FORUMS: list search recent posts

scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Aindreas Gallagher
scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 18, 2013 at 11:17:37 pm

As one who chooses to mindlessly batter Apple for FCPX -

John davidson's timelapse on the 30 second promo spot is one of the more absorbing and entertaining (who doesn't like a music interlude) sequences I've seen.

I know ripple training take you through carefully manicured civil war re-enactments in training - with lots of visible sound fx to brighten up the bottom audio part of things - for one accustomed to seeing an active audio spread of elements in the traditional VA split.
but john's promo spot was the first time I felt a genuine FCPX peek viewing of a process intimate to me, having done a fair few spots like that myself.

of all the guff (er) on the forum - davidson is about the first direct participant to lay out his entire home brew process, to the degree my embattled mind can perceive it.
including say niceties like a 'gfx' smart collection term catch for all those elements, nominating compound clips as primary edit versions to avoid the project folder slide out malarky - and also: not to overstate for him, but John looks to be largely forgoing the primary.

that at the very least is interesting - or should be interesting to apple - its is beyond obvious that the benefits to john, and quite a few others, in terms of footage interrogation, diffuse rapid tagging, post production masking for dodge and burn, and effects handling all in realtime at 1080P and above on near consumer hardware - are actually outweighing his ability to work in apple's defined core editing workspace, the primary.

you have to think this should be, in some way, at least... intriguing to apple.

No one is saying apple need to walk back to avid tracks with a million switches - but
they maybe can hit a better point than a tilde negation key - that is an awkward point for everyone.

for someone with no leg to stand on - you might think Apple need to provide at least a scenario where the main timeline/primary becomes looser and more precise/delicate/unconstricted? aren't there moments where you need the tickle of real jenga editing fear?

If John Davidson were around - it would really be helpful if he could expand on his future preferences for the primary he currently tends to avoid?

this should not be the multiple ranges of jeremy garchow's nightmares - if enough people reading and using FCPX in anger climb on board.

is there any issue with apple's primary? does the tilde key fix it? this is, needless to say, directed at people who have... actually bothered their arses to really work this software.

So an attentive zip across my own mouth anyway.


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


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 18, 2013 at 11:33:35 pm

You realize I'm going to have to make that Primary vs Secondary blog video for this now, don't you?

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 18, 2013 at 11:49:18 pm

yes - you rather absolutely should -

there is an utter dearth of that stuff - I know that the ripple and slip stuff operates differently on the secondary, and again on connected - versus the primary - apple have a new modal thing going there in tool operation given the same tools operate differently in those contexts. but its not seen enough in practise?

no one is going to get the methodology unless they see it common or garden.

that said - what would it take for you to operate a 30" spot in the primary - surely it can't simply be a gap clip operator?

what is it that keeps you from the primary?

me have no agenda under god here - public forum.

given all the other advantages - some of which I well get - why shy from the primary for short form - or should it simply be left as it is?

totally cool if so.

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


Return to posts index


John Davidson
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 12:37:12 am

Here you go - it's not available in the FCPX Techniques forum, but you should be able to see this now.

http://blogs.creativecow.net/blog/12353/7-primary-school-fcpx-on-air

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 12:46:03 am

And for the record, This went from me reading Aindreas's post at 3:33p to read, recorded, edited, compressed to 1080p, and online by 4:15.

That's FCPX for you, baby.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 1:27:46 am

class. and rather insanely quick.

ok - stupid question - not many secondary story lines? mostly connected clips? what's the edit process to introduce the clips? mostly drag in?
does it basically feel like old style V1 above the primary? what are the differences if any?

hopefully generally broad stuff while zipped up.

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


Return to posts index


John Davidson
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 2:19:04 am

In terms of keystrokes, what's cool is I set my i/o in the event and hit q. It's faster than dragging. The secondary storylines are only created when I add transitions. Snapping is almost always on. We also use the opt + [ or ] to quickly trim elements, with little "," and "." for minuscule finessing.

We had to create a system of working outside the primary without ever committing because just because we make delivery, 6 months later we can get a call for a revision and reposting of the spot. So we just stay out. Everybody working the same way keeps things generally consistent. Since every spot has generally been touched by at least 3 people, it makes sense for us to do it all the same way.

Uh oh - Later for dinner!

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 3:05:00 am

[John Davidson] "Here you go - it's not available in the FCPX Techniques forum, but you should be able to see this now."

Next time, can you put an FCPX viewer inside an FCPX viewer inside the FCPX viewer? An FCPX Inception of sorts? We need to go deeper.

fcpx_inception.png


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 8:48:29 am

uhhhh


John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 18, 2013 at 11:35:21 pm

Just finished a piece where we had 27 voxpops to pull together into 2 x 1 minute promo films, started the edit in PPro CS6 , but missed the flexibility of the primary so much I switched back to FCPX to finish. For me, using it to quickly assemble narrative flow, it's better than every other NLE out there.

And yes, the tilde key fixes a really annoying problem with the primary.

It's a different and for me better way of constructing narratives and I for one hope your endless tirades against it fall of deaf ears in Cupertino.

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 18, 2013 at 11:53:22 pm

not a tirade - zipped mouth steve. am honestly just asking.

expand - if kosher - on your own primary usage? the improvement with tilde? what is fixed in your own workflow. - what could be better still?

or tilde nailed it you know?

and zipped mouth.

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


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 12:29:54 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "or tilde nailed it "

While it's not an Apple documented function, you can lock the Tilde key On. At that point you can jiggle anything you want in the Primary and the Connected Clips and Secondary stay locked to time and not the Primary.

I'm find it works with either of two key combination.
Tilde Option then click in timeline or Tilde Command and then click in the timeline.
Clicking the Tilde key again releases the lock.

I found one video online that mentions this.




Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 18, 2013 at 11:48:09 pm

But of course.

Let's not take in to account that there's a common shared iTunes library that supposedly can't be done.

Or that there is no SAN here, but rather a fairly easy OS exploit, that not only allows sharing of FCPX material on a NAS, but locks users out from destroying each other's work.

Or that, quad core i7s on any other platform but the Mac OS, are professional, but are somehow bandaged 'near consumer' when put in an iMac.

And that with Thunderbolt boxes, all professional i/o is handled that is good enough for broadcast. Via tape and otherwise

Or that the effects that are conceived and packaged in house, are shared company wide and easily copied to all users without much trouble.

And all of this gets done without using the primary because as has been stated, for this workflow, it's not really needed.

No no.

Apple is down right flawed and should take immediate action to remedy these abominations of the exalted NLE hallows.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 18, 2013 at 11:50:14 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Apple is down right flawed and should take immediate action to remedy these abominations of the exalted NLE hallows."

Yes, go on Apple make it like all the others, why do you have to be so different?

Steve Connor
'It's just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure"


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 12:12:17 am

?

I only asked this - I'm not qualified to go near the issue of the primary?

I literally just thought I might throw it open for dudes who know what they're talking about?

Querying the primary is not kryptonite, and I tried to leave it specifically open to you guys as to whether or not you would want to -at all- engage with it?

It's ... look - I just happened to set quite a lot of store by john's workflow as I viewed it, it felt familiar - that is all - I'm not trying to pull anything here, I just thought given visibility - engaged discussion on the primary might be interesting from the position of those most engaged in it.

seriously - and completely re-zipped on my part - not another word need be said.

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


Return to posts index


Marcus Moore
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 2:01:44 am

John is certainly not alone in his use of the primary in this way.

