FORUMS: list search recent posts

Premiere's Automagical Timeline

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Simon Ubsdell
Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 24, 2017 at 6:15:51 pm

One of the most talked about features of FCP X is that fact that you can throw anything at a timeline without worrying about tracks and patching and the rest of the hassle that comes with "conventional" NLEs.

I wonder how many editors overlook the fact that this option is also there in Premiere. (I know that I keep forgetting about it!)

Grab any clip from the browser and drag it to the upper centre of the Program Monitor, at which point the Overlay option becomes available, which will automatically ensure that the added material, both video and audio, does not overwrite anything in the timeline.

The video and audio will be edited into the lowest/highest tracks available respectively. If there is no room available on existing tracks, then new tracks will be created.

Conceptually there is no difference between this and hitting the Q key in FCP X. The only practical difference thereafter is that the clips are not "connected" to the timeline in the FCP X sense, but otherwise it is the same function.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 24, 2017 at 10:44:15 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Grab any clip from the browser and drag it to the upper centre of the Program Monitor, at which point the Overlay option becomes available, which will automatically ensure that the added material, both video and audio, does not overwrite anything in the timeline.

The video and audio will be edited into the lowest/highest tracks available respectively. If there is no room available on existing tracks, then new tracks will be created.

Conceptually there is no difference between this and hitting the Q key in FCP X. The only practical difference thereafter is that the clips are not "connected" to the timeline in the FCP X sense, but otherwise it is the same function.
"


Uh...

Reading that kinda does NOT seem like the "conceptual" equivalent of ...

"Tap Q."

"Tap Q" creates (or adds to) a magnetic assembly that's cohesive, persistent, and (as a unit) often WAY more useful than merely the sum of it's magnetically connected parts.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 24, 2017 at 11:05:30 pm

[Bill Davis] "and (as a unit) often WAY more useful than merely the sum of it's magnetically connected parts."

What the heck does that mean?

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 25, 2017 at 6:08:46 am

3 clips in your primary.

On the second you connect two cutaway interview segments. Each of those gets embellished with four connected elements like graphic, titles, bugs or logo, etc.

That second primary clip is an assembly of 10 user-fixed content timing relationships - by virtue of the vertical magnetic nature of X.

Drag and drop clip 2 behind clip 3 is basically moving all 10 things with one simple action.

Horizontal Magnetism in the timeline" leverages" the efficiency of the vertical magnetic assemblies by auto connecting them without gaps or issues.

I'd call that a system where the practical efficiency of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

FWIW.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 25, 2017 at 9:06:14 am
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on Mar 25, 2017 at 9:15:53 am

You're talking about something slightly different if I have understood your comment.

All I was pointing out, more for the benefit of Premiere users who also use FCP X but might not be aware of this functional similarity, is that dragging a clip to Overlay in Premiere has the exact same result as hitting Q on the FCP X keyboard.

Incidentally, using Group in Premiere creates a vertical connected relationship that is functionally identical to connected clips in FCP X. It's arguably a little more flexible since it's not relying on a single clip to form the basis of the connection, though I suspect I will find it hard to convince you of that! (Of course, just like connected clips in FCP X, a Group relationship is not for life and can be assigned and reassigned at will.)

I do wonder whether perhaps the "uniqueness" of the FCP X timeline doesn't sometimes get a little oversold. That's not a criticism of it - I love working with it! - just an attempt to get some perspective on the subject.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 25, 2017 at 11:12:00 am

[Simon Ubsdell] "dragging a clip to Overlay in Premiere has the exact same result as hitting Q on the FCP X keyboard."

I should perhaps expand on that a bit.

In every respect the two operations are the same, except one.

In FCP X the Q action both adds layers where required and creates a connection between the added clips and the clip in the Primary Storyline. In Premiere the action adds layers where required but does not create a connection to anything. However, as I pointed out above, this can be done manually using the Group command.

So surely FCP X is the superior method because it avoids the need to manually create a connection?

Well, I would contend, and I think it would be very hard for anyone to prove the opposite, that in the overwhelming majority of cases the editor's intention here is not to create a connection but simply to place a clip at a particular point in time. Of course, the auto-connection is a very useful default if you are placing titles that go with a specific picture or sound effects that sync to a specific frame. But I don't think anyone can argue that these represent anything like a majority of the edits you are performing when you use the Q function.

