FORUMS: list search recent posts

So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Jeremy Garchow
So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 1:57:31 am

I have been playing around with 10.1 over the holiday break.

I haven't been a ton of real editing, but rather, trying to use all of the different media management options and trying to see what happens with Projects, Events, and Libraries. There's some great and needed functions. It's still not perfect, but for the most part, I feel that Libraries are a nice and necessary upgrade.

But I can't figure out why I would need more than one Event in a Library, unless of course I want an Event that is Projects only.

If I needed an Event with Projects only, can't this all be done with Keywords and Smart Collections? I can have a Smart Collection to gather my Projects, and Keyword Collections to separate what I would normally separate in Events, and folders to do any further separation in the Browser.

In FCP < 10.1, I used one Event per job and use metadata to keep everything organized. I can still do this in FCPX, but now I have a Library and an Event to twirl down in the Browser.

Now, it seems that clips in the same library can't be in more than one Event without holding option and copying the clip. But that copy now it's a new instance. Any annotations I add to that clip in one Event (in the same Library) do not translate to the other instance in the other Event.

This means I can have one clip in a Library with completely separate annotations and uses with no relationship to each other.

Is this a good thing? Why would I use this?

How do you go about using this feature?

If I use one Event in a Library, then why do I need an Event at all?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 3:44:31 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "If I use one Event in a Library, then why do I need an Event at all?"

It's for flexibility with different organizational structures. For example. Let's say you're a facility who cuts commercials for many clients. You cut spots for: Coke, Pepsi, and Budweiser.

You have a Library for each client, but you have an event for each separate commercial project that you do for them. This way, you can compartmentalize the clients from each other while still making it easy to share media between commercial spots from within each client's library.

That's one use off the top of my head.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 4:07:06 am

"You have a Library for each client,"

Of course.

[Andy Neil] "but you have an event for each separate commercial project that you do for them."

But why? If there was no Events, and Projects were able to live in the Library, why wouldn't I have a Project for every project?

[Andy Neil] "This way, you can compartmentalize the clients from each other while still making it easy to share media between commercial spots from within each client's library."

I get the form and function of Libraries. I like them. That's not what I am asking.

I don't see why I need a separate Event for every spot I do for Budweiser. I'm not saying it might not be useful, but I am trying to understand how this might be useful. I mean with FCPX's awesome metadata cataloging, why do I need an Event when I can do the same thing and more all through metadata?

In your example, you'd have a Bud, Coke, and Pepsi Library.

Then, I have Events within each Library that are tied to every spot that I do for them.

What if the spots share media across Events? That means I will have the same clip in many events in one Library. It just seems redundant, no? It adds a level of sort to the Library that separates clips in the same Library.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Andy Neil
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 4:21:18 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "If there was no Events, and Projects were able to live in the Library, why wouldn't I have a Project for every project?"

Forget that FCPX calls "sequences", "projects. You telling me you'd only have one sequence per commercial or other project? If I have 20 or so sequences for SPOT #1 for Coke and 20 sequences for SPOT#2, this starts to get quite complicated especially when you're not sharing all your media across all your commercials, but just say the heads and tails which are your brand logo or whatever.

So, without events you have to organize everything with keyword collections, only this becomes problematic when you want to archive SPOT #1, but can't because it's inexorably connected to SPOT #2 and all the other commercials you've done for Coke. Having an event for SPOT #1 gives just another layer of top-level organization for people.

Some may need it, some may not.

andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 4:42:35 am

[Andy Neil] "You telling me you'd only have one sequence per commercial or other project?"

It depends on what needs to happen, but yes. Typically, there's one sequence per output. Even if there's multiple outputs per spot, I usually have one sequence for them. If a commercial gets 20 different tags, I make 20 sequences.

[Andy Neil] "So, without events you have to organize everything with keyword collections, only this becomes problematic when you want to archive SPOT #1"

Select all 20 Spot #1 Projects

FIle > Copy Projects to Library > New Library

Make a new Library called SPOT #1 Archive.

Choose to include Optimized or Proxy media. Consolidate media in to the new Library and archive it.

[Andy Neil] "Having an event for SPOT #1 gives just another layer of top-level organization for people. "

But why can't this be done with a collection? Today, you can copy Events just like I outlined above. What if instead of Events, you could do it with a collection? Whole Projects can also be keyworded now so they could be part of the Collection just like they are now part of Events.

I just see the Events as (perhaps) an unnecessary separation of media in a Library.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 6:23:43 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Select all 20 Spot #1 Projects

FIle > Copy Projects to Library > New Library

Make a new Library called SPOT #1 Archive."


Sure you can do it the way you describe. You can also do it the way I describe. I think it's a good idea for the program to be a little more flexible for how different people think and or want to organize. I for one hate the idea of putting 20 spots inside one sequence.

I don't think events have to be necessary in that they are needed to specifically perform a function that can't be done in any other way. Folders aren't necessary in the event/collection paradigm, but they make things easier for some people and the way they like to work.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 2:06:26 pm

[Andy Neil] "I think it's a good idea for the program to be a little more flexible for how different people think and or want to organize. I for one hate the idea of putting 20 spots inside one sequence."

I think we may be misunderstanding each other.