On a recent series of promos for a major Canadian retailer, I found that for the early part of the edit, it made the most sense to keep my footage as all connected clips. The "backbone" of the edit would have been a VO, but as a general rule I tend to avoid putting audio into the primary storyline.

But as the edit progressed and I became more sure of certain shot selections, I push them down into the primary- I guess you can say I'm "committing" to them (not that they can't be removed or altered later).

In fact, I've sort of worked out a system wherein I'll "check-in" and "check-out" material into the primary using the lift/replace primary storyline keys.


From a 1000ft perspective, I think much of Apple's thinking on workflow is that old trope of what is going to work for 80% of people 80% of the time. It makes assumptions about the most common thing that you might want to have happen for any given action. And where those assumptions aren't valid, there's an override to negate it. Such as the "P" key to override the magnetic timeline, or the "~" key to override clip connections.

Undoubtably, this is going to drive some people nuts, and I can certainly speak from personal experience that you have to work with the software for a while before you realize you're no longer working "against" the software. For myself, once I made that transition, the new workflow was faster for me in almost all cases than it was in Legacy. And in the rest of cases, it wasn't any slower- so it was definitely a net benefit for me and my productivity.



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 2:17:42 am

[Marcus Moore] "But as the edit progressed and I became more sure of certain shot selections, I push them down into the primary- I guess you can say I'm "committing" to them (not that they can't be removed or altered later)."

given the other massive strengths of the editing platform - from my perspective: in terms of footage interrogation, categorisation, and post production, which, in terms of masking and effects beggar all other editing systems - do you feel your approach to the primary represents what apple actually thought was going to happen with the the primary?

Do you have any issues with the primary - or is stepping in and out of it natural and no bother?

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


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 3:34:21 am

Going back to what I said about 80%/80%, I think the primary definitely works for me in most cases, especially interview-based or narrative projects. As many have mentioned before me, music videos and promos are where the paradigm is perhaps less applicable

There's no one editing methodology that I use for EVERY kind of job, so whether it was AVID, or MEDIA100, or FCP, or now FCPX, there are always workarounds for different kinds of videos. So even if the Primary storyline isn't the best solution for every kind of project, I guess I have to say that overall it works for me way more than it works "against" me. I'm generally using less keystrokes to get jobs done.

As for improvements to the primary storyline (and I'll be writing a blog about this as part of my FCPX 2013 series), I would like to see Apple add user-adressable behaviours to connected clips. By that I mean, if I have a connected title that I want to fade out 5 frames before the end of the Primary storyline shot, or if I have a sound effect that i want to always bleed 10 frames into the next shot, I can tell connected clips to follow the behaviour of the primary storyline clip.

In general I'd like to see Apple leverage all the metadata gathered in the Event much better in the project timeline- most specifically for visual organization. The timeline IS messy in it's current form, but if you were able to group audio by Role, for example, and colour code them for easy identification- that would be the bees knees.



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 2:04:06 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I only asked this - I'm not qualified to go near the issue of the primary? "

Oh, go at the primary all you like. It will survive that because if you ask the VAST majority of the increasing class of X users - you'll find that nearly all the working X editors see the Primary as exactly what it is. The central hub of a new way to edit that provides HUGE conveniences when it's used as intended.

Having the Primary Storyline (AND magnetism!!!) at the heart of the X interface solves a tremendous range of common editing problems.

Just this morning I had a business video on deadline for a sales presentation happening in Florida on Monday. Typical sale meeting lobby loop. The structure of the deliverable was Content A - Commercial A - Content B - Commercial B - Content C - Commercial A - Content D - Commerical B.- to be played in an electronic loop in a private sales meeting room.

I noticed that the flow would be better if I could swap the content of the C and D blocks. Guess what? It was stupid simple in X working in the Primary with magnetism. Grab the Primary clips and move them. The dozens and dozens of connected assets that I had in my edit come along fully attached - and when I moved them to the landing area on my timeline - any existing material that could potentially get damaged in the landing zone just moves out of the way. Brilliant! Simple! Took about 5 seconds to re-order my storyline.

The primary storyline isn't a problem for anyone used to it - it's a solution. An excellent solution. Can it sometimes be less than ideal? Sure. Can it be messed up by someone trying to use it without much experience? ABSOLUTELY!

Heck, the folks trying to work by AVOIDING the primary are essentially trying to avoid one of the central tools built into the program. It can certainly be done just like it's totally possible to paint a room using ONLY brushes and forgoing the roller. And if your task is to paint every surface with intertwined leaves and branches, the roller might even suck as a primary tool. But most rooms aren't painted in complex tiny patterns. They're painted solid and decorated in other ways. And so a roller is a FABULOUS tool.

Heck, maybe just LEARNING the roller will change your painting style! Since there's no longer a big efficiency penalty for laying down a quick visual "base coat" over which you'll decorate later!

In X, the primary storyline is freekin GREAT! And as John and Charlie seem to be discovering - while you might not learn to love the Primary as your FIRST order of business. The more comfortable you get with X, the more you see how it can be a HUGE help in many, many, many editing situations.

Nothing in X stands alone and disconnected. To benefit from all of it - you have to at least get reasonably familiar with ALL of it. You have to understand when connections make sense and when and how to disable them. When to leave the connections alone and when and how to slip elements within them.

The tools are there. The expertise in learning to use them effectively is what takes some dedication, patience and effort.

FWIW.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 2:32:02 am

[Bill Davis] "Charlie seem to be discovering - while you might not learn to love the Primary as your FIRST order of business. The more comfortable you get with X, the more you see how it can be a HUGE help in many, many, many editing situations"

To be fair Bill, there are plenty of situations where it gets in the way. Features, promos, Trailers, Corporate, Television, wedding videos... all have different "needs" when it comes to a timeline. X isn't perfect. But, neither is anything else right? The nice thing for me is now I basically have a MC style timeline, with gap clips etc, and a free flowing FCP classic style timeline all in one. It's a work in progress though... ;-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 2:45:09 am

[Charlie Austin] "X isn't perfect. But, neither is anything else right? "

This is an indisputable truth.

Most of us who've been using it since launch will note, however, that 10.0.7 is a LOT more refined than 10.0.1.

Huge swaths of editors heard the hue and cry at it's birth and merely glanced at 10.0.1 and didn't even want to take the time to investigate what might be useful about the X approach - writing it all off.

And now here we are with X developing in leaps and bounds with constant new thinking and possibilities. So while it certainly is "not perfect" by any stretch, it is -(to quote your famous countryman "getting better all the time!" (dang, I can't even write that without hearing a snarky "can't get much worse" in Aindrieas's prose voice in my head!) - if only because it will continue to evolve. As long as it continues to do that, I'll be satisfied.

FWIW.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 3:05:35 am

[Bill Davis] "Huge swaths of editors heard the hue and cry at it's birth and merely glanced at 10.0.1 and didn't even want to take the time to investigate what might be useful about the X approach - writing it all off. "

Oh absolutely, and that's not going to change. But, IMO, we've passed, or are close to passing, the "event horizon" with X... those folks are just a distraction at this point. Any convincing that needs doing can be done with real world examples now. This thread started with a legit question, let's concentrate on that. ;-)

In any case... I don't feel the need to "defend" X anymore. I use it. It works. The End. :-) Now... we need to work on making it better!

