Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?

[Charlie Austin]

[David Lawrence] “[Charlie Austin] “Speaking of potential, I found this interesting… ”

Funny how it still seems to use fixed tracks, even though they suck. :p
“

LOL Touché. 🙂 And to be fair, as i said above in a reply to Jim… On reflection, my glib “tracks suck” opinion is specific to editing picture and sound in an NLE. Right now anyway. 🙂

I really think that cutting picture and cutting/mixing audio are two very different beasts. When i’m cutting something in X, I really like not having to figure out where to put the audio. When I’m rearranging a rough cut i really like not having to think much about whether moving a shot or scene is going to overwrite something that exists. It just takes care of itself and I can happily cut away. I can sort it out later as I get closer to something that’s finished. And I do think that roles need to be improved. Better sorting, grouping etc. etc.

A lot of the criticism of the magnetic timeline is based on the principle that editing is a linear thing only. That the vertical parent/child relationships of clips in the X timeline are somehow “wrong” But I don’t think that’s strictly true. I mean, maybe if you’re cutting a music video, or a music montage or something, then yeah, it’s just linear. But cutting trailers or promos or features, every linear shot/scene etc, has a vertical association with a lot of different sound (and often picture) elements.

Dialog, Multiple FX, even Music gets cut based on what’s happening vertically above it. And any linear rearrangement of picture clips means that all the vertically associated bits, audio and video, have to move with them. preferably not screwing up any other bits. That’s why we have trim tools right? I think the premise that editing is strictly a linear craft, is false, and FCP X deals with the problem, and it is a problem, of moving vertically associated elements in a horizontal plane really well. Not perfectly, but it keeps getting better quickly.

That diatribe aside, I do think roles need to be beefed up. As currently implemented, I wouldn’t want to do a final mix in X. (Although to be fair, I never wanted to do a final audio mix in any NLE… why would you? but that’s just me.) I’ll agree that they’re currently not great for visually organizing a timeline in a vertical plane. And more importantly to this thread, they’re not assignable to faders etc so you can’t mix things “properly”. You can put all your audio into secondary storylines if you want to make “tracks” but they still can’t be mixed with a fader, and you can’t minimize storylines yet, so they take up way too much space. Maybe some UI tweaks, better role organization, and a little checkbox – “view as tracks” – to do that for you would make everyone happy. 🙂 I really think that the underpinnings to make roles pretty powerful are there though.

So yeah… it looks like Logic is still track based. But it’s still a beta! LOL Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see how it i interacts with FCP X. 🙂

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Charlie Austin] “A lot of the criticism of the magnetic timeline is based on the principle that editing is a linear thing only.”

Charlie,

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

[Charlie Austin] “I really think that cutting picture and cutting/mixing audio are two very different beasts.”

Agreed. Most typically the focus of picture cuts is serial, while audio editing is as least as much parallel (mixing) as serial (if not more). Further, there are different types of parallel for both picture and sound.

[Charlie Austin] “(Although to be fair, I never wanted to do a final audio mix in any NLE… why would you? but that’s just me.)”

I don’t understand those who want to limit the capabilities of NLEs – in principal – in deference to dedicated DAWs. But then I’m one of a seeming few editors that insist on part-way decent audio monitors at good level while I cut.

Doesn’t your statement speak to poor implementation of audio capabilities in NLEs?

Imagine a “mix” mode that hides most function except tracks and a mixer.

There are those who would never want to do final colour in an NLE – and those who want good colour tools available in the NLE as they work. Why limit one in favour of the other?

[Charlie Austin] “I think the premise that editing is strictly a linear craft, is false”

Agreed.

[Charlie Austin] “Dialog, Multiple FX, even Music gets cut based on what’s happening vertically above it.”

And also the other way round.

[Charlie Austin] “And any linear rearrangement of picture clips means that all the vertically associated bits, audio and video, have to move with them. preferably not screwing up any other bits.”

If by “linear” you mean “serial”, this is sometimes true. But not always and not for “any” rearrangement. The change might easily involve a rearrangement of parallel association. So while sync and faux-sync elements are likely not to change, a music cue may well change. Likewise an off-screen door. Likewise an onscreen I.D. Grouping tends to be fluid.

I wrote an index of clip relationships a while back in response to a David Lawrence post – it wasn’t really clear to me why I was doing it, but I think there is a hierarchy of grouping that comes into play (so sync is less likely to be broken, while music relationships more likely to slip, though a certain piece may be associated with one scene, etc.)

