FORUMS: list search recent posts

GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Bill Davis
GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 5:11:57 pm

https://blog.frame.io/2017/10/16/fcpx-magnetic-timeline/

I wish I’d EVER been this clear in explaining the foundational construct of X.

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 6:18:51 pm

"In a track-based editing program you’re constantly asking yourself “where in time does this clip go?” At 30 seconds in? 45 seconds? And so on."

Who does that? I've never done it like that. You cut it in when you need it. I need a cutaway here becuase they are describing X...or I need one here to bridge a jump, or I need to cut to a reaction because someone said something that the other person reacted to. Who edits like this?

"The primary question is one of story relationships. Here are a couple examples.

“This audio queue should happen when that boat comes around the corner.”
“First I want to see the wide, then the medium, then the tight.”

Yup...which is what we do, even when you have tracks.

'But traditional track-based timelines asked us to think in a way that wasn’t focused on story, but rather on a set of technical specifications. “This audio cue needs to happen at 45 seconds and 12 frames in, which happens to visually correspond to what is going on with 5 tracks up the timeline and out of my view.”"

(bold is their emphasis, not mine)

WRONG. I never ever in all of my years of editing EVER did that. I put music where I felt it needed to go in the story....right after a moment occurred, or to lead up to a moment. When it felt right. I have never, nor have I ever heard of other editors describing it like the above line. if someone did treat it like that, they might be more technical that story based editors. Sorry, that's a BS statement.

I won't quote and refute the whole article, but those opening statements are just complete BS. And editing isn't ONLY creative, never has been. Editing is also technical, and tracks exist for a reason. And when you work on shows with multiple editors there is a reason for why things are set up the way they are. When you send audio to the audio mixer, things DO need to be separate (which is why ROLES was such a big step for FCX to implement...that made this trackless editing more viable to many people).

"The magnetic timeline saves an enormous amount of time. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is that FCP X encourages you to quickly organize your footage before editing. Place some keywords, mark important spots in the browser, and make notes on clips. All those things make your editing more precise."

THis is true of ANY AND ALL NLEs. This isn't limited to FCP-X. Good god, no. If you want to find anything in ANY software, you need to name things and label things and add comments that are searchable. This is important in pretty much all editing situations, and is doable in all NLEs.

"The magnetic timeline saves an enormous amount of time. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is that FCP X encourages you to quickly organize your footage before editing. Place some keywords, mark important spots in the browser, and make notes on clips. All those things make your editing more precise.

There is a lot right about the the timeline, like no collisions and keeping storylines connected, I'll give him that. And I know that the magnetic timeline is AMAZING for many MANY people. I get that, I'm not knocking that. It's useful, it's great, I know that. But the article is full of wrong and misleading statements. And there are many valid arguments for tracks...but just because someone doesn't like them or see the point to them doesn't mean they are useless, or a hinderance.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 6:27:12 pm

[Shane Ross] "“This audio queue should happen when that boat comes around the corner.”
“First I want to see the wide, then the medium, then the tight.”

Yup...which is what we do, even when you have tracks."


Yes, but your PROGRAM doesn't honor and preserve that decision across any possible future changes you might make. X does.

[Shane Ross] "And there are many valid arguments for tracks...but just because someone doesn't like them or see the point to them doesn't mean they are useless, or a hinderance."

Shane, calm down.

NOBODY is saying there aren't valid arguments for tracks. (Nobody is coming to take your tracks from your cold dead hands 😊 - Really. NOBODY. You will ALWAYS have the option of tracks.

But right now, there are a lot of OTHER editors who don't want to keep using them the way you will always be able too.

That's ALL Ruben is saying.

That there was a REASON for this ALTERNATIVE.

Alternative, not replacement.

One you can elect to explore - or not.

Period.

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


Return to posts index


Neil Goodman
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 6:31:37 pm

[Bill Davis] "Yes, but your PROGRAM doesn't honor and preserve that decision across any possible future changes you might make. X does.
"



Seriously, what does that mean?


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 6:35:01 pm

[Bill Davis] "Yes, but your PROGRAM doesn't honor and preserve that decision across any possible future changes you might make. X does. "

I'm sorry, what? What does that mean?

[Bill Davis] "
NOBODY is saying there aren't valid arguments for tracks. (Nobody is coming to take your tracks from your cold dead hands 😊 - Really. NOBODY. You will ALWAYS have the option of tracks."


No, they aren't. I didn't say they were. I said his opening arguments were pure BS

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 6:39:49 pm

[Shane Ross] "I'm sorry, what? What does that mean?"

That is precisely what the magnetic timeline enables.
Persistence of the editors DECISIONS.

In X, once you connect one asset to another, a RELATIONSHIP is formed between those assets disconnected from and not subservient to their timeline position.

A relationship that sticks.

Simply that.

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


Return to posts index


Michael Hancock
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 6:49:56 pm

[Shane Ross] "[Bill Davis] "Yes, but your PROGRAM doesn't honor and preserve that decision across any possible future changes you might make. X does. "

I'm sorry, what? What does that mean?"


Simply put, if you have a wide shot of a boat and 1/2 second before it ends you hear the boat horn, then you cut to a close up. The sound of the boat is going to be connected to either the wide shot where you hear it, or the incoming close up shot (if the sound carries through to that shot).

That's the relationship that is preserved when you move shots around and/or trim them. If your boat horn sound is attached to the wide shot and you move the wide shot, the sound goes with it. If you move the CU and it's attached to the close up, the sound goes with it. If it's attached to the CU and you slip the close up, the frame that the sound is attached to stays attached to that frame unless you chose not to.

Basically - the attached clips timing to the clip it's attached to is always preserved and carries with that shot, unless you choose not to. This can be nice - it can also be a headache. Just like moving stuff around with a tracked NLE! Sometimes it makes things easier. Sometimes it doesn't.

----------------
Michael Hancock
Editor


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 8:27:30 pm

[Michael Hancock] "Basically - the attached clips timing to the clip it's attached to is always preserved and carries with that shot, unless you choose not to. This can be nice - it can also be a headache. Just like moving stuff around with a tracked NLE! Sometimes it makes things easier. Sometimes it doesn't."

OK, I see that. All the clips can be attached to a shot, or a story. Got it. And then all you need to do is grab that one shot, the wide, and the sound moves with it. You don't need to grab the wide, and then remember to also grab the sound. The sound is tied to the picture. I get that. And I can see how that might shave a couple seconds off my time working. But even more so...I can see that it helps save your butt if you FORGET to grab the sound to, as now it's not connected and you either need to UNDO to then grab the sound too, or move the sound and spend some moments re-aligning it.

If that is what the author meant, he didn't explain himself very well.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 6:25:21 pm

Good write up but something new? Not really. Same thing people have been writing about X for the last couple years.

My only issue with the article is that he assumes people weren't paying attention to story simply because time has something to do with tracks? Doesn't make a ton of sense to me, and for shortform editing where you have to nail your spot to the frame, time is something you can never ignore.

The other thing that keeps coming up is how when your setting in and outs and keywords and ranges before hitting the timeline in X this makes you much faster. how is that different than the prep you do in another NLE, besides keywords which can be very simply replaced with markers in other NLE's?

As someone who has been working in X more consistently lately to a point where everything is pretty fluid now, I can defiantly see some benefits but as far as real world applications of getting people to switch, I really don't think its different enough from the competition.


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 6:35:44 pm

[Neil Goodman] "Good write up but something new? Not really. Same thing people have been writing about X for the last couple years.
"


You might be astonished at just how many working editors have absolutely no clue about any of this stuff.

They stopped thinking about X during the big kerfuffle in 2011 - and that's where their thinking and education STOPPED.

So is it "new" for THIS group? Nope.

What it IS is a reasoned call to the class of editors who have not explored the IDEA of X to possibly give it their own shot to see if it provides something they might find value in exploring.

That's ALL it is.

Not that big a deal really. 😀

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 6:44:36 pm

Well, there are many many new editors out there who don't know the basics to 3-point editing, so this might speak to them about making decisions BEFORE they put the clip into the timeline. But that, again, is a practice that predates this magnetic timeline, so for him to say it's something new was one of those BS statements I was talking about.

Later on his points are good, but the opening of the article is just poop.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 6:56:55 pm

[Shane Ross] "But that, again, is a practice that predates this magnetic timeline, so for him to say it's something new was one of those BS statements I was talking about.

Later on his points are good, but the opening of the article is just poop.
"


Only if viewed from one perspective.

Over and over in the X debates - people have pushed back with "but MY program does that too."

And yes, it does. Of course. But not the same way. At all.