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 3:06:26 am

[Charlie Austin] "In any case... I don't feel the need to "defend" X anymore. I use it. It works. The End. :-) Now... we need to work on making it better!"

AMEN.

(reserving the right to spar with A, simply because it's so darn much FUN!)

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 3:12:47 am

[Bill Davis] "(reserving the right to spar with A, simply because it's so darn much FUN!)"

Well, please create a separate thread for that. As I said, I like this one. Oh, the primary is weird. The whole damn timeline is weird. :-P

... But I like it. lol

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 2:40:37 am

[Bill Davis] "Brilliant! Simple!" [Bill Davis] "(AND magnetism!!!) " [Bill Davis] " the VAST majority" [Bill Davis] " Brilliant! Simple! Took about 5 seconds to re-order my storyline.
"
[Bill Davis] "The primary storyline isn't a problem for anyone used to it - it's a solution." [Bill Davis] "And if your task is to paint every surface with intertwined leaves and branches, the roller might even suck as a primary tool. But most rooms aren't painted in complex tiny patterns. They're painted solid and decorated in other ways. And so a roller is a FABULOUS tool. "
[Bill Davis] "In X, the primary storyline is freekin GREAT!"

and finally then:

[Bill Davis] "Nothing in X stands alone and disconnected. To benefit from all of it - you have to at least get reasonably familiar with ALL of it. You have to understand when connections make sense and when and how to disable them. When to leave the connections alone and when and how to slip elements within them. "

fine - that last bit made sense - stop idealising something - sell the primary. No one should need to sell smart keyword bins that hoover up all incoming GFX, or compound clips that function exactly like sequences, or post production that kicks everythings ass.

the issue is the timeline and a coherent description of why its not weird bill.

Is the primary simply a perception issue or are the connections overly rigid? - does the tilde key fix it?

If we lose explicit tracks, does everything immediately have to get parent child slaved?

are you entirely happy with the role of the primary? you're using it like no one's business - are you fully happy? Bill - is there anything that irks you?

this forum should at least be as much about that as anything else - if you ever wanted to shut us up, an involved discussion on the mechanics of this software would serve to silence us.
until we bothered our arses to use it properly.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 2:47:48 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "this forum should at least be as much about that as anything else "

Yeah... let's try and keep this thread proselytization free. I like it. :-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 3:05:16 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "fine - that last bit made sense - stop idealising something"

Why? If you can pump out your disconnected constantly negative babbling all the time - what precisely is wrong with my cheerleading? Is it because I use accessible english words? If so I guess I can can try to copy your style (perhaps bloviating in bifurcated semi-dense psudolinguistically tortured aphorisms??) - and see if that plus huge doses of bile pleases you? ... Naw. Too much work.

(at this point I briefly considered going back and cutting out every time YOU wrote something like NAUSATING, TERRIBLE, CRAP, or USELESS about X and giving it the same LOOK AT ME MA, I"M QUOTING HIM treatment - but really, who cares.)

Heres the thing, dude. I LIKE liking things. Liking things makes me happy.

Hating things makes me biteer and dull and morose. And I don't want to BE those things. I don't want to be surrounded by mental processes that make me mad all the time. That's BORING. It says that I'm defined by my dislikes. And who needs that? (grin)

Strange concept, I know. But just think of it as my special kink.


[Aindreas Gallagher] "the issue is the timeline and a coherent description of why its not weird bill."

Fine. I'll ignore that once again you're blatantly attempting to "push the poll" by presuming that your position that "it's weird" is the foundational one and that anyone who feels differently needs to be the one to defend their position."

But that silliness aside, challenge accepted.

Here's your WHY in a nutshell.

I edit nearly every day. For money. Just like many, many others here. FCP-X is the ONLY editing software I use now because it does everything I need to do efficiently, with excellent quality, responsiveness and ease.

This is the total 180 degrees opposite of "weird" So by using that term - you've demonstrated to me that you simply can't figure out how to see it for what it is.

Which is simply this... editing software that people can use to do all sorts of editing tasks reliably and with ease - such that they feel that it's worth their time to use.

Period.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 2:55:31 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I only asked this - I'm not qualified to go near the issue of the primary? "

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I'm not trying to pull anything here, "

It's the hyperbole that is forever spewed that Apple is creating dead software, and I also thought that when the FCPX On Air series came out, you were an asshole. But I hear things are better now.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Querying the primary is not kryptonite, and I tried to leave it specifically open to you guys as to whether or not you would want to -at all- engage with it?"

Ok. Now that we both know where we stand.

I find that not using the primary makes my particular edits move much more slowly. In content pieces (vs a VO style promo) the primary is awesome. It allows you to swap elements around so fast and accurately, as well as non destructively without having to do massive keyboard shortcut and mouse click dances, or pre approved track selection, or copy/pasting to the properly targeted auto select boxes or mistakenly overwriting something that you didn't mean to 7 mouse clicks ago, or having to force overwrite something with more than one kb shortcut when FCP7 won't let you overwrite or paste or collide.

I think it does need more work, and where it needs more work is that it doesn't need to be like a track based timeline, it needs to be more like itself.

I find keyboard navigating in FCPX to be great, right up until you can't do somehting becuase it isn't invented yet, or there's inconsistency.

The one that bugs me the most is the edge selection commands.

There's commands to select the right edge or left edge of a cut, but it can get weird.

If your playhead is parked on a cut, you can hit left or right bracket, or shift left/right bracket, and trim, j/l cut, whatever. It's fast, it's accurate, you don't have to skim or drag a playhead, it's great.

Now, let's say I have a selected clip and my playhead is not on a cut, and I want to select the right edge of the clip to trim. Logic tells me that I'd hit the right bracket because it's the right side of the clip.

But no, in this instance the right side of the clip is actually the left side of the cut, so right is now left and vice versa. I try to practice this a lot, and for some reason my brain can't make the connection that right and left are reversed, but only sometimes.

Speaking of edge selection and j/l cuts, being able to select the audio separate form the video with a modifier is great. What would be super nice, if you need an audio cross fade, is that it would be available to be a one click action. Shift-t automagically splits the audio shoves each edge left 12 frames and right 12 frames, and puts a node fade on each side.

There also needs to be direct keyboard manipulation and navigation of layers. Whether that would be navigation a stock of connected clips, a stack of audio components, or a stack of filters. There needs to be some consistency and capability to being able to modify and choose my own editing adventure. While I don't need tracks, I do need to be sometime be able to paste above, or paste below a selection.

It is refinements like this that will come over time. Apple has proven, at least for the time being, that they can change what some see as "default" behavior in the timeline, that they can modify the interface to suit better interaction.

What I find most excellent about FCPX, beside the cataloging Event features, is the grouping. The ability to able to create linked/related groups in the timeline is the most evolutionary in my opinion, and I want more. The primary is central to this idea.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 4:14:46 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Now, let's say I have a selected clip and my playhead is not on a cut, and I want to select the right edge of the clip to trim. Logic tells me that I'd hit the right bracket because it's the right side of the clip."

When you're not parked on the edit, DOWN ARROW moves the playhead TO the downstream edit. (UP ARROW) to the upstream one)

Then bracket at will.

FWIW.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 4:51:44 am

[Bill Davis] "When you're not parked on the edit, DOWN ARROW moves the playhead TO the downstream edit. (UP ARROW) to the upstream one) "

I understand, but you assume there's no cuts/clips between the edge of the clip and the playhead. If you hit the arrow and there's 10 cuts underneath a clip, it sucks to hit an arrow 10 times when I can hit c then bracket and not only select an edge but move my playhead to navigate without a mouse.

