FORUMS: list search recent posts

Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
David Lawrence
Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 17, 2013 at 6:31:17 pm

Another new job listing -- this one seems even more interesting (and revealing) then the one for audio:

Sr. UI/Visual Designer
Apple’s Video Applications group is seeking a Senior User Interface Designer who possesses a passion for great design, a superb aesthetic sense, an exceptional eye for detail and an in depth understanding of our user's needs. The ideal candidate will have a deep understanding of the principles and best practices of human interface design. The candidate will be able to bring their years of design experience from creating and designing other products to Final Cut Studio.

hmmmm....

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 17, 2013 at 6:37:18 pm

If nothing else it shows that Apple are serious about future development of FCPX.

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


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 17, 2013 at 6:52:57 pm

interesting that they say bring it to "Final Cut Pro Studio" not FCPX which is no longer a "studio" -- could final cut pro 8 be on the way?!?!?! :-)

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 17, 2013 at 6:55:29 pm

[Andy Field] "interesting that they say bring it to "Final Cut Pro Studio" not FCPX which is no longer a "studio" -- could final cut pro 8 be on the way?!?!?! :-)"

I noticed that too. Very interesting!

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


Return to posts index

Brian Mulligan
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 17, 2013 at 7:43:53 pm

More than likely HR just copy/paste an old job description.

Brian Mulligan
Senior Editor - Autodesk Smoke
WTHR-TV Indianapolis,IN, USA
Twitter: @bkmeditor


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 17, 2013 at 8:01:42 pm

You'll notice it says Final Cut Studio, NOT Final Cut PRO studio. Don't know about studio, but everything internally calls FCP X "Final Cut" not final cut pro. Preferences, event folders, project folders etc. So I'd say the omission of the word PRO actually gives some legitimacy that it's for the current iteration. By studio, they probably just mean the suite of apps - X, Motion, and Compressor. Which are pretty integrated. Except for the lack of "send to motion" which they dearly need to compete. In fact, a little more autodesk like integration with motion or a version of the app called FCP extreme :) with motion stuff built in would be interesting.

What I find disconcerting about these ads is that the people they're looking for are most likely an employee at autodesk or adobe or avid or somewhere pretty obvious. I would think searches for people like this would be a bit more private and behind the scenes.


Return to posts index


Jon Chappell
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 17, 2013 at 8:07:28 pm

[Bret Williams] "You'll notice it says Final Cut Studio, NOT Final Cut PRO studio."

It was always called Final Cut Studio. There was never a Final Cut Pro Studio.

My software:
Pro Maintenance Tools - Tools to keep Final Cut Studio, Final Cut Pro X, Avid Media Composer and Adobe Premiere Pro running smoothly and fix problems when they arise
Pro Media Tools - Edit QuickTime chapters and metdata, detect gamma shifts, edit markers, watch renders and more
More tools...


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 17, 2013 at 10:10:55 pm

Ah true. Guess I was just reacting to that others had said Final Cut Pro Studio in the posts. So there goes another theory out the window.


Return to posts index

Joseph Owens
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 17, 2013 at 7:42:50 pm

[Andy Field] "interesting that they say bring it to "Final Cut Pro Studio" not FCPX which is no longer a "studio" -- could final cut pro 8 be on the way?!?!?! :-)"

Could be the boiler-plate wording -- maybe others are better at reading the chicken guts than me, but a lot of people voted with their feet and other body parts.

jPo

"I always pass on free advice -- its never of any use to me" Oscar Wilde.


Return to posts index


David Mathis
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 17, 2013 at 8:08:19 pm

Final Cut Studio? Wonder what Apple has in their pile of cards, perhaps an ace high with four kings.


Return to posts index

Douglas K. Dempsey
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 17, 2013 at 8:36:16 pm

I agree that "Final Cut Studio" is probably an internal Apple phrase for the suite of stuff they make, and perhaps are developing, to work with FCPX. Selling the pieces a la carte will likely remain the model. One of the reasons for bundling in legacy was a way to justify the $999 price. With the new apps going for the price of plug-ins, what is the point of selling an expensive bundle and scaring off the hard-won "editing for everyone else" market?

Doug D


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 17, 2013 at 10:11:57 pm

Both Logic and Aperture fall under the ProApps banner. Neither have yet been "X"-ified. It could be that these are in an update phase and will be released with some direct hooks into FCP X. Sold individually, but as a group, constitute a "studio" collection.

Another possibility is some yet-to-be-mentioned new applications. Purely speculation of course, but maybe a new version of Color (unlikely). Or some sort of overriding asset management utility that could tie into FCP X Events and Projects, plus elements from other apps. Sort of the Apple answer to Adobe Bridge.

Note that Ive is now overseeing software design, so it could simply meet he's taking a fresh look at all of the apps' UI details and ready to do some tweaking.

All unsubstantiated guesses, of course! ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 17, 2013 at 11:59:35 pm

oh Johnathan Ive.







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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 18, 2013 at 1:14:54 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "oh Johnathan Ive."

LOL, +1 for Ive and the clip!

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 17, 2013 at 11:07:30 pm

[David Lawrence] "Apple’s Video Applications group is seeking a Senior User Interface Designer who possesses a passion for great design, a superb aesthetic sense, an exceptional eye for detail and an in depth understanding of our user's needs."

Funny, I kept reading the post over and over and over - and I never saw the word "fix" anywhere in it.

Must be my limited command of the english language. :-)

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


Rafael Amador
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 18, 2013 at 10:55:01 am

[Bill Davis] "Funny, I kept reading the post over and over and over - and I never saw the word "fix" anywhere in it."
Except with the story of the Apples Maps for the iPhone, Apple has never recognized and will never recognize that there is any thing to be be fixed on their products.
rafael


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 18, 2013 at 1:50:39 pm

Right!

Apple is ¡invincible! until they come out say that they aren't.

Like the infamous, "we screwed up" from Tim Cook.

I am not sure what else he could say to communicate that they made some mistakes.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 18, 2013 at 1:52:10 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I am not sure what else he could say to communicate that they made some mistakes."

Give us tracks back. ;-)

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 18, 2013 at 12:32:03 pm

Funny, I kept reading the post over and over and over - and I never saw the word "fix" anywhere in it.