The real, functional difference is that the entire point of the X rebuild was to RE-ARRANGE the entire program to move those things that every NLE does such that many of the processes used to build and arrange stories have new conceptual operations that make them easier and more fluid to execute.

It's not that you CAN't move the constructed block represented Scene 3 of your timeline three scenes later. Everyone understands that you can. Everyone understands that ALL NLE programs allow that.

But the way X is arranged, it's moving ONE clip. And that extraction and re-positioning EVERYTHING else around to accommodate that change is made vastly easier. Why? Magnetism.

Thats what Ruben was saying in his post.

Tom Carter posted this





TWO YEARS AGO.

He did the move in a tracked NLE - and he did the same move in X.

The only thing different is that magnetic persistence of the editors original intent - as it now works in X.

That's all.

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


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 7:30:44 pm

Again, I'm not arguing about this. Yes, I acknowledge that swapping out sections like that is much faster in FCX than in FCP Legacy, or Avid, or Premiere. Yup...it wins. That is not at all what I am talking about...not what I am taking issue with.

You are arguing with me and countering with things I am not even talking about.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 7:37:20 pm

[Shane Ross] "You are arguing with me and countering with things I am not even talking about."

Sorry, but your original post seemed to me to be doing exactly the same thing.

Arguing against the article for somehow not "honoring" things it wasn't discussing.

I didn't see anywhere in it that said, for instance, that editors who used other software were "wrong" in any way. Nor that their systems couldn't do things X can do.

But that was the impression I got from your original post.

Sorry, if I misconstrued your intent.

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


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 7:08:31 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Oct 17, 2017 at 7:09:03 pm

Double post, sorry.


Return to posts index


Neil Goodman
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 6:47:55 pm

It sort of is a big deal because like Shane pointed, The writer assumes a lot an out the way people edit in and outside of X and I feel like they were horrible assumptions.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 7:00:53 pm

Neil,

Great. Please articulate WHY they are horrible assumptions.

We can all learn from a discussion of THAT - more than just the assertion.

I'm perfectly ready and willing to learn about situations where tracked crushes trackless in agile asset arrangement.

So can you give me a few examples we can talk about?

Thanks.

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 7:12:10 pm

[Bill Davis] "Please articulate WHY they are horrible assumptions."

I did. Editing has ALWAYS been story based. No editor...no GOOD editor ever said "I need music to happen 45 sec and 12 frames in." Based edit decisions on seconds and frames, but always on when the story dictates "we need a cue here," or "cut here for dramatic emphasis" or "cut away here to illustrate what is happening, or for metaphorical purposes, or to bridge a cut in the interview." We add music when the story beat calls for it, or when something happens, and never "oh, someone said something important, I now need to add a cue 12 seconds after that, and it needs to line up with the cut on track 5."

No. Nothing is cut like that. If it is, than the editor isn't focused on story, and rather on something else and, sorry, that makes them not a good editor. No matter what you are cutting, story is always king, story beats are always in play and are always the most important. Scripted, doc, reality, commercials, corporate. Story is always the basis for any cutting or adding of music, never what frame in time. ALL of his opening arguments are based on a complete false assumption that editors edit based on timeline timecode or some nonsense. And that somehow, FCX and it's amazing magnetic timeline freed editors to think of story, and not be burdened by that style of editing. Only, that style of editing really doesn't happen. Seriously, I don't know anyone who cuts like he describes.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index


Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 7:34:51 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Oct 17, 2017 at 7:38:25 pm

[Shane Ross] "No editor...no GOOD editor ever said "I need music to happen 45 sec and 12 frames in." "

You didn't say it.

BUT:

When you put that clip on a timeline where the timelines OWN functional system REQUIRES that element to exist at 45 sec and 12 frames - that's what the program was MAKING happen. And that clip stayed at 45 second and 12 frames - regardless of anything else you did subsequently. Unless you moved it. And EVERYTHING around it while lassoing and grouping things to maintain sync.

Just because you - as an excellent editor - maintained your focus on the story - and therefore didn't realize that's what you were doing - doesn't mean the program wasn't making you do EXACTLY that.

Storyline timecode in X is fixed only for the state your edit is currently in. And floats otherwise. Which is lovely, once you get used to it. The timeline breaths, expands, contracts and morphs as it's construction demands. It does NOT lock anything you put on it to ITS time.

If you choose to edit in a 10 frames clip 15 seconds into your entire 1 hour long project - in X a clip formerly at 0:45:45:12 - floats to 0:45:45:22. Automatically. Preserving it's position relative to the assets around it (b-roll, sync sound, etc.)

That's the whole point of X.

Seriously. 😃

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 8:22:29 pm

[Bill Davis] "When you put that clip on a timeline where the timelines OWN functional system REQUIRES that element to exist at 45 sec and 12 frames - that's what the program was MAKING happen. "

Hmmm...when I put a clip in an FCX Project, it exists at a point in time. In fact, FCX has this little timecode indicator to tell you, "hey, this clip you put here exists at 1:00;45;12." So, that's no different than a timeline with tracks. The PROJECT and TIMELINE or SEQUENCE are the same thing...just named different. Both are where you place clips, and both have timecode associated with where you place that clip.

But that is not what he said in the article. He said:

“This audio cue needs to happen at 45 seconds and 12 frames in, which happens to visually correspond to what is going on with 5 tracks up the timeline and out of my view.”

He is saying that with track based editing, we focus on needing to put the clip on the timeline based on timing only. "I need this clip to happen at 1:00:45:12." Only, again, no one does that. We place the clip on the timeline based on the story. I put the clip there not because it's 45:12...but because the scene calls for music to start, or for a cutaway to happen. THAT is what I'm basing my decision on...not the time. THAT is the flaw in his thinking. I'm not making the decision based on time, but on story. Always have, always will.

[Bill Davis] "And that clip stayed at 45 second and 12 frames - regardless of anything else you did subsequently. Unless you moved it. And EVERYTHING around it while lassoing and grouping things to maintain sync."

Yes...yes it will. Same with FCX...it stays put until you move it. If it's connectd to a story, it will move, but I assume you want it to. But I don't see your point here. It doesn't move until you move it. yes, that's how things work, generally.

[Bill Davis] "Just because you - as an excellent editor - maintained your focus on the story - and therefore didn't realize that's what you were doing - doesn't mean the program wasn't making you do EXACTLY that. "

Making me do what? What was the program making me do? Sorry, you lost me again.

[Bill Davis] "Storyline timecode in X is fixed only for the state your edit is currently in. And floats otherwise. "

I'm sorry, what? it floats? You mean, the timecode doesn't stay fixed, but floats? How do you time out exactly how long something is if timecode floats? (Note the heavy sarcasm in that statement). I have NO IDEA what you are talking about here. But that might be the FCX/EverythingElse language barrier. Do you mean that the music clip, or cutaway doesn't always stay at 45:12...that when you grab the Primary Story, or secondary, that it moves with it, and remains locked relative to the story you are moving? OK... I can see that. But if I move something in Avid, or Premiere...and choose that clip as well, IT TOO moves with what I am moving..as long as I choose it. I do understand that you can lock all the elements to a Story, and grab just part of that story and all the elements move. Yes, that is good, and fast, and helps not leave anything out.

But, again, that's not what I have issue with. That's not what the article said...that's not the premise it laid out.

[Bill Davis] "
If you choose to edit in a 10 frames clip 15 seconds into your entire 1 hour long project - in X a clip formerly at 0:45:45:12 - floats to 0:45:45:22. Automatically. Preserving it's position relative to the assets around it (b-roll, sync sound, etc.)"


Ah, I was right. And you can see my answer above. Again, this is not what the author said, so this point is moot.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 8:30:15 pm

[Shane Ross] "He is saying that with track based editing, we focus on needing to put the clip on the timeline based on timing only. "I need this clip to happen at 1:00:45:12." Only, again, no one does that"

But he's not. If he was saying that, he could have written "the editor is required to focus on..." but he didn't say anything like that. It's what you might have THOUGHT you were reading - but it's not what Ruben actually wrote.

IMO, about 80% of these arguments is that the reader is reading what's written through their own bias filter.

I will TOTALLY cop to that myself.

I've read things here and completely mis-construed the reality of what was being said, due to my default thinking.

So, if *I* can freely admit that - can you Shane? That we BOTH color our perception of things NOT meant to be as provocatively as we see them - into a hyper provocative reading that isn't necessarily based on reality?

Just asking.

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


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 8:39:27 pm

[Bill Davis] "But he's not. If he was saying that, he could have written "the editor is required to focus on..." but he didn't say anything like that. It's what you might have THOUGHT you were reading - but it's not what Ruben actually wrote."

Then what did he write? What was he saying?

[Bill Davis] "IMO, about 80% of these arguments is that the reader is reading what's written through their own bias filter.