I don't put 20 spots in a sequence. If SPOT #1 has 20 tags, I make 20 sequences (Projects).

What I am arguing is that Events MAY be less flexible as they effectively separate metadata out from one another in the same library.

I just don't see why this couldn't be done all in metadata instead of an Event "container" if you can call it that.

[Andy Neil] "I don't think events have to be necessary in that they are needed to specifically perform a function that can't be done in any other way. Folders aren't necessary in the event/collection paradigm, but they make things easier for some people and the way they like to work."

Folders can only go in Events, and only collections can go in folders. Footage, Projects, anything else can't go in a folder. So a folder is how an Event should work. It doesn't get in the way, it is simply a way to visually organize. An Event, with it's contained Projects, causes a lot more clicking and manually finding footage within an Event. Of course, you can always click the Library and browse everything, just like you could do with an Event in 10.0. My point is, why do we now need an Event?

On the Finder level (or in the fcpbundle) it perhaps makes some sense?


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 4:35:29 am

I think the idea is that each Event can be a closed off grouping of footage. This way you could have someone logging material from Location Shoot B, while you're working footage from Location Shoot A. Then, when that material is logged and ready, the editor can be sent an XML of that Event to add to the overall Project Library (with footage already located on common networked storage).

It's a lot less likely to cause problems when integrating new footage then being sent a new currentversion.event file, or trying to merge Events.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 4:48:39 am

[Marcus Moore] "I think the idea is that each Event can be a closed off grouping of footage."

That is absolutely the idea, and the idea I am having trouble with. It is almost like bringing back bins, and I was kind of happy to be rid of bins.

[Marcus Moore] "This way you could have someone logging material from Location Shoot B, while you're working footage from Location Shoot A."

Only one person can be working on a Library at any given time. So, in this scenario, we are working in two libraries anyway.

[Marcus Moore] "Then, when that material is logged and ready, the editor can be sent an XML of that Event to add to the overall Project Library (with footage already located on common networked storage)."

Why not just send the whole library and 'merge' the libraries? Or send an XML of the clips as a collection instead of an Event?


Return to posts index


Julian Bowman
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 9:08:06 am

Isn't it:

Library -> Event -> Project
Bin -> Folder -> Sequence

?



Return to posts index

Trevor Asquerthian
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 9:14:28 am

More
Library -> Event -> Project
Project -> Bin -> Sequence (i.e. folders are optional, events are not but possibly should be)

With more custom searching capabilities but less flexibility



Return to posts index

Julian Bowman
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 9:24:31 am

Ah, ok, cheers. So inside an Event can you also have folders as well as projects and keyword collections - like you could have folders in the Projects pane before to put the projects/sequences in?

So if the Event is a bin then inside that we can organise as we wish? or is it that inside the Event/Bin we are limited to keyword collections and Projects/sequences.

Cheers



Return to posts index


Brett Sherman
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 10:21:15 am

What makes less sense to me is why projects have to go in events. I think just about everyone is going to create an event that just contains projects. Why not have a library automatically separate events and projects so you wouldn't have to go through the extra step of creating a special event to contain your projects. Not to mention if true sharing happens with events down the road, it will be much harder to sort out when projects are in it. Synchronizing two concurrently open events could be basically just a merge. When you add projects in the mix it gets really difficult.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 2:10:38 pm

[Brett Sherman] "What makes less sense to me is why projects have to go in events. I think just about everyone is going to create an event that just contains projects. Why not have a library automatically separate events and projects so you wouldn't have to go through the extra step of creating a special event to contain your projects. "

Exactly.

I can setup a Smart Collections to look for Projects, and never have to organize projects again, unless of course I would need to further organize them. But now that Projects can be key worded, it makes it even easier, but only easier in an Event by Event basis, not on the Library level.

Now, I have to always click the Event, make a new project, then click back to the Event(s) with the Footage.

Again, i think Projects could live in the Library and not in an Event.

[Brett Sherman] "Not to mention if true sharing happens with events down the road, it will be much harder to sort out when projects are in it. Synchronizing two concurrently open events could be basically just a merge. When you add projects in the mix it gets really difficult."

Bingo.


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 5:05:51 pm

iMoive actually does this. It separates out projects from events. Even amongst all open libraries. It has an "all projects" icon that resides at the same level as libraries. It will show all the projects from within the open libraries. It also has an all events selection.


Return to posts index


tony west
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 4, 2014 at 1:58:26 am

[Brett Sherman] "I think just about everyone is going to create an event that just contains projects. "


I know that's the first thing that I did : )


Return to posts index

Michael Sanders
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 10:28:36 am

It's been talked about elsewhere on here but it the new structure is great for episodic tv such as reality. Library is season, event is episode, the you can borrow footage from ep 1 to ep 2.

Would be even better if events were locked but people could work on the same library.

Michael Sanders
London Based DP/Editor


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 2:25:28 pm

[Michael Sanders] "It's been talked about elsewhere on here but it the new structure is great for episodic tv such as reality. Library is season, event is episode, the you can borrow footage from ep 1 to ep 2."

OK, but why couldn't I do this with a Collection? Instead of an Event called "ep 1", I have a collection called "ep 1" ?

[Michael Sanders] "Would be even better if events were locked but people could work on the same library."