Am I arguing that Premiere is superior here? No, not that either, though I would suggest that Premiere's Group option offers a functionality that goes considerably beyond what you can do in FCP X with connected clips alone. Conversely, as Bill was I think pointing out, shuffling the vertical order of connected clips is much easier in FCP X. And so on.

I think it's healthy with whatever applications we are using to celebrate the strengths, critique the weaknesses and at the same time acknowledge the similarities - as in this case.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 25, 2017 at 5:08:10 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "I do wonder whether perhaps the "uniqueness" of the FCP X timeline doesn't sometimes get a little oversold. That's not a criticism of it - I love working with it! - just an attempt to get some perspective on the subject."

I actually don't care much about "uniqueness" per se.

What I care about is efficiency. Particularly when I have work to do.

This forum has spent tens of thousands of words debating how to save repetitive keystrokes and whether it's possible to reduce three actions to two.

Here's a shining example of that.

If AVID derserves praise for the efficiency of its trimming approach (and it appears to well deserve that from all accounts) X perhaps to deserve similar praise for inventing a system that reduces so much friction in Clip relationship-building in a set and forget fashion.

Your original post in this thread seemed to be implying that Premiere Pro has a function similar to "command Q" in its functions.

My suggestion is that without the rest of the vertical and horizontal magnetic environment in play - I can't easily see how it can be more than a pale similarity.

Every NLE "inserts" - only X inserts into a magnetic environment.

But if I'm mis-informed about this and Premiere is, in fact, just as capable - making both horizontal and vertical magnetic behavior "no better" than a tracked system that doesn't have it, I'd be happy to hear how Premiere removes editing friction in its fashion.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 25, 2017 at 5:31:43 pm

[Bill Davis] "Every NLE "inserts" - only X inserts into a magnetic environment. "

This is incorrect. In Premiere, if I have clips on V1 and V2 and I insert something in the middle of the V1 clip, it splits both the V1 and V2 clips and slides them both to the right, as well as everything else that follows.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 27, 2017 at 1:27:16 pm

[Oliver Peters] "This is incorrect. In Premiere, if I have clips on V1 and V2 and I insert something in the middle of the V1 clip, it splits both the V1 and V2 clips and slides them both to the right, as well as everything else that follows."

Well I sure hope for the sake of your edit, that you don't have any unlinked audio lingering around that insert that doesn't need useless splitting! Or imagine making the unfortunate mistake of dragging it to the timeline for said insert (with ⌥⌘) and have spotted audio somewhere behind that point. Oopsy… be sure to bill those extra hours.

Once again, apples and oranges imho.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 25, 2017 at 5:49:00 pm

[Bill Davis] "Every NLE "inserts" - only X inserts into a magnetic environment. "

I would actually counter that X doesn't not do this correctly. For example, if I have a 10 sec clip on the primary storyline. Attached to that is a secondary storyline with 3 clips inside. As a group they are pinned at the head of that secondary storyline. If I insert a new shot in the middle of the Primary storyline clip, it does nothing to the secondary storyline. If these were supposed to stay in sync with something on the primary, they are now out. So I have to take extra steps in X to prevent this. Therefore, efficiency is entirely dependent on the process.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 25, 2017 at 11:13:11 pm

One half-second action to move the connection point pre insert is hardly a burden Oliver.

And nobody has ever claimed that ANY NLE is useful if the operator isn't reasonably familiar with how to operate it.

; )

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 26, 2017 at 1:15:36 pm
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Mar 26, 2017 at 1:31:31 pm

[Bill Davis] "One half-second action to move the connection point pre insert is hardly a burden Oliver. "

So why is it not a burden in FCPX, but somehow it is when an equivalent action is required in a different NLE? And BTW, moving the connection point doesn't fix the example I described.

The point is whether or not the magnetic timeline makes FCPX more efficient than other NLEs. I think that's entirely dependent on the actions you need to perform. In some cases, yes, and dramatically so. In other cases, not so much. Whether or not that's a wash at the end of the production depends on what you are editing.

In the end, the journey is really just a personal one.