I will TOTALLY cop to that myself."


I always fess up when I'm wrong. Always. And yes, I do read things with my own point of view leading the way, as do most people. Seeing as you know FCX well, I guess you saw it differently. But if his aim was to convert anyone or show anyone who works with tracks that FCX is better, he blew it. He didn't communicate that well to those of us used to track based editing.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 8:45:21 pm

[Shane Ross] "But if his aim was to convert anyone or show anyone who works with tracks that FCX is better, he blew it. He didn't communicate that well to those of us used to track based editing.
"


AND THAT RIGHT THERE - is the value of these forum discussions.

You saw his purpose as to "convert" - which is religious speak for abandon what you used to believe - and adopt a new ideology. And resistance to that is something everyone can understand. Nobody likes someone trying to "convert" them.

But what if "convert" wasn't Ruben's goal at all? What if it was simply to illuminate the WAY X elected to re-think what it re-throught?

Suddenly, it becomes an OPTION to sit and listen - rather than an attack that must be resisted.

Worth thinking about, perhaps.

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 10:16:53 pm

[Bill Davis] "But what if "convert" wasn't Ruben's goal at all? What if it was simply to illuminate the WAY X elected to re-think what it re-throught?"

Then he failed, because he lost me when he described a way of editing that literally no one does. When someone says, "you know that way that you use pencils, where you had to remove the eraser and put it on the other side before you could sharpen the pencil? Well, you don't have to do that with this mechanical pencil, a couple clicks and you are ready to go."

Base argument...mechanical pencil is better than normal pencil. No sharpening! Two clicks and you have lead and it's always sharp. Great...that's true...but wait, what? Who the heck takes off the eraser and puts it on the other side and then sharpens it? What? No one does that. Of course that would be a silly thing to do, I mean, you have the other side ready to be sharpened.

So his arguments were true, there are many things about the magnetic timeline that are better than having tracks. But describing editing the way he did, completely wrong...started him out on the wrong foot and lost credibility with me. Because it indicates that he might not understand some things about how editing works...and is making bad assumptions on track based editing. So he lost me right out of the gate.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 7:26:24 pm



Where is the interview audio? Where is the scene audio? Where is the music and SFX? I can tell you right away by looking at this timeline. Interview is in Blue, and always on A1-A2 (some bleed to A3 if a third person is present). Scene work is always A3-A14. SFX - A15-A19, MUS A20-A21 and VO A-22. And I color code my tracks so I know exactly what is where. Interview is blue, scenes are green, SFX is salmon, music purple, VO yellow. I can see in an instant what is where.

With scene work it's important to keep the same characters/reality people on the same track, so when we get to the mix, the main character is always on A3, his brother on A4, the expert on A4...and so on.

And yes, I know with Roles you can assign colors, which is a new feature and GOOD. And that you can assign the characters to specific Roles, and that is GOOD. Roles will most certainly help speed that up. Because the one thing that does slow me down just a bit is assigning source to timeline tracks. Not by much, but it does slow me down. I know that, I acknowledge it.

Also in that pic, titles are on V6, lower third backplates on V5. Subtitles on V6 (all text is on V6). And because they are high above the other tracks, I can in an INSTANT spot where they are and zoom into them to change them. In FCX, they sit atop the other tracks, and I need to do a bit more scanning to find them.

NONE of the editing you see there is based on "I need to cut to a reaction shot 10 frames after someone said something" or "this music cue needs to line up with the cut on V1 and A3." No..they are added when the story calls for them.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 7:42:48 pm

[Shane Ross] "Where is the interview audio? Where is the scene audio? Where is the music and SFX? I can tell you right away by looking at this timeline. Interview is in Blue, and always on A1-A2 (some bleed to A3 if a third person is present). Scene work is always A3-A14. SFX - A15-A19, MUS A20-A21 and VO A-22. And I color code my tracks so I know exactly what is where. Interview is blue, scenes are green, SFX is salmon, music purple, VO yellow. I can see in an instant what is where. "

I understand that you are super fluent in "tracked timeline."

Thats great.

But there are plenty of people who are EXACTLY as fluent in "non-track-based timelines" now.

They work as fluidly - and as efficiency - and as creatively as you do, IN THEIR LANGUAGE.

It's like speaking Spanish verses speaking French.

If I was to assert that one of those was "better" than the other - both sides would howl at me with derision.

As well they should.

That's what I'm afraid is happening here.

So I'll leave it at that.

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 8:02:57 pm

[Bill Davis] "But there are plenty of people who are EXACTLY as fluent in "non-track-based timelines" now."

I know. And I don't besmirch them for that.

[Bill Davis] "
They work as fluidly - and as efficiency - and as creatively as you do, IN THEIR LANGUAGE."


I know, and I don't desmirch them or mock them for this ability. The magnetic timeline is something many people love and use and it's great for them. But it isn't for everyone...I for one cannot deal with it. But I don't think it's useless because I can't use it.

[Bill Davis] "It's like speaking Spanish verses speaking French. "

Yup.

[Bill Davis] "If I was to assert that one of those was "better" than the other - both sides would howl at me with derision.

As well they should.

That's what I'm afraid is happening here. "


NOPE. Again, you are completely missing the point. I am not having issue with how the magnetic timeline works, or how he pointed out it's advantages. The last 3/4 of the article is good...it shows all that the magnetic timeline can do and how it's amazing. It's his setup premise that I call shenanigans on. The way he tried to point out how people edit with tracks is completely wrong. No one does what he describes. If there are people who do, they are in the vast minority...I have never heard of people editing the way he describes. So the whole setup to his article is flawed..."This is better because man, when you have tracks, you edit like this, and that's highly technical and doesn't follow the story. FCX allows you to focus on the story and not edit like that." Only NO ONE EDITS LIKE THAT.

That is what I take issue with

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Darren Roark
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 8:17:59 pm

[Shane Ross] "I have never heard of people editing the way he describes. "

Agreed.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 9:25:24 pm

I did, all the points about time/ versus story etc. That was in my post. Also the stuff about prep making your timeline editing easier which is relavant to every NLE, that was in my original post. I guess you missed that.

It's not a tracks/trackless argument. It's about basic editorial principals.


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 7:08:31 pm

All of Shane's points are completely valid.

I would add that Reuben is obviously too young to have a larger knowledge of the history of editing and the process of editing. And it becomes most apparent when he talks about how FCPX helps an editor focus on story.

The primary story line is just a new way of describing A-roll. The basis for all visual story creation is building an a-roll or "story line" and then building the visuals and audio that support that story line. This was the process when I worked with 1/2" tape, 3/4" tape, BetaSP, Digibeta and now it continues with all of the digital formats. Nothing about this process is different. it's just a new way to get it built.

FCPX is quite helpful and fast in building A-rolls and adding the supporting elements but there's nothing new or groundbreaking about how FCPX treats the process of story building and the article is highly misleading and somewhat naive.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 7:14:44 pm

[greg janza] "The primary story line is just a new way of describing A-roll."

NO - IT - IS - NOT.

It's a magnetic assembly area that works DIRECTLY with the browser database to rapidly assemble prepped assets into vertical and horizontally connected asset groups. Prepped assets that can be imbued with the editors actual EDITORIAL INTENT before they arrive.

To artificially imply "it's just a new way of describing A-Roll" reveals a pretty stunning lack of understanding of how FCP X functions at the most fundamental of levels.

My 2 cents.

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 8:08:17 pm

The whole premise...the BASE for the article is flawed. Based on very flawed and wrong assumptions about how people edit, and then goes to point out how FCX is better. Only...again...no one edits the way he says they edit. He could have said "how the magnetic timeline speeds up your editing process" and pointed out how it differs from tracks. THOSE are valid points. But, as also pointed out...all things we have seen before. It's not showing anything new.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 8:39:50 pm

[Shane Ross] "But, as also pointed out...all things we have seen before. It's not showing anything new.
"


Got it. X is nothing new. The last six years of debate were worthless. Because everything is just the same as it's always been. Nothing to see here. Move on.

Still, it's astonishing in the light of that - the moment someone posts a piece that describes a difference that X brings to the table - so many have to LEAP up and declaim that it's NOT really any different - that every OTHER option also does all those things. Just as well. And always has.

Lets cut to the chase of this part of the debate. Either eliminating friction in re-arranging story elements as blocks - IMPROVES storytelling - or it does not.

You can ASSERT that leaving the extra friction in is unimportant because editors can still concentrate on the story if they like - which is true.

But to me, the friction matters. A LOT.

If it didn't, nobody would use keyboard shortcuts for anything.

After all, those are primarily ways to remove friction in actions that are perfectly possible via other means.

