know about that. Timeline/editorial design is such a fundamental part of creating editing/compositing software that it's the first thing you do, not the last. I firmly believe that what we have in X is exactly how it was intended, not a stop on the way to something else."

I don't know either. I would disagree about the timeline being the first aspect of software design.

Look at Avid. First and foremost, it's a robust database/media tracker. It's how it was conceived and designed. Over the years, more and more functionality started coming to the timeline.

I see fcpx in a similar fashion. Different reasoning, but similar idea.

[Oliver Peters] "OTOH, I do believe it will change and improve, but only because the ProApps team has had their collective hands slapped by senior management after the continued flak they've been getting over the state of X."

Ya got me there. I have no inside track to what is going on inside the minds of Cupertino.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 5:15:44 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Look at Avid. First and foremost, it's a robust database/media tracker. It's how it was conceived and designed. Over the years, more and more functionality started coming to the timeline."

While that is true, the timeline and editing model were all in place in 1989 and conceptually has never changed. Basically they got it right, straight out of the gate. I'm not saying Apple got it wrong, but rather that the UI design is as important - maybe more so - to the user experience than the underlying guts. It sets expectations and creates the skeleton that you flesh out.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 5:44:56 pm

[Oliver Peters] "While that is true, the timeline and editing model were all in place in 1989 and conceptually has never changed. Basically they got it right, straight out of the gate."

Really?

It was way more basic in 1989. X has those same basics.

Smart Tools weren't available until recently, avid has a "mode" style of editing. Are those "right" straight out of the gate?

Smart Tools, from what I've read, caused a storm of emotion from the avid faithful, and it was something that could be turned off! Does that mean smart tools were wrong, or simply ignored by long time avid users?

X foundations, I think, will remain.

I'm not sure if tracks are needed, certainly more control is needed, but it doesn't have to take up the track method. Roles need to do more for the edit.

[Oliver Peters] "I'm not saying Apple got it wrong, but rather that the UI design is as important - maybe more so - to the user experience than the underlying guts."

Surely. People that have to no NLE experience move on ok with fcpx. People who are used to a track based system sometimes struggle, some don't. Each user experience is relative. I don't think Apple is done, and I don't think fcp 10.0 was what they ultimately wanted to put out, but I have no idea if that's true or not. I'll probably never know.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 10:17:36 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Really? It was way more basic in 1989. X has those same basics. Smart Tools weren't available until recently, avid has a "mode" style of editing. Are those "right" straight out of the gate?"

Basic, yes - and plenty has been added over the years. But the underlying UI design has been essentially the same.

Nothing wrong with modes. FCP 7 was always modal and X is even more modal. Smoke is modal. Premiere is modal.

As far as Smart Tool, if you analyze them, they are more-or-less macros for things Media Composer has done for a long time, such as segment editing. They are also NOT universally appreciated by experienced Avid editors.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Surely. People that have to no NLE experience move on ok with fcpx."

I could care less about how easy it is for people who have no NLE experience. I've taken tons of students with no prior NLE experience and in 1-2 weeks had them up and running on various NLEs, including Premiere, Media Composer and FCP 7. I resisted the urge this year to use X for teaching film students, because I actually want them to have skill that can be used at a real job. ;-) Today (maybe not tomorrow) that still means a track-based, "traditional" NLE.

Ease of learning for newbies is a pointless argument unless you mean people who also get no training. In that case, I would argue that an awful lot is hidden and not very intuitive in X. Quite frankly, of the various UIs out there, I feel like Quantel actually has one that's easiest for a newcomer to grasp. If they want to be professional, a bit of an investment in learning is essential. Given that, any NLE will do.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 10:37:34 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Ease of learning for newbies is a pointless argument unless you mean people who also get no training. In that case, I would argue that an awful lot is hidden and not very intuitive in X. Quite frankly, of the various UIs out there, I feel like Quantel actually has one that's easiest for a newcomer to grasp. If they want to be professional, a bit of an investment in learning is essential. Given that, any NLE will do."

And this was my point. People say X is too easy and dumbed down.

I beg to differ.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 5:37:43 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "People seem to think fcpx is complete. It's not. I have said from the beginning, that the timeline is what is going to change about fcpx. "

Jeremy, I'd love to be wrong about this, but I'd find it pretty unlikely that the timeline will be seriously overhauled.

The timeline, as it stands now, is a direct expression of the data model revealed by FCPXML. All the tools in FCPX are built to manipulate the unique objects of this data model. Any changes to the timeline must be compatible with the parent/child data model, or the data model must change with it; any changes to the timeline may also require overhauling the NLE tools.

In other words, I think the timeline model in FCPX is foundational to the program, making the scope of change very, very big.

I think you're right that cutting a project like this is challenging in any NLE. What's uniquely challenging in FCPX is that you have to manually manage the object/containers in order to make these edits, where other NLEs would make you manually manage clip selection and collision.

David Lawrence's idea of multiple primary storylines is the best possible scenario for a timeline overhaul, I think -- it would push the timeline back into absolute time, but still allow local relativity. I think it would basically work with the data model as it stands by adding a global absolute parent and removing the restriction that all children must be non-primary (assuming that restriction is arbitrary) -- but compositing could get really weird, and this would not eliminate the FCPX-specific editorial task of object/container management.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 6:08:02 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Jeremy, I'd love to be wrong about this, but I'd find it pretty unlikely that the timeline will be seriously overhauled."

I'm not sure what you mean by seriously overhauled. I'm not sure if it needs serious overhauling. It needs to expand on what is started.

[Walter Soyka] "The timeline, as it stands now, is a direct expression of the data model revealed by FCPXML. All the tools in FCPX are built to manipulate the unique objects of this data model. Any changes to the timeline must be compatible with the parent/child data model, or the data model must change with it; any changes to the timeline may also require overhauling the NLE tools."

How? I'm not talking about changing X in to a track editor. No.

I'm talking about using what it already has and making it better. Look at multicam. Do you really think that was a 3 month add-on or was that planned from the beginning? Despite the audio shortcomings, it's pretty well thought out, and expands on the fcpxml data model or whatever it's called.

What hasn't been implemented completely yet, is Roles. There seems to be a wealth of potential there, but it's not present. You think that isn't thought out, and Apple is winging it? I know there's a lot to "distrust" Apple about I guess, but do you really think they are winging this? I look at the foundational structures (the things I mentioned before to David) and all of those things are usually after thoughts in NLE, and it's where fcpx started. San locations, started very early on in the app. You don't think those will get better/add more power?

[Walter Soyka] "In other words, I think the timeline model in FCPX is foundational to the program, making the scope of change very, very big."

Really? Philip Hodgets said that adding new functions to fcpxml is not so bad. A multiclip, looks like a compound, looks like an audition, yet they are all very different in functionality. I don't know guys, it's early days yet, and I don't think Apple is quite done, just as Adobe isn't done. I do think that the trackless foundation will remain, not worried about that, but I also think we will see more control. Apple said they are working on it, I can understand if no one believes them anymore. I take them at their word as they've done everything they've said they were going to do with X thus far.

[Walter Soyka] "David Lawrence's idea of multiple primary storylines is the best possible scenario for a timeline overhaul, I think -- it would push the timeline back into absolute time, but still allow local relativity. I think it would basically work with the data model as it stands by adding a global absolute parent and removing the restriction that all children must be non-primary (assuming that restriction is arbitrary) -- but compositing could get really weird, and this would not eliminate the FCPX-specific editorial task of object/container management."

I think that multiple primaries would be way over designed. If that's the way it's going to be, just go back to tracks. Why have only two primaries, when you can have three? Or four? How about unlimited?

I think the connections need to change. We shoud allow to connect clips to more than just the primary. It'd be a relatively easy fix, fits in to the "data" thingy, and wouldnt be that hard to manipulate. It would also solve a lot of the breaking apart of audio problems.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 6:34:18 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm not sure what you mean by seriously overhauled. I'm not sure if it needs serious overhauling. It needs to expand on what is started."

Sorry -- I must have lost track of where your reasoning fit in with all the track-no-track talk. I agree that we'll see more from Apple, and I think we have a pretty good idea where they're going.

However, I don't see a solution to Oliver's issue here. The problem of object/container management is inherent in the new design (just as the problem of clip selection and collision was inherent in the design of other NLEs).


[Jeremy Garchow] "I look at the foundational structures (the things I mentioned before to David) and all of those things are usually after thoughts in NLE, and it's where fcpx started. San locations, started very early on in the app. You don't think those will get better/add more power?"

I think the foundation of the app is the stuff we've seen early. FCPX is totally file-based; why should SAN locations be a hard, foundational item?

What would be hard and foundational is something like live project sharing.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Really? Philip Hodgets said that adding new functions to fcpxml is not so bad. A multiclip, looks like a compound, looks like an audition, yet they are all very different in functionality."

Again, sorry I misunderstood. I was saying that any changes to the parent/child data model are huge in scope. I agree with you that changes like multiclips are smaller in scope since they are consistent with that model.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I think that multiple primaries would be way over designed. If that's the way it's going to be, just go back to tracks. Why have only two primaries, when you can have three? Or four? How about unlimited?"

I don't think DL ever suggested limiting it to two. Multiple primary storylines gives you all the advantages of tracks (if you want them) and all the advantages of the magnetic timeline (if you want that).

It'd be better than going back to tracks (by adding optional magnetism), and it wouldn't take anything away from the magnetic timeline.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I think the connections need to change. We shoud allow to connect clips to more than just the primary. It'd be a relatively easy fix, fits in to the "data" thingy, and wouldnt be that hard to manipulate. It would also solve a lot of the breaking apart of audio problems."