This is the only reason I can really think of. If you open a Library package, the Events are their own sub database (as well as Projects, which are now 'Event' databases). So, if someone needs to work on it, it would be (perhaps) easier to simply lockout that Event folder on the Finder level. There's a reason that Libraries have a "flexolibrary" extension. It seems to indicate that there will be multiple user access allowed at some point.

But that hasn't happened yet, so for now, events seems like an unnecessary level of organization when getting footage and Projects between them seems "harder" than it needs to be.

Jeremy


Return to posts index


Keith Koby
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 3:08:33 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "But that hasn't happened yet, so for now, events seems like an unnecessary level of organization when getting footage and Projects between them seems "harder" than it needs to be."

But if it does go there, it will be sweet, f'n sweet. And it will all make sense. ;)

To answer your original question; we bring footage into one event and import an xml of all the re-ocurring elements we use into a second event. So we end up with a footage event, an elements event, a "ratings" event for when we need to add mpaa ratings to movie promos and trailers and the such. That's the way it happens now, and it seems like logical, nice, compartmentalized organization. You only import the xmls that you need...

So a library is like an fcp7 project and events are like bins I suppose. It is certainly an easier transition for editors to understand coming from fcp7 to x. Is that a good reason to keep it? I don't know, but we use the separations now anyways. The episodic event separation makes sense though. If you need footage from the old episode, open the library and copy it over or keep an xml of the old episode footage on the network and bring it in to your new project...

I don't see a problem with putting the projects in events. We had compound clips in them before and occasionally there were edits and editors that would make promo versions as compound clips rather than as projects in the old version of x.

I think from a program standpoint, database organization under the hood might be cleaner with lib/event organization rather than lib/wild dis-organization.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 5:06:14 pm

[Keith Koby] "But if it does go there, it will be sweet, f'n sweet. And it will all make sense. ;)"

It will be real close to (shhhh, avidbinlocking)

Thanks Keith.

I can see reasons why, but I'm just wondering if it's the *best* reason why. So far, Event locking is the best reson why.

Do we think Apple will go there?

[Keith Koby] " It is certainly an easier transition for editors to understand coming from fcp7 to x. Is that a good reason to keep it? I don't know, but we use the separations now anyways. "

But would you use this system now with libraries?

Events where separate Finder elements in FCP 10.0, now, they are bundled in a Library.

So would you use multiple libraries now? Or were the separate Events you were using in 10.0 all per SAN Location? Now that they are no SAN Locations, what would you do?

[Keith Koby] "I don't see a problem with putting the projects in events. We had compound clips in them before and occasionally there were edits and editors that would make promo versions as compound clips rather than as projects in the old version of x."

You can always click the top level of the Library and get the birds eye view, it's true, but it's all by Event.

I really really liked in FCP 10.0 that the Event was the absolute top level organization. You could view everything. Now, everything is grouped by Event. If I am going to use multiple, Events, I wish I could turn that off, and I then (and only then) would I have the flexibility back.

Now, I am stuck with Event bins. I'm not saying if this is better or worse. It offers another level of organization, but it also takes away a level of sorting.

But I do like the Library system, so at least there's that.

[Keith Koby] "I think from a program standpoint, database organization under the hood might be cleaner with lib/event organization rather than lib/wild dis-organization."

I do think that locking off an Event folder (if that is in fact where Apple is going) but I'm not sure if that's the best way. It seems like having this all done through metadata (collections, user log in, et al) might be more flexible?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 3:12:17 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Only one person can be working on a Library at any given time. So, in this scenario, we are working in two libraries anyway."

Right now we don't have true multi-editor in one Library workflow, that's not what I'm suggesting. Let's say you have 2 blocks of shooting. The material is logged and prepped by an assistant and given to the editor in a new Library as BLOCK1. The editor goes to work.

Footage starts coming in for the second block of shooting, maybe lasting several days. At another station on a common network, the assistant goes about importing and logging BLOCK2 in his copy of the Library. When he's done, he just exports an Event XML of BLOCK2 and the editor can import it into his copy of the Library. Super simple.

And of course you can still search across all Events in one Library by doing your search while the Library is selected.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 5:10:47 pm

[Marcus Moore] "Footage starts coming in for the second block of shooting, maybe lasting several days. At another station on a common network, the assistant goes about importing and logging BLOCK2 in his copy of the Library. When he's done, he just exports an Event XML of BLOCK2 and the editor can import it into his copy of the Library. Super simple."

But this wouldn't have to be the only way. So now, Block 1 has Block 2 in it.

Or now you have two libraries with Block 1 (old) and Block 2. Which is the real Library?

I know exactly what you are saying.

I am just wondering if this is really the best way, or if Apple had to bend to external pressure to make it like everything else.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 2:53:25 pm

if the event has no external reality - and it doesn't appear to as the library is the visible container now -

why maintain those kinds of serious - copy only - type canonical event rules within a library?

If the event largely exists only as a construct within FCPX - why don't they just introduce folders and be done with it?

The folders could get the event icon to hide cupertino's blushes, or, you know, they could just call the folders bins...

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


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 4:49:40 pm

Why even have libraries? Why not simply rename an event a project, and within such project one has 2 things - organizational structures like keyword collections, smart collections, folders, etc. and sequences.