If I have a clip selected, it would be nice to select the edge of that clip AND move a playhead as fcpx has great group selection capabilities, currently.

Fcpx has a start of a decent "target" system in its ability to select single or groups of clips quickly and easily. I'd like to be able to do more navigation with those selections.

I'm just going to keep repeating myself until it sinks in.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 5:13:17 pm

Gadzooks! (my brain says to me). There are 10 cuts between my play head and the edit point I have to target...

And by the time I consciously register the thought, my right hand - as if under the control of benevolent pixies - has reached out to grasp that wonder of magical engineering, the MOUSE and plopped the cursor where I want it.

I know, I know. I'll regret the lost one-third second of productivity for the rest of my career ... But I will soldier on whilst stoically shouldering the heavy burden of this first world problem as best I can.

(OK, teasing mode off )

I get that keyboard editors are at their most productive when they are not distracted -but honestly, is this a FLAW?

Must there be a keyboard solution to EVERYTHING?

And if so, does that take off the table the very idea of someday integrating touchscreen editing options?

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 6:01:06 pm

Did I say it was a "FLAW"?

No, I said I want more out of it.

Right could be right, while left remains left, you know?

The command says "select left edge" yet left is relative. I'm sure it will get better.

Touchscreen is a different animal, for now I have live with a keyboard as nothing beats it quite yet.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 20, 2013 at 2:07:39 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Right could be right, while left remains left, you know?"

Ask any experienced camera operator or director...

When making video, if you "cross the line" right typically becomes left and left typically becomes right.

It's something we expect.

Reality is just so darn messy sometimes.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 20, 2013 at 2:25:34 am

You say the strangest things.


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 8:51:15 am

J-hog, you're my agent from here on out.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 8:47:36 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Or that, quad core i7s on any other platform but the Mac OS, are professional, but are somehow bandaged 'near consumer' when put in an iMac.
"


Jeremy, I don't know a single person who thinks of a quad core i7 as "near consumer" on OS X or anything else. That's a discussion I've never had with anybody. And, if it were a discussion I were to have with somebody, it is something I would vigorously disagree with.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 11:19:06 pm

Hi, Chris. It started this thread.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "...post production masking for dodge and burn, and effects handling all in realtime at 1080P and above on near consumer hardware - are actually outweighing his ability to work in apple's defined core editing workspace, the primary. "


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 11:39:38 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Hi, Chris. It started this thread.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "...post production masking for dodge and burn, and effects handling all in realtime at 1080P and above on near consumer hardware - are actually outweighing his ability to work in apple's defined core editing workspace, the primary. "
"


I apparently don't read that line the same way you do. Aindreas is talking about the plus side of FCP X, and how well it performs on even near-consumer hardware. He's not attacking the top of Apple's product line; he's complimenting the code and the efficiency with which it runs. He's not saying that John's new iMac is "near-consumer level;" he's saying that FCP X will even run well at 1080p on something quite a bit less than what John is currently using. I mean that's the way I read it.


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 20, 2013 at 12:26:36 am

And even a 2011 Mac mini!

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 20, 2013 at 1:20:14 am

yes of course - i wasn't even at all referring to John's choice of hardware, its mad to think I was saying that.

- and seriously - who wouldn't pick a stacked iMac - its murderous.

the interesting thing is it's not insanely expensive, and the performance of FCPX on it can be pretty jaw dropping.

Its the same as the slates - apple's combined software hardware optimisation is very serious, hard to replicate, kung fu.

They can juice the hardware they choose to a very serious degree - the iMac well specced, is a deadly serious edit box - and top specced it is near, but not quite consumer level.

27" / i7 3.4 / 16GB RAM / 2GB NVIDIA / 1 TB Fusion / thunderbolt up the ass / applecare = two and a half grand sterling.

that is near-ish consumer pricing for some very serious kit.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 21, 2013 at 4:13:00 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "that is near-ish consumer pricing for some very serious kit."

OK, now that I know what you're saying, yes, it is miniaturization in the flesh. Smaller, faster, cheaper.

Let's not forget there's a dual link equivalent 27" monitor strapped to it.

That's the only thing that bugs me about an iMac. I literally can't use one until that optical Thunderbolt cable comes out and I can extend everything where I need it.

But it will be the easiest extension i've probably ever done, so that's worth waiting for and another serious advantage in the Thunderbolt column, 4x be damned.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 18, 2013 at 11:52:12 pm

Having used the software quite a bit - I go back and forth between it and 7 due to collaboration necessity (IOW, the other facility doesn't have/use X) - there were only two issues with the primary that caused me any trouble. They were 1) deleting a clip in it and all the connected clips getting deleted and 2) slipping/sliding a clip in the primary and having the connected clips remain connected not to the clip per se, but to that FRAME of the clip. So they moved with the slip and slide.

Both are completely solved by holding down the tilde key. If you ask me, it should be the complete reverse, as not holding the tilde key can possibly be a tragic destructive event. Or at least it could be a toggle. But like any software, you need to learn how to use it, and in this case, you hold down tilde when you delete something in the timeline and when you slip and slide. Yeah, sounds stupid when you say it out loud, or in a forum as the case may be.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 12:35:07 am

[Bret Williams] "If you ask me, it should be the complete reverse, as not holding the tilde key can possibly be a tragic destructive event. Or at least it could be a toggle. But like any software, you need to learn how to use it, and in this case, you hold down tilde when you delete something in the timeline and when you slip and slide. Yeah, sounds stupid when you say it out loud, or in a forum as the case may be."


interesting recommendation there? discussion thing? does that make the apple timeline more interesting/less interesting to anyone involved?

and zip.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 1:19:35 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "interesting recommendation there? discussion thing? does that make the apple timeline more interesting/less interesting to anyone involved? "

I posted this on another thread but... In the "article" I wrote here a while ago, one of my points was that I avoided the primary. However... I've been cutting stuff in X long enough that my comfort level is high enough to throw another wrench in it, so to speak. Thus, I've started cutting using the primary. Know what? it's pretty nice. :-)

No problem cutting "to time". It's no more difficult than any other NLE in that regard. And what's really cool is using connected clips to "rough out" sections, and then just drop 'em into the primary and move on. They pop out just as easily if needed. Moving sections, shots, etc is EZ, and would probably be even smoother on a newer computer. The X GUI seems faster on my new Air at home than my Mac Pro at work. ;-)

The biggest sticking point is, once again, training the old muscle memory... Tilde key is uh... key, but also using the position tool. I've spent almost 2 decades hitting A by default... P needs to become the default. I could remap the keyboard, but that's cheating! :-)

As a PS... Until apple gives us grouped Roles... Here's a link to a 3 min silent .aif if anyone needs a "track" separator. ;-)

5260_silentspacerdelete.aif.zip

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 1:53:12 am

[Charlie Austin] "And what's really cool is using connected clips to "rough out" sections, and then just drop 'em into the primary and move on. They pop out just as easily if needed. Moving sections, shots, etc is EZ, and would probably be even smoother on a newer computer."

with regard to the connected clip scratch approach - and I literally only mean this in the broadest sense - do you think this is an approach you have modelled yourself in answer to any deficiency in the primary?

I do get that apple have allowed different editing conditions between the primary and secondary - but no more than the promo example - do you feel comfortable with the space provided by the primary for your day to day stuff?