Absolutely agree.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 6:57:40 pm

[Walter Soyka] "However, I don't see a solution to Oliver's issue here"

You see a problem? I guess I'm wondering how this can't be done in X, or changed in X.

[Walter Soyka] "I think the foundation of the app is the stuff we've seen early. FCPX is totally file-based; why should SAN locations be a hard, foundational item?"

Why shouldn't they. They work completely differently from the rest of the application, and have one vague reference in the manual. Think it's complete?

Project sharing right in the app would be impressive, that also takes some gear. My feeling is it's not there yet, but my hunch is that it's planned.

[Walter Soyka] "I don't think DL ever suggested limiting it to two. Multiple primary storylines gives you all the advantages of tracks (if you want them) and all the advantages of the magnetic timeline (if you want that).

It'd be better than going back to tracks (by adding optional magnetism), and it wouldn't take anything away from the magnetic timeline."


I guess it seems unnecessary. If you control the primary, you control time.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 7:21:56 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You see a problem? I guess I'm wondering how this can't be done in X, or changed in X."

It's not that it can't be done -- it's just that it's done differently. Is it a problem? I said "issue," but I guess this is a problem just like clip collisions were. Perhaps "side effect" is a better term?

With FCPX, you don't have to think about clip selections/collisions as you shift stuff around like you did in FCP7; you do have to think about what kind of container on the timeline each clip belongs in. Maybe this nets out to the same amount of work.

I think Oliver is saying that one of the design goals of the magnetic timeline was to reduce the amount of work necessary to make changes like this. He's asking if there's a correct way to stuff clips into containers on the timeline when he first makes the cut to make the magnetism just work later when he changes it.

Numerous people here are suggesting that he should either use Jim Gilberti's faux tracks or that he should plan on bouncing clips in and out of the primary storyline. That suggests that there may not be an upfront solution, so the magnetic timeline may not save time or work as designed in a case like this.

I'm not trying to slam FCPX here. I just think this is an area where the different timeline model affects how you get your work done, and these are the interesting corner cases where understanding the differences in the model and techniques for working within it may make one tool more suitable than another.

There are certainly cases where the magnetic timeline lets you work faster. Why couldn't the inverse be true?


[Jeremy Garchow] "I guess it seems unnecessary. If you control the primary, you control time."

Sure, I'd agree is unnecessary. Like you said, it's not like you can't perform this edit in FCPX. You still have to work it like you would in any other NLE.

That said, a lot of really good features are unnecessary. (That doesn't mean this is necessarily one of them!)

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 7:51:48 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think that multiple primaries would be way over designed. If that's the way it's going to be, just go back to tracks. Why have only two primaries, when you can have three? Or four? How about unlimited?"

[Walter Soyka] "I don't think DL ever suggested limiting it to two. Multiple primary storylines gives you all the advantages of tracks (if you want them) and all the advantages of the magnetic timeline (if you want that)."

Walter's correct. The idea is to let the editor to decide how many "primaries" they want. Want to keep it simple? Use one. Need more flexibility? Add as many as you need. It would let you do exactely what Jim has done with his pseudo-track project template without resorting to a hack.

Think of it this way - one of the great new features in PPCS6 is format agnostic audio tracks. Standard audio tracks happily let you mix whatever audio format you want on the same track.

Apple could raise the bar even further with media agnostic tracks (or storylines). Create a new track container and put whatever you want inside. How cool would that be? I'd definitely want to check something like that out.

Walter's right that things could get a bit weird with video compositing depending on how you set things up, but I think that's OK. A professional tool should be flexible enough for a pro to do exactly what they want if they know what they're doing; and for a novice to get themselves in trouble if they don't. You can only simply so far without losing powerful features.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I guess it seems unnecessary. If you control the primary, you control time."

Well yes and no. It goes back to the original problem of relative time vs. an absolute, external time reference. The single primary forces relative time. Multiple primaries would enable absolute time as on option. I believe this is the thing people who are asking for tracks miss the most. Multiple primaries seem like the easiest way to accomplish this within the existing data model.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 9:15:00 pm

While I respect Jim's faux tracks, I wouldn't use them, but that's just me.

I think it breaks X's strengths, and breaks them good. No offense, Jim. Keep fighting the good fight.

I know you David, and Walter, and Aindreas have major issues with X's timeline. I have a few.

Time is not one of my concerns.

[David Lawrence] "Think of it this way - one of the great new features in PPCS6 is format agnostic audio tracks. Standard audio tracks happily let you mix whatever audio format you want on the same track."

Mm, ok? So a stereo track can go on a mono track and vice versa, along with surround. Have you exported a multichannel QuickTime yet? How'd it go?

[David Lawrence] "Apple could raise the bar even further with media agnostic tracks (or storylines). Create a new track container and put whatever you want inside. How cool would that be? I'd definitely want to check something like that out.
"


How can you not do this with a secondary already, or a compound? You can zip tie whatever you want together.

[David Lawrence] "Multiple primaries seem like the easiest way to accomplish this within the existing data model."

No, it's just the most familiar. If you're going to have multiple primaries, just use tracks, really. The convention is already built, no reason to add tracks back to a track system.

Keep trackless trackless, and build on the data control. Bring more power to Roles. Bring better implemented multichannel audio. Bring a click sortable audio visualization system. Bring Better XML control and field exporting/importing. Bring more native format support, but keep the current optimization system. Bring a few more controls like clip swap, timeline ins/outs that work better, secondary storyline targeting system so editing works in secondaries just like the primary. Basically, start to finish the ideas of the trackless timeline instead of trying to make more tracks. And of course, fix any stability issues.

I will also say this, I don't think it's the magnetism that bothers everyone, it's the connections.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 9:30:52 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I think it breaks X's strengths, and breaks them good. No offense, Jim. Keep fighting the good fight.
"


No offense to take Jeremy.

I just finished a dozen projects the last month and used FCPX exactly as you do.

But I get the sense that you don't understand the concept because it doesn't do anything to X's strengths.

It doesn't change magnetism or defeat anything you like about it.

It just gives the horizontal organization that X denies many editors if they want it.

It breaks absolutely nothing.
It works exactly within the paradigm as it was designed. It's just an organizational tool that gives more flexibility than Apple delivered initially.

Win win, if you want or need it.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 9:52:11 pm

[Jim Giberti] "It just gives the horizontal organization that X denies many editors if they want it."

I have to find the picture again, but I remember an audio track that looked like it might be connected to clip above it, but it was stuck in a secondary. If anything moved, you'd have to drag that clip all by itself with the position tool and reline it all up. If it was simply connected to the clip above it, it would be connected.

I think separators help like this, now if we could just have control of them and not use a secondary storyline to do it. Zones, we need zones, by role:

http://images.creativecow.net/42171

At any rate, I hear what you're saying.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 10:00:26 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "ave to find the picture again, but I remember an audio track that looked like it might be connected to clip above it, but it was stuck in a secondary. If anything moved, you'd have to drag that clip all by itself with the position tool and reline it all up. If it was simply connected to the clip above it, it would be connected."

But that's the whole point. You would use that audio track exactly as you would a fixed audio track in 7 - say, for instance a music cue for 1:30 that was exactly where it should be as you experiment with different cuts.

The point is you don't use pseudo tracks if you want them connected.

You have both options - the 7 way and the X way at the same time, in the same timeline.

How is that a problem?


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 11:07:53 pm

[Jim Giberti] "But that's the whole point. You would use that audio track exactly as you would a fixed audio track in 7 - say, for instance a music cue for 1:30 that was exactly where it should be as you experiment with different cuts.

The point is you don't use pseudo tracks if you want them connected.

You have both options - the 7 way and the X way at the same time, in the same timeline.

How is that a problem?"


I see what you're saying, but if you need the music to stay at 1:30, why not just put it in the primary @ 1:30?

Any experimented cuts, happen above.

I guess from your picture, theres no method in x to select all forward or backward, so when things go askew, they really go askew.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 11:11:07 pm

I see my link earlier didn't work, try this one (must view on cow):




Return to posts index

Tony Sarafoski
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 8:23:13 am

Jeremy, your screen grab just gave me an idea. Why not add just a black generator, give it a custom roll, which in return you can control the height of the clip.



Not only can you control the height, but you can change the connected clip name to SFX Above so you know all above audio are SFX's.

Just an idea... Don't shoot the messenger boy :-)



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 12:29:08 pm

[Tony Sarafoski] "Jeremy, your screen grab just gave me an idea. Why not add just a black generator, give it a custom roll, which in return you can control the height of the clip."

Awesome, Tony. Nice one.


Return to posts index

Michael Garber
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 4:37:16 pm

Tony - Brilliant. Will definitely add this into my audio workflow.

Michael Garber
5th Wall - a post production company


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 12:38:31 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I see what you're saying, but if you need the music to stay at 1:30, why not just put it in the primary @ 1:30?
"


I'm speaking to the FCP7 model that so many editors are used to, where various audio elements go below a Video Track 1 and stay there unless you want to move them.

Why would I want to put a simple music track that supports my story on the Primary? It's just another audio effect in that regard. In so many instances film isn't being cut to the music track but the music cues begin and end at certain fixed points relative to the story (or for the full bed in the instance of TV spots) and you want it t stay there for all the reasons you want anything to stay in place.

And then there are the times when you want things to travel together which X does very well.
But it doesn't do both, without unnecessary manipulation. But it could and, obviously in the opinion of many editors, should.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 12:59:51 am

[Jim Giberti] "Why would I want to put a simple music track that supports my story on the Primary"

Because you need that music to land exactly at 1:30?