If there's nothing to fix, why are they hiring someone specifying skills needed to fix or change if its already perfect and the current team has already done it right?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 18, 2013 at 4:35:27 pm

Bash, bash, yawn

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 18, 2013 at 4:38:03 pm

A. They didn't. There's this established phenomenon called "projection" where our personal prejudices color how we think about and describe things. In this case, it's arguable that when David used the term "fix" in his original post, it was nothing more than this factor at work.

Also, the hiring notice said nothing about "specifying skills needed to fix or change" anything. They're looking for people with general computer software skills.

Here's the quoted post again...

Apple’s Video Applications group is seeking a Senior User Interface Designer who possesses a passion for great design, a superb aesthetic sense, an exceptional eye for detail and an in depth understanding of our user's needs. The ideal candidate will have a deep understanding of the principles and best practices of human interface design. The candidate will be able to bring their years of design experience from creating and designing other products to Final Cut Studio.

There is ABSOLUTELY nothing in this statement that implies anything is broken, sub-standard (or missing tracks!) so all of that is PROJECTION. Pure and simple.

The only thing we've learned here is perhaps that people who can't comfortably edit without tracks are a sub-class of those who can't accurately interpret written english?

(yeah, that last paragraph was gratuitous, silly and written entirely IN JEST. So don't force me to go to Cafe Press and design some "REAL editors don't need no stinkin' "tracks" t-shirts for NAB.)

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

Jon Chappell
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 18, 2013 at 5:51:14 pm

Why do people care so much whether FCPX has tracks or not? I think Apple has made its position clear on this. If you want tracks, use an NLE that has them. That's what I do.

My software:
Pro Maintenance Tools - Tools to keep Final Cut Studio, Final Cut Pro X, Avid Media Composer and Adobe Premiere Pro running smoothly and fix problems when they arise
Pro Media Tools - Edit QuickTime chapters and metdata, detect gamma shifts, edit markers, watch renders and more
More tools...


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 18, 2013 at 6:17:26 pm

[Jon Chappell] "Why do people care so much whether FCPX has tracks or not? I think Apple has made its position clear on this. If you want tracks, use an NLE that has them. That's what I do."

Exactly. If you want tracks use one of... uh, every other NLE that has 'em. The end.

P.S. Fixed tracks suck. ;-)

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


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


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 18, 2013 at 6:45:01 pm

Because..... There are aspects of editing in X where having tracks would be a help, like audio mixing. Some optional track mode (not necessarily universal) would be a valuable feature.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 18, 2013 at 7:47:47 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Because..... There are aspects of editing in X where having tracks would be a help, like audio mixing. Some optional track mode (not necessarily universal) would be a valuable feature."

Mixing is one place where X could benefit from... not tracks, but more robust implementation of roles. Roles effectively are tracks in the organizational sense. The problem is, you can't organize them yet.

What I hope for is the ability to, firstly, group roles. That's the biggie. Then, maybe the ability to "collect" groups into subgroups, something like compound clips, which could then be "mixed" overall. Of course you can do this with CC's and key framing already, but you can't get into them to edit the contents without opening them in their own timeline, thus losing visual and TC reference to the parent sequence, or breaking them apart, thus losing your overall mix. (there's a workaround to this last one, but it's a PITA)

My perfect world would consist of just a couple more selection choices in the Roles timeline index panel.
Next to each role would be Y/N checkboxes for "Group", "Collect" (or something... Mix Buss?), and "Hide".

So you could firstly Group all your Roles in the timeline. When you're ready to mix, Collect all your individual grouped roles (FX, MX, DIA, SUB FX... whatever you've specified) into individual "containers" which could then be mixed. But you could still see, and edit in the timeline, all the individual clips. And if you had a complicated timeline, you could Hide specific Roles or something, so that all you'd see are the clips you need to be working on.

These aren't groundbreaking, other NLE's can "hide" tracks, and assign multiple tracks to master busses or faders or mix groups. The cool thing would be to be able assign 20+ fx "tracks" to a master fader with one click without having to look to see what tracks were what, or do any assigning or patching... Click. Done.

There are some really interesting possibilities one can envision for Roles, and I hope Apple keeps going with them.My fear is that they will try to implement "tracks" to appease people, and f*ck everything up. Persistent I/O points area an example of that. "Everyone" wanted them, and Apple gave people what they wanted. And made a mess of the key wording/favoriting process. I'm sure they'll fix it, but it didn't need to be broken...

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


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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 1:20:57 am

[Charlie Austin] "Mixing is one place where X could benefit from... not tracks, but more robust implementation of roles. Roles effectively are tracks in the organizational sense. The problem is, you can't organize them yet. "

Or actual tracks themselves because they're a pretty neat way to mix audio now, yesterday and tomorrow.

A lot of us don't need to utilize Roles for much of what we do, but a common sense, industry standard, audio mixing environment would be a great professional enhancement.

Cause it's simple, logical, and it would work much better than the current implementation.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 1:44:42 am

[Jim Giberti] "Or actual tracks themselves because they're a pretty neat way to mix audio now, yesterday and tomorrow.

Grouping roles, and assigning that group to a recordable/automated mix buss/master fader would accomplish the exact same thing IMHO, And with much less patching, or none at all.

[Jim Giberti] A lot of us don't need to utilize Roles for much of what we do, but a common sense, industry standard, audio mixing environment would be a great professional enhancement.

Cause it's simple, logical, and it would work much better than the current implementation."


I totally agree that tracks are better than "the current implementation" of roles. :-) But the possibilities that dynamic, clip-based roles open up are way more powerful than fixed tracks. Again, IMHO.

I think I have a little cred for this opinion, having worked in recording studios since the 80's, and having been a post mixer (spots, trailers, and the odd indie feature) for about 5-6 years before I magically became an editor. So... I'm not unfamiliar with industry standard, audio mixing environments. ;-)

Speaking of potential, I found this interesting...

http://www.thedawstudio.com/News/Logic_10_Leak.html

The plot thickens...