David Lawrence has written elsewhere on how grouping does not depend on magnetic behavior.
Massive related thread here: https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/41526#41526

[Charlie Austin] “That’s why we have trim tools right?”

Having never used the trim tool for this purpose (and almost never at all) I would have to disagree.

Also, to your earlier complaints of having to patch constantly – I will say again that I never patch. I can’t imagine that tedium.

That said, I find roles interesting – and groups. I’m constantly shifting things around in ever-changing groups, and some tools that allowed me to do that more efficiently would be welcome.

Franz.

[Chris Harlan]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “I don’t understand those who want to limit the capabilities of NLEs – in principal – in deference to dedicated DAWs. But then I’m one of a seeming few editors that insist on part-way decent audio monitors at good level while I cut.”

Me too. I triangulate my near-fields, use dampeners, the whole 9 yards.

[Charlie Austin]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “[Charlie Austin] “A lot of the criticism of the magnetic timeline is based on the principle that editing is a linear thing only.”

Charlie,

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

Maybe I shouldn’t have said “a lot”… but there are those who decry the clip based parent/child paradigm of FCP as somehow wrong.

[Franz Bieberkopf][Charlie Austin] “I really think that cutting picture and cutting/mixing audio are two very different beasts.”

Agreed. Most typically the focus of picture cuts is serial, while audio editing is as least as much parallel (mixing) as serial (if not more). Further, there are different types of parallel for both picture and sound.
… Doesn’t your statement speak to poor implementation of audio capabilities in NLEs?
…Imagine a “mix” mode that hides most function except tracks and a mixer.

I think that’s what “dedicated DAW’s” are, really. In a perfect world, you’d just hit “send to Logic” and there you are. Just like MC->ProTools or Premiere->Audition. I too like decent audio monitoring and the ability to get a good mix while cutting, and I think most NLE’s, even X, provide that capability. I don’t want an Uber App that does everything, but that’s a personal preference..

[Franz Bieberkopf][Charlie Austin] “Dialog, Multiple FX, even Music gets cut based on what’s happening vertically above it.”

And also the other way round.

Yes, but are they not still vertically grouped?

[Franz Bieberkopf][Charlie Austin] “And any linear rearrangement of picture clips means that all the vertically associated bits, audio and video, have to move with them. preferably not screwing up any other bits.”

If by “linear” you mean “serial”, this is sometimes true. But not always and not for “any” rearrangement. The change might easily involve a rearrangement of parallel association. So while sync and faux-sync elements are likely not to change, a music cue may well change. Likewise an off-screen door. Likewise an onscreen I.D. Grouping tends to be fluid.
…David Lawrence has written elsewhere on how grouping does not depend on magnetic behavior.

Yes I do mean serially…:-)And I agree that it doesn’t depend on magnetic behavior. But for me, it works very well to support it. There are certainly times, particularly with music, when you don’t want ti to move as part of the group, and you can “lock” it by compounding the music and changing it’s attachment point. The magnetic timeline isn’t perfect and there certainly are situations where workarounds are needed. It’s more the exception then the rule in my experience though.

[Franz Bieberkopf][Charlie Austin] “That’s why we have trim tools right?”

Having never used the trim tool for this purpose (and almost never at all) I would have to disagree.

Also, to your earlier complaints of having to patch constantly – I will say again that I never patch. I can’t imagine that tedium.

That said, I find roles interesting – and groups. I’m constantly shifting things around in ever-changing groups, and some tools that allowed me to do that more efficiently would be welcome.”

I rarely (mostly never as well) use the trim tool for this purpose either. It was a slightly tongue in cheek question, so I agree with your disagreement. And as to not patching, do you just drag clips to the timeline? I’m a KB shortcut kind of guy when chopping things in…

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[David Lawrence]

[Charlie Austin] “Maybe I shouldn’t have said “a lot”… but there are those who decry the clip based parent/child paradigm of FCP as somehow wrong. “

I wouldn’t say the paradigm itself is wrong, but I do think they chose the wrong parent.

[Charlie Austin] ” think that’s what “dedicated DAW’s” are, really. In a perfect world, you’d just hit “send to Logic” and there you are. Just like MC->ProTools or Premiere->Audition.”