Makes sense to me, since more than 1 event isn't very useful unless you've gone the route of a library for each client. And even then, I'm not sure it makes sense. Why not use keyword collections and folders for the different jobs?

In the past I used 1 event for each project. It seems redundant to require me to put that project in that event now, AND add another level of organization called a library.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 7:18:04 pm

[Bret Williams] "Why even have libraries? Why not simply rename an event a project, and within such project one has 2 things - organizational structures like keyword collections, smart collections, folders, etc. and sequences."

Whatever the name of the Library, I do like the Library structure. It is nice to have a file to dupe or move or load, or double click, and now, we can even store media in it.

I think that the Library system, especially towards the Finder is good and works well, I just think we could eliminate Events, add folders to the Library level, and everything would be peachy.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Bret Williams
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 7:39:47 pm

We already have all that with events. Might just be semantics but ditch libraries and make events launchable. I'd like to rename them projects as well, and rename projects sequences.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 7:41:24 pm

[Bret Williams] "We already have all that with events. Might just be semantics but ditch libraries and make events launchable. I'd like to rename them projects as well, and rename projects sequences."

But with events, there's only "Current Version".

With Libraries it's an actual, versionable, modifiable file.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 7:13:48 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "why maintain those kinds of serious - copy only - type canonical event rules within a library?"

I really really liked that in FCP 10.0, that footage can be here AND there (in this collection AND that collection).

Now we are back to here OR there (in this Event OR that Event, even if it's in the same Library). And if it has to be here AND there, they are two separate annotations in the Browser, so really the same piece of media has two separate instances. This was just like FCP7, really.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "If the event largely exists only as a construct within FCPX - why don't they just introduce folders and be done with it?

The folders could get the event icon to hide cupertino's blushes, or, you know, they could just call the folders bins..."


Why have Events at all? Why not just keep the exact same format as 10.0 Events, expect it's now a Library. You can have folders if you want them, or separate everything by keyword. Add FCP 10.1 Library Media Management to Collections and you're done.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 7:56:19 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Why have Events at all? Why not just keep the exact same format as 10.0 Events, expect it's now a Library. You can have folders if you want them, or separate everything by keyword."

Couldn't it just be step one in a shared collaborative workflow structure? If you look at how bin locking works in Avid, you have the project which shows up at merely a folder in the finder. The lockable elements are .avb files which exist within the project folder. In MC, the project is merely a window which holds bins only (no sequences) and this allows for all editors to access the same project, but only have writable permissions on the bins they opened first.

Now with libraries in FCPX, you have basically the same structure except that Apple's used a package instead of a simple folder. This makes it a little more idiot-proof at the finder level. Inside the library, you have event folders with an event file that, presumably, could be locked in much the same way that Avid bins can be locked. The events have a finder level equivalent, something that collections don't have since they are just meta-data sorting tools.

Perhaps this was just the first organizational hurdle to creating true project sharing. Or perhaps it was to give 3rd parties the structure so they can create project sharing programs

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 8:06:22 pm

[Andy Neil] "Couldn't it just be step one in a shared collaborative workflow structure? "

Well, yes, that's what I admitted to. But then, we aren't there yet.

Do you think Apple will go forth with "event locking"?

If they will, then this structure makes at least a bit of sense. If they aren't, then why 'hobble' what was a great metadata and category system?


Return to posts index

Andy Neil
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 8:33:37 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Do you think Apple will go forth with "event locking"? "

Yes. Or else they'll leave the door open for 3rd parties to do it.

[Jeremy Garchow] "If they aren't, then why 'hobble' what was a great metadata and category system?"

I don't see how it hobbles anything.

Andy

http://www.timesavertutorials.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 8:36:27 pm
Last Edited By Jeremy Garchow on Jan 3, 2014 at 8:56:52 pm

[Andy Neil] "I don't see how it hobbles anything."

It's not really hobbling, but it does make things harder when there's multiple Events in a Library.

Events, and the Metadata and Projects they house are separate entities within a Library.

This means that if you want to have a singular piece of metadata follow any clip or Project in a given Library, no matter where it is in the Event structure, you can't.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 9:13:22 pm

Jeremy, I agree with you. If collections are better than bins, then why wouldn't collections be better than events?


[Jeremy Garchow] "Do you think Apple will go forth with "event locking"?"

Why lock at the event level?

This is a bit back-of-the-napkin, but I think locking should happen at the sequence level.

I think I'd want to allow all users to organize (keyword ranges, build collections) any asset in the library. These could be stored in a real multi-user database, or they could be stored in per-user databases on the shared filesystem, with each user have read/write access to their own database and read-only access to others' databases -- essentially, multiple individual overlapping Avid bins that the software dynamically and invisibly coalesces.

The owner of any piece of metadata thus becomes another piece of metadata that itself can be used in collections (i.e., see only my keywords, see mine and Jeremy's keywords, see all keywords, etc.).

Locking at the bin/event level splits shared editorial organizationally within the project, arguably locking too much stuff. Locking at the sequence level splits shared editorial functionally, providing separation between organization and 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: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 9:54:07 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Why lock at the event level? "

If there is any explanation, in the current structure, it seems logical as it would be making the corresponding Event folder and it's contents read only. This is pretty easy to do from a programming standpoint.

It is really close to Avid bin locking, if this will be the case.

