-
Motion TRACKS versus FCP X Trackless
I find this an interesting question and I’m surprised it hasn’t come up before that I’m aware of. The ProApps developers obviously believe that trackless is the way to go, yet they left Motion based on tracks. If you analyze FCP X, the timeline layout is more or less a node-based process tree placed on its side. Primary storyline, Secondary storyline and Connected clips are basically nodes with diffent values, much like serial and parallel nods in DaVinci Resolve. But a node tree makes sense in a compositor and not in an editor. Apple understands nodes because they own(ed) Shake and Color, both of which employed node trees. So if tracks are “good” in Motion (which many artists would question), why are they “bad” in FCP X? If the idea is to get rid of tracks, wouldn’t it also have made sense to change Motion to a node-based compositor akin to Shake?
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
94 Replies
-
Probably an excellent idea and long overdue.
All the best,
Tom
“Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users” from Focal Press
Class on Demand DVDs “Complete Training for FCP7,” “Basic Training for FCS” and “Final Cut Express Made Easy”
Coming in 2012 “Complete Training for FCPX” from Class on Demand -
[Oliver Peters] “So if tracks are “good” in Motion (which many artists would question), why are they “bad” in FCP X? If the idea is to get rid of tracks, wouldn’t it also have made sense to change Motion to a node-based compositor akin to Shake?”
Perhaps they might, I get the feeling that Motion may still be in transition, the lack of roundtripping with FCPX makes no sense.
Steve Connor
“FCPX Agitator”
Adrenalin Television -
Some people will argue that these in MOTION are not TRACKS but LAYERS (?).
Difference between tracks and layers? That in a layer you can put just one clip, while in a layer you can place only one.
Personally I think they are the same: In a graphic application -where you normally work with few material- you can allow a layer per clip.
In an NLE that wouldn’t be possible.SHAKE, beside the nodes, do has Tracks.
The “Time view” allows to position in time the clips and trim them.
However the tracks DO NOT WORK AS LAYER (as do happens in FCP).
Being a clip on an upper tracks do not imply that they will show on top of the lower clip.
The compositing order is managed by the nodes.What for me makes so much sense are nodes on a NLE.
rafael -
A very interesting and thought-provoking argument.
But how sustainable is the notion that FCPX is in any real sense a nodal system? Granted, connected clips are kind of nodally connected, but only kind of, and really the idea doesn’t extend much further, does it? There is no meaningful sense in which those connections involve the kind of process tree modality that we associate with nodal compositing workflows. Nothing is actually passed through the connection – and you can’t interpose other types of nodes to change the value of the connection.
Or maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.
Conversely I think Motion is and always has been a long, long way from being a nodal compositor. The layer/group compositing method is clearly in line with the completely non-nodal model of After Effects and the like, although I would say that in the way they have implemented Groups there is far more speed and flexibility (or at least the potential of that) than there is in AE.
Personally, I would be disappointed to see Motion move in the direction of a nodal model, even if such a thing were actually possible without starting again from scratch. The way it works at the moment, it’s a very good and speedy motion graphics app (that also happens to be a great fit for the FCP environment both old and new). If it started trying to be a fully fledged Nuke/Shake type compositor, I reckon it would lose that edge.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Oliver Peters] “If you analyze FCP X, the timeline layout is more or less a node-based process tree placed on its side. Primary storyline, Secondary storyline and Connected clips are basically nodes with diffent values, much like serial and parallel nods in DaVinci Resolve.”
I’m probably being dense, but I’m not following here. Could you explain this again for me?
[Oliver Peters] “So if tracks are “good” in Motion (which many artists would question), why are they “bad” in FCP X? If the idea is to get rid of tracks, wouldn’t it also have made sense to change Motion to a node-based compositor akin to Shake?”
Interesting question, Oliver. Opinion and speculation to follow.
I’d suggest that while Motion composites, it’s not a compositor. It’s a titler and graphics animator first: a full-motion sketchpad. Compositing in Motion is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
I don’t think of Motion as tracked so much as layered. Nodes are great for complex compositing, but a layered timeline is far more accessible for animation and simple composites, because it builds on metaphors that users will already be familiar with from Photoshop or their NLE.
Setting nodes and layer/track distinctions aside for now, I do think there’s a good and practical reason why FCPX and Motion might handle their timelines differently.
NLEs are designed to handle sequences of shots. Within FCPX, the notion of relative time in the magnetic timeline, although controversial, at least makes sense: it makes editorial about managing the relationship between shots, not the shots’ absolute positions in time.