- Oliver

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


Return to posts index


Tony West
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 26, 2017 at 1:57:42 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The point is whether or not the magnetic timeline makes FCPX more efficient than other NLEs. I think that's entirely dependent on the actions you need to perform. "

It can be, but it also depends on "how" you go about doing something.

I see people do things inefficiently in X and then say "X is inefficient". There are often 3 or 4 ways to do the same thing in X.

I don't set myself up to fail in that timeline, so I work very efficiently.

Bottom line, once X added Lanes it was game over for me. That timeline now has the best of both worlds.

The only "advantage" tracks had was organization, and now that's gone.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 26, 2017 at 5:09:16 pm

[Oliver Peters] "In the end, the journey is really just a personal one."

Yep.

Two people drive through the desert.

One grumbles the entire time because they expect "beautiful scenery" to be green and lush full of trees.

The other finds exquisite beauty in the desert vistas and appreciates a different type of Majesty.

The landscape remains the same.

All that changes is the ability of the person viewing it to appreciate it.

😊

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 25, 2017 at 7:00:03 pm
Last Edited By Simon Ubsdell on Mar 25, 2017 at 7:00:49 pm

[Bill Davis] "I actually don't care much about "uniqueness" per se."

Now, Bill, put your hand on your heart and tell me that you really, really mean that.

😉

[Bill Davis] "Every NLE "inserts" - only X inserts into a magnetic environment. "

I'm not talking about insert editing. Overlay is quite different - see above.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 25, 2017 at 11:25:50 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "
I'm not talking about insert editing. Overlay is quite different - see above."


Oops. Forgot the other NLEs don't really have connected storylines they can use to execute inserts that also overlay.

I'm also on another board right now with some traditionally oriented editors re-litigating the the Hory old debate about X naming conventions "why the "@&$ do they call a Project a Library!!!"

I keep forgetting that most experienced editors often have the hardest time with the mental shifts in this stuff. Not always, of course. But more often than I ever expected!

Oh well.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 25, 2017 at 9:13:49 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Conceptually there is no difference between this and hitting the Q key in FCP X. The only practical difference thereafter is that the clips are not "connected" to the timeline in the FCP X sense, but otherwise it is the same function."

le sigh... Here we go again.

Nope. Not the same function at all.

Putting new clips into the timeline and having other clips "move out of the way" (unless overwriting is the specific intent) is a basic attribute of the so-called "magnetic timeline," and it works whether you are connecting or inserting a clip.**

The Premiere process of putting a clip into the timeline without regard for track patching that you are describing is similar to FCPX in its end result, although rather different in how it accomplishes that result.

The Q, or "connect" command, however, has the specific purpose of connecting the clip to the primary storyline (strictly speaking, to another clip in the primary storyline). The "move out of the way" behavior is incidental to that main connecting function. Just as "W-Insert" specifically inserts the clip into the primary storyline, with the "move out of the way" behavior being incidental to the specific intent. Only "Overwrite" short-circuits the magnetic behavior, by design.

So the Premiere function you're describing, while superficially similar to FCPX's "magnetic" timeline behavior, is not at all the same - conceptually or practically - as the "connect clip" function.


**Side note, but relevant to this conversation:
I find that most people get hung up on thinking about the "magnetic timeline" as just another way of describing insert editing with ripple. Magnetic in the sense of clips being attracted to one another. But magnets repel one another when they are near the same poles. And that, to me, is the real point of the magnetic timeline: clips are repelled. They move away from each other and make room, rather than overwrite or simply bump and yell "clip collision!" ala FCP7 or Premiere.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 25, 2017 at 10:00:23 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] "
The Premiere process of putting a clip into the timeline without regard for track patching that you are describing is similar to FCPX in its end result, although rather different in how it accomplishes that result."


Agreed.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 26, 2017 at 9:17:31 am

[Jeff Markgraf] "le sigh... Here we go again."

As for this ...

I fervently hope that you and your lusty Sancho Panza prevail against the imaginary assailant against whom you are so quixotically tilting.

He sounds like a very stupid person indeed, incapable of sense and worthy only of your loftiest condescension.

(Cervantes was right. While patently risible, there is something tragically poetic about the heroic effort to combat a foe conjured out of the thinnest of air and existing only in the obsessed and fevered mind.)