So in that sense, magnetism is a massive virtual persistent "keyboard shortcut" for story arrangement.

You can argue that you don't want to use it. And that you are perfectly happy using a menu selection instead of a keyboard shortcut. And that's your right. But don't tell me I'm not practically faster at making story-centric alterations and versions via the X magnetic system - because I know I am.

Simple as that.

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 9:58:19 pm

[Bill Davis] "Got it. X is nothing new. The last six years of debate were worthless. Because everything is just the same as it's always been. Nothing to see here. Move on."

No. All of this has been pointed out before, even just a year ago. BUT, OK...fine, let new people see this. It has valid points.

[Bill Davis] "ut don't tell me I'm not practically faster at making story-centric alterations and versions via the X magnetic system - because I know I am."

I didn't. I said that all of the points after his initial statement are valid...good. The way FCX works does speed things up in many ways.

The only issue I have...AGAIN...is that how the author describes track based editing is completely wrong. The premise is wrong. That's all.

Could it be described any clearer? yes, yes it could Because how it does it now is confusing, and wrong.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 11:41:06 pm

[Bill Davis] "Prepped assets that can be imbued with the editors actual EDITORIAL INTENT before they arrive.
"


Again, how is this different than another NLE.

Even in Imovie, I can set the in and out, on a bunch of clips and organize to my hearts content. Then when its time to put stuff down, ONLY the things I as an editor choose go in thetimeline, and the exact point in the story or point of reference that I CHOOSE.

Welcome to non linear editing 😉


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 10:21:58 pm

Let's party like it's 2012.

I get why Shane and Neil reject the premise of the article. It's too bad, because I think the author was so close to nailing it. He's talking about how the editor thinks, when he should be talking about how the NLE itself "thinks."

As an editor with a traditional NLE, of course you do not think "I must start this clip at 3:05." You read the timeline and place the clip visually where it belongs.

But then the NLE thinks, "This clip starts at 3:05." Traditional NLEs only understand in and out points. Your edit may happen to be near other edits on the timeline, but the NLE doesn't know how they go together.

FCPX is fundamentally different. Clip relationships are incidental and only implied in traditional NLEs, but clip relationships actually form the very structure of the edit in FCPX. All the timeline mechanics in FCPX are based on clips' relationships to each other.

If you look at how the timeline data is stored, a clip in the primary storyline in FCPX doesn't have an in and out point on the timeline stored; it just comes after the previous clip in the primary. It's "in point" is derived on the fly from the combined duration of every clip on the primary before it. Likewise, connected clips are stored relative to a connect point on a clip; their in and out times are derived on the fly from combined duration of clip before their connection, plus the time of the connection itself.

FCPX zen: Editing is like redirecting a river. You don't move the water itself. You reshape the earth around the river, and the river re-flows accordingly.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 10:55:46 pm

Interesting article, but a lot of "so what?".

One of the things I find pointless is the commonly cited "swapping two clips on the magnetic timeline" example. This isn't done all that frequently. Sure, maybe with B-roll shots, but with X, these would be connected clips, so magnetism isn't really all that important in the move.

But let's say you want to move a scene from 30 minutes into the program earlier to the 1 minute mark. It's nearly impossible to effectively drag this down through your magnetic timeline and hit the target correctly. The more often used technique is to copy, delete, and then paste insert. Those steps work about the same regardless of NLE. And every NLE - X included - will require some clean-up in both timeline spots to finesse such a move.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters - oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 17, 2017 at 11:56:01 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Let's party like it's 2012."

Walter, indeed.

It's difficult not to eye-roll at how this post (and thread) retreads common misconceptions about editing and NLEs that continue to prop up the evangelist posts.

"Deciding the spine is the process of editing."
Discuss.

However, since you have dropped in (and in the interest of possibly contributing and learning something), I thought I would. But it's to call you on this:

[Walter Soyka] "FCPX is fundamentally different. Clip relationships are incidental and only implied in traditional NLEs, but clip relationships actually form the very structure of the edit in FCPX. All the timeline mechanics in FCPX are based on clips' relationships to each other."

I know you're enamored of the underlying structure of the information that FCPX uses. We have talked about this before. However, I'm going to argue that from a user perspective there are actually no differences. Or only slight difference in terms of how to manipulate relationships.

This is my argument:

When I place clips in a tracked timeline, I have indicated very specific relationships. They are not implied. They are there to be seen, to be used, to be changed. The proof is that when I play back, the clips play back as expected, in the relationships that I have indicated, and when I use the clips (change relationships, rely on relationships for technical or creative reasons) they behave as expected.

The timeline encapsulates and preserves the relationships.

These relationships are serial and parallel in nature. (Horizontal, Vertical, or in depth as with multicam).

These relationships can be transferred: for example, select all, copy and paste to a new timeline; same relationships; or through export formats to other software. Or through an export which "executes" the relationships to an independent media file.

These relationships have sub-relationships within them: for example: clips with video and audio, clips that have been linked, clips that are multicam, clips that have been grouped (we could call them scenes), clips that have sync relationships that can be indicated, clips that have duplicates that can be indicated, clips that have through edits that can be indicated, clips that have proxy media (two media files), clips that have "enhanced media" (ie. After Effects links).

All these relationships are - from a user perspective - not "implied". They are explicit. They can be seen, used, relied on, and changed by any editor, and they are encapsulated by a timeline.

Now, from a programming perspective, it may be very different. But from a user perspective, whether clips are referenced to master time or to each other, there is no difference.

I think you are going to argue that clips in so-called "traditional" NLEs reference only master time and therefore "aren't related". My argument is that it is precisely through this "master time" that they gain their relationships to one another.



Franz.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 1:01:52 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I think you are going to argue that clips in so-called "traditional" NLEs reference only master time and therefore "aren't related". My argument is that it is precisely through this "master time" that they gain their relationships to one another.
"


But I thought Shane's original contention was that the timing relationship (as it relates to the tickmarks on a timeline) was functionally irrelevant. No editor worth their salt considers THAT in the slightest.

They only "see" snippets of content in relation to each other - divorced from that timekeeping.

Which causes me to wonder, what's the point in artificially constraining time markers on any story assembly system to a linear array of NEVER-changing tick marks. What's the point of THAT?

What's the justification beyond "because that's the way we've always done it?"

Historically, a pretty shabby reason, IMO.

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


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 3:10:13 am

[Bill Davis] "But I thought Shane's original contention was that the timing relationship (as it relates to the tickmarks on a timeline) was functionally irrelevant. No editor worth their salt considers THAT in the slightest."

If looked at analytically, Franz's overall time assessment seems quite logical.

I think what Shane was referring to was the overall process of editing. And if looked at through that lens, the notion of time and how it connects and relates to clips in a timeline is all irrelevant.

Throughout a typical workday I never look at any editing time element. I don't look at timecode from clips or any time markers in my timeline. I don't consciously think in terms of what relation the clips have to the overall timeline or what time any particular clip may have or where it's placed in the timeline.

The thought process throughout a typical edit day is solely focused on story development. The thoughts that consume the day: Does the story makes sense, is it flowing, does it have a solid arc, etc.

All time elements happen at a subconscious level and therefore can't easily be quantified or analyzed.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 3:54:31 am

[Bill Davis] "Which causes me to wonder, what's the point in artificially constraining time markers on any story assembly system to a linear array of NEVER-changing tick marks. What's the point of THAT?
"


Im not sure I'm following correctly - but you do need absolute time. At least I do. I dont think about it while Im creatively doing my thing besides making sure Im not going over, but nearly everything I edit has to be to the frame a specific time.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 5:21:29 am

[Bill Davis] "But I thought Shane's original contention was that the timing relationship (as it relates to the tickmarks on a timeline) was functionally irrelevant. No editor worth their salt considers THAT in the slightest.

They only "see" snippets of content in relation to each other - divorced from that timekeeping. "


That is my point exactly. Often I don't even look at the timing until I'm done cutting. And mostly that is when a producer goes, "hey, how long is Act 1 shaping up to be?" I always cut relative to the other clips, never based on the timeline time. (which, BTW, FCX does as well...has timing. The difference between it and say Avid is TRACKS, not time tics and duration...they both have that).

But EVERY editor worth their salt does pay some attention to timing when one needs to. Such as "a reel is about 20 min," so they need to aim at that time. "A half hour show is 22 min," so the editor needs to be mindful of the show timing. "Act 1 needs to be between 9 and 11 minutes." So we are mindful of that. As every editor worth their salt should be, no matter WHAT they are cutting with.

But we aren't concerned with "the music cue needs to hit 2 seconds after this moment and run for 2 min." No...we start the cue when the moment calls for it, and end it when it needs to end. And then futz with it so that it fits within that story beat, that moment. Not exact timing.