If that music is the constant, it should go in the primary, at least that's how I would work if it made sense.

The primary is time. Control the primary, you control time.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 1:07:38 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "The primary is time. Control the primary, you control time."

It's all relative. Not a great way to work with music. Just sayin'.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 3:07:58 pm

[David Lawrence] "Not a great way to work with music. Just sayin'."

Not a great way, or an unfamiliar way?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 11:42:06 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Not a great way, or an unfamiliar way?"

Not a great way. For all the reasons we discussed in the thread about DAWs.

With music, an external frame-of-reference for time is essential. Tracks give the ability to hold this external time reference for multiple channels.

This is what Jim's template accomplishes via multiple secondaries locked to frame one. It's very clever but it should be built into the program. Multiple primaries could achieve the same thing.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 1:10:39 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Because you need that music to land exactly at 1:30?

If that music is the constant, it should go in the primary, at least that's how I would work if it made sense."


You're definitely not getting my point.
Because I want one element or another of a story to maintain a fixed position, in no way means I want it to define the constant. It's just A constant, one of many fixed points and segments, like in the editing we always did before FCPX.

[Jeremy Garchow] "The primary is time. Control the primary, you control time.
"


Which is fundamentally limiting in what should/could be an unrestrictive creative environment. The Primary can be time. But other places above or below can also be fixed in time relative to 0, completely ignoring the Primary as god, with the littlest of evolving on Apple's part.

I simply don't like being limited when it's completely unnecessary. All the goodness of X is there, it's simply better in many, many scenarios. It's a forward move not a retreat.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 5:35:17 pm

For me the answer to Jeremy's question is "Bussing FX." That's why I find it important to keep the FX on the FX pseudo track and so on. I really like creating a compound clip out of several groups of audio and then apply a single fx to the cc. Rather than applying the same individual effect to numerous clips.

Back in October, this was the real eye opener, for me, that Jim posted: bussing in X.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 6:19:11 pm

[Richard Herd] "Back in October, this was the real eye opener, for me, that Jim posted: bussing in X.
"


It's going to be real interesting to see how Apple wraps their noggins around multitrack audio mixing in the promised upgrade. A genuine mixer would be such a great enhancement in concert with the group/bussing approach, the real issue being the ability to control all audio, in real time, without having to drill down to get it.


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 9:10:27 pm

Bill's convinced me about the databaseiness of X. So it seems pretty simple to assign database relationships to audio track/channels GUI.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 7:26:00 pm

[Walter Soyka] "In other words, I think the timeline model in FCPX is foundational to the program, making the scope of change very, very big."

Not to oversimplify this too much Walter, but I think I've already proven that it's not.

With a very little bit of thinking and manipulating the existing timeline rules, I got FCPX to behave like an EDL that respects horizontal relationships as well as vertical ones - within the parent/child paradigm.

It's as simple as "fooling" the program at the first frame and then fooling it again with a forced clip at the end of a secondary. These two simple things create an environment that does everything that FCPX was meant to do while allowing for a more disciplined timeline in the traditional editing sense.

You can edit into fixed unconnected tracks.
You can move clips free of any primary or secondary connections on any track.
You can drop main audio/synced audio into a fixed audio track without selecting it each time.
You can bring everything together at final edit exactly as in a FCP7 timeline in a matter of seconds.

So it's clear that FCPX can have a traditionally organized timeline exactly as it existed in version 1.0.

I imagine it would take no time at all for Apple to do what I did and add the feature to the program tomorrow.

It has nothing to do with shutting of magnetism either.
It works with magnetism, uses the strengths of magnetism and the parent/child concept.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 7:39:52 pm

[Jim Giberti] "So it's clear that FCPX can have a traditionally organized timeline exactly as it existed in version 1.0."

You're right. A traditional timeline is a subset of the magnetic model in that each clip could be a child of an absolute parent -- as in your faux track setup, and as in DL's multiple primary idea.

However, it's clear that although this is possible, it wasn't the design intent of FCPX. If it were, the data model and toolset might be very, very different.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 8:26:20 pm

[Walter Soyka] "However, it's clear that although this is possible, it wasn't the design intent of FCPX. If it were, the data model and toolset might be very, very different."

Bingo. That's the key issue as far as what we might expect going forward. The timeline UI – with all its current usability inconsistencies and limitations – seems directly driven by a very specific data model. If I had to guess, I'd say the data model was developed first and the UI followed. That's great if you're an engineer, but it's often bad news for usability and for users.

The main reason I consider the current timeline bad design is because in order to use it effectively – in cases like Oliver's example (or anything outside what the designers thought of for that matter) – the user is forced to understand the underlying object/container data model.

This is about as un-Applelike as you could possibly get. I can't think of any other UI example where internalizing the data model was key to working efficiently with the UI. The user shouldn't need to know or care.

Good UI design hides the underlying data structures with intuitive and internally consistent metaphor. This is UI 101. Apple used to be the world leader in this but these days, they don't seem to read their own Human Interface Guidelines. FCPX violates HCI principles left and right. That's the real reason it can be hard to learn and get used to. Not because it's different or new.

I do agree that we've only seen the beginning of where this is headed and the timeline will improve. But I'm also skeptical that it can radically change without a radical rethink of the underlying project data architecture. Changing that would be a very big deal.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 9:45:12 pm

[Walter Soyka] "However, it's clear that although this is possible, it wasn't the design intent of FCPX. If it were, the data model and toolset might be very, very different."

But Walter, I was responding to your assertion that changing the timeline to be more traditional in organization would be very, very difficult because of the underlying foundation of the program.

My example simply shows that it's incredibly simple.

Whether it was part of Apple's original intent is irrelevant to whether:

A.) it would be easy to implement now as an option - clearly not.

B.) Does it in any way impede or compromise the program as it's envisioned - clearly not.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 10:46:48 pm

[Jim Giberti] "But Walter, I was responding to your assertion that changing the timeline to be more traditional in organization would be very, very difficult because of the underlying foundation of the program. My example simply shows that it's incredibly simple."

That's fair, Jim. The sentence of mine that you quoted and responded to was a gross oversimplification on my part. You're right and I was wrong.

If you look to the paragraph immediately before my poor summary sentence, I think we may agree:

[Walter Soyka] "The timeline, as it stands now, is a direct expression of the data model revealed by FCPXML. All the tools in FCPX are built to manipulate the unique objects of this data model. Any changes to the timeline must be compatible with the parent/child data model, or the data model must change with it; any changes to the timeline may also require overhauling the NLE tools."

What I was trying to assert, in a mistaken response to Jeremy, was that FCPX's timeline's data model is foundational to the application, and changing it would be hard. You can work within it, but I think actually replacing it wholesale would require some pretty deep work.

By the way, I think your method is a brilliant -- a truly elegant hack to fit a traditional timeline into FCPX's structure and seemingly arbitrary container restrictions. I wish Apple had built this in, per Mr. Lawrence's multiple primaries. I do believe we could have the best of both models coexisting within FCPX.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 11:05:41 pm

[Walter Soyka] "
By the way, I think your method is a brilliant -- a truly elegant hack to fit a traditional timeline into FCPX's structure and seemingly arbitrary container restrictions. I wish Apple had built this in, per Mr. Lawrence's multiple primaries. I do believe we could have the best of both models coexisting within FCPX."


You're far too thoughtful and reasonable Walter but I'm sure you've been criticized for that before .

I certainly won't claim any brilliance, (at least not for this) but I do wonder if Apple won't just make some simple menu addition to accommodate the general idea.

The other simple menu addition that would level this out would be a dedicated track assignment. In other words if you had unconnected Secondaries in this model, you could select them once and until you deselect them, all edits would default to that "track" rather than the Primary and rather than the need to select the secondary for every edit.

It could even be a preference setting, but a simple "Add Unconnected Secondary" command and a Make Current Secondary Target" button would do nicely.

Very simple adjustments like this would make the experience very intuitive again for FCP7 users and require nothing from a technical or foundational standpoint.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 12:12:11 am

[Jim Giberti] "but a simple "Add Unconnected Secondary" command and a Make Current Secondary Target" button would do nicely."

YES!

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 12:42:45 am

[Oliver Peters] "[Jim Giberti] "but a simple "Add Unconnected Secondary" command and a Make Current Secondary Target" button would do nicely."

YES!
"


And with that, I'm off to the tequila.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 7:08:52 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm sorry man, but Fcp7 in and out marks aren't even persistent."

well. that's completely wrong for starters.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 7:31:26 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "well. that's completely wrong for starters."

i,o add to timeline.

Go back to same clip in browser, hit I or o.

Your persistent in and out marker is now kaput.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 7:35:34 pm

ah jeremy - you're funny - even you can't buy what you're saying there.

Return to the clip, and the io marks are there until you iterate with a new set. but when you came back - they were there, where you left them, until you set fresh io.

you can make a sublip out of them or whatever you like.

come back to the clip in X - they are gone. You know it, I know it, my aunts cat knows this to be true.

Old ground Jeremy - and a debate where Craig even took the opposing position.

io in X is, with any argument, not persistent.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 7:37:48 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "io in X is, with any argument, not persistent."

It's optionally persistent as opposed to automatically persistent? :)

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 8:13:04 pm

yeah, sure, why the hell not. :) optionally persistent. although that might more be the auto-favourite option Craig raised..

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 8:35:36 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "ah jeremy - you're funny - even you can't buy what you're saying there.

Return to the clip, and the io marks are there until you iterate with a new set. but when you came back - they were there, where you left them, until you set fresh io.

you can make a sublip out of them or whatever you like.

come back to the clip in X - they are gone. You know it, I know it, my aunts cat knows this to be true.