Are there any alterations you would like to see? or does this just work when you get your head around it?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 2:18:41 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "with regard to the connected clip scratch approach - and I literally only mean this in the broadest sense - do you think this is an approach you have modelled yourself in answer to any deficiency in the primary?

Well... it doesn't seem like a deficiency per se. What I like about connected clips in X is that you can easily just pop them into the sequence without worrying about clip collisions/overwriting etc. Just SHIFT 1,2, or 3 depending on whether I want A/V, V or A to go in, then hit Q. I don't have to worry about precision at all. (Being an early adopter here, I still cut in 7 as well, and it drives me crazy that I have to tell the app where to put things! Lame... lol ) Anyway...Then I adjust the clips as needed and drop them down. I do still detach the audio, as I often chop up dialog, but once the clips are in the primary it's "locked" to picture again. There are times, as John points out, where it's more efficient to move connected clips around, for example dragging a clip and it's dialog to another section, or to the end or something, but leaving FX and MX that may be linked to it. In that case a simple keystroke pos the clips out again.

[Aindreas Gallagher] I do get that apple have allowed different editing conditions between the primary and secondary - but no more than the promo example - do you feel comfortable with the space provided by the primary for your day to day stuff?

I think so, yes. As I said, I'm just diving in, but it hasn't seemed to cause any problems. I still drag bits (as connected clips) past the end of the sequence to "store" them for potential use or whatever if that's what you mean...

[Aindreas Gallagher] Are there any alterations you would like to see? or does this just work when you get your head around it?"

Well, for me, it seems to just work. But... I'm still getting my head around it. I may come in next week to say I hate it, but so far, so good. :-) I'd like the ability to minimize the primary as you can other trac... uh.. clips/roles. The biggest hurdle is learning KB shortcuts. There are a lot. All useful, all new. ;-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Nikolas Bäurle
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 3:33:47 am

What I like about the magnetic timeline is the fact that you never overwrite anything, unless you're using P and don't pay attention. The fact that you don't need to assign tracks is a great plus, if I don't like where FCPX places it I just move it up or down, with Avid and FCP7 you spend more time making sure you don't overwrite anything. In avid you always have to click on a tool to be able to do anything. I prefer the intuitive FCPX Mouse.

Generally I place my clips on the secondary storyline and once I'm done with that portion move it down to the primary. If I'm editing documentary or corporate stuff I always place the interviews on the primary, leave gaps between the clips and edit the the rest of the footage on the secondary and leave it there I prefer adding dissolves on the secondary, dissolves on the primary still feel a little funky to me...

For Music Videos I only use the primary for the multicam clip if I'm editing performance. For a narrative only video I directed in Oktober I never used the primary, since I needed clips to stay put,...now that I think about it I could have used the primary for the song.

"Always look on the bright side of life" - Monty Python



Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 4:18:50 am

Just more thinking from editors who approach it from the perspective of how it DOES work...

rather than relentlessly just looking at how it does NOT work.

To quote the Bard: "there the rub."

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 19, 2013 at 6:00:37 am

I'm in a similar boat as Nik and Charlie. I find it much faster to roughly in/out a clip in the event and just drag it to where I want it roughly in the timeline. Then trim it in RELATION to the clips around it instead of the old way of patching tracks, playing some track tetris to move shit out of the way so I can edit it without deleting stuff or just to put it where I want it in the layer sandwich. Oh, and how annoying that 7 would unrender crap just because you moved it up a layer? X is amazing in it's "render recollection." If you have a stack of stuff rendered, then drag in a clip that happens to sandwich somewhere in the middle of that stack (unrendering the stack), and you then trim that new clip so that it's not futzing with the stack anymore, X miraculously remembers that it has a render file on hand that is appropriate for that condition and it becomes rendered again. Probably saving minutes of time right there. In 7 you had to weigh pressing undo a zillion times to get the render back, or moving forward and rerendering.

I do wish that the horizontal magnetics (ripple) were not the default. Using the P tool isn't really the same thing. And I think they could certainly ADD an audio section that has tracks at the bottom. so at least audio-only elements like music, sfx, and VO could be more easily managed.

And still, like FCP 1-7, you cannot copy and paste keyframes. To that I ask WTF? As a motion graphics guy as well as an editor I don't get that. I'm keeping Premiere on the radar for my next project that needs some round trip to AE or even just lots of in-app keyframing as Premiere's is very much akin to AE's keyframing. But I like FCP X enough that if they bring back send to motion I'll be digging into Motion. It would be hard to pass up on since it also works into the FCP flow so well now with generators and transitions and all that.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 22, 2013 at 10:17:32 pm

[Bret Williams] "I do wish that the horizontal magnetics (ripple) were not the default. Using the P tool isn't really the same thing. And I think they could certainly ADD an audio section that has tracks at the bottom. so at least audio-only elements like music, sfx, and VO could be more easily managed.
"


that is pretty much straight to my heart. does anyone else properly using X want to speak to this above? Does anyone nod along to the quote above?

Having messed half extensively with X - I've pretty much come to think that rigid video track layering might be more than a little bit redundant, (lets put that video on v15, no wait, V16 please) - but being able to call up the visibility of ordered audio slots as snapping horizontal line guides say, the same way you would say invoke snapping guides in PS maybe, for audio only elements is potentially desirable?

And also - as a spitball - how does a horizontally demagnetised option for X function? could that actually work?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 22, 2013 at 11:08:48 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "that is pretty much straight to my heart. does anyone else properly using X want to speak to this above? Does anyone nod along to the quote above?"

What I want, personally, (and I have said this before) is FCPX to be more like itself.

If we just go with what it is for a moment, and in that same moment we keep what is good about tracks and forget what is "bad". Bad is the wrong word, so I put it in quotes.

What is good about tracks is that they organize visually, what is "bad" about them is that they are really clunky, especially when you have a lot of them.

One of the things I like about X is that it allows you to get granular (expand audio components) and then zip all that mess up in a tidy package, and you can view the mess or put away the mess, at will. You can select a huge of wad of clips, either in the Browser or the timeline, and virtually patch/unpatch the channels you need, or dual mono/stereo the channels you need, at any time. I love that. It is, in the best sense, non destructive and non repetitive. For example, you don't have to rearrange your timeline just to add one channel of audio that you forgot to add when you initially edited that clip in to a timeline 25 days ago. You just go to the inspector and turn it back on.

So, since FCPX has a decent amount of database function exposed to the user, it would be great if we could SORT the audio data as we would like. I talked about "Zones" years ago.

What I think needs to happen, are using Roles need to take on visual sorting responsibility, at least as has been mentioned, with audio only elements. It would get trickier with embedded audio elements.

In a nutshell, I want the timeline (or the timeline index) to work as a database just as other parts of FCPX allow for certain search and sort capabilities. I think it would be quite powerful to give a user that control.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "And also - as a spitball - how does a horizontally demagnetised option for X function? could that actually work?"

I, personally, do not mind the magnetism. It's so easy to shut it off when you need to, or keep it on when it is appropriate. The tilde key was a massive and necessary added function to aid in furthering the usefulness of magnetism.