Avid bin locking is great, but is it the best way to go about things in a modern environment?

Asked another way, since we (the royal we) have the opportunity to start fresh, would bin locking be the solution that we would come up with?

[Walter Soyka] "The owner of any piece of metadata thus becomes another piece of metadata that itself can be used in collections (i.e., see only my keywords, see mine and Jeremy's keywords, see all keywords, etc.).

Locking at the bin/event level splits shared editorial organizationally within the project, arguably locking too much stuff. Locking at the sequence level splits shared editorial functionally, providing separation between organization and editorial."


That is a great way to explain it, and another reason why I thought that having the Projects and Events in 10.0 separate wasn't necessarily a bad thing. Since all the organization is simply metadata, even the organization (keywords, et al) could travel at the sequence level, which I thought might become a next level of sharing.

It seems to me, that read/write locking of metadata, instead representative file locations, seems to be a more modern approach.

I am not saying it's easier programmatically, but it does seem like it would be the most flexible.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 10:46:02 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Jeremy, I agree with you. If collections are better than bins, then why wouldn't collections be better than events?"

apple might feel that collections aren't exactly the right kind of mental objects to operate as event/folder level objects - given they are explicitly tag collections. it feels a little threadbare to have them also operate as discrete transportable physical containers, given they actually represent metadata tags.

am i right there?

given apple have walked things back in a big way by creating a new super container with libraries, they might be inclined to reverse slowly.
Its hard on one level to see how they can completely remove the newly intermediate event object that contains meta data tag collections.

but reading it, the problem is that library event sub-sets are far more legally islands now than they were when they were exposed as top level?

nothing like bullsh*tting software you rarely use. it is interesting tho.

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


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 8:50:56 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I really really liked that in FCP 10.0, that footage can be here AND there (in this collection AND that collection)."

yeah - that felt instinctively cool to me - it goes to the whole diffuse tagging of footage thing.



[Jeremy Garchow] "Why have Events at all? "

should have been clearer - that's basically what I meant - you wouldn't think in application buckets need to be any stronger than the rules of a folder. or a bin as they called the folder in 7 - I was snark joking about calling the folders events.

seeing as how you're mounting libraries the way you mounted events, It doesn't make sense to keep the serious strictures of events within the new library container - folders should basically do it really for sub organisation within a library. given created events have no external reality in the finder now.
(except inside package contents of the library? are they keeping the event rules because they are forced to replicate inside FCPX the footage copy actions they are having to do inside the package contents of the library in the finder?)

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 9:41:30 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "(except inside package contents of the library? are they keeping the event rules because they are forced to replicate inside FCPX the footage copy actions they are having to do inside the package contents of the library in the finder?)
"


Yes.

Events are structured nearly the exact same way as they were in 10.0, except they now live in a Library, and Libraries can live anywhere.

An Event corresponds to a folder in the Library, like this (see pictures):





it also seems like it could lead to further read-only database sharing, but that is all conjecture.

So, if one WERE to be able to lock off an Event as read-only, and Apple allowed a read-only mount (which they currently don't, which means that 3rd parties can't do anything at this time) all you'd have to do is lock off that folder, which is really locking off the Event.

As someone who has liked where FCPX has been going since about Day 2, I knew that Apple would make it better. I knew it had it's shortcomings, but the metadata foundation and even the timeline itself, had decent beginnings and I could see where it might go with time and development.

But even I have doubts on whether Apple will make an Avid like sharing environment.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 10:14:41 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "An Event corresponds to a folder in the Library, like this (see pictures):"

yarp, I'd read that events were pretty much alive and well in package contents alright - it feels like apple put a box around the whole thing, as opposed to negating all the originally coded event rules. although the fact the they are now walls within a library just feels weird reading it.

[Jeremy Garchow] "But even I have doubts on whether Apple will make an Avid like sharing environment."

its an interesting question tho - If anyone can invoke OS level read only lock controls to late third parties on a first come first served basis for event folders within the package contents of a library - you'd have to figure its the person who wrote both the operating system and the application that produced the package. If apple did that then you'd basically have avid carry on right? As long as they provide visibility to the package content events for another FCPX user?

You'd wonder if they could implement the in app live view of other projects (fcp7 style) premiere has going within the media browser - that seems a long shot given they would have to build in the kind of app internal media browser they had in soundtrack pro and stuff? does motion still have that thing?

premiere, the rental scum, really is pretty cool that way in CC - the media browser functions as a comparable live view into an FCPX library where you can selectively pick up sequences and footage items. And i think they solved master clip stuff - although not sure.

how are adobe as third parties pulling that off anyway?

again though - if this app is intended as a come hither to very serious hardware, and 4K workflows, and it really is their poster boy for the tube,
you'd think apple would finally throw their hands up and start implementing slightly more functional, if complex usage scenarios.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 10:50:25 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "yarp, I'd read that events were pretty much alive and well in package contents alright - it feels like apple put a box around the whole thing, as opposed to negating all the originally coded event rules. although the fact the they are now walls within a library just feels weird reading it."