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


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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 1:53:03 am

[Charlie Austin] "Speaking of potential, I found this interesting... "

Funny how it still seems to use fixed tracks, even though they suck. :p

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 4:13:06 am

[David Lawrence] "[Charlie Austin] "Speaking of potential, I found this interesting... "

Funny how it still seems to use fixed tracks, even though they suck. :p
"


LOL Touché. :-) And to be fair, as i said above in a reply to Jim... On reflection, my glib "tracks suck" opinion is specific to editing picture and sound in an NLE. Right now anyway. :-)

I really think that cutting picture and cutting/mixing audio are two very different beasts. When i'm cutting something in X, I really like not having to figure out where to put the audio. When I'm rearranging a rough cut i really like not having to think much about whether moving a shot or scene is going to overwrite something that exists. It just takes care of itself and I can happily cut away. I can sort it out later as I get closer to something that's finished. And I do think that roles need to be improved. Better sorting, grouping etc. etc.

A lot of the criticism of the magnetic timeline is based on the principle that editing is a linear thing only. That the vertical parent/child relationships of clips in the X timeline are somehow "wrong" But I don't think that's strictly true. I mean, maybe if you're cutting a music video, or a music montage or something, then yeah, it's just linear. But cutting trailers or promos or features, every linear shot/scene etc, has a vertical association with a lot of different sound (and often picture) elements.

Dialog, Multiple FX, even Music gets cut based on what's happening vertically above it. And any linear rearrangement of picture clips means that all the vertically associated bits, audio and video, have to move with them. preferably not screwing up any other bits. That's why we have trim tools right? I think the premise that editing is strictly a linear craft, is false, and FCP X deals with the problem, and it is a problem, of moving vertically associated elements in a horizontal plane really well. Not perfectly, but it keeps getting better quickly.

That diatribe aside, I do think roles need to be beefed up. As currently implemented, I wouldn't want to do a final mix in X. (Although to be fair, I never wanted to do a final audio mix in any NLE... why would you? but that's just me.) I'll agree that they're currently not great for visually organizing a timeline in a vertical plane. And more importantly to this thread, they're not assignable to faders etc so you can't mix things "properly". You can put all your audio into secondary storylines if you want to make "tracks" but they still can't be mixed with a fader, and you can't minimize storylines yet, so they take up way too much space. Maybe some UI tweaks, better role organization, and a little checkbox - "view as tracks" - to do that for you would make everyone happy. :-) I really think that the underpinnings to make roles pretty powerful are there though.

So yeah... it looks like Logic is still track based. But it's still a beta! LOL Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how it i interacts with FCP X. :-)

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


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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 5:20:46 am

[Charlie Austin] "A lot of the criticism of the magnetic timeline is based on the principle that editing is a linear thing only."

Charlie,

I don't understand what you're saying here.

[Charlie Austin] "I really think that cutting picture and cutting/mixing audio are two very different beasts."

Agreed. Most typically the focus of picture cuts is serial, while audio editing is as least as much parallel (mixing) as serial (if not more). Further, there are different types of parallel for both picture and sound.

[Charlie Austin] "(Although to be fair, I never wanted to do a final audio mix in any NLE... why would you? but that's just me.)"

I don't understand those who want to limit the capabilities of NLEs - in principal - in deference to dedicated DAWs. But then I'm one of a seeming few editors that insist on part-way decent audio monitors at good level while I cut.

Doesn't your statement speak to poor implementation of audio capabilities in NLEs?

Imagine a "mix" mode that hides most function except tracks and a mixer.

There are those who would never want to do final colour in an NLE - and those who want good colour tools available in the NLE as they work. Why limit one in favour of the other?

[Charlie Austin] "I think the premise that editing is strictly a linear craft, is false"

Agreed.

[Charlie Austin] "Dialog, Multiple FX, even Music gets cut based on what's happening vertically above it."

And also the other way round.

[Charlie Austin] "And any linear rearrangement of picture clips means that all the vertically associated bits, audio and video, have to move with them. preferably not screwing up any other bits."

If by "linear" you mean "serial", this is sometimes true. But not always and not for "any" rearrangement. The change might easily involve a rearrangement of parallel association. So while sync and faux-sync elements are likely not to change, a music cue may well change. Likewise an off-screen door. Likewise an onscreen I.D. Grouping tends to be fluid.

I wrote an index of clip relationships a while back in response to a David Lawrence post - it wasn't really clear to me why I was doing it, but I think there is a hierarchy of grouping that comes into play (so sync is less likely to be broken, while music relationships more likely to slip, though a certain piece may be associated with one scene, etc.)

David Lawrence has written elsewhere on how grouping does not depend on magnetic behavior.
Massive related thread here: http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/41526#41526

[Charlie Austin] "That's why we have trim tools right?"

Having never used the trim tool for this purpose (and almost never at all) I would have to disagree.

Also, to your earlier complaints of having to patch constantly - I will say again that I never patch. I can't imagine that tedium.

That said, I find roles interesting - and groups. I'm constantly shifting things around in ever-changing groups, and some tools that allowed me to do that more efficiently would be welcome.


Franz.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 5:51:50 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I don't understand those who want to limit the capabilities of NLEs - in principal - in deference to dedicated DAWs. But then I'm one of a seeming few editors that insist on part-way decent audio monitors at good level while I cut."

Me too. I triangulate my near-fields, use dampeners, the whole 9 yards.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 1:22:05 pm

[Chris Harlan] " I triangulate my near-fields, use dampeners, the whole 9 yards."

Chris,

I only go about 4 yards or so. Sometimes 8 yards (on one of the systems I use). Dampeners is hard core.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 6:06:31 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "[Charlie Austin] "A lot of the criticism of the magnetic timeline is based on the principle that editing is a linear thing only."

Charlie,

I don't understand what you're saying here.


Maybe I shouldn't have said "a lot"... but there are those who decry the clip based parent/child paradigm of FCP as somehow wrong.

[Franz Bieberkopf][Charlie Austin] "I really think that cutting picture and cutting/mixing audio are two very different beasts."

Agreed. Most typically the focus of picture cuts is serial, while audio editing is as least as much parallel (mixing) as serial (if not more). Further, there are different types of parallel for both picture and sound.
... Doesn't your statement speak to poor implementation of audio capabilities in NLEs?
...Imagine a "mix" mode that hides most function except tracks and a mixer.


I think that's what "dedicated DAW's" are, really. In a perfect world, you'd just hit "send to Logic" and there you are. Just like MC->ProTools or Premiere->Audition. I too like decent audio monitoring and the ability to get a good mix while cutting, and I think most NLE's, even X, provide that capability. I don't want an Uber App that does everything, but that's a personal preference..