Old ground Jeremy - and a debate where Craig even took the opposing position.

io in X is, with any argument, not persistent.
"


Sorry man. In order t get persistent ins and outs, you hit i,o,f. It will stay with that clip forever until you decide to unmark the favorite or change. F. One more key, and you have much more functionality than 7.

You know it, I know it, my aunts cat lives in the wilderness and could care less.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 8:46:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "In order t get persistent ins and outs, you hit i,o,f."

koff koff... translation:

in order to have persistent io, the user must intervene and package the io marks as a range off to a favourite collection, a favourite collection that then becomes filled with every IO ever made.

So: Wrong jeremy, innnncorrect - you are requiring user intervention in the form of sending the io points off to a favourites collection.

furthermore - as Andy Mees pointed out to you - that favourite range cannot be edited or altered later. you have made a favourite range using the IO points, if you forget to do so, and come back to the clip, the io range you would have used to make the favourite range is gone.

Give it up Jeremy - kneeeel before the God logic: io in X is not independently persistent.

end of. QED, summa cum laudae, I win, you lose, you're wrong and you know it - tag you are IT. ;)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 11:16:33 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Give it up Jeremy - kneeeel before the God logic: io in X is not independently persistent."

In that case, neither is 7. We both win.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 10:33:26 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Sorry man. In order t get persistent ins and outs, you hit i,o,f. It will stay with that clip forever until you decide to unmark the favorite or change. F. One more key, and you have much more functionality than 7."
If I do that then don't I end up w/a bunch of favorites I didn't want which have to managed & deleted?

To me this seems to be along the lines of viewing a PDF and having it always go back to page 1 whenever the PDF is not the top-most window. The workaround, of course, is to bookmark the page you were on so that when you come back to the PDF you can go into your bookmarks folder to pickup where you left off. That sounds like a lot of extra work especially if I'm doing research that requires to me hop between multiple windows a lot.

Making it so the app doesn't 'lose my place' to begin with seems like a much more elegant solution.

To me the how I/O points act in FCP classic are persistent in that they stay there until I explicitly do something to remove them and temporary in that I use for short term, quick reference. It's like putting my finger in a book to hold my place for a moment. Yes I want my finger to stay there until I decide to remove it and no my finger will not be staying there very long.


-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

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 10:43:22 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "If I do that then don't I end up w/a bunch of favorites I didn't want which have to managed & deleted? "

I guess it all in how you use it.

It really easy to remove, just hit 'u'. Its even easier than shift-x in 7.

I find fcpx's favorites to be just like extended markers in 7, which I use as truly persistent ins and outs.

That's what this is about, persistent ins and outs, it always comes up. People act like one more keystroke is the end of the world.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 11:08:15 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "People act like one more keystroke is the end of the world."

its not keystroke, its the stupidity of having to use the favourite function every time to retain in out marks.

I know its hard to see, but you are fundamentally wrong on this one jeremy.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 11:23:24 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I know its hard to see, but you are fundamentally wrong on this one jeremy."

Funny, I feel the same about people who say persistent ins and outs don't exist in fcpX.

I know they don't work exactly like they do in 7, but they are there and they work.

I'd rather have copy/paste of effects work better as I can at least hold my ins and outs if I need to.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 11:31:05 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Funny, I feel the same about people who say persistent ins and outs don't exist in fcpX. I know they don't work exactly like they do in 7, but they are there and they work."

I understand your point that FCP7's IO points don't persist forever, as they can be overwritten by new IO points. I also understand your point that FCPX's IO points (ranges) can be manually stored, recalled, and deleted later.

However, I think an FCPX favorite is closer to FCP7's subclips than it is to FCP7's "remembered" in and out points. You didn't have to hit Cmd-U after hitting I and O to keep from losing your IO points in FCP7 just by clicking away.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 11:36:03 pm

[Walter Soyka] "However, I think an FCPX favorite is closer to FCP7's subclips than it is to FCP7's "remembered" in and out points. You didn't have to hit Cmd-U after hitting I and O to keep from losing your IO points in FCP7 just by clicking away."

Sub clips? Nope.

Sub clips are pretty much locked to that in and out.

You can add a favorite range to a timeline, and extend beyond the original range and have more than one range attached to any given clip. They are like extended markers, but better.

Like I said, they don't look, or operate like fcp7 in and out points, but persistent ins and outs are there.

Sorry, I'm stubborn.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 14, 2012 at 11:52:10 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Sub clips are pretty much locked to that in and out."

You can remove sub-clip limits.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Like I said, they don't look, or operate like fcp7 in and out points, but persistent ins and outs are there."

I think the thing is that we're all defining persistent in and out points as precisely the way every other NLE or edit controller on the planet operates. You set an in, you set an out, and it's attached to that clip or deck/tape until you explicitly clear it or set a different in and out. Those decisions are not obliterated by clicking focus away from the clip, and are automatically recalled along with the clip.

FCPX does not have persistent in and out points that work like this.

FCPX does have tools to store, recall, and delete ranges -- but FCP7 had tools like this, too (subclips and markers) -- in addition to what everyone here is calling "persistent in and out points."

They're not the same thing.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Sorry, I'm stubborn."

We disagree sometimes, but this is one thing you and I both have in common. :)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 3:14:15 pm

[Walter Soyka] "You can remove sub-clip limits."

How is that action any different than adding an F key to your i/o process?

Are you saying I am working with the limitations of the software?

Are you saying that even with subclip limits, I have to hit an extra key to remove those sub clip limits, and then those limits disappear?

I don't have to hit that extra key in FCPX, does that make it wrong?


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 5:09:28 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "How is that action any different than adding an F key to your i/o process? Are you saying I am working with the limitations of the software? Are you saying that even with subclip limits, I have to hit an extra key to remove those sub clip limits, and then those limits disappear? I don't have to hit that extra key in FCPX, does that make it wrong?"

My point was that storing a mutable range of a clip, whether by favorites or by subclips or by markers, is easily accomplished in both apps -- and yet just about everyone here preferred simply letting FCP7 remember the last set of points while cutting.

Let me turn the question around. Apple designed the software and could have included persistent/remembered/whatever IO points if they wanted to. Why might they choose not to? How is it better for the user to have their IO point decisions blasted away if they click off a clip without first making it their selection a favorite range?

Follow-up question -- how long did it take you between launching the app for the first time and getting burned by this particular design decision? 5 minutes? With such a low Mean Time to First Burn (MTFB, not to be confused with MTBF), don't you think this was the sort of thing that Apple heard about immediately in beta testing with real users?

I know I'm critical of FCPX, but there is a lot I like, too. I think the idea of clip connections is utterly brilliant. It makes some things different, but there's a some design thinking and a real user benefit behind that difference.

I also understand that sometimes features are worth removing. I've even filed a couple feature requests asking for dumb or dangerous "features" to be removed myself (AE, not FCPX).

What is the benefit of not including remembered IO points, or what was the danger of including them, that made it worth overriding overwhelming user preference?

I'm with you that if adding this flavor of persistence would require huge development resources going forward, they would better spent elsewhere. But why was this particular design decision made in the first place?

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 5:25:44 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Apple designed the software and could have included persistent/remembered/whatever IO points if they wanted to. Why might they choose not to? How is it better for the user to have their IO point decisions blasted away if they click off a clip without first making it their selection a favorite range?"

As I've mentioned before, the range selection process is a holdover from iMovie and there may be some fundamental residual design issues that are hampering the provision of persistent IO.

I would suggest that IO functionality was grafted on to the underlying range selection process but IO doesn't "exist" in the same way as in the past - it's merely a keyboard way of delineating the start and end of a range that "mimics" the mouse action.

BUT - the point that keeps getting lost in this whole discussion is that what's really important is not persistent I and O but rather persistent I or O. Yes, you can more or less cope with the lack of persistent IO "ranges" by using the favorite function. But there is no way of simply keeping EITHER an I OR an O.

And this for me and I'm sure many, many others is far more of a pain. I don't believe I mark BOTH I and O in the browser more than 20% of the time (probably more like 10% but I'm being very generous). On the other hand I rely on using EITHER a single I OR a single O on every other occasion.

If I use Favorites as a way of trying to keep this functionality, each new Favorite extends all the way to the beginning or the end of the entire clip, thereby overwriting any previously assigned favorite or favorites. Because you can't have overlapping favorites as everybody knows. That's a really significant thing.

So to reiterate, please let's stop arguing about persistent I and O, and let's start a discussion about persistent I only. Or persistent O only. The difference between AND and OR is the crucial one. FCPX allows for AND (kind of) but won't allow OR in any useful sense.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 5:36:00 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "So to reiterate, please let's stop arguing about persistent I and O, and let's start a discussion about persistent I only. Or persistent O only. The difference between AND and OR is the crucial one. FCPX allows for AND (kind of) but won't allow OR in any useful sense."

This is a totally different discussion.

In that earlier Andy thread, I said that you can still do three point edits in FCPX. So while you have to mark on O with your I, or an I with your O, you still have three point capability from either the in or the out.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 5:43:22 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "
This is a totally different discussion.

In that earlier Andy thread, I said that you can still do three point edits in FCPX. So while you have to mark on O with your I, or an I with your O, you still have three point capability from either the in or the out."


I don't see how it's a different discussion - could you explain?

And I'm absolutely sure I didn't say you couldn't do three point editing in FCPX.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 5:44:48 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I don't see how it's a different discussion - could you explain?"

I guess I need to ask you. How do use i or o separately? Is it not to do a three point edit?