[Bill Davis] "Which causes me to wonder, what's the point in artificially constraining time markers on any story assembly system to a linear array of NEVER-changing tick marks. What's the point of THAT?"

Because precise timing is needed in many cases, as I've outlined. Because we even need to do things like make acts end precisely at a :23 or :29 frame so the first frame of black is at :00...so the next act starts at :00. This is something that FCX does, and should do. As broadcast work is cut on FCX. YOU might not be hindered by these network requirements, but many of us are.

[Bill Davis] "What's the justification beyond "because that's the way we've always done it?""

Because networks demand it. Because knowing the duration is something most people want to know. "How long is this movie?" "Hey, how about watching this quick 5 min video with me?" "we need to make this commercial not only 1 min for the Superbowl, but also have a :30 and a :15 min version as well."

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 2:32:38 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Oct 18, 2017 at 6:12:10 pm

[Bill Davis] But I thought Shane's original contention was that the timing relationship (as it relates to the tickmarks on a timeline) was functionally irrelevant."



Bill,

If you're unclear on what Shane articulated you could ask him. If you're unclear on what I have said, you can ask.

If you're trying to conflate what I said with what Shane said, then I'd suggest you ask yourself why you're doing that.

It is entirely possible that I have a perspective that is not shared by Shane and vice versa. It is odd to me that you might find this surprising. But I don't see any contradiction in what I have written and what Shane has written.

[Bill Davis] " ... what's the point in artificially constraining time markers on any story assembly system to a linear array of NEVER-changing tick marks. What's the point of THAT?"

I don't understand what you're saying here. What is an "artificial constraint"? What would be a natural constraint? What is being constrained? What do you want to do that feels limited? How has it been limited? Are we still talking about NLEs?



Franz.
Edit: "contraction" to "contradiction"


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 10:18:03 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "However, I'm going to argue that from a user perspective there are actually no differences. Or only slight difference in terms of how to manipulate relationships... But from a user perspective, whether clips are referenced to master time or to each other, there is no difference. I think you are going to argue that clips in so-called "traditional" NLEs reference only master time and therefore "aren't related". My argument is that it is precisely through this "master time" that they gain their relationships to one another."

I'd say that traditional NLEs encode time directly and rely on the editor to understand relationships, while FCPX encodes relationships directly (and derives time).

But "so what?" is a really good question. Why does the data model matter?

Because the FCPX data model -- the internal use of clip relationships as the structure of the timeline -- is the thing that enables FCPX timeline mechanics. And from the user's perspective, FCPX seems significantly different than traditional NLEs, doesn't it?


[Franz Bieberkopf] "When I place clips in a tracked timeline, I have indicated very specific relationships. They are not implied. They are there to be seen, to be used, to be changed. The proof is that when I play back, the clips play back as expected, in the relationships that I have indicated, and when I use the clips (change relationships, rely on relationships for technical or creative reasons) they behave as expected."

I agree with you that most editors think first in terms of clip relationships, not ins and outs and timecode. That's where the premise of the original article lost everyone, but it's also exactly why FCPX is so interesting to me. FCPX's data model, and the toolset for manipulating that data model, enable this:

[Tony West] "What I noticed about X right off the bat is how much the software is trying to handle the edit for you. "figuring out details" as he says saves me time because I'M not doing it. it is."

With a traditional NLE, you read the timeline, and you can see and use and change the relationships. But it's on you, the editor, to use and preserve the relationships of obviously-related clips during operation. The traditional NLE only offers you tools to manipulate clips. You have to make multi-selections, both vertically and horizontally. You have to toggle track locks to preserve some pieces you want to keep. You have to play Track Tetris to make clips fit after a move. You, the editor, have to do a lot of timeline work to keep related clips related during operation.

Because FCPX actually encodes clip relationships (this clip comes first, then this clip comes second; this clip connects to that clip at this point), there is no work that you, as the user, must perform to keep related clips related. The relationship is defined by the editorial operation that puts it into the storyline in the first place, and of course you are free to redefine the relationships at any time.

Traditional NLEs have timelines. FCPX has storylines. This is a real semantic difference.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 10:24:36 am

[Walter Soyka] "With a traditional NLE, you read the timeline, and you can see and use and change the relationships. But it's on you, the editor, to use and preserve the relationships of obviously-related clips during operation. The traditional NLE only offers you tools to manipulate clips. You have to make multi-selections, both vertically and horizontally. You have to toggle track locks to preserve some pieces you want to keep. You have to play Track Tetris to make clips fit after a move. You, the editor, have to do a lot of timeline work to keep related clips related during operation.

Because FCPX actually encodes clip relationships (this clip comes first, then this clip comes second; this clip connects to that clip at this point), there is no work that you, as the user, must perform to keep related clips related. The relationship is defined by the editorial operation that puts it into the storyline in the first place, and of course you are free to redefine the relationships at any time.

Traditional NLEs have timelines. FCPX has storylines. This is a real semantic difference."


Ladies and Gentleman, we have a winner!


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 1:33:01 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I'd say that traditional NLEs encode time directly and rely on the editor to understand relationships, while FCPX encodes relationships directly (and derives time). "

Lovely.

But I would add this - relationships come and go, time, at least in the Newtonian world in which I work, is absolute. Basing your editing foundation on the fickleness of non-enduring relationships is like building your house on a foundation of mud - it can be done (see the city of Chicago), but why would you want to?

Above all, to paraphrase Bill, it seems the magnetic timeline prizes the maintenance of original editing decisions. But is that a good thing - I spend the majority of my time revising, redefining and often obliterating those decisions in favor of later ones.

As a cutter of PBS broadcast shows my absolute is 26:46:00, and to work in an environment that doesn't prioritize that would be, for me, absurd.

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


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 2:03:42 pm

[Herb Sevush] "As a cutter of PBS broadcast shows my absolute is 26:46:00, and to work in an environment that doesn't prioritize that would be, for me, absurd."

[Herb Sevush] "Above all, to paraphrase Bill, it seems the magnetic timeline prizes the maintenance of original editing decisions. But is that a good thing - I spend the majority of my time revising, redefining and often obliterating those decisions in favor of later ones."

It keeps the relationships until you break or change them Herb, just as easily as you would in a tracked NLE. What it does is KEEP those relationships intact as you work on the rest of the story.

It's hard to "get" how another system works based on how other people describe (or wax lyrical) about it especially when you haven't used it.

"Traditional NLEs have timelines. FCPX has storylines" W.Soyka


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 2:30:02 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Oct 18, 2017 at 2:48:16 pm

Walter,



Thanks.

But I think the comparison of the two models is more nuanced than that.

[Walter Soyka] " traditional NLEs encode time directly ..., while FCPX encodes relationships directly (and derives time)."

Again, I am asking how this changes the user experience. I understand the two data models, I am asking about their impact on the user experience.

From a user perspective, both models (relative and absolute) can be used to give absolute information (where in the timeline does this clip play?) and relative information (what comes next).

Further both models are capable of encoding relationships.

[Walter Soyka] ”… the FCPX data model -- the internal use of clip relationships as the structure of the timeline -- is the thing that enables FCPX timeline mechanics."

Can you be more specific here. You’ve used a vague notion of “timeline mechanics”.

I think you mean ripple-by-defaut, collision avoidance, and the nuances of clip connections (vs. grouped clips). Am I missing something else? If we’re talking about these things, then it’s clear that ripple editing is in any tracked / absolute model and there has been suggestion (by David Lawrence) that there’s nothing about tracked / absolute timelines that precludes collision avoidance. In other words - both models can have these features, and I don’t understand why one model “enaables” these features while another model precludes them.

[Walter Soyka] "With a traditional NLE, you read the timeline, and you can see and use and change the relationships. But it's on you, the editor, to use and preserve the relationships of obviously-related clips during operation.”

I have outlined a number of clip relationships that are preserved in so-called “traditional” timelines. In other words, timelines are built to preserve relationships. I’ll give you these examples again:

“ … clips with video and audio, clips that have been linked, clips that are multicam, clips that have been grouped (we could call them scenes), clips that have sync relationships that can be indicated, clips that have duplicates that can be indicated, clips that have through edits that can be indicated, clips that have proxy media (two media files), clips that have "enhanced media" (ie. After Effects links).”

Those are example of relationships of obviously related clips that are preserved in a timeline. As an editor I do not have to work to preserve these relationships - the software does it for me. Grouped clips (scenes) and multi-cam seem to me to common counter-examples to your argument.

[Walter Soyka] "You have to make multi-selections, both vertically and horizontally. You have to toggle track locks to preserve some pieces you want to keep. You have to play Track Tetris to make clips fit after a move. You, the editor, have to do a lot of timeline work to keep related clips related during operation."