[Franz Bieberkopf][Charlie Austin] "Dialog, Multiple FX, even Music gets cut based on what's happening vertically above it."

And also the other way round.


Yes, but are they not still vertically grouped?

[Franz Bieberkopf][Charlie Austin] "And any linear rearrangement of picture clips means that all the vertically associated bits, audio and video, have to move with them. preferably not screwing up any other bits."

If by "linear" you mean "serial", this is sometimes true. But not always and not for "any" rearrangement. The change might easily involve a rearrangement of parallel association. So while sync and faux-sync elements are likely not to change, a music cue may well change. Likewise an off-screen door. Likewise an onscreen I.D. Grouping tends to be fluid.
...David Lawrence has written elsewhere on how grouping does not depend on magnetic behavior.


Yes I do mean serially...:-)And I agree that it doesn't depend on magnetic behavior. But for me, it works very well to support it. There are certainly times, particularly with music, when you don't want ti to move as part of the group, and you can "lock" it by compounding the music and changing it's attachment point. The magnetic timeline isn't perfect and there certainly are situations where workarounds are needed. It's more the exception then the rule in my experience though.

[Franz Bieberkopf][Charlie Austin] "That's why we have trim tools right?"

Having never used the trim tool for this purpose (and almost never at all) I would have to disagree.

Also, to your earlier complaints of having to patch constantly - I will say again that I never patch. I can't imagine that tedium.

That said, I find roles interesting - and groups. I'm constantly shifting things around in ever-changing groups, and some tools that allowed me to do that more efficiently would be welcome."


I rarely (mostly never as well) use the trim tool for this purpose either. It was a slightly tongue in cheek question, so I agree with your disagreement. And as to not patching, do you just drag clips to the timeline? I'm a KB shortcut kind of guy when chopping things in...

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


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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 8:10:22 am

[Charlie Austin] "Maybe I shouldn't have said "a lot"... but there are those who decry the clip based parent/child paradigm of FCP as somehow wrong. "

I wouldn't say the paradigm itself is wrong, but I do think they chose the wrong parent.

[Charlie Austin] " think that's what "dedicated DAW's" are, really. In a perfect world, you'd just hit "send to Logic" and there you are. Just like MC->ProTools or Premiere->Audition."

I'm curious -- are clip collisions and track Tetris a problem when you're working with a DAW? Do you think a trackless, parent/child magnetic timeline would make DAWs work better?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 8:39:05 am

[David Lawrence] "[Charlie Austin] "Maybe I shouldn't have said "a lot"... but there are those who decry the clip based parent/child paradigm of FCP as somehow wrong. "

I wouldn't say the paradigm itself is wrong, but I do think they chose the wrong parent.


What do you think the parent should be?

[[David Lawrence] Charlie Austin] " think that's what "dedicated DAW's" are, really. In a perfect world, you'd just hit "send to Logic" and there you are. Just like MC->ProTools or Premiere->Audition."

I'm curious -- are clip collisions and track Tetris a problem when you're working with a DAW? Do you think a trackless, parent/child magnetic timeline would make DAWs work better?"


Collisions aren't a problem I don't think, at least not to the extent they are in a video editing scenario. Once you're mixing, in theory anyway, your "tracks" - the generic term, channels, whatever - should be fairly well locked. And in the case of a DAW, what would the parent be? Time? It's a different thing to me.

But, if roles could handle grouping and... Z-ordering, for lack of better term, and as long as you can assign roles in the same way you assign tracks, then why not go trackless?

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


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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 9:32:39 am

[Charlie Austin] "What do you think the parent should be?"

Absolute time with the sequence window as a fixed frame-of-reference.

[Charlie Austin] "Collisions aren't a problem I don't think, at least not to the extent they are in a video editing scenario. Once you're mixing, in theory anyway, your "tracks" - the generic term, channels, whatever - should be fairly well locked."

What about sound editing or complex multi-channel layering? Or recording and composing? Mixing is just one part of the sound design process.

[Charlie Austin] "And in the case of a DAW, what would the parent be? Time?"

Exactly!

[Charlie Austin] "It's a different thing to me."

That's where we differ -- to me, sound and picture are equals on the timeline. Sure video and sound have different characteristics, but they're both time-based media and they're both represented the same way in a 2D graphic interface. When I'm editing, I treat them pretty much the same way.

[Charlie Austin] "But, if roles could handle grouping and... Z-ordering, for lack of better term, and as long as you can assign roles in the same way you assign tracks, then why not go trackless?"

I suppose something like you describe would be great if it existed. But to flip that around, what if you had a track-based system with intelligent clip grouping and collision avoidance behaviors? You'd have the ability to create and rearrange "pods" like in your example, but with the benefits of tracks for those who need them. Wouldn't that be the best of both worlds?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 4:51:20 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Charlie Austin] "But, if roles could handle grouping and... Z-ordering, for lack of better term, and as long as you can assign roles in the same way you assign tracks, then why not go trackless?"

I suppose something like you describe would be great if it existed. But to flip that around, what if you had a track-based system with intelligent clip grouping and collision avoidance behaviors? You'd have the ability to create and rearrange "pods" like in your example, but with the benefits of tracks for those who need them. Wouldn't that be the best of both worlds?"


Yes. Some kind of user selectable "virtual" track-like behavior. I do understand the utility of fixed tracks, and I'm just trying envision how that behavior could be implemented in a trackless timeline. X does keep track of where clips exist in vertical space, the "lane" position is in the fcpx xml for projects, so it's certainly possible. Or not. ;-) fun to talk about though... They'll probably just put a "Send to Logic" button in the share menu. lol

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


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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 8:32:13 pm

[Charlie Austin] "Yes. Some kind of user selectable "virtual" track-like behavior. I do understand the utility of fixed tracks, and I'm just trying envision how that behavior could be implemented in a trackless timeline. X does keep track of where clips exist in vertical space, the "lane" position is in the fcpx xml for projects, so it's certainly possible. Or not. ;-) fun to talk about though..."

All interesting ideas -- would love to see roles do the kinds of things you and others have described. And definitely fun to to talk about! :)

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 11:20:57 pm

[David Lawrence] "Absolute time with the sequence window as a fixed frame-of-reference."

To me this is a little like an English speaker arguing that ALL reading must be done left to right in a string. Period, no exceptions.