Apps like Motion (and AE, Shake, Nuke, and Fusion) are fundamentally designed to handle shots, not sequences. In an application designed to work on single shots, absolute time and relative time are the same. Think of the underlying shot as a single-element primary storyline. Without multiple shots to manage, there can be no relationships between shots. There’s less of an imperative for magnetism if all your elements are fundamentally tied to one underlying shot, which itself ought to be changing in the NLE, not in mograph/animation/compositing.
One could certainly make the argument that individual mograph elements would be treated properly as separate shots, so magnetism would be beneficial; however, I’d see that as an argument to integrate Motion entirely into FCPX, rather than rebuilding FCPX’s editorial capabilities into Motion.
Back to nodes, here’s an interesting sidebar: you can see a lot of what’s going on under the hood with Motion inside of Apple’s Quartz Composer, a node-based visual programming system that ships with the developer tools.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
Fun and fascinating discussion.
I’ve been doing a lot of talking to and trying to help other editors in my town understand the changes to X (25 or so showed up in my studio last week with barely 48 hours notice!) and one thing I run up against again and again is the the ease of the discussion with other editors nearly always is predicated on whether the person I’m discussing things with is trying to understand X “in context” to Legacy – or whether they can drop their pre-conceptions and approach it with an open mind.
Time and time again, I see them want to start their editing “in the timeline” – because that’s all they’ve ever done before.
It’s hard to get them to think of “two-stage” editing via first the event browser and then the timeline.
Same with magnetism. If you see it exclusively in context of how it operates with discrete clips in your “timeline”, it annoys many. But if they “graduate” to thinking of managing and refining pre-edited clip collections – the magnetism opens up new ways to think about working with group assemblies rather than simply stringing discrete elements (clips) into linear sequences.
I honestly think the folks who have the most trouble with X are those that still can’t break out of expecting it to be Legacy 2012.
Honestly, the most important thing I’ve done in those meeting is to re-assure editors that the real skills of editing remain the same, regardless of the rules, tools, and techniques codified in the NLE. The ideas you express are the key. Regardless of the tools used express them.
FWIW.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
[Walter Soyka] “NLEs are designed to handle sequences of shots. Within FCPX, the notion of relative time in the magnetic timeline, although controversial, at least makes sense: it makes editorial about managing the relationship between shots, not the shots’ absolute positions in time.”
[Bill Davis] “If you see it exclusively in context of how it operates with discrete clips in your “timeline”, it annoys many. But if they “graduate” to thinking of managing and refining pre-edited clip collections – the magnetism opens up new ways to think about working with group assemblies rather than simply stringing discrete elements (clips) into linear sequences.”
Did we just agree again?
I think the key difference between FCPX and Motion (as it pertains to magnetism) is what their timelines are for.
FCPX is built to manage the arrangement of many clips in time holistically. Motion, on the other hand, is geared for discrete clips. It’s built for individual titles, effects, and transitions.
Magnetism in Motion wouldn’t make much sense to me, because magnetism addresses a challenge (managing many clips in time) that doesn’t — and shouldn’t — exist in Motion.
Adding magnetism to Motion would create dangerous functional overlap with FCPX. It would encourage editorial in Motion, and that would encourage terrible and inscrutable workflows — imagine stepping through an edit in FCPX, then having to jump into Motion to change an edit made within a Motion project, then jump back to FCPX to see it in context. It’s a far more elegant design to allow Motion to remain shot-oriented so that it can be used on elements within FCPX, rather than alongside it.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “Adding magnetism to Motion would create dangerous functional overlap with FCPX. It would encourage editorial in Motion, and that would encourage terrible and inscrutable workflows — imagine stepping through an edit in FCPX, then having to jump into Motion to change an edit made within a Motion project, then jump back to FCPX to see it in context. It’s a far more elegant design to allow Motion to remain shot-oriented so that it can be used on elements within FCPX, rather than alongside it.
“Once again, I agree with you completely, Walter. (we’re getting dangerously close to making this a habit!)
This arrangement of Motion as linked to, providing services to, and working as a secondary linked sub-application to the editing base in FCP-X makes big-time sense. You can totally ignore it and just use the links in titling that are built between them – or you can expand your cross use – as and when (and as much as you need to) – while much of the complexity of Motion stays sequestered from bothering anyone who wants some of the advantages, but none of the stress of climbing up its learning curve.
Actually, one of the most puzzling things to me was how Motion 5 (with it’s massive internal complexity and nearly bewildering array of controls, choices, and settings) was being offered in a form that people could easily mistake as a “cheap extra add-on” to FCP-X for a trivial $49.95.