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 6:02:32 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I guess I need to ask you. How do use i or o separately? Is it not to do a three point edit?"

Well, there are two parts to this answer.

One is that I often use I OR O as very temporary placeholders, as I'm sure a lot of editors do. I don't want to have to use a favorite for this. Chiefly because using favorites for something so fleeting means continually having to Unfavorite (this gets very necessary when you are trying out different source edit points in the same clip which must be pretty common and certainly is in my experience) - and to worry about overwriting existing favorites which will always happen if I'm only interested in EITHER the I OR the O because the untended I or O will always default to either the beginning or the end of the clip.

The second point about three point editing in FCPX is that (unless it's something I've been overlooking all this time) you can't backtime a three point edit using only and I or an O in the Browser. (You can of course do this if you set a range in the Browser and use Shift/Edit Function, but that's different.)

The point is that in FCPX every selection MUST be a range whether you like it or not. And a lot of the time I don't actually want a range. I only want an I OR an O.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 6:26:46 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "The point is that in FCPX every selection MUST be a range whether you like it or not. And a lot of the time I don't actually want a range. I only want an I OR an O."

And you would be right. There's no either/or.

I guess I use markers to stab a reference point.

I use markers a lot in FCP7 as they stay with the footage, I guess that's why I don't mind favorites. It's a natural extension of what I'm used to. Ins/out get easily changed and deleted (this is where the definition of persistence helps. As David says, words matter).

[Simon Ubsdell] "The second point about three point editing in FCPX is that (unless it's something I've been overlooking all this time) you can't backtime a three point edit using only and I or an O in the Browser. (You can of course do this if you set a range in the Browser and use Shift/Edit Function, but that's different.)
"


Backtime, is essentially, using the out, regular edit is using the in.

Setting a range on the Project and backtiming is essentially lining up the out points. Again, it looks different, but it's there.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 6:42:32 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Backtime, is essentially, using the out, regular edit is using the in.

Setting a range on the Project and backtiming is essentially lining up the out points. Again, it looks different, but it's there."


Yes, as I said, you can perform a backtime edit that uses a single O in the timeline, BUT ...

you can't perform a backtime edit that uses a single O in the browser.

And that's because FCPX only know about "ranges", it doesn't "actually" know about I and O, except cosmetically, as I have explained before.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 6:55:57 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Yes, as I said, you can perform a backtime edit that uses a single O in the timeline, BUT ...

you can't perform a backtime edit that uses a single O in the browser.

And that's because FCPX only know about "ranges", it doesn't "actually" know about I and O, except cosmetically, as I have explained before."


eh frack.

What do you want to do? Line up out points?

You can do that. Set a range in the Project. set the out in the browser, set the in for the beginning of the clip.

Backtime the edit (shift-d or shift-q). Your completed edit is exactly like a three point edit using the out point in FCP7.

You guys are relentless with your "can't dos".


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 6:56:38 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "you can't perform a backtime edit that uses a single O in the browser."

Am I not understanding?

Make an in and out selection in the timeline, then make an out-only selection in the browser (this will automatically select from the beginning of the clip to the end, as you know).

Shift-Q or Shift-D will edit into the timeline, matching the out points, and extending backward to the timeline's in point. The browser's "in point" will be ignored.

Isn't that what you want?

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 7:03:24 pm

Of course I meant Shift-Q, not Shift-W. Please pardon my typo. I've updated my original post.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 7:42:21 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Am I not understanding?

Make an in and out selection in the timeline, then make an out-only selection in the browser (this will automatically select from the beginning of the clip to the end, as you know).

Shift-Q or Shift-D will edit into the timeline, matching the out points, and extending backward to the timeline's in point. The browser's "in point" will be ignored.

Isn't that what you want?"


ooops, my mistake based on skim-reading the daft FCPX manual.

Example: Make a backtimed three-point edit

Set start and end points for the source selection in the Event Browser.

In the Timeline, position the skimmer (or the playhead, if the skimmer is not present) at the location in your project where you want the clip to end.

Do either of the following:

To backtime the selection using a connect edit: Press Shift-Q.

To backtime the selection using an overwrite edit: Press Shift-D.

"Set start and end points"???? How can you do anything else????

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 5:55:54 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "let's start a discussion about persistent I only. Or persistent O only. The difference between AND and OR is the crucial one. FCPX allows for AND (kind of) but won't allow OR in any useful sense."

I'm game.

What do you find lacking with FCPX's three-point editing? What's the harm in storing a single point as a range that extends to the media limit on the other side? Since FCP7 only offered a single set of persistent I/O point(s), what's limiting about the overlapping favorite restriction in FCPX?

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 6:04:16 pm

[Walter Soyka] "What do you find lacking with FCPX's three-point editing? What's the harm in storing a single point as a range that extends to the media limit on the other side? Since FCP7 only offered a single set of persistent I/O point(s), what's limiting about the overlapping favorite restriction in FCPX?"

Oops, I've just answered quite a bit of that in my post to Jeremy here:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/34389

Ranges in FCPX are the only selection option and that's not good enough. See for example my point about the inability to backtime a three point edit using one O mark only in the Browser. Not possible. Because you can only select a range in the Browser. A serious design flaw.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 6:51:20 pm

[Walter Soyka] "What's the harm in storing a single point as a range that extends to the media limit on the other side?"

I wonder whether the limitation of range selection is at the root of why we still don't have the traditional Replace edit function (Replace in FCPX is not the same and very limited by comparison).

Replace is the single most useful edit function in traditional NLEs as it saves several steps on a huge variety of edits, as well of course as enabling sync point editing.

There has to be a good reason why it's still not implemented and the limitation of range selection could well be behind it.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 6:56:11 pm

"[Walter Soyka] "What's the harm in storing a single point as a range that extends to the media limit on the other side?"

I think what's getting missed here is that most editors use "persistent" i/o points for TEMPORARY information. It's not intended as a replacement for subclips. Instead, I want to be able to come back to the same clip at exactly the same point I last marked an "in". Favorites and/or subclipping are an extra unnecessary step in that process.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 7:25:53 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I think what's getting missed here is that most editors use "persistent" i/o points for TEMPORARY information. It's not intended as a replacement for subclips. Instead, I want to be able to come back to the same clip at exactly the same point I last marked an "in". Favorites and/or subclipping are an extra unnecessary step in that process."

Exactly.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 6:59:00 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Replace is the single most useful edit function in traditional NLEs as it saves several steps on a huge variety of edits, as well of course as enabling sync point editing. "

You mean playhead replace? Yeah, that'd be nice to have back as there is currently no function that works that way in FCPX.

Since that has not much to do with the database (at least I don't think) it seems that could be added.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 6:09:21 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Because you can't have overlapping favorites as everybody knows. That's a really significant thing."

Yes, I would say one of the blatant flaws of the concept.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 6:14:04 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "So to reiterate, please let's stop arguing about persistent I and O, and let's start a discussion about persistent I only. Or persistent O only. The difference between AND and OR is the crucial one. FCPX allows for AND (kind of) but won't allow OR in any useful sense."

Yep!

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 6:26:13 pm

[David Lawrence] "The difference between AND and OR is the crucial one. FCPX allows for AND (kind of) but won't allow OR in any useful sense."

Yep!"


From a design point of view, there is surely a case to be made that "range selection" which is the only kind of selection available in FCPX is going to have its limitations.

One very clear one that I have pointed to above is that you can't actually do one kind of backtimed three point edit - namely set an IO in the timeline and set an O only in the browser. This won't work in FCPX because the selection in the browser is always and only a range - the browser doesn't actually speak the language of IO.

This is not a good thing.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 5:31:39 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Let me turn the question around. Apple designed the software and could have included persistent/remembered/whatever IO points if they wanted to. Why might they choose not to? How is it better for the user to have their IO point decisions blasted away if they click off a clip without first making it their selection a favorite range?"

I think Philip Hodgetts explains it best from here: http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2012/04/some-final-cut-pro-x-data-points/


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."

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"

Phillip Hodgetts:
...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.




And this is my point. FCPX does do this, it's just people, for whatever reason, don't want to use it. So, you have a choice. If another NLE works in that exact way that FCP7 does, and ins/out function is the deciding factor on choosing a new NLE, then there's your decision. In the mean time, I will use favorites that are very handy and are actually more powerful than an in/out that sort of hangs around. The use of them is the same, every time I go back to that clip, I can review the previous choices I've made, or choose to remove them, just like 7.

[Walter Soyka] "Follow-up question -- how long did it take you between launching the app for the first time and getting burned by this particular design decision? 5 minutes? With such a low Mean Time to First Burn (MTFB, not to be confused with MTBF), don't you think this was the sort of thing that Apple heard about immediately in beta testing with real users?"

I honestly don't remember. In my article that I wrote soon after FCPX was released, I mentioned favorites. I have been using them since probably day2. I remember it coming up very soon after the release in this very forum. Also, since then, if you choose to name a favorite, it is now text searchable. That has changed and it didn't used to be that way, so more function has been added to this very conundrum since release.

The rest of your questions I think are summed up by Phlip H.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 6:50:43 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "The rest of your questions I think are summed up by Phlip H."

I read that when it was originally posted. Philip talks about how hard PIOPs would be to implement, and suggests that the database as written couldn't support it, and he talks about how backwards anyone who wants PIOPs thinks. He argues that they would make the application too complex, and then he dismisses the whole conversation, saying he isn't going to waste a single additional brain cycle on it because the whole idea is so very, very wrong.

I agree more with Andy Mees in the comments.

