-
Why gaps are great!
Following on from David Lawrence’s Position Tool thread where gaps got quite a bit of bashing, I thought I would stand up for them – at least in one respect – by doing a comparison between FCPX, Media Composer and FCP Legacy.
There’s an editing task that I am sure everyone has to cope with on a very regular basis and that is opening up a space in the timeline so that new material can be inserted, a task that quickly gets quite messy when you have lots of overlapping video and audio clips at the point where you want to open up your space.
Media Composer
In Media Composer – until the arrival of track tool, borrowed directly from FCP – this was always a pretty clunky experience. You would have to do something like inserting filler across all tracks resulting in destructive behaviour – i.e. overlapping clips would get split in two at the edit point – that you would then have to go in and fix.
A different option that I would use but not many othner editors seemed to favour because it was quite fiddly was to use a complicated asymmetric trim, trying to pick up all the right transitions and were possible trim out filler to make the space you needed. And it sure wasn’t quick.
With the advent of the “track tool” it is now possible to select all clips forward from the selection point – which tracks get picked up is determined by the track selectors. It’s an OK solution but you still have to make sure you’ve picked up the right overlapping clips and deselect the ones you don’t want to move, in addition to making sure all your tracks selectors are turned on. Also as this is effectively a Segment Tool function, you can’t use the number pad to enter a specific offset for your move, you have to drag and watch the offset display, which is awkward.
FCP Legacy
As in the new Media Composer, you can use the track tool for this with the added advantage that you can type in an offset rather than having to rely on dragging alone. (Incidentally, I notice a lot of people talking about using the TTT shortcut for selecting all tracks forward – but the much quicker way is to use Shift/T.) There is still the issue of having to select and/or deselect clips that you don’t want included in the move and with a complex timeline that can be genuinely tiresome, especially if you have to scroll vertically to check what’s happening offscreen. Adding to or removing from the selection involves switching back to the arrow tool and using the Cmd key, so quite a lot of extra keystrokes/clicks. It’s OK, it works, but it’s not the most elegant thing in the world.
FCPX
Go to the point where you want to open up the space and Insert Gap (Opt/W). Done. Reliably every time. Unless you have some very anomalous clip connections, everything will move or stay put exactly as you’d expect it to. The default gap is 3 seconds but if you want longer you can select the gap, type Ctrl/D and enter a new duration, or you could trim the gap. For me this is a genuinely elegant and efficient improvement over any other way of solving this non-trivial editing task.
Whatever else I think about FCPX – and I have tons of reservations – I really like the simplicity/sophistication of this one aspect.
At the same time, I believe it is based on a very traditional model of how editing works that goes all the way back to film editing. To accomplish this same task with film you would add an equal amount of spacing/slug in between your shots and into your mag tracks in order to push everything along and keep it all in sync.
For me this is a very solid and intuitive model (based on an actual physical process) that I am happy to see explicitly implemented in an NLE. (As I’ve mentioned before, Media Composer’s use of “filler” is very, very close in conception to FCPX’s use of gaps but without the added power that comes with the latter implementation.) The idea of gaps having a graphical representation and a “physical” reality is for me a fundamental strength not a weakness.
Note that, despite my provocative headline, I am not actually trying to extrapolate from this one feature to make any other claims about the magnetic timeline. I just wanted to point out that here at least it is providing a really fast, accurate and elegant solution to a long-standing editing issue.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
14 Replies
-
Gaps are great.
The Sony Xpri system we edit on now has something similar. Any bit of black space between clips on a track can be manipulated like a clip, so to create more space in the center of an edit, I can simply ripple one end of the gap and make more space.
Gaps are great.
So are tracks.
———
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can’t stop thinking about her.Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
https://fcpx.wordpress.com -
In my Avid days, I ALWAYS operated with sync locks ON. 99% of the time I use overwrite, and am editing to a VO or music track. And if I insert something, I can’t ever recall desiring anything to shift out of place with another track. I would even want my background music track to be split in two so that the start, AND the finish portions are intact. I’ll then roll back one half and find a point to marry them back together creatively. Having sync locks on in Avid was the best way to protect from losing sync. With sync locks on you could insert the new clip, automatically splitting ALL tracks. No need to do any filler bs. Yes, you would usually have to repair or delete a few pieces. But it was just rolling them back out over a split edit or marrying split parts back together. Hardly worth fussing about. I also used to begin a sequence by inserting half an hours worth of filler before a frame of empty audio. Since Avid had the growing timeline back then. It gave a nice space to move things around with the move (red arrow) tool. I could also zoom out and marquee a bunch of clips just like FCP or shift T tool, and physically open up a workspace. It’s not cumbersome on Avid or FCP classic.
