-
Apple looking to fix UI in FCPX?
-
[Carsten Orlt] “I sometimes wonder how the discussion would change if the trackless timeline would have been the first to appear in computer based editing systems?”
IIRC, there was another trackless NLE at some point (Liquid?), but it failed to gain traction in the marketplace.
[Carsten Orlt] “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.”
NLE tracks have nothing to do with the linearity of tape. The reason for tracks is they’re the most natural way to represent multiple, parallel streams of media with a common, external frame-of-reference for time, in a 2D graphic interface.
An open timeline is a completely non-linear composition space. In many ways it’s more non-linear than the magnetic timeline because hierarchy is completely fluid and up to the editor. With the magnetic timeline, everything must connect to the single primary no matter what. I see this as an arbitrary limitation.
Let me ask the same question I asked Charlie (Charlie, I’m still interested in your thoughts as well) — would you want a DAW with a FCPX-like magnetic timeline? Would having only one main track in default ripple mode – that all other channels must connect to – be a better, more natural UI for working with multi-channel sound?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Carsten Orlt] 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.
“Selecting edit point on diff tracks” is part of the editorial process. It’s a creative choice, and it can never be successfully automated. The magnetic timeline may be able to keep things in sync, but it cannot make those editorial choices for me. So why do I need it? A properly set-up trim also keeps things in sync, and it lets me evaluate picture and sound together and perform the edit in real-time. To me that is much more useful.
-
[David Lawrence] “Let me ask the same question I asked Charlie (Charlie, I’m still interested in your thoughts as well) — would you want a DAW with a FCPX-like magnetic timeline? Would having only one main track in default ripple mode – that all other channels must connect to – be a better, more natural UI for working with multi-channel sound?”
I’m not sure I’d want one main track to be the parent in this case, but I could see the benefit of a less rigid “track” structure. It seems to me that the X timeline magnetism has a couple different purposes, both of which are helpful when cutting video. Firstly, clips can be connected to a parent clip vertically. That seems to me to be specific to video editing. I don’t think this behavior is necessary for audio only editing/mixing. FWIW, I’d consider sound design a video editing function, as what you’re doing is (mostly) driven by visual cues.
The other function is to prevent clips from colliding in the timeline by moving them out of the path of clips that are being cut in or moved horizontally. I think this aspect of magnetism would be quite nice in a DAW… assuming a more robust implementation of Roles. In addition to the ability to group roles, you’d need to be able to have clips within a role stay where you put them relative to others above and below, the z-ordering idea.
If that were the case, you essentially would have what you described… “a… system with intelligent clip grouping and collision avoidance behaviors”. But without “tracks” as we know them. If you wanted to move “pods” of audio, maybe you could have a “parent track” which you could optionally connect groups of clips to, or just a “group” command. But even in the group clips would stay in their Role “collection” .
As far as mixing, assuming a traditional fader setup, each Role group could have as many faders pop up as needed, one for each lane/track in that group. This assumes that clips maintain whatever vertical order you’ve put them in. Dynamic fader creation. lol Who knows?
At the end of the day though… I really do think that the X timeline works great for video. Audio handling needs some work for sure, I just like how the X timeline functions when I’m cutting in it, it just feels right to me. And to be fair, I’m not satisfied with the current implementation of Roles. They need to be group-able. They need to maintain the z-order I give them. If I stack 5 clips in a certain vertical order, I’d like them to stay in that order even if they need to move out of the way of something. And I’d really like to be able to hide or collapse a role to, visually, simplify what I’m focussing on in my edit. I dunno… I’m looking forward to the next X update. 🙂
And speaking of edit… back to work. In FCP 7 today. Yuck. lol 😉
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[David Lawrence] “NLE tracks have nothing to do with the linearity of tape. The reason for tracks is they’re the most natural way to represent multiple, parallel streams of media with a common, external frame-of-reference for time, in a 2D graphic interface.”
It’s just me but big statements like ‘most natural’ I do not like. FCPx timeline shows there is a different way. It still has parallel streams just not confined by multiple tracks but one. And I was talking about the linear nature of tape. I was talking about that content on a tape needs a physical boundary that is set once recorded. It can’t move out of the way 🙂
[David Lawrence] “An open timeline is a completely non-linear composition space. In many ways it’s more non-linear than the magnetic timeline because hierarchy is completely fluid and up to the editor. With the magnetic timeline, everything must connect to the single primary no matter what. I see this as an arbitrary limitation.”