There is work to do in the timeline regardless of which NLE you use. The original article tries to glide over the work of connection management for example. The argument is something along the lines of “some work is needed but it’s trivial” - so we’re back to subjective feelings of speed and efficiency.

Or, as I said, there is some slight difference in terms of how to manipulate relationships. As I understand it this essentially comes down to collision avoidance and (as I said above) some nuances of clip connections (vs. grouped clips).



Perhaps I can make it simpler (for myself to understand).

Can you give me an example of a relationship that one NLE relies on the editor to understand that FCPX does not rely on the editor to understand. Bear in mind the group clips function in most NLEs.



Franz.
(Edit: spelling and clarity)


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 4:55:37 pm

Have you actually used FCPX, Franz?


[Franz Bieberkopf] "Again, I am asking how this changes the user experience. I understand the two data models, I am asking about their impact on the user experience."

It's in the tools. The difference is not about what you can do, but how you do it.


[Franz Bieberkopf] "Can you give me an example of a relationship that one NLE relies on the editor to understand that FCPX does not rely on the editor to understand. Bear in mind the group clips function in most NLEs."

I think that groups are really stored/recalled selections. Grouping clips does not change timeline mechanics, other than that selecting one clip in a group selects the whole group. Group some clips and try some edits around them. Perform an ripple/insert edit in the middle of a group; compare that in Pr with connected clips in FCPX.


[Franz Bieberkopf] "Can you be more specific here. You’ve used a vague notion of “timeline mechanics”... both models can have these features, and I don’t understand why one model “enaables” these features while another model precludes them."

At this point, tracked NLEs with relationship-oriented tools are theoretical, but we can discuss this more. Separate post to come.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 5:32:47 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Have you actually used FCPX, Franz?"

Yes, though not much.

[Walter Soyka] "Separate post to come."

Looking forward to it.


Franz.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 6:02:09 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think that groups are really stored/recalled selections."

Walter,

... on further reflection (and perhaps as further fodder for you upcoming post) I am trying to understand this qualification and take it further: in what sense is a timeline - any timeline - not "stored/recalled selections". I mean they're selections in relation to one another, of course, so can we not call a timeline a collection of "stored/recalled selections" set in relation to one another?

Franz.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 7:41:49 pm

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Can you give me an example of a relationship that one NLE relies on the editor to understand that FCPX does not rely on the editor to understand. Bear in mind the group clips function in most NLEs"

If I’m editing standard clips (those that X maintains as video with embedded audio on import)

And I elect to set my timeline clip appearance to ALL VIDEO (audio veiled, essentially) when I cut trim or move the video, the audio tracks those decision changes even tho I can’t see it.

X is NOT relying on me to manage any AUDIO tracks at all. It is operating entirely in the background while presenting me with what I have elected to concentrate upon. Video.

It has automated expressing my trimming intent and applied it to my scene audio “behind the scenes.”

While, I might add, preserving ALL my options for when and if I choose to display and re-prioritize my audio.

That might be an example of X automating editorial functions without the need for user intervention, perhaps.

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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 8:30:25 pm
Last Edited By Franz Bieberkopf on Oct 18, 2017 at 8:33:06 pm

[Bill Davis] " That might be an example of X automating editorial functions without the need for user intervention, perhaps."

Bill,

You can trim blind to audio using Premiere Pro. (The A/V track separator can be dragged to hide audio).

You may well be able to do this in Avid and others as well (not currently using them so I can't check).

So on the face of it, the example you've given is another way of emphasizing how NLEs keep relationships in general.

Now it might be true that complex trimming selections can't be done in PPro without seeing audio - you'd have to ask someone that uses the trimming tools in a more traditional way than I. But I think that this points more towards what Walter is talking about.

On that note, with further reflection, I think auditions and (maybe) secondaries are examples of the kinds of relationships that can be preserved in FCPX that would be difficult to do in other NLEs. I'm interested to see what Walter comes up with, and I'll have more to say then.



Franz.


Return to posts index

Tony West
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 3:01:39 am

I wouldn't have gone with his premise myself, and I understand Shane's arguments against the "premise" of the article.

I actually enjoyed Ubillos' description of his program better than this article.

Ubillos: - "FCPX broke away from the idea of specific tracks and just allowed audio to overlap as needed, letting the software figure out the details of how to mix it."

" letting the software figure out the details"

That's it right there for me. What I noticed about X right off the bat is how much the software is trying to handle the edit for you. "figuring out details" as he says saves me time because I'M not doing it. it is.

It's moving clips out of the way for you.
It's trying to anticipate which tool you will need next.
It's trying to organize your footage for you with smart collections (rather you use them or not)
It's trying to fix your audio (if you allow it, most of us won't)
It's trying to do things that you may or may not feel like doing yourself.

People often describe the program as "getting out of your way so you can focus on the story."
When actually, it's participating in the edit with you like some sort of assistant editor.

Ubillos: "One of my biggest goals in the software I worked on was always to reduce the amount of time spent in the mechanics of editing,"

YES. But how is it doing that? By doing some of those mechanics for you.

I could certainly cut my grass faster if I had an automatic mower cutting the back on it's own, while I was cutting my front myself. I would finish in half the time.

So that's the new title.

"FCP X, it's two lawn mowers"


Return to posts index

Andy Field
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 3:18:17 am

This connected clips can only happen in FCP X is nonsense -- heard of nested sequences? Want everything connected forever and forever -- line em up - nest em Done.

Everyone loves their NLE but it seems only FCP X users feel the need to defend their using it.

Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 3:58:33 am

[Andy Field] "This connected clips can only happen in FCP X is nonsense -- heard of nested sequences? Want everything connected forever and forever -- line em up - nest em Done.

Everyone loves their NLE but it seems only FCP X users feel the need to defend their using it.
"


Nesting is a pain in the ass - collapsing as it's called in avid is ok but you still have to drill down into to make changes which is an extra step.

I did just find the "group" feature in premiere today tho and that sort of acts like connected clips does but not nearly as elegant.


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 3:56:30 am

[Tony West] "People often describe the program as "getting out of your way so you can focus on the story."
When actually, it's participating in the edit with you like some sort of assistant editor."


Thats a great description of how it actually works instead of all the other mumbo jumbo. I would read your article.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 7:15:02 am

[Neil Goodman] "[Tony West] "People often describe the program as "getting out of your way so you can focus on the story."
When actually, it's participating in the edit with you like some sort of assistant editor."

Thats a great description of how it actually works instead of all the other mumbo jumbo. I would read your article.
"


I agree, parts of this argument are nonsensical. The tracked editing description in the original article was badly explained and has sadly detracted from what was on the whole one of the best descriptions of editing in FCPX I've read.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 9:51:17 am

I know that many of you agree with a lot of what I'm about to say. I supportively quote four of you in this thread, and I could have quoted a dozen of you.

But this is basically me trying to catch up on the past 6 months of not posting in one go, on every similar thread that I've missed along the way. 😂


[Andy Field] "Everyone loves their NLE but it seems only FCP X users feel the need to defend their using it."

I kind of get that part, because people really have spent a lot of time slagging X.

Some of the people making these kinds of presentations are unfortunately resistant to acknowledge that even Apple copped to X's initial inability to support critical Legacy workflows, and in some cases would be not just postponing those workflows, but substantially abandoning them. People weren't pulling this out of thin air. They were reacting to what Apple told them, and Apple was of course correct.

Note again please that I'm on the record as concurring entirely with Apple's plan (perhaps the only person on the planet outside Apple to say so; I'm certainly the only one here I've ever seen) -- but having said that, the people making and sharing presentations like this are right to insist that X has grown in ways that haven't been acknowledged in some quarters.

On one hand, it's lovely to see their enthusiasm (again, shared by me). They've found something that makes them happy, and they want to share that joy with people who they feel could be more joyful if only.....

However, it's disingenuous to say that there's not an evangelical component to many of these videos and articles as presented. They want to persuade the audience that this isn't just one equally valid approach among many, but one that the audience should adopt. I know this, because they're telling me again and again, by opening their presentations with the purported negatives of other approaches.

What stands out, though, is the stunning consistency with which they misstate how "editors" and "Other NLEs" "think" and "work". Not just THAT they're wrong, but HOW wrong they are, inevitably colors the reception of the rest of their presentations.

You'd hope that in entreating their audience to fundamentally reconsider the soundness of their own starting assumptions, that these fellas would do the same. Again acknowledging that many of the criticisms of X are no longer valid, if they ever were....