I'll go a step further. An appeal to "the database" as a reason that something can't be done is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Apple designed the whole kit and and caboodle, so if the database is a limiting factor, that's still a consequence of their broader application design. I thought that we had to leave FCP7 behind because its creaky old architecture was too limiting to allow new features. Now I guess FCPX's architecture is too beautiful to dirty up with things like real world user requests.

All that said, I actually like favorites. I think they're well done, and I think they're very powerful. I just think that marking IOPs should carry more weight than marking a selection, and I don't think the app should nuke that user-created data irretrievably when the user simply clicks away to select something else.

But I guess that's just backwards thinking.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 7:32:50 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I just think that marking IOPs should carry more weight than marking a selection, and I don't think the app should nuke that user-created data irretrievably when the user simply clicks away to select something else.

But I guess that's just backwards thinking."


Regardless of how Philip answers post on his own blog, let's jump to the point, and that is, he has a great one about how the database might work.

I guess when I use an look at the actual browser in FCPX, I look at how many ways you can display information.

That one clip that I am marking in and out on can be in a number of "places". When it is in a number of places, the information is aggregated. So if a clip is in multiple keywords (and it's always in the top level of the event), both of those keywords show up on the clip, no matter where I'm viewing it. if I add a marker, that marker shows up wherever that clip is. Once I change it anywhere, that information is everywhere.

Now imagine ins and outs. If I wanted to mark in on the clip in one keyword collection, and store that.

Then I add a new in and out to the clip at the top level of the event, and store that.

So, what if I search that clip in a text based function, which in and out point does it retrieve? From which keyword?

That's where Favorites come in. They are basically committing an in and out to the clip, that is updated everywhere. Don't want it anymore? Select it and hit 'u' (or delete form list)

Can Apple make the in and out stick on every clip without user interaction? I have no idea. For now, you have to do it manually.

You cannot select a clip in the Browser without setting a range (you can skim a clip, but that doesn't require touching it), unless you select multiple clips. Perhaps, therein lies the problem.

As oddly enough, if you have a favorite selected (and the browser is sorted by favorites) and then you set the browser by "all clips", the in and out remains, and the opposite is also true, select a range (that has multiple favorites) and sort the browser by favorites, all of the clips are selected.

Deselect them all.

Sort the browser by favorites, then select multiple clips (command-click).

Now sort the browser by all clips. See what happens?

At any rate, today, right now, if you want to use FCPX, and want to hold on to an in/out range, then favorites are what is needed.

Oliver, how are we doing in helping you out?

Good? Good.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 7:46:05 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "
You cannot select a clip in the Browser without setting a range"


This is the bit that I find problematic and it's significant because it goes to the very root of how FCPX works - and of course how iMovie was designed which is why we are where we are today. It's a limitation in the architecture.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 7:51:01 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "This is the bit that I find problematic and it's significant because it goes to the very root of how FCPX works - and of course how iMovie was designed which is why we are where we are today. It's a limitation in the architecture."

You can select multiple clips, though.

And what can't you do?

We already proved three point edits exist...


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 7:59:09 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "You can select multiple clips, though."

Does that really have anything at all to do with the discussion?

[Jeremy Garchow] "And what can't you do?"

You can't favorite an I or an O singly without in the process overwriting any favorites that you might have already applied to the same clip. (Actually it's more complicated than that and not in a good way but that'll do for starters.)

Or if an I or O occurs within the boundaries of an already existing favorite you have to unfavorite before you can proceed - which can get very messy.

And so on.

And all this because FCPX is built on the foundations of iMovie's range selection model.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 8:09:08 pm

Hmm....

So now you are upset because you can't favorite a favorite when you're upset about favorites in the first place?

With that, I'm done.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 8:13:00 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Hmm....

So now you are upset because you can't favorite a favorite when you're upset about favorites in the first place?

With that, I'm done."


I'm not upset at all. I thought I was participating in a discussion about whether or not favorites were the answer to whether or not it was OK that FCPX did not have persistent I or persistent O.

Obviously joined the wrong thread, sorry ;-)

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 8:33:30 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "So, what if I search that clip in a text based function, which in and out point does it retrieve? From which keyword?"

I'd want it to feel almost physical. No doubt this is more throwback thinking, but people are fundamentally very good at spatial understanding, and good UX design exploits this (look at just about any other Apple UX for examples).

I'm arguing that dropping IOPs in place of selections was a poor decision. FCPX should not throw user data (IOP markings) away. It should leave them where the user put it. PIOPs should exist in the context the user makes them until the users decides to clear it or replace it (like how FCP7's PIOPs are not inherited across subclips or independent master clips relating to the same media).

Apple chose to make keyword ranges and favorites look and feel like clips from an editorial perspective. If an in and out is set from a keyword or favorite range, my intuition is that it should live on that "virtual clip." If it's set outside of those selections, it should live on the clip itself. (Perhaps Apple should come up with another way to indicate the relationship of ranges to their parent clips, but that's a discussion for another day.)

In other words, PIOPs should always be local. They should be children of the user-facing object they were created in. It's ok that they're not more global or data-centric, because they are not meant to be used that way. That's what favorites are for.


[Jeremy Garchow] "You cannot select a clip in the Browser without setting a range (you can skim a clip, but that doesn't require touching it), unless you select multiple clips. Perhaps, therein lies the problem."

True! It's kind of a zen question: is it the click away from a clip that removes the non-favorite marked range, or is it the click back into it?


[Jeremy Garchow] "At any rate, today, right now, if you want to use FCPX, and want to hold on to an in/out range, then favorites are what is needed."

Agreed. IOF is the new IO.

I'm not sure how I'm coming across to you, but I'm not trying to be a jerk. I understand that FCPX doesn't have traditional PIOPs, but it does have another mechanism for preserving IOPs, so the same editorial operations can still be accomplished.

I understand that the whole idea of PIOPs may not be as data-centric as the rest of FCPX's design. I also understand that people are different from machines, and I think that FCPX discounts the value in the pseudo-physical too quickly, both with respect to clips and with respect to the timeline. I'm asking if there's really a reason that they can't coexist.

I'm not arguing that we should pull any of the good features out of FCPX. I'm trying to figure out how some of the missing good ideas from traditional NLEs can be re-incorporated into the product without detracting from it.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 8:47:39 pm

[Walter Soyka] " I understand that FCPX doesn't have traditional PIOPs, but it does have another mechanism for preserving IOPs, so the same editorial operations can still be accomplished."

I think it's important while accepting that favorites go some way towards answering this question to acknowledge that it's not nearly as clean as it might be when you are dealing with multiple edit decisions within the same source clip.

Surely most editors have the need to try out different edit selections (often only an I or an O and not a range) and having to favorite to keep these selections more or less persistent means having to deal with the limitations implicit in favoriting.

For example, you cannot favorite within an already favorited region without first unfavoriting. This is surely a significant drawback. What if I wanted to keep the favorite that I was unfavoriting but use it for later?

Another example which I keep coming back to because nobody seems to want to give me an answer about it is what to do when you only want to select an I or an O and favoriting under those circumstances means selecting the whole clip forwards or backwards. Am I (again) missing something that I am seeing this as an undesirable consequence of the favoriting "solution"?

I do wonder whether the better solution isn't favoriting at all but rather the judicious use of markers ...

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 8:59:10 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Another example which I keep coming back to because nobody seems to want to give me an answer about it is what to do when you only want to select an I or an O and favoriting under those circumstances means selecting the whole clip forwards or backwards. Am I (again) missing something that I am seeing this as an undesirable consequence of the favoriting "solution"?"

I guess I don't see the problem there, at least with respect to FCP7. You could only have one "favorite" per clip in FCP7 anyway, since you could only have one set of markers.

Do you have another use for single, unmatched I/OPs besides three-point editing (which isn't bothered by the extraneous end point that you didn't pick)?



[Simon Ubsdell] "For example, you cannot favorite within an already favorited region without first unfavoriting. This is surely a significant drawback. What if I wanted to keep the favorite that I was unfavoriting but use it for later? "

A big -- and seemingly inexplicable -- limitation. I'd love to see that addressed.

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


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 9:08:52 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I guess I don't see the problem there, at least with respect to FCP7. You could only have one "favorite" per clip in FCP7 anyway, since you could only have one set of markers."

I guess this is true but implementing favorites as a tool for maintaining persistent I or O means that you effectively throw away the other benefits of having favorites in the first place - because now they can only be used for trying to retain IO rather than for their opresumably original purpose.

[Walter Soyka] "Do you have another use for single, unmatched I/OPs besides three-point editing (which isn't bothered by the extraneous end point that you didn't pick)?"

Absolutely. As Oliver has pointed out (and I think I have too) on more than one occasion, there are editors who use I and O as temporary markers all the time in pretty much every edit situation of the day. (The whole three point editing digression was not relevant to this discussion at all.)

Markers could be used instead but I'm not sure they would be as handy. A persistent I or a persistent O is half way to being an edit decision that you can use, whereas a marker isn't and would involve extra steps.

[Walter Soyka] "
A big -- and seemingly inexplicable -- limitation. I'd love to see that addressed."


One of the many things that needs work!

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 16, 2012 at 7:30:40 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I guess this is true but implementing favorites as a tool for maintaining persistent I or O means that you effectively throw away the other benefits of having favorites in the first place - because now they can only be used for trying to retain IO rather than for their opresumably original purpose."

Since you had to read the manual about three point edits, I'm curious, how much real time have you put in trying out favorites? I'm not trying to slam, I am sincerely curious on how much work you've put in to X's organizational structure? I've put some work in to it, and I am still learning a lot.

