-
Apple’s bet against Tracks by Alex4D
-
To each their own. And if I have to become a Premiere Pro expert I will. I kinda depends on some of my corporate clients and what they’re using in house. I suspect my world will be Premiere / FCP X / whatever I want for awhile. And 7 for another year or less.
Learning X has been good fun, and luckily the right projects came along at the right time to give it a shot. I didn’t want to have to do it, but it was sure more fun than learning the same editing app again. FCP legacy was the first editing app that I learned that was pretty much the same as the previous. All the other transitions have been a bit more challenging as the one to FCP X has. First it was VideoCube, then Sony AB roll linear, then Media 100, then Avid, then Final Cut Pro, and then CS6 and now FCP X. Throw EditDV in there somewhere, but that was short lived. So the last decade and a half has pretty much been the same view on my monitors. Nice to get something different, even if I didn’t want it.
-
[Walter Soyka] “Don’t confuse empty space with the lack of information.
Graphic design offers us a few tools to convey information in 2D space — notably here, alignment — but FCPX’s self-collapsing timeline totally disregards them.
I have argued here that the self-collapsing timeline removes visual cues from the edit. Imagine working a nodal compositor that continuously and automatically reflowed — or if your physical desktop did, or if your kitchen’s spice cabinet did. Our brains are wired for spatial thinking, but FCPX fights this.
If FCPX must ignore human-centric concepts like space, it could at least leverage computer-centric concepts like sorting. How cool would it be if FCPX could sort and re-sort your timeline based on user-defined criteria?”
Well said, Walter.
I have to say though, I find it ironic that Apple – the company that defined the age of human-centric computing – has gotten uncharacteristically sloppy with Human Centered Design in recent years. FCPX is one of the more extreme examples.
The guiding philosophy behind Apple UI design is that computers should work the way people intuitively expect; that the computer should adapt to the human, not the other way around. It goes back to the Human Interface Group and Human Interface Guidelines. Note the emphasis on human rather than computer interface. This language is intentional and it’s what set Apple apart from other computer companies when graphical computing became mainstream.
From Apple’s OSX Human Interface Guidelines:
“Mental Model
The user already has a mental model that describes the task your software is enabling. This model arises from a combination of real-world experiences, experience with other software, and with computers in general. For example, users have real-world experience writing and mailing letters and most users have used email apps to write and send email. Based on this, a user has a conceptual model of this task that includes certain expectations, such as the ability to create a new letter, select a recipient, and send the letter. An email app that ignores the user’s mental model and does not meet at least some of the user’s expectations would be difficult and even unpleasant to use. This is because such an app imposes an unfamiliar conceptual model on its users instead of building on the knowledge and experiences those users already have.”
Maybe the ProApps team should try reading that document.
One of the reasons I consider the current FCPX timeline a UI failure is because it seems driven by abstract engineering principals rather than an understanding of how editors actually work or how people actually think.
For example, why can’t transitions be applied to connected clips? Why can’t clips connect to secondaries? Why only one primary? And so on.
All of these constraints seem driven by the FCPX data model. I’m sure it’s elegant from an engineering standpoint, but I don’t think is has anything to do with editing. I’ve never met an editor who described their work in terms of creating “clip relationships” or gave a minute’s thought to a timeline’s data model. These are engineering concepts and they tell a lot about the FCPX UI design thinking.
Someone’s bound to say that tracks have constraints too and of course this is true. But the constraints of tracks are much more easily understood in terms of their physical metaphors. FCPX’s abstract “relationship” model has no real-world corollary.
Yes, it takes skill to get good dealing with track constraints but once you learn them, they’re universal and easily transferrable. At that point, it’s a matter of taste. Changing muscle memory is totally different than re-wiring your brain to an entirely different paradigm.
Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines have stood the test of time as a benchmark of good design philosophy. The magnetic timeline fails the HIG at the most fundamental level.
This is the reason why I think Apple’s bet on a trackless model is a very steep hill to climb. I know many folks like the new timeline model and I recognize its benefits for some editorial tasks. But more than a year later, I still see no reason why all of those benefits couldn’t have been applied to a tracked environment or delivered in a trackless design that gave everyone the best of both worlds.
The magnetic timeline is an interesting experiment — something only a company like Apple could try and still be taken seriously. I’m sure it’ll do well in Apple’s intended market, but I’ll be very surprised if it ever achieves the ubiquity of Legend. I see FCPX as a niche product. The question is how big a niche that turns out to be.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
Really interesting article, thanks for posting.
I noticed that it’s assumed you don’t want to see your other deactivated clips on the timeline. This isn’t an advantage for me at all…And when I do to tidy I simply nest. Just another example of me working around FCP7’s antiquated interface ? It just seems easier for the majority of work I do.
-
FWIW – the “track metaphor” goes back to an orchestral score created by a composer and organized by instruments. I’d say that’s several hundred years that “tracks” have been ingrained into our mindset.