Yes, and that's exactly right. I really don't mind the Library structure as it makes things easier on a Finder level, and being able to move media in and out of them is handy, but I just don't think I like how Events work for now. I will have to mess with it longer, but for now, I don't think I like it.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "its an interesting question tho - If anyone can invoke OS level read only lock controls to late third parties on a first come first served basis for event folders within the package contents of a library - you'd have to figure its the person who wrote both the operating system and the application that produced the package. If apple did that then you'd basically have avid carry on right? As long as they provide visibility to the package content events for another FCPX user? "

Pretty much. You'd have to figure out how to open up the Library to multiple users and be able to save it without damage to either user, which is not a trivial process.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "You'd wonder if they could implement the in app live view of other projects (fcp7 style) premiere has going within the media browser - that seems a long shot given they would have to build in the kind of app internal media browser they had in soundtrack pro and stuff?"

If you could mount another person's Events (and subsequent projects) you would be able to view them, you jut couldn't modify them. Then you could dupe a copy to your Event that is writable and do what you need to do.

One done, they would then grab it back from you if needed.

It seems like this would be better served through metadata, but I am not a programmer.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "premiere, the rental scum, really is pretty cool that way in CC - the media browser functions as a comparable live view into an FCPX library where you can selectively pick up sequences and footage items. And i think they solved master clip stuff - although not sure.

how are adobe as third parties pulling that off anyway?"


Right, but Pr doesn't have a central file conglomerate, such as a Library. So, as an archiver, you'd have to try and gather everyone's disparate Pr Project files (and anything else you may need, like Dynamically linked Ae files, etc).

I don't know how 3rd parties handle it, unfortunately.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "you'd think apple would finally throw their hands up and start implementing slightly more functional, if complex usage scenarios."

Here's hoping...


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 11:24:53 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Right, but Pr doesn't have a central file conglomerate, such as a Library. So, as an archiver, you'd have to try and gather everyone's disparate Pr Project files (and anything else you may need, like Dynamically linked Ae files, etc).

I don't know how 3rd parties handle it, unfortunately.
"


sorry - stupidly phrased - I meant adobe getting it done as third parties to the operating system they are working in - premiere basically affords near avid behaviour now whereby you can inspect another live premiere project in action, copy across sequences and footage items, with that premiere project viewable live in your media browser within your own running premiere app. as in - its not finder level avid bin open - but once in your own active copy of premiere, via the media browser, you have an awful lot of live access to other running premiere projects. you can inspect and copy from the entire hierarchy of another live running premiere project open on another machine - bin/folders, sequences movies stills etc. I think that doesn't yet get talked about a ton?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 4, 2014 at 2:04:20 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] "sorry - stupidly phrased - I meant adobe getting it done as third parties to the operating system they are working in - premiere basically affords near avid behaviour now whereby you can inspect another live premiere project in action, copy across sequences and footage items, with that premiere project viewable live in your media browser within your own running premiere app. as in - its not finder level avid bin open - but once in your own active copy of premiere, via the media browser, you have an awful lot of live access to other running premiere projects. you can inspect and copy from the entire hierarchy of another live running premiere project open on another machine - bin/folders, sequences movies stills etc. I think that doesn't yet get talked about a ton?"

I see what you mean.

The difference with Avid is that there is a user that has read/write control of a bin. In that bin can be organization and sequences.

Other users, in the same 'project' or space (or really a folder) can only read (read-only) that bin, but have their own bin to make adjustments, drag elements into, etc, as well as view footage. With Avid, changing the metadata on a clip (such as clip name, etc) is usually frowned upon. Users can add their own metadata in columns. Columns for chrissakes.

Then, the user that has read/write can give that bin up for another user to take on write privileges.

It's a good system. It's very solid and Avid has done a great job with it, but if you were to start writing a collaborative workflow today, is that what you would come up with?

Pr, allows you to browse other people's projects, but it doesn't really take in to account how you connect those two users projects when it comes time to archive, let alone all the dynamic/direct link stuff.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 5, 2014 at 9:55:06 am

yeah - lets not forget the real issue is I barely know what I'm talking about. haven't worked a day in an avid shared environment for instance.

as to whether avid is the best approach - that is beyond me. although i wonder if it goes like churchill's quote on democracy.
larry jordan did a long interview with an adobe dude about anywhere - he said that at one point they were allowing live simultaneous access to the same timeline. they thought it was kind of cool until they realised it was madness.

I guess in a way the question maybe isn't how its supposed to work as much as what is it supposed to do? you have concerns about the collaboration not interfering with functional archiving - so thats an issue - but I guess that would be what i would wonder - if avid isn't the one and only answer, what essential functions describe a happy shared edit environment?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 6, 2014 at 4:58:54 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I guess in a way the question maybe isn't how its supposed to work as much as what is it supposed to do? you have concerns about the collaboration not interfering with functional archiving - so thats an issue - but I guess that would be what i would wonder - if avid isn't the one and only answer, what essential functions describe a happy shared edit environment?"

One where people can see what each other is doing in real time, and being able to keep all of that relatively organized so that people can work together efficiently. Of course, you'd have to be able to lock each other out so someone doesn't write over what you have already done.

Adobe Anywhere sounds pretty awesome. It will also take a pretty awesome system and keep it running, it is probable not for the likes of our little shared environment, it will be for the bigger/huge facilities.

For me, it would be great, not to share a timeline, as of course that would be madness, but to be able to have two or more people in a Library working on separate timelines, but using each other's footage and metadata.