Yes, you have to learn to use and optimize favorites. When you do, you will realize that perhaps keywords are better for your long ranges to hold on to, and favorites are shorter more temporary ranges (sound familiar?).

Keywords also have the benefit of overlap.

It's very easy to click on a favorite, have that range selected, and then modify it for further editing either in the Browser, or even the timeline.

I also use markers in FCPX, to hold on to pertinent parts. The nice part about markers, is that they travel in the edit, i.e., they move to the timeline, in to the index, and are also text searchable.

So before you need to favorite a favorite, I think that you might need to figure out the myriad of ways that the Eevnt structure works, rather than complain that it's broken. And if you don't care for it, that's OK too.

By reading the Smoke manual, I don't care for it either. After trying a demo, I think I might like it.

I'm not saying X is perfect, it is far from it. And I STILL can't put it in to normal, everyday production work.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 16, 2012 at 8:42:55 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm curious, how much real time have you put in trying out favorites?"

Well, I’ve just been editing an interview with Mr Complacent Certainty of Inflexible Opinions Inc. and I’ve already keyworded the thing to death, but there’s only so far you can go without keywording every single phoneme, unless you’re Bill Davis.

So I’ve started to use favorites to narrow down my selections and I want to start editing with one particular favorited clip that runs: “When all said and done, favorites are the answer to the problem of persistent ins and out. Period. There’s no argument about it.” And another favorited clip that goes: “OMFs and EDLs are a waste of time. Any idiot can see that.”

I’ve filtered my clips so I’m only seeing favorites. Clearly the point of favorites is to narrow down your selections below the level of keywords so this seems the strategy that Apple have intended for us to use at this point. Let's try and remember that favorites are by definition sections of clips that I am planning to use within the edit, though the chances are very high that they will need further editing, but Apple know all about that don't they, so it's cool.

So, the bit I want from the first clip is that bit that goes: “favorites are”, so in order to get a persistent IO I have to unfavorite the clip because you can’t have a favorite within the range of another favorite and ...

Ooops, what’s happened?

I can’t see my clip anymore. It’s disappeared. I’m going to have to hunt it down again to refavorite just the part that I want.

A minute or so later I’m back on track. Great.

Now I need to go through that whole process again because I want just the words: “are a waste of time” from my second clip.

Obviously I’m missing something again. But it does seem to me that given that favoriting is a process for narrowing down selections, not being able conveniently to select within those selections without actually destroying the first selection is, you could almost say, entirely self-defeating.

That's what I've learned about the ineffable magnificence of the FCPX organizational structure.

But other than that, you’re absolutely right - everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

[Jeremy Garchow] " I am sincerely curious on how much work you've put in to X's organizational structure? I've put some work in to it, and I am still learning a lot."

Life is short and clients will insist on paying me exorbitant amounts of money to work for them so I tend not to have time to waste on exploring stuff I broadly understand already. I genuinely think I learnt as much as I need to learn (for now) within about the first three days - this really isn't rocket science, much though some folks would try and have us believe that it is. Anyone who was familiar with iMovie before FCPX appeared will have similarly had no difficulty getting their head around the "organizational structure". The apparent novelty is only in the eyes of those who weren't already up to speed with iMovie.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 16, 2012 at 8:46:04 pm

Got it. That really says it all.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Editing scenario
on May 16, 2012 at 8:46:23 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Got it. That really says it all."

Well, great, thanks. Good to know you agree with me.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Editing scenario
on May 16, 2012 at 8:46:44 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Got it. That really says it all."

:)

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Editing scenario
on May 17, 2012 at 1:14:57 am

Keywording... I only use it like I would bins. Set the keyword collection and drag your clips to it. Set rejects for the clips you definitely don't want. Edit. Keywording like it's a DAM is a complete waste if time.

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 17, 2012 at 2:11:34 am

[Oliver Peters] "Keywording... I only use it like I would bins. Set the keyword collection and drag your clips to it. Set rejects for the clips you definitely don't want. Edit. Keywording like it's a DAM is a complete waste if time."

Meaning?

Keywords can overlap. So you don't have to be limited to a bin at a time.

People will hate this, but once you start combining this with smart collections, it becomes pretty sweet.

The smart collections don't have to stick around forever. The biggest change for me, is using the browser as a dynamic environment, rather than a more traditional static environment. But it also has static qualities as well if that's more suitable.

I don't use Favorties to tag big long clips. If I do, I edit it down with a new range (but not a favorite) and simply add it to the timeline. Favorites, I use as PIOPs (thanks for that term Walter S) and also as extended markers.

But I'm a nerd.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Editing scenario
on May 17, 2012 at 3:35:09 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Keywords can overlap. So you don't have to be limited to a bin at a time. People will hate this, but once you start combining this with smart collections, it becomes pretty sweet... But I'm a nerd."

Jeremy, I feel like I am always disagreeing with you lately.

Overlapping keywords and smart collections are not pretty sweet.

They are totally sweet.

I think I'm a nerd, too.

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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 8:48:18 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Oliver, how are we doing in helping you out?"

LOL!!!! Well, this thread has gone off the rails, down the ravine and back up the other side! As far as my project, I delivered this today with additional changes last night, this morning and even after it was delivered ;-)

The interesting issue to me is that this seemingly simple scenario has generated such a long thread. I certainly think that's symptomatic of some systemic things in X that sorely need to be addressed by Apple.

I did get a lot of good ideas. As far as X, I have an upcoming (simpler) commercial edit job that I'm weighing whether to cut in PProCS6 or X. Either would work fine (in fact, X would be well-suited for it), but I also have to generate OMFs for the mixer and EDL+QTs for the colorist. If I use X, it still means going quite a bit outside of it to finish the job. We'll see. I still have a couple of weeks to decide.

Thanks.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 7:24:01 pm

Phillip Hodgetts is obviously a really smart guy. Definitely smarter than me when it comes to programming. I mean, he's the guy who figured out how to do the One Big Thing Apple said was impossible so he clearly knows his stuff.

But even though it's been a while, I used to program at a pretty deep level so I understand this stuff too. And frankly, his arguments sound like a load of BS to me.

[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?"

So what? Create another column in the database. Call it Foo. BFD. Seriously, if something this simple requires a complete restructure of the database, then the database design is seriously messed up. Any new feature impacts the database. This is trivial.

Want to talk about something deep? Let's discuss project bloat and compound clips. Still completely unchanged after almost a year. Why? This is the kind of database stuff I'd be really worried about.

[Phillip Hodgetts]"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)."

I described it here, but I'll write it again so people don't have to look:

It's not freaking rocket science!

[David Lawrence] "Just look at what happens to a range on the timeline when you click in the event browser. It remains but grays out. Just do the exact same thing for clips in the event browser. Gray out ranges for all clips except the one in focus. The clip in focus is the one that get edited into the timeline. Problem solved. You're welcome."

[Phillip Hodgetts] "...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."

It edits the range that's currently in focus. Why is this so difficult to understand?

What happens if you select a favorite? OK, now drag the handles and change the start and end. OMG!!! What takes precedence now??? It's the Exact. Same. Thing.

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

In my opinion, this attitude says more about why Hodgetts thinks it can't be done than anything else. But hey, what do I know?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 7:47:21 pm

[David Lawrence] "Want to talk about something deep? Let's discuss project bloat and compound clips. Still completely unchanged after almost a year. Why? This is the kind of database stuff I'd be really worried about."

What's most important about this is performance.

I see you haven't played around with Dynamic Link a bunch in Pr and AE yet?

Bloat is one thing, how it handles bloat is another.

FCP 10.0.4 (in my experience, perhaps not yours) handles the bloat much better.

Also, it seems to be FCPX's autosave the really slows it down.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 8:36:14 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I see you haven't played around with Dynamic Link a bunch in Pr and AE yet?

Bloat is one thing, how it handles bloat is another.
"


Is there a lot of bloat there? I'm just getting my full copy today, so I haven't messed with it at all yet. So, you are saying project files swell like crazy?


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 9:17:01 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "What's most important about this is performance."

Actually, I disagree. What's most important about this is efficiency. When you have efficiency, you get performance for free. Throwing bigger, faster, hardware at bloated, inefficient code is usually the wrong solution.

[Jeremy Garchow] " see you haven't played around with Dynamic Link a bunch in Pr and AE yet?

Bloat is one thing, how it handles bloat is another.

FCP 10.0.4 (in my experience, perhaps not yours) handles the bloat much better."


My experience on my machine is that it has the exact same bloat and compound clips problems as 10.0.1. It's identical. Every change to a compound clip adds that compound clip's data weight to the project. As you compound compounds, it increases geometrically. Why?

I haven't played with Dynamic Link because I haven't installed the full CS Suite yet. I'm waiting to get my license, then I want to uninstall CS5.5 and do a clean CS6 install. I'll do some tests and let you know after I do.

I did test relinking. It works but it's not as good as FCP7 and not anywhere near as good as FCPX. It may not work for your needs but you should test it and see. I imagine this is an area Adobe is getting plenty of feedback and will improve.

One thing I did test was recursive nesting, the kind of thing that brings FCPX to its knees. This was clearly a fake scenario but I was curious what would happen. I duplicated the project, then nested a sequence, then bladed it 25 times then nested that, then bladed that nest 25 times, etc, etc. About five levels deep.

No change in performance. Just as snappy as ever. I saved the project and checked the size against the original.

Original project was ~4.6MB, Bloat test project was ~7.2MB

Try that in FCPX and tell me what happens.

