-
Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
-
[Charlie Austin] “What do you think the parent should be?”
Absolute time with the sequence window as a fixed frame-of-reference.
[Charlie Austin] “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.”
What about sound editing or complex multi-channel layering? Or recording and composing? Mixing is just one part of the sound design process.
[Charlie Austin] “And in the case of a DAW, what would the parent be? Time?”
Exactly!
[Charlie Austin] “It’s a different thing to me.”
That’s where we differ — to me, sound and picture are equals on the timeline. Sure video and sound have different characteristics, but they’re both time-based media and they’re both represented the same way in a 2D graphic interface. When I’m editing, I treat them pretty much the same way.
[Charlie Austin] “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?”
I suppose something like you describe would be great if it existed. But to flip that around, what if you had a track-based system with intelligent clip grouping and collision avoidance behaviors? You’d have the ability to create and rearrange “pods” like in your example, but with the benefits of tracks for those who need them. Wouldn’t that be the best of both worlds?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Charlie Austin] “It seems silly, but honestly, why do trim tools exist? I’m not talking about cuts, but trim tools.”
Is that a serious question or are we talking about different things, lol?
Trim tools exist to enable an editor to find the perfect frame.
They’re the tools that turn craft into art.
They have absolutely nothing to do with clip collisions.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
– Is that a serious question or are we talking about different things, lol? –
Maybe we are 🙂 Maybe the general term ‘trim tools’ is not the right wording and causes the misunderstanding.
I never understood why there was a discussion that FCP legacy compared to Avid or now FCP x compared to Premiere is inferior in the regards to trimming? For me it is a simple operation that they all performe(d). I adjust the outgoing in regard to the incoming. I either do this in sync, meaning what I add or take away will be the same on both sides (roll) or I do it different on each side. Only complication when using a track based editor is that clips on other tracks might collide when the NLE tries to keep them in sync vertically. No tracks and that problem disappears. Where the track based editor needs option like selecting edit point on diff tracks in a vertically diff time position trackless doesn’t need to. Simpler in my opinion.
The only advantage I see for tracks is a visual organization of content.
I sometimes wonder how the discussion would change if the trackless timeline would have been the first to appear in computer based editing systems? What would people thing if Apple now would have introduced tracks as a novel approach? Think about it. All linear tape based machines, audio or video, didn’t have the possibility of being trackless. You can’t record multiple different sources in a random fashion on a tape. They had to be on diff tracks (physical space) if they were to occupy the same time on the tape. When computers where introduced they merely recreated the same thing, and people could follow that thinking because that’s how it has always been. It work well. Everybody understood it. Trackless is now actually something that only can be done on a computer. And I think FCP x is using this new possibility very well.
Happy editing
-
I see your point Jim.
But let me ask you why you don’t use a dedicated audio mixing tool that has all this functionality that you righly would like for your type of work? Why does it have to be in the same editor?
This is not ment to talk down on you but merely trying to understand why you want it all in one software? For me FCP x is a really good video editor that lets me organize my audio enough to get to fine cut stage and after that I pass on things to audio and SFX departments for the final master. I like that it doesn’t try to be all things at once.
Happy editing
-
[Carsten Orlt] “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.”
Carsten,
I’ll repeat once again that I’ve been cutting in FCP since V2 and I never, never use the patch panel.
Franz.
-
[Chris Harlan] ” I triangulate my near-fields, use dampeners, the whole 9 yards.”
Chris,
I only go about 4 yards or so. Sometimes 8 yards (on one of the systems I use). Dampeners is hard core.
Franz.
-
[Jim Giberti] “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.
…That’s audio mixing at it’s best, and why opening and closing CCs will never match it.”
Agreed on all points, And maybe I’m not being clear when I talk about collecting roles in a sort of compound clip. I’m not envisioning the current implementation, I’m thinking about a system that would allow one to organize audio in the a track-like fashion, but keep the flexibility if the trackless timeline. Kind of a “virtual” CC. For example, first you check the “group role” button next to your, say, FOLEY role. All those clips are held together in the timeline. They can still get out of each others way, but no other roles would be permitted in whatever space they occupy. It would also put them in (or maybe you hit “collect roles” or something else) a kind of master envelope,which you could adjust via fader(s) and record via automation. Maybe the bg color of the timeline for each group, or clip in that role could change for visual ID. You’d click a “Hide Group” button and all the clips in that role would collapse to a single CC-like clips, showing the “master’ keyframes.
Yes, you’d still need to adjust individual clips, and maybe, as I think you suggest, there could be a hybrid “mix mode” where grouped clips stayed put in their lanes, and could be acted on via faders. Or you’d adjust them via mouse or KB shortcuts.
I’m just riffing here, obviously, lol. It’s interesting to envision what could be. 🙂
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[David Lawrence] “[Charlie Austin] “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?”
I suppose something like you describe would be great if it existed. But to flip that around, what if you had a track-based system with intelligent clip grouping and collision avoidance behaviors? You’d have the ability to create and rearrange “pods” like in your example, but with the benefits of tracks for those who need them. Wouldn’t that be the best of both worlds?”
Yes. Some kind of user selectable “virtual” track-like behavior. I do understand the utility of fixed tracks, and I’m just trying envision how that behavior could be implemented in a trackless timeline. X does keep track of where clips exist in vertical space, the “lane” position is in the fcpx xml for projects, so it’s certainly possible. Or not. 😉 fun to talk about though… They’ll probably just put a “Send to Logic” button in the share menu. lol
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[David Lawrence] “[Charlie Austin] “It seems silly, but honestly, why do trim tools exist? I’m not talking about cuts, but trim tools.”
Is that a serious question or are we talking about different things, lol?
Trim tools exist to enable an editor to find the perfect frame.
They’re the tools that turn craft into art.
They have absolutely nothing to do with clip collisions.”
You are absolutely correct, that is what they are for. So I guess what I mean is that trim tools, which were designed to allow fine tuning of edits, have been pressed into service as clip collision avoidance tools as well. If I ripple an edit in MC, I need to set trim points on a bunch of other clips below (and above) my edit point to make sure everything associated with that clip also ripples without hitting another clip.
In X I just ripple the one clip and move on.
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[Charlie Austin] “Yes. Some kind of user selectable “virtual” track-like behavior. I do understand the utility of fixed tracks, and I’m just trying envision how that behavior could be implemented in a trackless timeline. X does keep track of where clips exist in vertical space, the “lane” position is in the fcpx xml for projects, so it’s certainly possible. Or not. 😉 fun to talk about though…”
All interesting ideas — would love to see roles do the kinds of things you and others have described. And definitely fun to to talk about! 🙂
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up