Nothing wrong with that and countless great works of tremendous narrative strength are created that way.

But it's ALSO true that superb written expression is possible in Hebrew and Chinese and via pictographs - NONE of which is constrained to the concept that "writing" must start at an arbitrary ZERO point and proceed to march along a straight line to the right.

its a convention, not a necessity. (in lower case homage to ee cummings!)

And that's what this debate is starting to feel like to me.

Everyone comfortable with exclusively speaking english as the default, ONE line - Left to right - that's it debate over - is grumpy because someone's suggested we open things up with expressions above and below the line (kinda like MATH!)

Personally I smiled the day I saw that in X, I could work LEFT as well as RIGHT from my arbitrary zero and the software didn't really care. And I can work UP and DOWN (connected clips/tracks, whatever term you want) as easily as before.

Heck, maybe I'll start to envision ROLES as attachments BEHIND and/or IN FRONT of clips in Z space?

What's gone for me in X is some of my conditioning as to visual and conceptual LIMITATIONS of what a workspace had to be from my Legacy conditioning.

What's wrong with that?

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

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 20, 2013 at 2:58:51 pm

[Charlie Austin] "I'm a KB shortcut kind of guy when chopping things in..."

Charlie,

Select All, drag to timeline. KB shortcuts from there on in ...

Franz.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 20, 2013 at 3:05:53 pm

[Charlie Austin] " In a perfect world, you'd just hit "send to Logic" and there you are. Just like MC->ProTools or Premiere->Audition. I too like decent audio monitoring and the ability to get a good mix while cutting, and I think most NLE's, even X, provide that capability. I don't want an Uber App that does everything, but that's a personal preference.."

Charlie,

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to switch applications, worry about translating, creating new projects in each application, maintaining parity, reconfirming after changes, etc. etc. etc.

If we're talking about ideals, I'm surprised you would limit your ideal to "send to other application". My ideal would be to have all the tools I need available when I need them, and hidden when I don't, without any negative implications for performance, and without having to deal with translating from one application to another. That's my "perfect world".

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 1:59:10 am

[Charlie Austin] "I think I have a little cred for this opinion, having worked in recording studios since the 80's, and having been a post mixer (spots, trailers, and the odd indie feature) for about 5-6 years before I magically became an editor. So... I'm not unfamiliar with industry standard, audio mixing environments. ;-)"

I'd never doubt your cred Charlie.

In addition to being creative director and president of my firm I've been a performing musician, writer, and producer since I was 18. I built and operated some of the first digital recording and video editing facilities in our region and my personal working studio is a combination 48 track digital audio room and FCP editing suite combined. I'm currently producing a series of 45 short films that I'm shooting and scoring over the next two years.

I'd prefer simple audio tracks as an option.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 3:20:48 am

[Jim Giberti] "In addition to being creative director and president of my firm I've been a performing musician, writer, and producer since I was 18. I built and operated some of the first digital recording and video editing facilities in our region and my personal working studio is a combination 48 track digital audio room and FCP editing suite combined. I'm currently producing a series of 45 short films that I'm shooting and scoring over the next two years.

I'd prefer simple audio tracks as an option."


lol... Fair enough. And I wasn't doubting your cred either Jim. :-) Though I think grouping and assigning roles to a "group master" or something like that would work just as well.

But David's post brings up an interesting point. On reflection, my glib "tracks suck" opinion is specific to editing picture and sound in an NLE. For me, patching tracks and playing track tetris completely stops the creative process in it's "tracks" (see what I did there?), and forces you to be a technician. Maybe just for a few seconds at a time, but it adds up. This wasn't apparent to me until i started really being able to cut quickly in FCP X. But when I work in 7 or re-familiarize myself with MC or learn Pr now, I notice it. A lot. And, also IMO, the greatest trim tools on earth are really just a workaround to clip collisions. For a dedicated DAW, at least in roles' current implementation, maybe not. We'll have to see where roles end up.

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


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


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 8:25:24 am

[Charlie Austin] "For me, patching tracks and playing track tetris completely stops the creative process in it's "tracks" "

Exactly. I think many oversee the fact that X doesn't have a patch panel. That is in my opinion the whole reason the timeline is the way it is. To get rid of it. No more thinking every time I add a clip to where the audio should go. And more often you forget and have to undo to patch correctly (I know you never do :-)
Plus again as Charlie said extensive trim tools are only there because of the problems tracks bring in regard to collisions and sync.
Every new concept needs fine tuning and maybe can be improved (see connection overwrite), but the basic underlying concept is fundamentally different and tracks require much more than a few visual lines in the UI.
After the clip is added it may be neater to have tracks to move audio up and down and around. But as Charlie says Roles could solve that problem. Apple only has to put some functionality in to make it work. Apart from grouping by role to a mixer you could also easily rearrange clips vertically by roles after the fact to clean up the timeline visually. If Apple will do this nobody knows or can't tell :-)

I would be more than surprised if they put tracks back in and all the hassle of patch panels etc. It would totally defeat what they tried to achieve.

Time will tell :-)

Happy editing


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 8:35:12 am

[Carsten Orlt] "Plus again as Charlie said extensive trim tools are only there because of the problems tracks bring in regard to collisions and sync."

lol, yep, that's the only reason trim tools exist.

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 9:16:08 am

[David Lawrence] "[Carsten Orlt] "Plus again as Charlie said extensive trim tools are only there because of the problems tracks bring in regard to collisions and sync."

lol, yep, that's the only reason trim tools exist."


It seems silly, but honestly, why do trim tools exist? I'm not talking about cuts, but trim tools. I mean, before NLE's, trim tools were razor blades. You can make fine adjustments, slip, slide and every other kind of edit using just straight cuts. Linear editing came along and we could overwrite, Or make A/B tracks for everything. But that's all just to work around the fact that adjacent clips on fixed tracks collide when they overlap. You couldn't really edit "NLE Style" in an NLE without trim tools because clips collide. This may be reductio ad absurdum, but it's true. :-)

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


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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 9:44:32 am

[Charlie Austin] "It seems silly, but honestly, why do trim tools exist? I'm not talking about cuts, but trim tools."

Is that a serious question or are we talking about different things, lol?

Trim tools exist to enable an editor to find the perfect frame.

They're the tools that turn craft into art.

They have absolutely nothing to do with clip collisions.