Now there was a penalty. When I reopened the project after saving it. it took about 15 minutes to reconnect media. I got a beach ball but instead of quitting, I checked the activity monitor. Sure enough, both cores on my lowly laptop were running full throttle and completely over-maxed. I just let it grind and eventually the project found everything and I was back in business. On a bigger, faster, machine, I'm sure it would have gone faster.

Again, try this in FCPX and watch what happens.

I really wonder sometimes if the FCPX project database architecture is fundamentally unable to scale.

The bloat problem should be priority number one on the engineering radar, because it makes the program fundamentally unstable. Autosave trouble is just a byproduct of this.

These problems are the kind of thing that if left unaddressed, will cripple FCPX's chances in the major leagues.

They really need to fix this.

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Editing scenario
on May 15, 2012 at 10:16:18 pm

[David Lawrence] "My experience on my machine is that it has the exact same bloat and compound clips problems as 10.0.1. It's identical. "

I'm just running 10.0.4. I didn't want to update till I got a couple of projects out that were underway.

I've worked on two spots in 10.0.4 and find it amazingly slower, balky, freezing the skimmer for seconds at a time. If this is a performance update, I'm pretty unimpressed.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Editing scenario
on May 16, 2012 at 8:04:07 am

[Jim Giberti] "I'm just running 10.0.4. I didn't want to update till I got a couple of projects out that were underway.

I've worked on two spots in 10.0.4 and find it amazingly slower, balky, freezing the skimmer for seconds at a time. If this is a performance update, I'm pretty unimpressed.
"


I'm not getting this at all, 10.04 is very fast on my system with no freezing and almost no crashes. Have you tried trashing prefs etc? Also you could try setting up a new user on your system and testing 10.04 with that, it just solved a problem I had with importing XDcam EX material on my system.

Steve Connor
"Sometimes it's fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl"
Adrenalin Television


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Editing scenario
on May 16, 2012 at 6:53:01 pm

[David Lawrence] "My experience on my machine is that it has the exact same bloat and compound clips problems as 10.0.1. It's identical. Every change to a compound clip adds that compound clip's data weight to the project. As you compound compounds, it increases geometrically. Why?"

Hmm. Not me.

The bloat still happens, but it doesn't sky rocket quite like before.

[David Lawrence] "I did test relinking. It works but it's not as good as FCP7 and not anywhere near as good as FCPX. It may not work for your needs but you should test it and see."

I have been testing and seeing.

We have lots and lots of projects on our SAN. These damn AVCHD and DSLR cameras rename all the files to the same thing. 0000.mts in the case of AVCHD, and 0000.mov in the case of DSLR (DSLR is a little better, but still not good). Let's say you have 15 cards of AVCHD, that's 15 clips of 0000.MTS, and that's only one project.

Now, since Pr doesn't give you a file path when reconnecting, you can really screw this up HUGELY if you happen to choose the wrong file path, or choose the wrong files accidentally. While we try to be as buttoned up as possible, I am not perfect, my coworkers are not perfect. Computers, on the other hand, are GREAT at managing massive quantities of data. Pr could be better here.

[David Lawrence] "One thing I did test was recursive nesting, the kind of thing that brings FCPX to its knees. This was clearly a fake scenario but I was curious what would happen. I duplicated the project, then nested a sequence, then bladed it 25 times then nested that, then bladed that nest 25 times, etc, etc. About five levels deep."

What kind of clip and how long was it? Apples to Apples.

[David Lawrence] "Now there was a penalty. When I reopened the project after saving it. it took about 15 minutes to reconnect media. I got a beach ball but instead of quitting, I checked the activity monitor. Sure enough, both cores on my lowly laptop were running full throttle and completely over-maxed. I just let it grind and eventually the project found everything and I was back in business. On a bigger, faster, machine, I'm sure it would have gone faster.
"


This happens with X and 7 too. Bigger longer projects take longer to load.

[David Lawrence] "Autosave trouble is just a byproduct of this."

Well, if you watch what's happening, it autosaving after every blade. So not only does the performance go down, the autosave saves too much and grinds it all up.

Again, I have ran basically the same tests as you just did, but I don't know how long your clip was and what format.

I made a 2 hour timeline of all kinds of things, compounded it, and split it up.

The Project went from 10MB to 200 MBs, it used to get in to the GBs. Once all the autosaves happened, it was running just fine.

I do test this stuff, and 10.0.4 seems to be running leaner.

There's no question that X needs help here. I am not worried about the end of the world and the database is DOA. Are their kinks? Yep, just like any NLE, especially new ones.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 17, 2012 at 5:00:55 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Hmm. Not me.

The bloat still happens, but it doesn't sky rocket quite like before."


Guess you're lucky, because for me it's pretty much unchanged.


[Jeremy Garchow] "These damn AVCHD and DSLR cameras rename all the files to the same thing. 0000.mts in the case of AVCHD, and 0000.mov in the case of DSLR (DSLR is a little better, but still not good). Let's say you have 15 cards of AVCHD, that's 15 clips of 0000.MTS, and that's only one project.

Now, since Pr doesn't give you a file path when reconnecting, you can really screw this up HUGELY if you happen to choose the wrong file path, or choose the wrong files accidentally."


Yes. It's a huge PITA and something Adobe needs to fix. We use AVCHD cameras and I've already come across this exact issue.


[Jeremy Garchow] "What kind of clip and how long was it? Apples to Apples."

Apples to Apples is a good idea so I did a new test. Here's how I set it up:

1) I exported a FCP7 project with a single ProRes 422 1080p30 sequence as XML. The project had a simple sequence ~7:00 in length with 3 video tracks and 9 audio tracks.

2) Imported the sequence into Premiere Pro to verify the XML transfer. It worked fine with the usual substitutions.

3) Used 7toX to bring the sequence into FCPX 10.0.4. It imported fine.

4) Created a new project in FCPX on my test drive.

5) Opened the compound clip created by 7toX, selected all, then pasted into the new project.

6) Quit and restarted FCPX, then opened the new project.

7) I made the FCPX window smaller so I could open a small Finder window next to it with the CurrentVersion.fcpproject in view.

Then I did the test. First, I note the size of CurrentVersion.fcpproject is 5MB. Then select all and make a compound clip. CurrentVersion.fcpproject is still 5MB. Blade tool and one cut - 10MB. Cut two - 15MB. Cut three - 20MB. Cut four - 25MB... all the way to cut twenty where CurrentVersion.fcpproject has additively bloated to 121MB.

I quit and reopened FCPX then reopened the project. Compounded the compound and made one cut. Beachball. Three minutes later, CurrentVersion.fcpproject is 242MB.

Next, the same test in Premiere Pro. Same XML project, same media, same computer. Initial project size - 3MB. First nest with twenty blade cuts - 3.2MB. Second nest of nest with twenty blade cuts - 3.3MB. Third nest of nest with twenty blade cuts - 3.4MB. Fourth nest of nest with twenty blade cuts - 3.4MB. Fifth nest of nest with twenty blade cuts - 3.5MB.

You get the picture.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I made a 2 hour timeline of all kinds of things, compounded it, and split it up.

The Project went from 10MB to 200 MBs, it used to get in to the GBs. Once all the autosaves happened, it was running just fine."


And you're OK with going from 10MB to 200MB with one blade cut? Try splitting it again and watch what happens to the file size. Or compound the compound and split that.

Try my test and see for yourself.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I do test this stuff, and 10.0.4 seems to be running leaner."

I believe you when you say you're getting better overall performance, but I would be surprised if your test results were different than mine.

Compound clips are broken.

Each cut in a compound clip duplicates the entire database content of the clip for each cut. This makes them basically unusable for anything of scale. It's an easily repeatable, easily verifiable issue. This is the kind of bug that should have had someone in ProApps' hair on fire a long time before FCPX ever was released. The fact that we're four updates and close to a year past launch and still no fix should concern everyone.


[Jeremy Garchow] "There's no question that X needs help here. I am not worried about the end of the world and the database is DOA. Are their kinks? Yep, just like any NLE, especially new ones."

I realize many folks like yourself are using FCPX with few problems. I have an older machine so I notice the bloat effect very quickly. But if this isn't fixed soon, I'd start getting concerned.

Not getting a file path when reconnecting is a kink. After close to a year, the bloat issue is starting to look like a deep architectural flaw in the project database design. Let's hope it's fixable.

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Editing scenario
on May 17, 2012 at 5:31:18 am

[David Lawrence] "Then I did the test. First, I note the size of CurrentVersion.fcpproject is 5MB. Then select all and make a compound clip. CurrentVersion.fcpproject is still 5MB. Blade tool and one cut - 10MB. Cut two - 15MB. Cut three - 20MB. Cut four - 25MB... all the way to cut twenty where CurrentVersion.fcpproject has additively bloated to 121MB.
"


Whoa!


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 17, 2012 at 5:41:26 am

[Chris Harlan] "Whoa!"

Try it Chris!

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


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Editing scenario
on May 17, 2012 at 5:52:57 am

[David Lawrence] "[Chris Harlan] "Whoa!"

Try it Chris!
"


I would much rather take your word for it.

The thing is, I'm just happy now between MC 6 and Pr 6. Especially Pr 6. And I'm working through the finer details of those things right now. I'm coming to a fairly general agreement with your glowing early review.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Editing scenario
on May 17, 2012 at 6:28:40 am

[Chris Harlan] "The thing is, I'm just happy now between MC 6 and Pr 6. Especially Pr 6. And I'm working through the finer details of those things right now. I'm coming to a fairly general agreement with your glowing early review."

Glad you're enjoying it. Here's another early look from Scott Simmons. Check it out:

Random notes from my first “real world” Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 edit

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


Return to posts index