In short, apply the FCPX ideas/methods to the entirety of the application, and I think it will make more sense to those who can't "see" it, as the metaphor will be more complete.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 22, 2013 at 11:27:21 pm

I want to take a break from my regularly-scheduled disagreement with Jeremy to agree with his entire post about FCPX being more like itself, but most especially this:

[Jeremy Garchow] "In a nutshell, I want the timeline (or the timeline index) to work as a database just as other parts of FCPX allow for certain search and sort capabilities. I think it would be quite powerful to give a user that control."

and this:

[Jeremy Garchow] "I, personally, do not mind the magnetism. It's so easy to shut it off when you need to, or keep it on when it is appropriate. The tilde key was a massive and necessary added function to aid in furthering the usefulness of magnetism."



To avoid this being an entirely me-too post, I do have a question for the heavy FCPX users here. In his Primary School blog post [link], John says:

[John Davidson] "The simplicity of our system is that it works for everything and any of us can jump into any spot and continue to work without having to figure out what the other guy did."

With FCPX as it currently stands and without the awesome suggestions Jeremy has made, how hard is it to pick up where someone else left off when they've cut with the primary?

On real-world projects, is it easy or hard to read someone else's timeline (or maybe your own timeline some weeks or months later) and understand the story and compositing structures? Are there any best practices to emulate (or worst practices to avoid) for making an FCPX edit more visually readable? What else (if anything) should FCPX offer for making reading an edit easier?

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 23, 2013 at 12:12:47 am

[Walter Soyka] "I want to take a break from my regularly-scheduled disagreement with Jeremy to agree with his entire post about FCPX being more like itself, but most especially this:

[Jeremy Garchow] "In a nutshell, I want the timeline (or the timeline index) to work as a database just as other parts of FCPX allow for certain search and sort capabilities. I think it would be quite powerful to give a user that control."
"


I honestly do not get the intellectual orgy over the timeline index walter. what is the unheralded power still to be untapped? Isn't it just tagging search?

I always thought the problem with meta data is that it requires input fingers on the keyboard at every single stage?
Offering post hoc element organisation options ala - audio layers - surely that allows you to perform spontaneous and immediate categorisation closer to the point of hand off and has an equal power?

one can over do the tagging meta data thing. particularly given that a lengthy edit might benefit from simple post edit organisation - the provision of layer ordering has always allowed that - particularly for audio post?

you simply position the audio objects at the close, assembling the remaining audio into its proper slots for post.

why exactly walter, is pinning a meta data badge onto every last single audio element that ever entered the timeline, to be part of a stupid rube goldberg auto arrange gag at the end of the edit preferential to this?

Isn't that just planning against no ability to apply any external layer order for the final elements entering audio post?

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


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 23, 2013 at 2:37:20 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I honestly do not get the intellectual orgy over the timeline index walter. what is the unheralded power still to be untapped? Isn't it just tagging search?"

The timeline index is an alternate view of the edit, and maybe it doesn't have to be the only one. The timeline as it stands is built to show story structure, not role structure. The timeline index shows editorial events, but not story structure.

It would be cool to show an alternate, non-self-collapsing view of the timeline, grouped by roles. This could facilitate some good missing traditional track functionality (seeing all supers visually grouped, or all shots from a specific camera, etc.).



[Aindreas Gallagher] "why exactly walter, is pinning a meta data badge onto every last single audio element that ever entered the timeline at the outset preferential to this?"

I'm not sure that it is. I'm not making an argument for the best way to apply metadata. I'm arguing that once we've got it, we should be able to do more with it.

Setting FCPX aside and speaking generally, metadata is a great tool we can use for manipulating the underlying data.

NLEs are more than just tools for editing; they're the hubs for post-production. Looking to the future, I'd love to be able to build workflow automation tools, and ready access to metadata would be a key part of that.

In animation and effects, we have dynamics simulations, expressions-driven animation, procedural keying; why not procedural assemblies or even rough cuts (see Philip Hodgetts's work), procedural supers and versioning, or other metadata-assisted post work?

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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 12:09:02 am

[Walter Soyka] "The timeline index is an alternate view of the edit, "

no, its not. They are not equivalent and alternate. one is the edit, the other is a list of edit components, tags and markers.

[Walter Soyka] "The timeline index shows editorial events, but not story structure"

how is it showing "editorial events"? unless you are actually just talking about markers? if so, maybe better to say markers, it does show markers.


[Walter Soyka] "NLEs are more than just tools for editing; they're the hubs for post-production. Looking to the future, I'd love to be able to build workflow automation tools, and ready access to metadata would be a key part of that. In animation and effects, we have dynamics simulations, expressions-driven animation, procedural keying; why not procedural assemblies or even rough cuts (see Philip Hodgetts's work), procedural supers and versioning, or other metadata-assisted post work?"

sure - some of hodgetts products in terms of script analysis and categorisation stuff is mint.

for myself however I still see it largely as low brow editing when I'm doing it. I use expressions for dynamic bounce behaviour in AE, and many moons ago I enjoyed the fluid dynamics in MAX for some promo spots - but I fail to understand even the most basic causal linkages from those system work cases to picture and video editing. Software reliably proves itself incredibly stupid at divining intent, unless there are mass humans guiding its course: see google maps.

It sounds - and don't take this wrong - kind of like intellectual pie in the sky for the sake of saying it?

"expressions-driven animation procedural edit assemblies" sounds a little like the thing someone would say in a Y-combinator seed fund round?
with a hopeful *expression* on their face?

*boom.. boom* ;)

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 12:51:41 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "but I fail to understand even the most basic causal linkages from those system work cases to picture and video editing."

I don't know Aindreas, it seems like that kind of functionality could be very useful in an NLE. I would love to be able to change the font color or scale of 50 or 60 lower thirds titles with a few simple lines of text.
Then again, I'm a heavy user of Cinema 4D and AE, so I do find myself missing the power and flexibility of expressions when I'm editing. That said, I also recognize that scripting, even light or node based scripting isn't everyone's cup of tea... but I still think it would be cool.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 1:54:23 am

[Shawn Miller] "I don't know Aindreas, it seems like that kind of functionality could be very useful in an NLE. I would love to be able to change the font color or scale of 50 or 60 lower thirds titles with a few simple lines of text."

Shawn, I'm suggesting there could be a lot more to it than that, too.

Think about how proceduralism works in a tool like Houdini or XSI. You can make structural alterations to a scene based on data that you import into the scene.

For an NLE, this might be something like establishing a rule that you put up a lower third for each interviewee the first time they appear in each segment of the program. If you insert a new interview clip into the program before an existing clip with the same interviewee in the same segment, the NLE could re-flow the title for you.

This is a bit off-the-cuff, so I'm sure there are better examples, but procedural editorial could guide a good number of routine or simple decision-tree-oriented tasks.

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

Shawn Miller
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 3:05:32 am

[Walter Soyka] "Shawn, I'm suggesting there could be a lot more to it than that, too.

Think about how proceduralism works in a tool like Houdini or XSI. You can make structural alterations to a scene based on data that you import into the scene."


[Walter Soyka] "This is a bit off-the-cuff, so I'm sure there are better examples, but procedural editorial could guide a good number of routine or simple decision-tree-oriented tasks."

Absolutely, and I'm completely agreeing with you Walter. My example was a lot simpler, but I think we're getting at the same point. Procedural workflows are extremely powerful and flexible, it's just a shame that none of the NLEs allow you to extend their functionality in that way.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 3:23:53 am

[Shawn Miller] "Procedural workflows are extremely powerful and flexible, it's just a shame that none of the NLEs allow you to extend their functionality in that way."

Indeed!