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


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 12:05:53 pm

- Is that a serious question or are we talking about different things, lol? -

Maybe we are :-) Maybe the general term 'trim tools' is not the right wording and causes the misunderstanding.

I never understood why there was a discussion that FCP legacy compared to Avid or now FCP x compared to Premiere is inferior in the regards to trimming? For me it is a simple operation that they all performe(d). I adjust the outgoing in regard to the incoming. I either do this in sync, meaning what I add or take away will be the same on both sides (roll) or I do it different on each side. Only complication when using a track based editor is that clips on other tracks might collide when the NLE tries to keep them in sync vertically. No tracks and that problem disappears. Where the track based editor needs option like selecting edit point on diff tracks in a vertically diff time position trackless doesn't need to. Simpler in my opinion.

The only advantage I see for tracks is a visual organization of content.

I sometimes wonder how the discussion would change if the trackless timeline would have been the first to appear in computer based editing systems? What would people thing if Apple now would have introduced tracks as a novel approach? Think about it. All linear tape based machines, audio or video, didn't have the possibility of being trackless. You can't record multiple different sources in a random fashion on a tape. They had to be on diff tracks (physical space) if they were to occupy the same time on the tape. When computers where introduced they merely recreated the same thing, and people could follow that thinking because that's how it has always been. It work well. Everybody understood it. Trackless is now actually something that only can be done on a computer. And I think FCP x is using this new possibility very well.

Happy editing


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 9:30:12 pm

[Carsten Orlt] "I sometimes wonder how the discussion would change if the trackless timeline would have been the first to appear in computer based editing systems?"

IIRC, there was another trackless NLE at some point (Liquid?), but it failed to gain traction in the marketplace.

[Carsten Orlt] "Think about it. All linear tape based machines, audio or video, didn't have the possibility of being trackless. You can't record multiple different sources in a random fashion on a tape. They had to be on diff tracks (physical space) if they were to occupy the same time on the tape. When computers where introduced they merely recreated the same thing, and people could follow that thinking because that's how it has always been."

NLE tracks have nothing to do with the linearity of tape. The reason for tracks is they're the most natural way to represent multiple, parallel streams of media with a common, external frame-of-reference for time, in a 2D graphic interface.

An open timeline is a completely non-linear composition space. In many ways it's more non-linear than the magnetic timeline because hierarchy is completely fluid and up to the editor. With the magnetic timeline, everything must connect to the single primary no matter what. I see this as an arbitrary limitation.

Let me ask the same question I asked Charlie (Charlie, I'm still interested in your thoughts as well) -- would you want a DAW with a FCPX-like magnetic timeline? Would having only one main track in default ripple mode - that all other channels must connect to - be a better, more natural UI for working with multi-channel sound?

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 10:43:02 pm

[David Lawrence] "Let me ask the same question I asked Charlie (Charlie, I'm still interested in your thoughts as well) -- would you want a DAW with a FCPX-like magnetic timeline? Would having only one main track in default ripple mode - that all other channels must connect to - be a better, more natural UI for working with multi-channel sound?"

I'm not sure I'd want one main track to be the parent in this case, but I could see the benefit of a less rigid "track" structure. It seems to me that the X timeline magnetism has a couple different purposes, both of which are helpful when cutting video. Firstly, clips can be connected to a parent clip vertically. That seems to me to be specific to video editing. I don't think this behavior is necessary for audio only editing/mixing. FWIW, I'd consider sound design a video editing function, as what you're doing is (mostly) driven by visual cues.

The other function is to prevent clips from colliding in the timeline by moving them out of the path of clips that are being cut in or moved horizontally. I think this aspect of magnetism would be quite nice in a DAW... assuming a more robust implementation of Roles. In addition to the ability to group roles, you'd need to be able to have clips within a role stay where you put them relative to others above and below, the z-ordering idea.

If that were the case, you essentially would have what you described... "a... system with intelligent clip grouping and collision avoidance behaviors". But without "tracks" as we know them. If you wanted to move "pods" of audio, maybe you could have a "parent track" which you could optionally connect groups of clips to, or just a "group" command. But even in the group clips would stay in their Role "collection" .

As far as mixing, assuming a traditional fader setup, each Role group could have as many faders pop up as needed, one for each lane/track in that group. This assumes that clips maintain whatever vertical order you've put them in. Dynamic fader creation. lol Who knows?

At the end of the day though... I really do think that the X timeline works great for video. Audio handling needs some work for sure, I just like how the X timeline functions when I'm cutting in it, it just feels right to me. And to be fair, I'm not satisfied with the current implementation of Roles. They need to be group-able. They need to maintain the z-order I give them. If I stack 5 clips in a certain vertical order, I'd like them to stay in that order even if they need to move out of the way of something. And I'd really like to be able to hide or collapse a role to, visually, simplify what I'm focussing on in my edit. I dunno... I'm looking forward to the next X update. :-)

And speaking of edit... back to work. In FCP 7 today. Yuck. lol ;-)

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


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


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 11:13:33 pm

[David Lawrence] "NLE tracks have nothing to do with the linearity of tape. The reason for tracks is they're the most natural way to represent multiple, parallel streams of media with a common, external frame-of-reference for time, in a 2D graphic interface."

It's just me but big statements like 'most natural' I do not like. FCPx timeline shows there is a different way. It still has parallel streams just not confined by multiple tracks but one. And I was talking about the linear nature of tape. I was talking about that content on a tape needs a physical boundary that is set once recorded. It can't move out of the way :-)

[David Lawrence] "An open timeline is a completely non-linear composition space. In many ways it's more non-linear than the magnetic timeline because hierarchy is completely fluid and up to the editor. With the magnetic timeline, everything must connect to the single primary no matter what. I see this as an arbitrary limitation."

It's only arbitrary from the outside. It's simply a solution to get rid of track panels and patching and clip collision. If you start with the premise that you don't want any of the three in your timeline than you have to kill tracks. Not arbitrary but a given outcome for a defined goal. FCP software engineers didn't just put something to annoy you. They actually had a goal. If the goal is not something you can subscribe too than obviously you don't like it because for you there was nothing wrong in the first place.