....but if addressing THOSE were the primary intent, then these Accounts Of The Light Bulb Going Off Pointing To A Better Way Thanks to FCPX, they would stick with THAT as sole the topic of their presentations. They wouldn't waste a single second talking about how the less-good way is less good. They'd ONLY talk about the way that the better way is better.

Which makes me wonder -- is perhaps their problem with tracks not intrinsic to track-based editing itself, but the fact that they never figured it out themselves? Or perhaps some disconnect between the way they wanted to work and the tasks best suited to track-based workflows? Maybe they were just holding it wrong. Because they're sure as shootin' explaining it wrong. Little of what they're describing makes any sense at all. NO WONDER that X is working better for them!

Now before someone rushes in to defend the many editors who were at the peak of fluency of the right way to do tracks and who still prefer X, of course, such people exist. I just wish they were the ones making the bulk of these presentations.

Actually, I don't. I'd love for people to talk about what excites them, what drives them forward, without spending a single second on what they think is wrong with other alternatives.

The irony of this dynamic is that such presenters and their supporters so often paint themselves as a beleaguered tiny bastion under constant attack by The Industry.... or....something....when in fact X's audience grew to the full size of Legacy and surpassed it, supposedly the mightiest force in mainstream editing of its era, in a fraction of the time, with the full backing of the richest corporation in human history.

Calling it the most goliath Goliath of all time doesn't begin to do it justice, as it now approaches triple the size its founder left in his passing just a few years ago. This ain't the Alamo. It's the Citadel. The shiniest city on the highest-ever hill.

So why are the people making and sharing these presentations not accepting the fact that the industry has substantially said "Yes" to X? "Because there are still so many misconceptions" --- fine. Address those. We'll all be further ahead if we're not spending so many cycles addressing these presenters' misconceptions of a way that they've already rejected.

The saddest irony is that in demanding a kind of -- what? acceptance? respect? validation?-- that they have in fact already been granted by the world at large, they're trying to enforce an orthodoxy more rigid than the one they're putatively rejecting. Anyone pointing out that the people making these presentations "don't get" the basics of track-based editing are in return being criticized for not getting X, when in fact the two have nothing to do with each other.

Not only do you not not need to understand one to understand the other, some here have suggested that the only insurmountable obstacle to understanding X is trying to carry forward what you previously learned about tracks. Which is fortunate for these presenters who've chosen X! These presentations so often really don't appear to get track based editing in the least -- again, not that they need to. They've chosen FCPX.

And apparently just in a nick of time! If what some of them describe is what they were actually doing while on the clock before, it's a wonder they got anything done at all. I admire their previous fortitude, and am glad that the path ahead of them promises to be so much smoother.

Without trying to psychoanalyze any individual human, the part of me that did in fact train in psychoanalysis can't help but detect the redolent aroma of passive-aggressive condescension in this approach to building up X on a foundation of dragging down Not X.

To rhetorically overstate a bit: "*I* am enlightened enough that, when shown the advantages of X, I was quick to adopt it. *You*, on the other hand, must first be persuaded that you are wrong to think that Not X is a good place to edit. Only after I show you just how wrong you are can you then see how X is better."

Again, this may not substantially represent the view of any of the individuals making these presentations, but the dynamic is consistent. You know how you can tell when someone is excited about X for X's sake, and that they have no stake in talking down anyone else's choice? When that's what they actually do. It's unfortunately rare.

That's why the most productive parts of these threads to ME are when people talk about what they do and why. Not when they rag on what somebody else is doing.

LISTENING to other people's perspective from THEIR perspective, instead of me TELLING them what their perspective is, is the foundation of empathy. The fact that the first parts of these presentations, videos, articles, etc. are "telling" track-based editors things about themselves that they don't recognize as even vaguely in the ballpark nukes any possibility of empathy, or any basic communication at all.

Beyond the condescension, this dynamic masks its own impediments to insight. "It's only the OTHER guy who misunderstands something. It's only the other guy failing to be rational. He's the one frozen in his assumptions." My own experience suggests that when a thought like this crosses my mind, it's only my own calcification speaking. Your mileage may vary.

Look, maybe most people understand most things. Maybe even most people who prefer X understand tracks just fine. It's a shame that they're not doing more of these presentations, because right now, the largely compelling presentations of X itself are being undermined by how far they miss the mark on alllllll the rest.

I say this as someone who's been called out for my enthusiasms for X as much as anyone here, and more than most -- but for all that these presenters are calling for respect for X and its users that I'm the first to acknowledge that they don't always get, there are precious few of them willing to just accept that it's enough to talk about X's advantages, and only X's advantages, without staking any credibility on disrespect for other NLEs and their users.

It's stifling any possibility of peer-to-peer communication, because you've already tipped your hand that you don't think I'm your peer. I'd have to be nuts to edit that OTHER way you've demonstrated-- and on this, we agree. What I see described is the height of folly, which is why I never did it that way, and never observed anyone else doing it that way either.

Quoting Steve, who's quoting Neil Goodman, who's quoting Tony West, and I'm agreeing with all of 'em:

[Steve Connor] "That's a great description of how it actually works instead of all the other mumbo jumbo. I would read your article."

"I agree, parts of this argument are nonsensical. The tracked editing description in the original article was badly explained and has sadly detracted from what was on the whole one of the best descriptions of editing in FCPX I've read."


Exactly. I'm simply suggesting from a marketing perspective, that it's more productive not to make your opening gambit how clueless the other guy is. Keep that to yourself. 😂

Instead, shine the brightest possible light on what's making you happiest. Leave room for the possibility that you're wrong about some of the basics about the rest, just like you're asking me to be, and maybe we'll both have room to grow.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 10:27:45 am

[Tim Wilson] "Instead, shine the brightest possible light on what's making you happiest. Leave room for the possibility that you're wrong about some of the basics about the rest, just like you're asking me to be, and maybe we'll both have room to grow"

Great post Tim, it made go and make a cup of tea and read it through again. Lets' hope people take the suggestions onboard.

How about, to start with, we stop referring to track based editing as "the old way" :)


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 7:38:39 pm

Thanks for the kind words, Steve! I hope you put something extra in your tea before reading it all a second time.

[Steve Connor] "How about, to start with, we stop referring to track based editing as "the old way" ☺
"


I had included this suggestion in my much longer first draft. I say this both to state my agreement with you, and to note that, yes, what I posted is the short version. 😂


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 8:06:50 pm

[Tim Wilson] "That's why the most productive parts of these threads to ME are when people talk about what they do and why. Not when they rag on what somebody else is doing."

Jeebus Tim,

That right there is the GENESIS of this whole thread, for heck’s sake!

I posted a link to an article by a young guy trying his best to do EXACTLY that.

And Shane popped in with his hair on fire to rag on him for being clueless.

Full STOP.

The rest is perfectly par for the “or Not” gestalt.

Go back and review just the first dozen posts in this thread.

With an eye to where any “ragging” arose.

Praise for FCP X in the forum ABOUT FCP X is still the emotional trigger it’s always been.

Thankfully, after the initial fuel burns off, the underlying discussion starts to reflect real value.

But only then.

You want the “passion?”

The rest comes with it.

And makes this forum what it is.

My 2 cents.

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


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 8:40:46 pm
Last Edited By greg janza on Oct 18, 2017 at 8:42:49 pm



I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 9:24:50 pm

[Bill Davis] "
And Shane popped in with his hair on fire to rag on him for being clueless. "


Well, he did say a lot of things about other NLEs that made no sense...assumptions that were wrong. Or, at least very poorly stated. He cleared things up on the comments in the column. But yes, he wasn't clear. And sorry, but one big issue I have with people criticizing any NLE (including FCX, that I do defend, believe it or not) is when they falsely describe how that NLE works...or make mis-statements about how editing works.

As I said, I DID NOT have any issues with the rest of the article...all the points he made about FCX were right, spot on. But the initial statements about editing were stated wrong. And I think most people agree with me on that.

[Bill Davis] With an eye to where any “ragging” arose. "Praise for FCP X in the forum ABOUT FCP X is still the emotional trigger it’s always been."

Wrong. I didn't rag on FCX at all. NOT ONE BIT. Point out where I rag on FCX...go ahead. I pointed out that his assumptions about other NLEs and how they worked was wrong. THAT'S IT.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 9:31:20 pm

[Bill Davis] "Praise for FCP X in the forum ABOUT FCP X is still the emotional trigger it’s always been."

Good grief Bill those windmills must be HUGE in your mind, Shane was criticising the frankly incorrect description of track based editing that the author chose to lead off his whole piece with, nothing to do with FCPX at all, he actually praised the rest of the article.

"Traditional NLEs have timelines. FCPX has storylines" W.Soyka


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 10:41:51 pm

It's amazing how differently we all see things, but is it any coincidence your same post on Reddit got pretty much the exact same response with the very similar comments?