See this recent post on the Avid forum:

Advice for the most monotonous workflow ever... [link]

The poor fellow needs procedural editorial.

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: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 3:31:11 am

[Walter Soyka] "The poor fellow needs procedural editorial."

It reminds me of this EOL software: http://creativemac.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=35021

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 3:43:54 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Walter Soyka] "The poor fellow needs procedural editorial."

It reminds me of this EOL software: http://creativemac.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=35021

Jeremy"


Holy crap, that is just fantastic! I need that for PPro today. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 3:49:22 am

[Shawn Miller] "Holy crap, that is just fantastic! I need that for PPro today. :-)"

No kidding.

I think it was kind of ahead of its time, unfortunately. It was a fantastic idea, seemed to be well implemented and supported, but it was right before the truly file based onslaught of digital media and IP video networks and structures.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 3:38:12 am

[Walter Soyka] "See this recent post on the Avid forum:

Advice for the most monotonous workflow ever... [link]

The poor fellow needs procedural editorial."


Wow, talk about a great use case! :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 3:14:17 am

And lets not forget what the timeline index can do right now (and, of course, where I could see it going further).

With tracks, you could select groups of clips by a solo track selection. Right? Select everything in A1, for example, and add a filter.

With the timeline index, you can also select a group (or groups) of clips, because as we know, there's no A1.

I could see a lot being done with the timeline index, but if you're willing to reject it as "pie in the sky" Apple bullshit, then take it for what it is. A way to select clips by a certain set of criteria. That's a pretty crucial function to an NLE.

It also serves as a navigation tool and cross check ("I see shot A001_C001_010111 has the wrong audio channel selected. I know it's in this 1.75 hour timeline with 1100 edits. Let me search, oh there it is, as a matter of fact I see it's in there 4 times. Let me select those , pic the proper audio channel and get on with my day").

I don't know what kind of personal archive you maintain, Aindreas, but once you start to maintain really large archives of all kinds of jobs, dates, footage, clients, etc, metadata becomes pretty crucial to keep your head, at least somewhat above water. Metadata in FCPX can serve similar purposes. All of that Role and pie in the sky metadata is now added to FCPXMLs (you can even customize the fields that are exported). This means you can text search a pile of FCPXMLs, find any files you might be looking for, perhaps a location, and any other pertinent to keep you swimming.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 2:50:13 am

[Shawn Miller] " I would love to be able to change the font color or scale of 50 or 60 lower thirds titles with a few simple lines of text."

very, very common request for editing software.

mind you: if we are actually talking about this, motion rigging parameters does answer that.

[Shawn Miller] "I'm a heavy user of Cinema 4D and AE, so I do find myself missing the power and flexibility of expressions when I'm editing."

thats really interesting - maybe explain the role you see for expressions in the structure of editing in FCPX. I like and use expressions to a certain degree - I really wonder how anyone can just say that script expressions are the next thing that should happen to FCPX. What parameters are they operating on? how do we access them?

Is it within the clip specific keyframe timeline apparatus? is it in the inspector? what exactly are expression scripts supposed to provide? that implicit rigging does not?

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 9:29:24 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "[Shawn Miller] "I'm a heavy user of Cinema 4D and AE, so I do find myself missing the power and flexibility of expressions when I'm editing."

thats really interesting - maybe explain the role you see for expressions in the structure of editing in FCPX. I like and use expressions to a certain degree - I really wonder how anyone can just say that script expressions are the next thing that should happen to FCPX. What parameters are they operating on? how do we access them?"


Unfortunately, I can't speak to FCPX specifically as I've never used it. But I do see great potential in being able to automate tedious tasks that normally have to be done by hand... or even the ability to link the attributes of one object or effect to control the behavior of another. I'm a huge fan of procedural animations and simulations for that reason.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Is it within the clip specific keyframe timeline apparatus? is it in the inspector? what exactly are expression scripts supposed to provide? that implicit rigging does not?"

I'm not familiar with rigging or FCPX, so it's hard to answer this question. But what I would like to see in an NLE is a dedicated expressions panel, one that exposes all of the attributes of the metadata, objects (media), effects and functions of the software. That way, I can create tools and workflows once and then use or tweak them as needed. As an example, I would love to be able to tag a bunch of clips (say, the first shot in a bunch of interviews) and add an intro, a transition and a title card to them all with a few nodes or lines of text. Or as Walter suggests, you could write an expression that dynamically builds title cards based on XML or XMP name, dimension and start time attributes.

I guess what I'm really thinking about is an AE, C4D mashup where you can build node based scripts that work at the clip, sequence or application level. How great would it be to have an expression that builds and populates bins based on the metadata of your media; all media for scene 01201b goes here, all similar media types get their own sub bins based on geo location, date, camera type, shooter, producer or whatever you desire. Anyway, I think there is a world of useful things you could do in an NLE or an encoder with expressions... but again, I recognize that it's not for everyone.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 4:30:20 pm

[Shawn Miller] "How great would it be to have an expression that builds and populates bins based on the metadata of your media; all media for scene 01201b goes here, all similar media types get their own sub bins based on geo location, date, camera type, shooter, producer or whatever you desire. "

FCPX already has some of this already.

It does not, however, have much in the way of automating this to a sequence. What was nice about FCP7 was that you could actually use Apple Events to Trigger an XML that opened FCP and did things.

If you watch the videos that this post is about, you can see it in action. You setup a few simple rules in the beginning, and as you work FCPX works for you.

http://blogs.creativecow.net/blog/12310/2-importing-fcpx-on-air

I am sure as FCPXML support gets more support and understanding, things like this will certainly improve in FCPX. Also, if we are talking broadcast, the ability to be able to export/encode while you keep working is new to FCP.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 7:20:15 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Shawn Miller] "How great would it be to have an expression that builds and populates bins based on the metadata of your media; all media for scene 01201b goes here, all similar media types get their own sub bins based on geo location, date, camera type, shooter, producer or whatever you desire. "

FCPX already has some of this already.

It does not, however, have much in the way of automating this to a sequence. What was nice about FCP7 was that you could actually use Apple Events to Trigger an XML that opened FCP and did things.

If you watch the videos that this post is about, you can see it in action. You setup a few simple rules in the beginning, and as you work FCPX works for you.

http://blogs.creativecow.net/blog/12310/2-importing-fcpx-on-air

I am sure as FCPXML support gets more support and understanding, things like this will certainly improve in FCPX. Also, if we are talking broadcast, the ability to be able to export/encode while you keep working is new to FCP."


That's pretty cool stuff, I would love to have that functionality in PPro. I still want my C4D/AE expressions panel though. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 11:02:14 pm

[Shawn Miller] "But what I would like to see in an NLE is a dedicated expressions panel, one that exposes all of the attributes of the metadata, objects (media), effects and functions of the software."

[Shawn Miller] "As an example, I would love to be able to tag a bunch of clips (say, the first shot in a bunch of interviews) and add an intro, a transition and a title card to them all with a few nodes or lines of text."

God do you know when you put it that way that's actually kind of true - and there are expressions of (some kind?) going on, that allow you to control master switches for motion graphic elements (colour and graphic element swap out, type choice - thats basically motion rigging to my limited understanding.)

but I do love the custom expression kits you can get for AE - this one saved my life on a job there: http://www.linescreator.com/

there is *something* like expressions maybe going on in the background allowing you to swap out graphic elements in X via rigging. allowing a space for homebrew mods on the functionality would be cool - just to see what would happen.

er, in short I take my skepticism back, and eat the hat.