[David Lawrence] "would you want a DAW with a FCPX-like magnetic timeline? Would having only one main track in default ripple mode - that all other channels must connect to - be a better, more natural UI for working with multi-channel sound?
"


Don't know, don't do sound :-)

Happy editing


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 22, 2013 at 9:54:05 pm

[Carsten Orlt] "It's just me but big statements like 'most natural' I do not like. FCPx timeline shows there is a different way. It still has parallel streams just not confined by multiple tracks but one. "

There's lots of different ways. Different isn't necessarily better. If the magnetic timeline is just as good for multi-channel sync sound as it is for video, why wouldn't Apple design Logic X around it? For some funny reason, DAWs still use tracks, including apparently, Logic X. Why do you suppose that is?

[Carsten Orlt] "It's only arbitrary from the outside. It's simply a solution to get rid of track panels and patching and clip collision. If you start with the premise that you don't want any of the three in your timeline than you have to kill tracks. Not arbitrary but a given outcome for a defined goal. FCP software engineers didn't just put something to annoy you. They actually had a goal. If the goal is not something you can subscribe too than obviously you don't like it because for you there was nothing wrong in the first place."

Yes! :)

[Carsten Orlt] "[David Lawrence] "would you want a DAW with a FCPX-like magnetic timeline? Would having only one main track in default ripple mode - that all other channels must connect to - be a better, more natural UI for working with multi-channel sound?
"

Don't know, don't do sound :-)"


lol, I get that answer a lot around here! :)

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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 22, 2013 at 11:40:37 pm

[David Lawrence] "would you want a DAW with a FCPX-like magnetic timeline? Would having only one main track in default ripple mode - that all other channels must connect to - be a better, more natural UI for working with multi-channel sound?"

This, I think, gets to the heart of it, and not because Carsten is one of many video shooters/editors who aren't familiar with recording studios and mixing. Mixing audio has very little in common with editing film/video and it has evolved to a very powerful level since we moved from analog tape.

A mixer is a mixer is a mixer and it's not going to be replaced by Roles no matter how nicely they're implemented in the future. Now despite having moved from a big analog console to a big digital console to now a big digital screen - I still have a mixer in front of me with all of my elements interacting in real time and the ability to effect them in real time.

Anyone who understands crafting an audio mix learned very early on - I learned it at Blake Hill Studios when I was sitting in with the engineer mixing my very first work - that the slightest adjustment to a track's EQ or another track's panning, or another track's dynamics, immediately effects the overall balance of the mix and the presence of surrounding tracks. Thereby requiring a delicate balance of moves and compensations to get a great mix. That's where the artistry of the engineer lies.

If you're serious about mixing audio, there's no such thing as: open in timeline, tweak, close in timeline and open something else.

Can you imagine one of those clever little animations (like Time Machine) where you click a button and the timeline morphs into a mixer with all the audio tracks and filters laid out below the viewer?
I sure can.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 22, 2013 at 11:58:22 pm

[Jim Giberti] "If you're serious about mixing audio, there's no such thing as: open in timeline, tweak, close in timeline and open something else.

Exactly. And this is why to me, having a virtual mixing console in an NLE is dumb. I get it, but i never used it. I'm cutting picture. That's why I like X. And fcp 7 too for that matter. Other than patching tracks, audio manipulation is super quick and easy. Premiere? Maybe powerful but easy and fast? uh... no. Hell I wouldn't want to cut a spot in Protools or Logic. ;-) As an aside... Avid shouldn't have killed Audiovision. That was a great DANLEW. :-D

And yes, audio handling, and roles.. whatever, needs to be beefed up in X more for, in my opinion, organizational purposes than anything else. Faders in an NLE are superfluous IMO. Maybe X needs one fader per Role for overall leveling, maybe. Individual clips can be adjusted very nicely right now with keystrokes/keyframes. EZ. In a perfect world what would happen is...

[Jim Giberti] Can you imagine one of those clever little animations (like Time Machine) where you click a button and the timeline morphs into a mixer with all the audio tracks and filters laid out below the viewer?
I sure can."


Drool. ;-)

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


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


Return to posts index

Jok Daniel
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 9:59:49 pm

[Carsten Orlt] Where the track based editor needs option like selecting edit point on diff tracks in a vertically diff time position trackless doesn't need to. Simpler in my opinion.

"Selecting edit point on diff tracks" is part of the editorial process. It's a creative choice, and it can never be successfully automated. The magnetic timeline may be able to keep things in sync, but it cannot make those editorial choices for me. So why do I need it? A properly set-up trim also keeps things in sync, and it lets me evaluate picture and sound together and perform the edit in real-time. To me that is much more useful.


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 11:17:13 pm

[Jok Daniel] ""Selecting edit point on diff tracks" is part of the editorial process."

Only if they change the content and that is desired. If I have to select them because otherwise I can't trim e.g. the video to the point I want, than no there are not artistic but merely a mechanical necessity.

Happy editing


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 4:59:18 pm

[David Lawrence] "[Charlie Austin] "It seems silly, but honestly, why do trim tools exist? I'm not talking about cuts, but trim tools."

Is that a serious question or are we talking about different things, lol?

Trim tools exist to enable an editor to find the perfect frame.

They're the tools that turn craft into art.

They have absolutely nothing to do with clip collisions."


You are absolutely correct, that is what they are for. So I guess what I mean is that trim tools, which were designed to allow fine tuning of edits, have been pressed into service as clip collision avoidance tools as well. If I ripple an edit in MC, I need to set trim points on a bunch of other clips below (and above) my edit point to make sure everything associated with that clip also ripples without hitting another clip.

In X I just ripple the one clip and move on.

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


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


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 9:21:16 am

[Carsten Orlt] "I would be more than surprised if they put tracks back in and all the hassle of patch panels etc. It would totally defeat what they tried to achieve.
"


Let me clarify my POV at least. When I talk about tracks in FCPX, I'm talking specifically about audio mixing within the current incarnation. As much as I like parents and kids relationships vs bussing, working with the details of a complex audio mix using compound clips has as many downsides as upsides, at least in my experience.

A reasonable evolution, like the simple addition of the, "~" added enormous flexibility to a previously hobbled (for many, not all, Bill) interface; a mixing interface for audio would give it the same kind of flexibility for more complex and detailed audio production.