Ironic that the examples Charlie has posted completely circumvent the editing design of X by refusing to use the primary storyline at all. Just an observation 😉
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Charlie Austin] “I guess that, being a former FCP v1, 2 and 3 beta tester, I’m more forgiving of unfinished software. ;-)”
I have participated and continue to participate in numerous beta programs. My criticisms here aren’t about unfinished software. They’re about major design choices — the sort of thing that should be wrapped up prior to beta release.
But my point here is not really to argue FCPX’s design. I want to make it very clear that while I don’t think FCPX’s UI and design are perfect, I do think that they have serious potential and are avenues worth exploring. FCPX may not be the best choice for every job, but honestly, if I were still doing the sort of unscripted interview-driven pieces I was doing 10 years ago with FCP v3, FCPX would probably be my tool of choice. It would have saved me an awful lot of mad sub-clipping and searching.
I want to focus on the premise of the article which I do disagree with: the false dichotomy of a relationship-based timeline versus tracks. (And interestingly, Alex Gollner says that “tracks can implement every editing method” just a couple paragraphs before he outlines how he thinks clip connections “forced Apple to get rid of tracks.”)
I agree with Mr. Gollner’s descriptions of how FCPX uniquely manages clip relationships, and why this is important; I just dispute that a relationship-based timeline is incompatible with tracks. The self-collapsing lane system is but one solution to the problem of clip collision causing unwanted overwrites during magnetic timeline maneuvers: a way of preventing clips from overwriting. It is notably not a way of avoiding collision altogether; after a magnetic maneuver, the editor may still have to decide which collided clip should be shown and which should be trimmed — just the same as with layered or grouped tracks.
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 -
[Oliver Peters] “Ironic that the examples Charlie has posted completely circumvent the editing design of X by refusing to use the primary storyline at all. Just an observation ;-)”
How is it ironic? I’m not circumventing the design, the design lets me choose how I want to work. X isn’t as rigid as some seem to think. 😉
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[Herb Sevush] “visuals are never locked to a specific track”
Actually this isn’t quite true in my case. I’ll often put titles ID-ing VFX on a specific track, say v5, so that I can turn them off if I’m doing an output, but they’re visible when doing work so I know where my VFX are and what their status is. Lots of reasons for a track-based workflow.
Chris
-
[David Lawrence] “For example, why can’t transitions be applied to connected clips? Why can’t clips connect to secondaries? Why only one primary? And so on.”
Agreed. FCPX would be more powerful and more intuitive if the object model hierarchy were flattened.
With FCP7, you had to carefully manage selections immediately before making complicated timeline maneuvers. With FCPX, you have to carefully manage each clip’s object model any time before making a complicated timeline maneuver.
[David Lawrence] “Someone’s bound to say that tracks have constraints too and of course this is true. But the constraints of tracks are much more easily understood in terms of their physical metaphors. FCPX’s abstract “relationship” model has no real-world corollary.”
Yet, once you accept the seemingly arbitrary constraints imposed by the object models, FCPX’s timeline feels almost physical. It has consistent rules for interaction, and it provides plentiful feedback to the user about what is happening.
It has gravity which pulls down and to the left, and time is relative. This is not the same timeline metaphor that other apps use, but it is internally consistent.
[David Lawrence] “I see FCPX as a niche product. The question is how big a niche that turns out to be.”
FCPX could well go mainstream as more of the general population — not just editors per se — use video for communication. (See Apple advertising FCPX on a MBPr on TV commercials.) In that case, professional editorial becomes the niche, as the mainstream would dwarf all other editorial niches combined, in terms of installed seats.
So I guess FCPX may be considered a niche product from the perspective of our niche market.
From a wider perspective, I see myself as a niche user, and I may well need niche products that would be ill-suited for general use.
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 -
[Chris Conlee] “Actually this isn’t quite true in my case. I’ll often put titles ID-ing VFX on a specific track, say v5, so that I can turn them off if I’m doing an output,”
Chris – the point is that’s a workflow choice you are making, not a requirement. I tend to keep certain things on certain tracks in video as a visual reference, but it’s not as rigid as how I keep my audio tracks aligned.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “[Charlie Austin] “and highlight as many things as you want, but currently it’s only one color.”
Which, in plain english, means you can’t isolate your distinct types of audio at any one moment, which means you don’t have tracks in any meaningful way.”
Yes you can. In my typical project I would import the sound effects and music into their respective bins.
Eg. stockmusic, SFX, loops, jingles. Whatever ou have prepared for the project (if you have always the same SFX/loops library it would make sense to have one event always open with those).Now you create the roles (SFX, music, loops) and in the bin select the 100 SFX and add the role SFX. Do that to all various types of audio.
In the item list in the timeline you can now solo/highlight the singular roles. SFX could be all over the place “track wise”, but on export they will all come into the same stem.
And if you absolutely need a visual reference you can select the Role SFX and hit OPT-G to compound them into one long line called SFX, so when another editor comes he can see it even without the item list.
But color coded clips and roles are definitely a top-wish from many here to make the visual representation even easier.
EDIT: one more advantage of the item list/roles system: when you have a SFX called BANG and the client wants it changed into the BONG, you search the item list for BANG and when you click it then your playhead jumps right there. Fast and accurate.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up