Andrew Balis Talks FCP X: The Timeline

[Chris Harlan]

When he was showing audio collisions, he was demonstrating several complicated FCP7 processes (with multiple clicks) to make it clear that X was easier, and all he needed to do was make one simple trim on his music track to make the edit easier than his X edit. On purpose? I have no idea. But if I’d been sitting in his class, I sure would have called him on it.

[Robert Brown]

This is an issue I’ve had with Apple for a while now. They show their products in the most flattering light. For example I was getting Motion training from an Apple trainer once and he was showing how well the vector based slo-mo worked. He used a shot of a cloud time-lapse. That happens to be one of the easiest possible shots for a vector based slo-mo and he gave that as an example of how well and easy it worked without doing real world demos of like a guy walking down the street or something.

They definitely have the tendency to only show where their product excels, and to not even acknowledge it’s shortcomings. I for one am glad they’re moving out of the pro market as they don’t deserve to be there. But I’ll still buy their toys.

[Craig Seeman]

[Ewan Lim] ” The thing is, you won’t be makin too many mistakes if you know what you are doing.”

You can say that about anything. It doesn’t make the older model timeline “better.” Editing shouldn’t be about solving a Rubik’s Cube. If I can achieve the same aesthetic results faster and with fewer keystrokes, that’s an improvement. As far as video is concerned, FCPX does what I want when I want it, without focusing on too many steps and precautions to get there. Audio is another story though where the simplest tasks take too many keystrokes.

[David Cherniack]

[Craig Seeman] “You can say that about anything. “

You can say that about anything, too.

Sometimes, Craig, You may want to check your blanketing rhetorical style for inadvertant hilarity. 🙂

[Craig Seeman] “As far as video is concerned, FCPX does what I want when I want it, without focusing on too many steps and precautions to get there. Audio is another story though where the simplest tasks take too many keystrokes.”

It remains to be seen whether that’s true about video when the layering is complex and requires a lot of changes, as all complex editing does.

As Walter Soya has pointed out there was probably no need to abandon the traditional track based metaphor when they implemented an object-based collision avoiding technology. It’s not as if the traditional metaphor is less intuitive. In fact it may be more intuitive. I would certainly argue that is when organizing, overviewing, and manipulating the different layers of a complex timeline, especially en masse. For instance, with one mouse click I can turn off all the graphical super elements in an hour-long show for outputting a foreign language master, or simply create a new layer under them for another graphical element I may want to add to them. I suspect in X it would be more complicated than that, if not much moreso.

David
AllinOneFilms.com

[Craig Seeman]

[David Cherniack] “Sometimes, Craig, You may want to check your blanketing rhetorical style for inadvertant hilarity. :)”

Ewan made what I thought was a sweeping statement. Knowing what you’re doing can be attributed to anything.

[David Cherniack] ” I would certainly argue that is when organizing, overviewing, and manipulating the different layers of a complex timeline, especially en masse.”

On my feature request list would be to select all the connected clips in a “row” or Secondary Storyline and use the V command to disable as can be done with individual clips.

[Ewan Lim]

@craig:
That is true. Well, what i meant was more towards collisions and etc. I used to make collision mistakes till I sort of ingrained myself with remembering that u can “shift-L” to lock clips an etc.

I am not saying whichever is better. I was just saying that if one knew what one was doing then they won’t make those mistakes. Track based or non-track based will be useful to whoever deems it useful. ( the same as saying, use the best tool that fits you)

Here’s my 2cents:

I am actually semi-excited about the future of FCPX. It is a new way to edit and a new thing to learn and as soon as people or developers can figure out ways to make it fit for broadcast, the better! Such as monitoring and sending audio/visuals for finishing.

My reason for being semi-excited:
able to import iMovie.
Producers/Directors/assistant editors can do a skeletal base cut on iMovie (which is free with a mac) and then send it to the editor to cut it proper!

That is our/my workflow to churn out quick broadcast shows. Director does base cut, send it to editor, editor edits and sends for audio or visual mixing if need be.

And FCPX is easy to pick up too. So is iMovie. There are honestly alot of possibilities with FcpX and its trackless edit could be beneficial. We just have to think differently.

Ewan
Avid, FCS3, Premiere Pro, After Effects

[Steve Connor]

Ewan, you can’t say anything positive about FCPX don’t you know it is pretty much useless, Professional Editors as well as novice editors have declared it so, they can’t all be wrong can they?

Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television

Have you tried “Search Posts”? Enlightenment may be there.

[Ewan Lim]

Hi Steve, hence me using “semi-excited”. Not fully excited because FCPx is un-usable at the moment.

The future meaning if apple decides to update the program to make it usable for broadcast. I know why it is useless, everyone knows that. It is just when they fill in the gaps. It may or may never happen but who truly knows, Apple may finally break tradition and listen for once.

Ewan
Avid, FCS3, Premiere Pro, After Effects

[Chris Conlee]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing; I can’t remember the last time I made a “mistake” in my NLE. It works the way I expect it to, so I get the results I’m looking for. What’s the surprise in that?

Chris