One really nice aspect of FCPX is being able to change the metadata so quickly and easily, then to be able to save that set of metadata, and then change to another set of metadata if needed.

With Avid shared environments, a set of data is pretty much locked down (can't change clip name, etc) and anyone else has to add their specific metadata to a column.

I think that there could be room for improvement there, and I think FCPX already has some pretty cool capabilities in metadata. Now it just needs to be able to be extended out to multiple users at the same time.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 8, 2014 at 11:00:01 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "One where people can see what each other is doing in real time, and being able to keep all of that relatively organized so that people can work together efficiently. Of course, you'd have to be able to lock each other out so someone doesn't write over what you have already done.
"


what do you actually mean in the context of FCPX though jeremy - what things are they seeing in realtime?

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 9, 2014 at 6:46:26 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "what do you actually mean in the context of FCPX though jeremy - what things are they seeing in realtime?"

Footage and Metadata, of course.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 9, 2014 at 9:05:28 pm

I don't actually think that's going to happen. Ripple training have said on air that they don't believe it can happen in the context of metadata.

flat out - steve martin said it pretty emphatically on the live web chat on 10.1

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 9, 2014 at 11:22:48 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "I don't actually think that's going to happen."

I said I didn't expect it to happen either right here: http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/63990

...in the last sentence.

Since Apple isn't going to make an Avid bin locking type of environment, let's dump Events!

yay!


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 10, 2014 at 1:58:24 am

yes quite. Death to pointless vestigial event walls. Given what FCP is supposed to be for, you'd think mad simultaneous metadata eyeballing is overcooking it anyway.

7 was merrily destroying avid in high end soho with none of it. It appears you can get by.

I mostly think apple need to effect a normalisation of perceptions regarding the edit system, given some of the crazy advantages it offers.

one way or another it goes to the timeline. It doesn't matter what they think it should be - you have to be able to fundamentally park an element in time, and the keyboard shortcuts have to operate out of the primary. that's the bit of it I understand, and those are non-starters in their absence.

Its all very compelling, but the timeline just feels too crazy. In fact, the timeline actually is too crazy.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 10, 2014 at 6:39:42 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Given what FCP is supposed to be for, you'd think mad simultaneous metadata eyeballing is overcooking it anyway.

7 was merrily destroying avid in high end soho with none of it. It appears you can get by."


Of course you can get by. And 10.1 at least gives you what you could do with FCP7 for the most part, in that you have a Finder file that can be duped and opened on someone else's machine (or do an XML jockey, or whatever). I can tell you, maintaining that sort of status quo isn't very forward thinking.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "you have to be able to fundamentally park an element in time, and the keyboard shortcuts have to operate out of the primary. that's the bit of it I understand, and those are non-starters in their absence."

I am not sure what you mean here. You can park an element in time even when FCPX's time is more relative, and you can use keyboard shortcuts that don't pertain to the primary only. You might have to select something first, but it does happen.

[Aindreas Gallagher] "Its all very compelling, but the timeline just feels too crazy. In fact, the timeline actually is too crazy."

To each their own. I feel that way about the Pr timeline sometimes.


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 4:46:36 pm

Here's an example, I had a TON of footage on my home system from random little shoots at family events in Hawaii, Georgia, California, etc. I made a library called 'Georgia', and then created events for things like "Thanksgiving 2012, Thanksgiving 2013, and so on.

I also had a library called 'Random' for just smaller non-specific shoot elements. On my home system, all media is stored inside libraries instead of leaving in a 3rd location. When I realized that I had put an event in the Random library called 'Georgia Family visit', I decided that event would be better served in the "Georgia' library. Moving that event to a different library (and all associated media with it) was so so easy. I just dragged and copied the event in question to the Georgia library and deleted from the Random library.

I like the option - if you don't, just select all the events and then 'merge' events. That's how we do it at work.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 7:07:42 pm

[John Davidson] "Here's an example, I had a TON of footage on my home system from random little shoots at family events in Hawaii, Georgia, California, etc. I made a library called 'Georgia', and then created events for things like "Thanksgiving 2012, Thanksgiving 2013, and so on.

I also had a library called 'Random' for just smaller non-specific shoot elements. On my home system, all media is stored inside libraries instead of leaving in a 3rd location. When I realized that I had put an event in the Random library called 'Georgia Family visit', I decided that event would be better served in the "Georgia' library. Moving that event to a different library (and all associated media with it) was so so easy. I just dragged and copied the event in question to the Georgia library and deleted from the Random library."


But couldn't this be done with Collections instead of Events, provided that Apple made it as easy? drag collection to new Library and all the media goes with it (or links to it, or copies it, whatever you want it to do).

Jeremy


Return to posts index

alban egger
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 8:02:17 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "But I can't figure out why I would need more than one Event in a Library, unless of course I want an Event that is Projects only."

I have to agree here. Of course their are situations when you need several events, but since keywords are "sticking with" events I will often only have one event per library.

E.g. having a sports-team season in one library. You could make each game one event. But if you then have highlighted (key worded) every players scoring plays it would not make sense to create #80-touchdown in every game. Instead I will follow my "pre 10.1 workflow": make folders with keywords for a) games b) highlights c) players etc.