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


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 25, 2013 at 2:10:37 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "but I do love the custom expression kits you can get for AE - this one saved my life on a job there: http://www.linescreator.com/"

Nice, thanks for that link. If I had seen those videos before, I would have guessed that they were done using the much more expensive Plexus 2: http://aescripts.com/plexus/. It's nice to know that there's a lower cost option.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "there is *something* like expressions maybe going on in the background allowing you to swap out graphic elements in X via rigging. allowing a space for homebrew mods on the functionality would be cool - just to see what would happen."

I think I'm going to have to take a closer look at FCPX with Motion. It sounds like there are some cool things going on there.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 24, 2013 at 1:44:26 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "no, its not. They are not equivalent and alternate. one is the edit, the other is a list of edit components, tags and markers."

Ok, I can agree with that. The timeline index and the timeline itself are clearly not equivalent. It's not like one can functionally replace the other. But that's kind of my point, that an edit is a set of data about editorial decisions, and that different views of that same underlying data would be helpful -- like taking a table and showing it as a bar chart or a pie chart.


[Aindreas Gallagher] "how is it showing "editorial events"? unless you are actually just talking about markers? if so, maybe better to say markers, it does show markers."

I was using "event" in the old dinosaur sense of EDL events. The clip view of the timeline index is a bit like an EDL (again, consider my table/bar chart analogy).




[Aindreas Gallagher] "but I fail to understand even the most basic causal linkages from those system work cases to picture and video editing... It sounds - and don't take this wrong - kind of like intellectual pie in the sky for the sake of saying it?"

Totally. It is intellectual pie in the sky. That's why I tried to preface that comment by stepping away from FCPX and talking about the future. These are not things that I expect to see in FCPX or any other current-generation NLE, but formalizing metadata entry in the NLE may be the first step toward 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

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 22, 2013 at 11:45:45 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "What is good about tracks is that they organize visually, what is "bad" about them is that they are really clunky, especially when you have a lot of them."

do you think that applies more to video than audio? I'm inclined to think video patch tracks as separate entities that can, one at a time, handing off to each other, call incoming video elements just to them ("I'm V15 and you will come to me! I have the tick box!") are pretty redundant, but I'm far less sure about audio organisation.

Any audio patching action is out, because FCPX is carrying primary VA as new proper objects, and I get your role stuff - but that is object assign based, would it not be as easy to provide audio only channel snapping for discrete audio elements without going through the rigamarole of role assignment?
You know, because I have worked so, so very hard at this software that this directly impacts me. Dunno - just curious - video patching does feels redundant tho.

FCP legend has been notionally making tracks instantly because we occasionally just like to drag stuff in for a decade. We've ignored proper patching at will for years and years.
We have indulged in FCPX behaviour in a way for ages. With the VA split it made a lot of useless audio channels at the same time.

but you do somehow miss the absence of all the order when it completely goes.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 23, 2013 at 12:12:48 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "[Jeremy Garchow] "What is good about tracks is that they organize visually, what is "bad" about them is that they are really clunky, especially when you have a lot of them."

do you think that applies more to video than audio?"


The opposite. I usually have many more audio tracks than video, and when I export a multitrack QT, I need the audio to follow certain channel paths. Video just gets mixed down to a mono stream, if you will.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "would it not be as easy to provide audio only channel snapping for discrete audio elements without going through the rigamarole of role assignment? "

Well, where would you put it? There is no A1/A2 so how else would you describe the audio channels and where you'd like to see them?

I think that Role assignment is really easy, do it right away, even if it is somewhat inaccurate.

I have tried to get in to this before, but layering in audio can be "less important" than it is in video. Meaning if I play 2 stereo exposions on top of each other (a1/2 and a3/4) and then switch them (a3/a4 moves to a1/a2 and a1/a2 moves to a3/a4) it will sound exactly the same. The same could not be said for stacked video. Many layers of audio are always available, many layers of video are not always available unless you make them available through opacity, scale/position, transfer modes, alpha channels/transparency, etc.

If you know that 68 elements that you just imported in to FCPX are NatSound, mark them that way. Or dialogue, or SFX, or ShittyMusic, or ShittierMusic.

That 4.5 seconds it took to create new Roles just saved you a lot of time later. Even if the "ShittierMusic" Role doesn't stick around to the final output, it will be much easier to change and find as you have already separated it somewhat from the giant group of "Music".

[Aindreas Gallagher] "FCP legend has been notionally making tracks instantly because we occasionally just like to drag stuff in for a decade. We've ignored proper patching at will for years and years. "

I can't ignore patching. Maybe at the beginning of an edit where it's just two tracks, but towards the end, I have to constantly juggle tracks. For instance, if you get a 6 channel sound effect hand have to add that in to your 8 channel timeline that's already full, there's some acrobatics that need to happen, and that channel config will stick with me all through the entire edit. With FCPX, I simply assign a role and channel map, then add it to the timeline. I can adjust the 6 channels if I need to, or simply treat as one clip at will. As I said, I love it, but it still takes some planning.

Or, you get a stereo mix back form audio post and you then have to mute the 28 audio tracks you had in building the rough mix, collapse all of those, and add the new stereo mix.

With FCPX, this process is so much easier. Assign a "Final Mix" Role to the stem, add it to the timeline, shove it on the top layer which won't destroy anything, and mute/minimize all other Roles. Done.

Put it this way.

Open your timeline index and click the "Roles" tab. Pretend you had 12 Roles there. Now imagine dragging those Roles in a stacking order you'd like FCPX to take. The timeline would then adjust the audio portions of the timeline to mimic the visual stacking order you just created.

It would be pretty cool.

I realize it could also get tricky.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 23, 2013 at 12:29:58 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "With FCPX, this process is so much easier. Assign a "Final Mix" Role to the stem, add it to the timeline, shove it on the top layer which won't destroy anything, and mute/minimize all other Roles. Done.

Put it this way.

Open your timeline index and click the "Roles" tab. Pretend you had 12 Roles there. Now imagine dragging those Roles in a stacking order you'd like FCPX to take. The timeline would then adjust the audio portions of the timeline to mimic the visual stacking order you just created.
"


Totally agree. The main things, audio-wise, I'm missing in X is (are?) Sorting by Role, perhaps color coding Roles, and fade handles and a more robust implementation of expanded audio. Setting Roles is way easier than patching, as you can do it on the sources in the event and then forget about it. The fact that one can now set roles on individual channels in a multichannel master clip is a huge improvement.

If you could assign a Role to a sort of sub master to "mix" it as a group (without sticking it in a CC) that would be great. I don't want tracks back at all As Jeremy says, let X be more like X. FWIW, I cut with *lots* of "tracks" upwards of 16-24 always. And as said above, the "new" audio editing features are awesome, all those "tracks" just disappear when not needed. Though, like anything X, it takes a bit to wrap your head around how it works. :-)

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


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: scrutinising FCPX and john davidson's timelapse.
on Jan 23, 2013 at 12:31:46 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Aindreas Gallagher] "[Jeremy Garchow] "What is good about tracks is that they organize visually, what is "bad" about them is that they are really clunky, especially when you have a lot of them."

do you think that applies more to video than audio?"

The opposite...

"


I meant that the other way around than it was taken - thats why I was at the audio end of things - also going on about no need for video patching. I was relating to audio patching/metadata.

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


Return to posts index

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