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Jeff Markgraf
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 27, 2017 at 5:18:28 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "[Jeff Markgraf] "le sigh... Here we go again."

As for this ..."


Simon -

So sorry you took a bit of humor referring to the often overwrought tone of this board as being condescending toward you. Wasn't meant to be condescending, and certainly not directed toward you personally.

Sorrier still that you chose to double down on that perceived condescension with a moderately well wrought, but ultimately kinda' ham handed, condescension-wrapped-in-a-literary-reference of your own. Garnished with a side helping for Robin. I had hoped for better.

(On the other hand, if you really were in on the joke, and were actually trolling at a very high level, then I salute you. Well played!)

At any rate, I think my original reply stands: dropping clips in to a Premiere timeline via the method described, while achieving superficially similar results in terms of avoiding overwriting or clip collisions, is not conceptually or practically equivalent to connecting clips in FCPX. At all.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 27, 2017 at 5:51:54 pm

[Jeff Markgraf] "dropping clips in to a Premiere timeline via the method described, while achieving superficially similar results in terms of avoiding overwriting or clip collisions, is not conceptually or practically equivalent to connecting clips in FCPX. At all."

+1
Hear hear (on all counts btw).
Just as I said. Neither conceptually nor practically.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Brett Sherman
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 26, 2017 at 1:48:12 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "One of the most talked about features of FCP X is that fact that you can throw anything at a timeline without worrying about tracks and patching and the rest of the hassle that comes with "conventional" NLEs."

While it may be talked about often, amongst heavy users adding clips INTO the timeline is not the feature that makes editing in the FCP X timeline more efficient. So largely I think this is an irrelevant discussion. And besides the fact, the real question is what happens to the clips in other tracks that span the edit point you are dropping the new clip into.

The features of the FCP X timeline that are true time-savers are: audio connected to video, elimination of track collisions, MOVING clips in the timeline once they are already there, secondary storylines that don't change regardless of what you do in the primary (this makes editing music much, much easier).

And this ignores what many of us realize is the real productivity boost in FCP X - the browser. The combination of favoriting, skimming, keywords, and filmstrip views are simply without peer in the NLE world.

--------------------------
Brett Sherman
One Man Band (If it's video related I'll do it!)
I work for an institution that probably does not want to be associated with my babblings here.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 26, 2017 at 5:01:25 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Mar 26, 2017 at 5:10:46 pm

THIS (from Brett above) nails it.

It's never just a single command or action in X that removes so much friction in editing, it's how the system cohesively acts to drive efficiency across the entire process.

Creator of XinTwo - http://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.


Return to posts index

Claude Lyneis
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 26, 2017 at 5:09:54 pm

Brett, I couldn't agree more. I am also finding the roles and lanes are a great improvement, when it comes time to edit or do a poor man's mix of the audio. Of course this can be done in other apps, but its addition to X is a big improvement for me.


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 27, 2017 at 1:24:44 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "One of the most talked about features of FCP X is that fact that you can throw anything at a timeline without worrying about tracks and patching and the rest of the hassle that comes with "conventional" NLEs."

That pretty much sums it up, yes.


[Simon Ubsdell] "I wonder how many editors overlook the fact that this option is also there in Premiere."

Er, no, it definitely isn't.


[Simon Ubsdell] "Grab any clip from the browser and drag it to the upper centre of the Program Monitor, at which point the Overlay option becomes available, which will automatically ensure that the added material, both video and audio, does not overwrite anything in the timeline. "

It doesn't even have a shortcut (gee, wonder why?). That is also no different than simply dragging a clip to the timeline and positioning it above any other clip. So why even go to the same amount of tedious mousing around for the exact same result?

Also, how do you e.g. get your overlay on your V2 if there is already a clip there in the V2, so inbetween two clips? Drag and drop? Hell no. Not without prep work. Shortcut? Nope. None exists. Dragging it to the overlay option? Ah, sorry. Another no-go. It's patch'n'drag'n'fiddle all the way, no matter what.

So… how exactly does that compare? No "worrying about tracks and patching"? Really? You're sure about that? I certainly am not.