I’m curious — are clip collisions and track Tetris a problem when you’re working with a DAW? Do you think a trackless, parent/child magnetic timeline would make DAWs work better?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Carsten Orlt]

[Charlie Austin] “For me, patching tracks and playing track tetris completely stops the creative process in it’s “tracks” “

Exactly. I think many oversee the fact that X doesn’t have a patch panel. That is in my opinion the whole reason the timeline is the way it is. To get rid of it. No more thinking every time I add a clip to where the audio should go. And more often you forget and have to undo to patch correctly (I know you never do 🙂
Plus again as Charlie said extensive trim tools are only there because of the problems tracks bring in regard to collisions and sync.
Every new concept needs fine tuning and maybe can be improved (see connection overwrite), but the basic underlying concept is fundamentally different and tracks require much more than a few visual lines in the UI.
After the clip is added it may be neater to have tracks to move audio up and down and around. But as Charlie says Roles could solve that problem. Apple only has to put some functionality in to make it work. Apart from grouping by role to a mixer you could also easily rearrange clips vertically by roles after the fact to clean up the timeline visually. If Apple will do this nobody knows or can’t tell 🙂

I would be more than surprised if they put tracks back in and all the hassle of patch panels etc. It would totally defeat what they tried to achieve.

Time will tell 🙂

Happy editing

[David Lawrence]

[Carsten Orlt] “Plus again as Charlie said extensive trim tools are only there because of the problems tracks bring in regard to collisions and sync.”

lol, yep, that’s the only reason trim tools exist.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Charlie Austin]

[David Lawrence] “[Charlie Austin] “Maybe I shouldn’t have said “a lot”… but there are those who decry the clip based parent/child paradigm of FCP as somehow wrong. ”

I wouldn’t say the paradigm itself is wrong, but I do think they chose the wrong parent.

What do you think the parent should be?

[[David Lawrence] Charlie Austin] ” think that’s what “dedicated DAW’s” are, really. In a perfect world, you’d just hit “send to Logic” and there you are. Just like MC->ProTools or Premiere->Audition.”

I’m curious — are clip collisions and track Tetris a problem when you’re working with a DAW? Do you think a trackless, parent/child magnetic timeline would make DAWs work better?”

Collisions aren’t a problem I don’t think, at least not to the extent they are in a video editing scenario. Once you’re mixing, in theory anyway, your “tracks” – the generic term, channels, whatever – should be fairly well locked. And in the case of a DAW, what would the parent be? Time? It’s a different thing to me.

But, if roles could handle grouping and… Z-ordering, for lack of better term, and as long as you can assign roles in the same way you assign tracks, then why not go trackless?

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[David Lawrence] “[Carsten Orlt] “Plus again as Charlie said extensive trim tools are only there because of the problems tracks bring in regard to collisions and sync.”

lol, yep, that’s the only reason trim tools exist.”

It seems silly, but honestly, why do trim tools exist? I’m not talking about cuts, but trim tools. I mean, before NLE’s, trim tools were razor blades. You can make fine adjustments, slip, slide and every other kind of edit using just straight cuts. Linear editing came along and we could overwrite, Or make A/B tracks for everything. But that’s all just to work around the fact that adjacent clips on fixed tracks collide when they overlap. You couldn’t really edit “NLE Style” in an NLE without trim tools because clips collide. This may be reductio ad absurdum, but it’s true. 🙂

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Jim Giberti]

[Carsten Orlt] “I would be more than surprised if they put tracks back in and all the hassle of patch panels etc. It would totally defeat what they tried to achieve.
“

Let me clarify my POV at least. When I talk about tracks in FCPX, I’m talking specifically about audio mixing within the current incarnation. As much as I like parents and kids relationships vs bussing, working with the details of a complex audio mix using compound clips has as many downsides as upsides, at least in my experience.

A reasonable evolution, like the simple addition of the, “~” added enormous flexibility to a previously hobbled (for many, not all, Bill) interface; a mixing interface for audio would give it the same kind of flexibility for more complex and detailed audio production.

Let me try and put it differently.
A traditional multitrack audio environment gives the producer a realtime view and listen of all the tracks in a mix. And that producer/engineer is skilled at sculpting the sound, as it happens – with an ongoing series of fader moves, pans, eq, dynamics, etc. We see the levels, hear the balance, the addition and subtraction of frequencies and adjustment of dynamics in realtime as they effect one another. That’s audio mixing at it’s best, and why opening and closing CCs will never match it.

But there are real advantages to the X way handles audio and that make me say, “I wish MOTU did this” and that’s why I think a traditional/proven mixing environment would only enhance it. Best of both worlds.