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 10:43:35 pm

Edit..nobody in this thread ragged on fcpx, quite the opposite really.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 10:44:17 pm

Where is that Reddit post? Just curious...

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 10:59:43 pm

R editors


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 11:04:52 pm

Ah, found it.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 19, 2017 at 7:12:45 am

[Shane Ross] "Ah, found it."

Me too, I laughed out loud when I recognised Bill's "Voice" immediately!

"Traditional NLEs have timelines. FCPX has storylines" W.Soyka


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 11:34:56 pm

[Neil Goodman] "It's amazing how differently we all see things, but is it any coincidence your same post on Reddit got pretty much the exact same response with the very similar comments?"

The reddit response I got with the post this time out was about 100 times better than the responses I used to get there when I posted positive notices about how someone was using X in a pro setting.

I'd say the overall tenor there has gone from 90% negative to perhaps 60% negative - with some of the most experienced voices now agreeing that X is a viable choice for ALL editors.

That's a HUGE shift.

And yes, it happened here earlier than it happened in some of the Reddit subs.

The battleship USS Opinion turns slowly - as I experienced right here in this group.

Change is hard.

😀

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


Return to posts index

greg janza
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 11:50:26 pm

[Bill Davis] "Change is hard. "

Perhaps this is why you get so much push back. No one here is opposed to change. I'm personally a big fan of the constant evolution and change within the post industry. If we hated change the video post industry would be constantly frustrating because change is happening all of the time with our technology.

You have a very myopic approach to your proselytizing for FCPX and you often leave no room for debate or discussion because you spend an inordinate amount of time defending FCPX and what you see as unfair and unenlightened criticism towards it.

Live and let live is a pretty ideal motto for life.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
- Orson Welles


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 11:54:51 pm

[greg janza] "and you often leave no room for debate or discussion because you spend an inordinate amount of time defending FCPX and what you see as unfair and unenlightened criticism towards it.
"


The way I was raised - "debate or discussion" cannot exist UNLESS there is a robust defense of conflicting viewpoints.

It's kinda the DEFINITION of "debate or discussion" actually - hardly the same as allowing no room for it - it IS it.

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


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 19, 2017 at 12:19:45 am

Bill, the only thing I took issue with was the setup of the article, the assumptions made about editing...cutting in ways no one cuts. That's all. You went on to defend FCX like I was attacking it, I wasn't. I was just saying "the case he is trying to make for the magnetic timeline being superior is flawed. He's describing a style of editing that no one does, and using that to show how FCX is better."

that's all.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 19, 2017 at 12:13:39 am

I meant more along the lines of people not liking the way this guy talked about time and editing, and that they too thought that was a horrible way to start of the article just as Shane and myself and others noticed.

Again nothing to do directly with X.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 11:12:50 pm

[Bill Davis] "Go back and review just the first dozen posts in this thread. With an eye to where any “ragging” arose."



Bill,

I have done so. The first dozen. I can only find the following that could possibly be construed as "ragging":

[Shane Ross] "WRONG."

[Shane Ross] "that's a BS statement."

[Shane Ross] " those opening statements are just complete BS."

[Shane Ross] " I said his opening arguments were pure BS"

[Bill Davis] " You might be astonished at just how many working editors have absolutely no clue about any of this stuff. … their thinking and education STOPPED.

[Shane Ross] " the opening of the article is just poop."

It's probably important to note that in his first post, Shane also said this:
[Shane Ross] "There is a lot right about the the timeline, like no collisions and keeping storylines connected, I'll give him that. And I know that the magnetic timeline is AMAZING for many MANY people. I get that, I'm not knocking that. It's useful, it's great, I know that. But the article is full of wrong and misleading statements. And there are many valid arguments for tracks...but just because someone doesn't like them or see the point to them doesn't mean they are useless, or a hinderance."

So: "right", "AMAZING", "I'm not knocking that", "useful", "great" in addition to qualifying his label of "BS" as "wrong and misleading statements".

I suppose if we consider "BS" to be harsh language, we can construe this as "ragging". Is this what you are objecting to? If not, then what?

I also found one instance of trollish behaviour:

[Bill Davis] "Shane, calm down."



Franz.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 18, 2017 at 11:51:36 pm
Last Edited By Bill Davis on Oct 19, 2017 at 12:00:01 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "It's probably important to note that in his first post, Shane also said this:
[Shane Ross] "There is a lot right about the the timeline, like no collisions and keeping storylines connected, I'll give him that. And I know that the magnetic timeline is AMAZING for many MANY people. I get that, I'm not knocking that. It's useful, it's great, I know that. But the article is full of wrong and misleading statements. And there are many valid arguments for tracks...but just because someone doesn't like them or see the point to them doesn't mean they are useless, or a hinderance.""


Don't suppose you feel like quoting the stuff I posted trying to be similarly conciliatory?

Like:

[Bill Davis] "NOBODY is saying there aren't valid arguments for tracks.
"


And
[Bill Davis] "What it IS is a reasoned call to the class of editors who have not explored the IDEA of X to possibly give it their own shot to see if it provides something they might find value in exploring.

That's ALL it is. "


We could do this all day - but more on-point (to my mind at least, I could be wrong) is the tone of this in the very area YOU quote.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "But the article is full of wrong and misleading statements. And there are many valid arguments for tracks...but just because someone doesn't like them or see the point to them doesn't mean they are useless, or a hinderance.""

I'm confused. Is it "FULL" of wrong and misleading statements - or were those just in the preamble to the article?

I didn't see any such statement about "useless" or "hinderance" in the original article.

So basically, Shane was being a bit hyperbolic EXACTLY in the same fashion I responded.

That's been kinda the "or Not" default process for YEARS now.

Hyperbole met with countering hyperbole.

Shane is a really cool dude. We met years ago and I really liked him. He's also VERY passionate about his positions - as (obviously) am I.

I'm just unsure why when he feels the need to deploy HIS hyperbole here its copacetic - but when an X supporter (like me) responds in kind - the big guns need to appear to call it out.

Regardless - it appears to have lured you back into participation - and that's a very good thing.

So welcome back.

It's been too long.


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


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 19, 2017 at 12:34:39 am

Bill,



We were talking about your concern for “ragging” in this thread. For substantial support regarding comments on the article, read the other comments in this thread.

[Bill Davis] "So basically, Shane was being a bit hyperbolic"

Tim posted that he regretted when people “rag” on what someone else is doing - demean their efforts to support their own.

You claimed that the “genesis of this thread” was precisely that - “ragging”. The implication (“the first dozen posts”) was that Shane had demeaned the original article and its writer to support himself.

Now you’re saying it’s just hyperbole that you don’t like.

Do I have this correctly?



Tim’s original post - the one you based your comment on - was not concerned with people being hyperbolic.

Tim was concerned about misrepresenting others - how they work, what they think, talking for other people, about what they do, and how they do it in order to create a straw man that can be knocked down to support an argument. There are many examples (which have been given) of how the writer of the original article does this.

Tim then made an effort (once again) to encourage people to share how they work and why. Rather than making claims about others.



Presumably you posted the article here for comment. I see Shane’s comments as calling out errors and poor and writing. You said you felt it was “ragging” but now you feel it is just “hyperbole”. Or the “wrong tone”.

[Bill Davis] "... more on-point (to my mind at least, I could be wrong) is the tone of this in the very area YOU quote."

Here’s the quote again:

[Shane Ross] "There is a lot right about the the timeline, like no collisions and keeping storylines connected, I'll give him that. And I know that the magnetic timeline is AMAZING for many MANY people. I get that, I'm not knocking that. It's useful, it's great, I know that. But the article is full of wrong and misleading statements. And there are many valid arguments for tracks...but just because someone doesn't like them or see the point to them doesn't mean they are useless, or a hinderance."

I read this as pretty measured. You’re saying this is out of line for the forum (the "wrong tone") and this is the “ragging” that you objected to?



Franz.
P.S. Thank-you for the welcome back - it’s a pleasure to be welcomed - it was the promise of expanding on ideas with Walter (and possibly learning something) that I couldn’t resist. But the constant hostile environment and retreads of tired arguments and straw men is quite off-putting, and frankly it is no wonder to me why there are so few fresh voices and perspectives in this forum.


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 19, 2017 at 6:39:22 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "and frankly it is no wonder to me why there are so few fresh voices and perspectives in this forum."

It's ironic that one or two of the other people who worry about this are the very people who are causing it

"Traditional NLEs have timelines. FCPX has storylines" W.Soyka


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
on Oct 19, 2017 at 12:04:57 pm

[Tony West] ""FCP X, it's two lawn mowers""

This is a work of art.


Return to posts index

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