Let me try and put it differently.
A traditional multitrack audio environment gives the producer a realtime view and listen of all the tracks in a mix. And that producer/engineer is skilled at sculpting the sound, as it happens - with an ongoing series of fader moves, pans, eq, dynamics, etc. We see the levels, hear the balance, the addition and subtraction of frequencies and adjustment of dynamics in realtime as they effect one another. That's audio mixing at it's best, and why opening and closing CCs will never match it.

But there are real advantages to the X way handles audio and that make me say, "I wish MOTU did this" and that's why I think a traditional/proven mixing environment would only enhance it. Best of both worlds.


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 12:15:15 pm

I see your point Jim.

But let me ask you why you don't use a dedicated audio mixing tool that has all this functionality that you righly would like for your type of work? Why does it have to be in the same editor?

This is not ment to talk down on you but merely trying to understand why you want it all in one software? For me FCP x is a really good video editor that lets me organize my audio enough to get to fine cut stage and after that I pass on things to audio and SFX departments for the final master. I like that it doesn't try to be all things at once.

Happy editing


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 20, 2013 at 12:05:28 am

[Carsten Orlt] "I see your point Jim.

But let me ask you why you don't use a dedicated audio mixing tool that has all this functionality that you righly would like for your type of work? Why does it have to be in the same editor?"


Obviously I do music production and scoring in a DAW (Motu DP) and I have my full studio of plugins and instruments. But like a lot of producers, there are times when it's more efficient to handle the audio post directly within the project - specifically because of the Logic tools available in X.

While I really like the ease of "bussing" using CCs, if you like to develop your audio mix as you go, then you're going to want go go back and forth to these elements to continue to "mix" them. I find that very unintuitive and weak using the "open in timeline" route.

So, for me at least, one of the great potentials of FCPX was flexible and powerful audio interface that would create a more integrated and efficient production workflow. I just think the value of a a real time mix laid out in front of you with immediate access to parameter controls would be a real beneficial option in FCPX.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 20, 2013 at 3:29:25 am

[Jim Giberti] " I just think the value of a a real time mix laid out in front of you with immediate access to parameter controls would be a real beneficial option in FCPX."

I think the value of this would be high as well.

But I sometimes wonder just what the actual market for this might be.

I've known a LOT of editors who rarely, if ever go beyond VO plus Music bed audio constructions.

I've actually gone months with productive pretty high dollar work for my corporate clients without ever having to go much beyond a 3 deep audio build myself. Yes, there are times - particularly in years gone by when I'd have 30-40 audio tracks for complex hour long corporate projects or spots that relied heavily on SFX. But day to day, I'm usually good with a narration track - peppered with interview actualities - all riding over a buyout music bed.

Granted one reason I probably do so much work with that structure is that I'm a long time narrator and voice talent - so part of it is that my clients often come expecting me to drive program flow via voiceover - but still I think a LOT of people out there do similar work.

It's not like I'm working on a movie with multiple character lav and boom takes plus a dozen sweetening tracks to keep organized.

Once again - it's the most common processes competing with more complex specialty needs.

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

Oliver Peters
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 20, 2013 at 1:04:49 pm

[Bill Davis] "I've actually gone months with productive pretty high dollar work for my corporate clients without ever having to go much beyond a 3 deep audio build myself. Yes, there are times - particularly in years gone by when I'd have 30-40 audio tracks for complex hour long corporate projects or spots that relied heavily on SFX. But day to day, I'm usually good with a narration track - peppered with interview actualities - all riding over a buyout music bed."

Isn't that the crux of the complaints about X? Does it become the tool that also works for complex workflows or does it stay in the 80/20 world?

Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 4:41:14 pm

[Jim Giberti] "Let me clarify my POV at least. When I talk about tracks in FCPX, I'm talking specifically about audio mixing within the current incarnation. As much as I like parents and kids relationships vs bussing, working with the details of a complex audio mix using compound clips has as many downsides as upsides, at least in my experience.

A reasonable evolution, like the simple addition of the, "~" added enormous flexibility to a previously hobbled (for many, not all, Bill) interface; a mixing interface for audio would give it the same kind of flexibility for more complex and detailed audio production.

...That's audio mixing at it's best, and why opening and closing CCs will never match it."


Agreed on all points, And maybe I'm not being clear when I talk about collecting roles in a sort of compound clip. I'm not envisioning the current implementation, I'm thinking about a system that would allow one to organize audio in the a track-like fashion, but keep the flexibility if the trackless timeline. Kind of a "virtual" CC. For example, first you check the "group role" button next to your, say, FOLEY role. All those clips are held together in the timeline. They can still get out of each others way, but no other roles would be permitted in whatever space they occupy. It would also put them in (or maybe you hit "collect roles" or something else) a kind of master envelope,which you could adjust via fader(s) and record via automation. Maybe the bg color of the timeline for each group, or clip in that role could change for visual ID. You'd click a "Hide Group" button and all the clips in that role would collapse to a single CC-like clips, showing the "master' keyframes.

Yes, you'd still need to adjust individual clips, and maybe, as I think you suggest, there could be a hybrid "mix mode" where grouped clips stayed put in their lanes, and could be acted on via faders. Or you'd adjust them via mouse or KB shortcuts.

I'm just riffing here, obviously, lol. It's interesting to envision what could be. :-)

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


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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 19, 2013 at 1:19:53 pm

[Carsten Orlt] "Exactly. I think many oversee the fact that X doesn't have a patch panel. That is in my opinion the whole reason the timeline is the way it is. To get rid of it. No more thinking every time I add a clip to where the audio should go."

Carsten,

I'll repeat once again that I've been cutting in FCP since V2 and I never, never use the patch panel.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Carsten Orlt
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 20, 2013 at 1:23:19 am

No worries, didn't see you earlier posts.

But how do you determine where your video or audio clip go when you put them into the timeline? Do you have to move them after you put them on standard V1 A1-2?

Cheers

Happy editing


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 20, 2013 at 3:00:48 pm

[Carsten Orlt] " Do you have to move them after you put them on standard V1 A1-2"

Carsten,

... All the time.

Franz.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
on Feb 18, 2013 at 6:02:52 pm

[Bill Davis] "There's this established phenomenon called "projection" where our personal prejudices color how we think about and describe things. In this case, it's arguable that when David used the term "fix" in his original post, it was nothing more than this factor at work."

I was simply riffing on the title of Andy Field's thread immediately below this one. So who's the one projecting?

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


Return to posts index

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