But glad ya like gaps. I’d rather have a source window amongst other things.
-
I just thought I would follow this up with a video showing off the three different methods:
I should have mentioned that in Media Composer I always work with locked tracks – trying to do this task without locked tracks would be hideous in the extreme.
I think it is clear that the FCPX method wins hands down – unless I’ve missed a trick with the two otgher NLEs which is no doubt a possibility 😉
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Bret Williams] ” In my Avid days, I ALWAYS operated with sync locks ON. 99% of the time”
I do too – I should have made this clear.
Check out this video for an overview of my comparison – I do think FCPX has the edge in this if nothing else.
[Bret Williams] “But glad ya like gaps. I’d rather have a source window amongst other things.”
The fact that I like gaps doesn’t mean that I don’t have very major issues with a huge number of other aspects of FCPX – without OMF for example I simply can’t begin to think of using it professionally.
I just think it’s useful and interesting to see where the design advantages might lie rather than assuming it’s all equally a piece of junk.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
its looks like to me, in the fcp-x one , all your audio went out of sync ? The dialouge, and fx tracks are now with a differrent clip? Surely thats not what you wanted ?
Neil Goodman: Editor of New Media Production – NBC/Universal
-
[Neil Goodman] “its looks like to me, in the fcp-x one , all your audio went out of sync ? The dialouge, and fx tracks are now with a differrent clip? Surely thats not what you wanted ?”
No, everything stayed exactly where it was meant to. As it would, because connected clips stay connected where they are meant to be. You need to look closely at the clip connections to see what’s happening. I have a dialogue clip that bridges the edit point that is attached to a clip after the edit point as I wanted to show how this worked as well.
Maybe I made the example too complicated for it to be immediately obvious how efficiently this works – though in the real world I usually deal with situations a lot more complex than this. But I have tried out lots of different scenarios for this and it behaves entirely predictable and accurately each time.
For me it’s a “jawdroppingly” elegant solution to a genuinely complex editing task that the other two NLEs don’t come close to matching.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “I think it is clear that the FCPX method wins hands down – unless I’ve missed a trick with the two otgher NLEs which is no doubt a possibility ;-)”
[Simon Ubsdell] “For me it’s a “jawdroppingly” elegant solution to a genuinely complex editing task that the other two NLEs don’t come close to matching.”
Hi Simon,
I don’t know about Avid, but in your FCP7 example, you’re working a lot harder than you have to. Here’s a better technique:
1) zoom out to reveal your tracks first
2) TTT – make sure you select forward in front of any overlapping clips
3) A – use command-select to select any clips you missed (you can drag to rubber band multiples) or deselect any clips you don’t want.Here’s an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbVn8tDF-VMWhile the gap technique with FCPX works well for that one particular case, what happens if you wanted some of that dialogue and effects audio to stay put? Good luck with that. “Jawdroppingly” elegant quickly becomes jawdroppingly frustrating.
In my example, I can easily select or deselect anything I want. It’s fast, simple, and far more flexible most of the time.
I find the magnetic timeline gets in the way more often than it helps. The track select tools are easy and powerful once you get the hang of them.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhlSome contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
I just use ctrl-V to split all my tracks, then “t” or insert edit to move all else over, then I heal as needs be. I can do exactly the same thing in Avid. The truth of the mater is that unless each edit is very self contained, an insert is going to through something off. magic timeline or not. For my work, splitting and healing is generally ideal because it keeps everything in sync. The music will generally need readjustment, but it would require it in the magic timeline as well.
-
[Chris Harlan] “I just use ctrl-V to split all my tracks, then “t” or insert edit to move all else over, then I heal as needs be. I can do exactly the same thing in Avid. The truth of the mater is that unless each edit is very self contained, an insert is going to through something off. magic timeline or not. For my work, splitting and healing is generally ideal because it keeps everything in sync. The music will generally need readjustment, but it would require it in the magic timeline as well.”
Yep, another perfectly useful technique. The bottom line is it’s just not that big a deal. Certainly not worth ditching all the benefits of tracks, open space and industry compatibility for the one or two special cases where ripple and collision avoidance are a nice convenience.
I mean we’re all pros, right? It’s our job to handle that stuff.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “The bottom line is it’s just not that big a deal. Certainly not worth ditching all the benefits of tracks, open space and industry compatibility for the one or two special cases where ripple and collision avoidance are a nice convenience.
“This is the crux right here, right? All of this trackless insanity exists because this kind of edit is slightly more awkward to make than other kinds of edits? That’s madness.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up