Would also love to know how the "same thing as connecting"-grouping thing in PPro is made visible in the timeline? How do I know what and if I've grouped something just by looking at it? Oh, I don't. And how do I achieve the ever so simple task of MOVING say for example a "connected" audio effect by itself after the fact? I mean without going through some ungrouping-unlinking-regrouping-relinking-removing etc. etc. etc. etc. dance first and last? Right, I can't.

Again. How does it compare? Somehow I'm just not seeing it.

You completely disregard the fact that by the virtue of Roles, the "track" a clips audio lands on/in is not decided by "nearest convenient slot and ever higher track number" as well. Meaning that even if I stack 10 clips on top of each other, their audio will ALWAYS land in the respective lane associated to the audio role. Would love to see you do that in PPro "just as in FCP". No "automatically ensure" of anything there. Any way of doing anything even vaguely similar just with a single key (or otherwise) in PPro? Erm… no. Have six clips stacked anywhere, then you better like having at least six audio tracks, too, four of which could easily be completely empty and otherwise useless space hogs. But I guess that's "a feature"? 😃

And what if you've predetermined 1&2 for dialog, 3&4 for music and 5&6 for effects in Premiere? Well gee, then I hope for the sake of your organization you never have a V7 or higher with your method. And, as in most cases, what if you never even have anything more than a V1 and maybe V2 and still need he same organization? Then saddle up enjoy your patch-dance! 😄 Because bingo, your audio is going all over the place and that's the exact moment (one of many) where your entire comparison falls apart completely.

How about you always want all foreign language audio isolated, say on 7&8 and another language on 9&10 etc. etc. as you edit? I mean without once having to think about it or having to go back to clean matters up at the end? Not possible, period. OR be sure to saddle up once again and have those patching shortcuts memorized and never ever forget to use them.

How about switching the order of e.g. dialog and effects audio? Dialog on 5&6 and effects on 1&2 without changing a single video track, all in one simple click? Now there's some "Fun in editing!" with PPro. 😂

Ever hear someone say something to the effect of "Final Cut Pro X moves all the technical mumbo-jumbo out of the way and simply LETS YOU EDIT and immerse in the creative process without the constant technical considerations as brain baggage along the way"? Well, I sure have. Often. And that would be one of those (many) things that they're referring to. 😏

"Unique" doesn't even begin to describe it for me, no. Nor can something like that ever be "oversold". Clearly there are many left that still haven't gotten it nor even begin to appreciate it for what it is: an absolutely brilliant and very unique concept and a massive time-saver, plain and simple.


[Simon Ubsdell] "Conceptually there is no difference between this and hitting the Q key in FCP X."

Actually: zero comparison. Neither functionally and most certainly not conceptually. Complete apples and oranges. Mere visual similarities, which is all there is, are irrelevant. I'd have to be willfully obtuse or have never once worked with X to even consider such a comparison and I suspect could only be manufactured by someone who doesn't actually even edit for a living beyond maybe a YouTube vlog? But even then…


[Simon Ubsdell] "Of course, the auto-connection is a very useful default if you are placing titles that go with a specific picture or sound effects that sync to a specific frame. But I don't think anyone can argue that these represent anything like a majority of the edits you are performing when you use the Q function."

Wow. Then I can only guess that you edit very very different things from me and pretty much 100% of every other professional editor I know. No narrative, no commercial, no image? At least I have yet to ever see anyone place something like a title or sound effect (or even a simple cutaway) into their timeline completely at random without any relevant relation to the underlying picture/story whatsoever as opposed to the other way around. Still waiting for that title/effect that fits perfectly no matter where it is!

That for me being the most bizarre notion yet.

- RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 27, 2017 at 1:31:44 pm

The roles of Quixote and Sancho Panza have already been taken.

So that means you'll have to settle for being Rocinante.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki


Return to posts index

Robin S. Kurz
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 27, 2017 at 1:39:19 pm

So you agree. Good for you. Then that's settled. 👍🏼

- RK


Return to posts index

Ronny Courtens
Re: Premiere's Automagical Timeline
on Mar 27, 2017 at 5:39:37 pm

So happy to see that Final Cut Pro X has become a benchmark for other NLEs (-:

- Ronny


Return to posts index

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