For me I believe Events will be a way to share media around. I already used the "Copy Event to Library" command a few times. Works great and allows to put certain parts of jobs into external Disks/Libraries/Events.

But I am sure different workflows will come up as we keep using 10.1 just like they did with 10.0.x



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 3, 2014 at 8:15:40 pm

[alban egger] "For me I believe Events will be a way to share media around. I already used the "Copy Event to Library" command a few times. Works great and allows to put certain parts of jobs into external Disks/Libraries/Events."

Right, but if we were to do away with Events, we could have a "Copy Keyword to Library" or "Copy Folder to Library" and have the same Library media management controls as we do today with Events and Projects.

It just seems weird to have to twirl down a Library, then twirl down Events, and then each Event has it's own organization. An Event can be a folder (for human visual organization) and then the media should be available to all folders (or Events) instead of cordoned off and having to copy clips between Events in the same Library.

The only thing that is making sense to me is 'Event locking' on the Finder level, but since read only databases aren't allowed in FCPX, it won't work for quite some time.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

James Sullivan
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 4, 2014 at 12:00:00 am

We have not even mentioned the idea of having Mavericks tags follow media into the world that FCPx creates. Jeremy is onto something with using metadata to really organize everything.

Why can't I tag media before I even import it? To have everything lock at the event level is to have everybody tag shots multiple times. Not on is that redundant but it does not really seem like a modern way to work collectively. With premiere there will be a lot of nested projects that will have to travel back and forth bloating project sizes and confusing versions of edits. I think that Final cut could do a lap on everybody if they really double down on tags/collections that are truly visible in real time to whomever is working within a particular library. I tag a clip or favorite a bite and everybody can see that.

Would that be useful or chaos?

mind blown,

James



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 4, 2014 at 12:25:27 am

[James Sullivan] "We have not even mentioned the idea of having Mavericks tags follow media into the world that FCPx creates. Jeremy is onto something with using metadata to really organize everything.

Why can't I tag media before I even import it? "


not to rain on it - but would apple be likely to fundamentally structure freeform OSX finder object tags specifically for tied FCPX metadata integration within events?
It would want to be a trivial engineering pursuit wouldn't it? given the user catchment? with no new revenue apparently now coming from current X users?

what would be the rational reason for that effort?

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


Return to posts index


James Sullivan
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 4, 2014 at 1:56:31 am

Rain is necessary, no worries. I have to say I have enjoyed your sparring in this very forum.

I would argue that I am a Final Cut Generation editor. I am always trying to find the awesome. If I am going to spend time in front of a screen I want it to be worth it. FCPx is supposed to be the new paradigm of our future as editorial animals. Let's make it better for everybody.

I am full of hate for a timeline that still makes no sense to me but I am still pulling for apple. (Roles need to trump any magnetism, and audio crossfades should not have to create extra layers of "tracks") I am giving apple to 10.3 before I realize that I have been dumped.

To summarize the current NLE craziness from my reality:

1) Final cut Legacy is really really old. It uses one tenth of the computer hosting it and does not like new anything. It still works and I am fast and reliable. Everything I hate about it will never change.

2) Premiere is great except it needs a mezzanine codec and a better way to offline/online. (From tape while I am asking) Also multiple projects open at the same time (Then we can talk about final cut 8 existing)

3) Avid is still Avid which is still the problem. It is all more of a feeling then the fact that they are a rock solid dependable offline/online pipeline. They killed the DS which to me means that Final Cut did more harm then good. (Please sell it to the Foundry or somebody and bring it to MAC OS)

Apple however can still build an edit suite from the silicon up. We just have to hate hard enough for them to do it our way.

To me Final Cut Pro X is still a single seat, straight to youtube, audio mixing nightmare. But if they cut out the stupid stuff and add some tags that stick at the finder level then I will be your uncle. Also the new coffee grinderâ„¢ is showing some promise. Just remember that Siri can read lips or we will all be floating in space.

Make it rain,

James



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 5, 2014 at 5:26:22 pm

[James Sullivan] "Apple however can still build an edit suite from the silicon up. We just have to hate hard enough for them to do it our way.

To me Final Cut Pro X is still a single seat, straight to youtube, audio mixing nightmare. But if they cut out the stupid stuff and add some tags that stick at the finder level then I will be your uncle. Also the new coffee grinderâ„¢ is showing some promise. Just remember that Siri can read lips or we will all be floating in space.
"


yep. that all sounds good to me.

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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 4, 2014 at 2:58:35 am
Last Edited By Jeremy Garchow on Jan 4, 2014 at 3:01:10 am

I've been messing around with Tags in Mavericks over the break as well.

It's the metadata equivalent of a keyword collection in X.

Filenames are almost irrelevant as is file location.

Before anyone freaks out, I am not saying that file name and location are irrelevant. Of course they are relevant.

It would be very cool if X Tags and Mavs Tags interacted. Right now they don't seem to interact very much, if at all.


Return to posts index

Trevor Asquerthian
Re: So now that we have Libraries, why do we need Events?
on Jan 5, 2014 at 2:22:38 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It would be very cool if X Tags and Mavs Tags interacted. Right now they don't seem to interact very much, if at all."

Ditto for Smart Folders at the finder level being available via the media browser in FCPx



Return to posts index

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