But as with the “reverse sticker shock” that accompanies Apple lowering the price of “Final Cut Pro” to $299, the initial reaction (they must have dumbed this thing down to the iMovie level) turns out to have been a massive miss-read. It just reflected the astonishing leverage of the app store in essentially removing the entire supply chain between the company and consumer delivery. It had nothing to do with the value of the software at all.
Click here -I give you copy of my complex bit arrangement – you get my money instantly – turns out to be an astonishingly transformative profit model – and one people seem to enjoy participating in if the 25 Billionth App Sale pending this week amply demonstrates.
In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if those clever folk at Apple might make MORE per sale on X at $299 then they actually did on Legacy at $999 given how many pockets were removed from the process by eliminating all the trucks, warehouses, distribution centers, and drivers needed to move cardboard boxes of “stuff” around the world.
Imagine that. We’re getting “better” for way cheaper. Because the whole game of delivering IP has changed.
Bodes well for the future, I think. But the barrier is definitely NOT going to be software cost any longer. It’s a reality we all have to adjust to.
There will be more editors. And more Motion Graphics creators. The distinctions will decreasingly going to be “functional proficiency” within the tool, but rather demonstrable expertise at creating value with it and very likely the spread of one’s reputation.
Interesting times.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
[Bill Davis] “Time and time again, I see them want to start their editing “in the timeline” – because that’s all they’ve ever done before.”
I’m intrigued to see that you think that “editing in the timeline” is not recommended for FCPX.
To my mind, and I really, really like editing in the timeline (!), it seems that FCPX is extremely well suited to this – better even than FCP Legacy, which is vastly superior in this respect to Media Composer.
[Bill Davis] ”
It’s hard to get them to think of “two-stage” editing via first the event browser and then the timeline.”I’m also not sure that editing is ever best conceived as a “two stage process” – shouldn’t it always be a fluid interplay between sourcing the material for the edit and actually making the edits?
I wonder if you aren’t being seduced by the (relative) novelty of the Event Browser into elevating “organization” to a more more important role in the hierarchy than it needs to have or deserves.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “I’m intrigued to see that you think that “editing in the timeline” is not recommended for FCPX.
To my mind, and I really, really like editing in the timeline (!), it seems that FCPX is extremely well suited to this – better even than FCP Legacy, which is vastly superior in this respect to Media Composer.
“Hold on. I’m not in any way saying that “editing in the timeline is not recommended”. There’s a timeline (primary storyline) surrounded with editing tools (including the precision editor) for precisely this reason.
I’m saying that in Legacy it was the ONLY place you could edit. Now in X, you can also do basic functional editing (clip selection, rejection, basic trimming, etc) in the Event Browser – and if you choose to do so, then all the decisions you make there are available for use thereafter in as many projects as you like.
It’s fundamental different thinking than was available in Legacy. Knowing when to edit in the EB and when to edit in the TL is a new choice you get to make. But you don’t have to make it. But you should realize that if you DO make that choice, you’re leaving a lot of value on the table.
[Simon Ubsdell] “‘m also not sure that editing is ever best conceived as a “two stage process” – shouldn’t it always be a fluid interplay between sourcing the material for the edit and actually making the edits?
I wonder if you aren’t being seduced by the (relative) novelty of the Event Browser into elevating “organization” to a more more important role in the hierarchy than it needs to have or deserves.
“Honestly, Simon. Editing as ALWAYS been a “two stage process.” Making a note like Take 1 had the old sign, don’t use it – take 3 was great!” is nothing more or less than the first stage of two-stage editing that DW Griffith probably used. In X, the ability to “pre-sort” – Favorite and Reject – tag with keywords, is nothing more or less than the process of reducing clutter and assembling “selects” that we’ve always used. The event browser in X just happens to give us a whole lot more power and flexibility.
I’ve used the example before of how I import long raw narrations into X. Use the range tool to mark the good takes, and if I do that with some care, I can just drag everything tagged as a FAVORITE to my timeline and essentially my initial “edit” of my voiceover is done. I’m left with nothing I don’t want. I can become more “precise” on the timeline if I need to. But the fact of the matter is that this process has taught me that I can “edit” time based material perfectly well in the Event Browser. So all that’s left is for me to decide when that level of editing is enough.
We can all think of lots of typical stuff where that’s all the editing that a person needs. For instance, making window dubs for client review. They don’t need precision, they just need the dreck removed and a timecode burn applied to the rest. If you do ALL the work in the EB and just use the timeline as an assembly point that work sticks and when the client asked you to make 5 projects (like spots) out of the pool of scenes in the EB – the rough edit decisions you did are alive and well and waiting to form the basis of your “final cut.”
Once again, it’s seeing how a new tool – used in a new way – might make things easier.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up