It’s only arbitrary from the outside. It’s simply a solution to get rid of track panels and patching and clip collision. If you start with the premise that you don’t want any of the three in your timeline than you have to kill tracks. Not arbitrary but a given outcome for a defined goal. FCP software engineers didn’t just put something to annoy you. They actually had a goal. If the goal is not something you can subscribe too than obviously you don’t like it because for you there was nothing wrong in the first place.
[David Lawrence] “would you want a DAW with a FCPX-like magnetic timeline? Would having only one main track in default ripple mode – that all other channels must connect to – be a better, more natural UI for working with multi-channel sound?
“Don’t know, don’t do sound 🙂
Happy editing
-
[Jok Daniel] “”Selecting edit point on diff tracks” is part of the editorial process.”
Only if they change the content and that is desired. If I have to select them because otherwise I can’t trim e.g. the video to the point I want, than no there are not artistic but merely a mechanical necessity.
Happy editing
-
[David Lawrence] “Absolute time with the sequence window as a fixed frame-of-reference.”
To me this is a little like an English speaker arguing that ALL reading must be done left to right in a string. Period, no exceptions.
Nothing wrong with that and countless great works of tremendous narrative strength are created that way.
But it’s ALSO true that superb written expression is possible in Hebrew and Chinese and via pictographs – NONE of which is constrained to the concept that “writing” must start at an arbitrary ZERO point and proceed to march along a straight line to the right.
its a convention, not a necessity. (in lower case homage to ee cummings!)
And that’s what this debate is starting to feel like to me.
Everyone comfortable with exclusively speaking english as the default, ONE line – Left to right – that’s it debate over – is grumpy because someone’s suggested we open things up with expressions above and below the line (kinda like MATH!)
Personally I smiled the day I saw that in X, I could work LEFT as well as RIGHT from my arbitrary zero and the software didn’t really care. And I can work UP and DOWN (connected clips/tracks, whatever term you want) as easily as before.
Heck, maybe I’ll start to envision ROLES as attachments BEHIND and/or IN FRONT of clips in Z space?
What’s gone for me in X is some of my conditioning as to visual and conceptual LIMITATIONS of what a workspace had to be from my Legacy conditioning.
What’s wrong with that?
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Carsten Orlt] “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?”
Obviously I do music production and scoring in a DAW (Motu DP) and I have my full studio of plugins and instruments. But like a lot of producers, there are times when it’s more efficient to handle the audio post directly within the project – specifically because of the Logic tools available in X.
While I really like the ease of “bussing” using CCs, if you like to develop your audio mix as you go, then you’re going to want go go back and forth to these elements to continue to “mix” them. I find that very unintuitive and weak using the “open in timeline” route.
So, for me at least, one of the great potentials of FCPX was flexible and powerful audio interface that would create a more integrated and efficient production workflow. I just think the value of a a real time mix laid out in front of you with immediate access to parameter controls would be a real beneficial option in FCPX.
-
No worries, didn’t see you earlier posts.
But how do you determine where your video or audio clip go when you put them into the timeline? Do you have to move them after you put them on standard V1 A1-2?
Cheers
Happy editing
-
[Jim Giberti] ” I just think the value of a a real time mix laid out in front of you with immediate access to parameter controls would be a real beneficial option in FCPX.”
I think the value of this would be high as well.
But I sometimes wonder just what the actual market for this might be.
I’ve known a LOT of editors who rarely, if ever go beyond VO plus Music bed audio constructions.
I’ve actually gone months with productive pretty high dollar work for my corporate clients without ever having to go much beyond a 3 deep audio build myself. Yes, there are times – particularly in years gone by when I’d have 30-40 audio tracks for complex hour long corporate projects or spots that relied heavily on SFX. But day to day, I’m usually good with a narration track – peppered with interview actualities – all riding over a buyout music bed.
Granted one reason I probably do so much work with that structure is that I’m a long time narrator and voice talent – so part of it is that my clients often come expecting me to drive program flow via voiceover – but still I think a LOT of people out there do similar work.
It’s not like I’m working on a movie with multiple character lav and boom takes plus a dozen sweetening tracks to keep organized.
Once again – it’s the most common processes competing with more complex specialty needs.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Bill Davis] “I’ve actually gone months with productive pretty high dollar work for my corporate clients without ever having to go much beyond a 3 deep audio build myself. Yes, there are times – particularly in years gone by when I’d have 30-40 audio tracks for complex hour long corporate projects or spots that relied heavily on SFX. But day to day, I’m usually good with a narration track – peppered with interview actualities – all riding over a buyout music bed.”
Isn’t that the crux of the complaints about X? Does it become the tool that also works for complex workflows or does it stay in the 80/20 world?
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up