Audio editing in FCPX

[Richard Herd]

[Charlie Austin] “As does anything, NLE or not”

Unfortunately that’s not true.

Some things do. Some things don’t. Making a list of those things is a pretty boring post. 😉 Often, we can acquire new concepts by people telling us. Like my kids. I have twin daughters. If I tell Sophia, don’t touch the stove because it’s hot and it will burn you, then she won’t. But her sister Adeline will touch the stove.

[Charlie Austin] “A-not as good
B-more complicated
C-everything is a workaround
D-unsuitable for “complex” projects
E-only used by kool-aide drinking Apple fanatics”

Yeah, I agree totally. And I would add an enthymeme (I love fancy words):

F-editors ought to use only 1 NLE.

So far, that’s a nice list of false claims we have compiled 🙂 Got any more?

[Charlie Austin]

[Richard Herd] “But her sister Adeline will touch the stove. “

Adeline should probably use FCP X then. lol

[Richard Herd] “So far, that’s a nice list of false claims we have compiled 🙂 Got any more?”

Just scroll through this thread, then this forum, then head over to the PrCC or Not forum and begin again. Could take a while… 😉

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Tony West]

[Atilio Menéndez] “[tony west] “That was not the argument, if you could do it in ONE STEP or not.”

That IS the argument!”

OK, pick that line out of the sentence

“Sorry, while i’m still beating my drum about overwrite editing, it does also seem really strange that you can’t overwrite paste into the main storyline.”

[Atilio Menéndez] “What’s relevant is that with both the audio can then be moved independently from the video and thus be bumped out of sync,”

Yeah, if you are not that familiar with the program it can be. You can knock stuff out of sync in any program.

You are still wrong, you said they were the same and they are not.

[Atilio Menéndez] “there are situations when I would like to have them.”

That’s fine, it’s not a big deal to me. I don’t mind if they put them in.

All I can say is, if you are knocking things out of sync a lot in a program like X I don’t know what to tell you brother

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Richard Herd] “I’m not sure what you’re skeptical of.”

[Richard Herd] “Regarding the 100 monkey, methinks it’s onstensive and not too fancy.”

Richard,

Well, the theory is precisely that it isn’t ostensive:

“… but the habit seems to have jumped natural barriers and to have appeared spontaneously, … in colonies on other islands and on the mainland in a troop at Takasakiyama.”

ie. what started as behaviour that was taught from one monkey to the next, then suddenly was witnessed in monkeys who had no physical contact and in fact were separated by oceans.

(Note that site pretty much undercuts any claim that the cited example actually occurred. I’m interested in it more as a concept or model.)

I’m generally skeptical of mystical concepts such as this, but I don’t reject this outright. So it might be mystical. Or it might be something else – perhaps certain behaviours are inevitable given the right conditions. I think Noam Chomsky’s theory of language might be shoe-horned into such an understanding – that language is inherent in the human make-up and therefor it evolves in similar ways even if populations are isolated. (ie. behaviour that is “intuited” or otherwise not learned through demonstration in some instance.) I think there are similar concepts in Buddhism.

But to retrace, I also think X actually borrows all it’s concepts from other examples and much like the iphone the only thing new is how it’s been packaged and presented.

Prior art for both magnetism and the trackless paradigm have been discussed here before (I think). But as I said, the forum just seems to be retreading ground here …

Franz.

[Charlie Austin]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “Prior art for both magnetism and the trackless paradigm have been discussed here before “

https://sourceforge.net/projects/hyperengine/

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Timothy Auld]

Yes, that is exactly what people have trouble with. Managing a function that should not need managing. Avid has had a magnetic timeline practically since its inception. But I can turn it on and off. Accepting as a given that many people absolutely love the way FCPX works, I do have to ask how hard it would be for Apple to make it work for the rest of us? If they were really committed to the leading the NLE market this would not even be an issue. What they appear to be committed to is not admitting they were wrong.

Tim

[Richard Herd]

I really truly LOLd.

[Charlie Austin]

[TImothy Auld] ” Accepting as a given that many people absolutely love the way PrCC works, I do have to ask how hard it would be for Adobe to make it work for the rest of us? If they were really committed to leading the NLE market this would not even be an issue. What they appear to be committed to is not admitting they were wrong.”

fixed it for ya

Sorry, couldn’t resist. My guess is that Apple is committed to improving the NLE that they have, not turning it into something it isn’t. They make changes based on volume of feedback, but tracks in the literal sense aren’t coming to X. You can approximate the function of tracks with secondary story lines, but it’s a ridiculous kludge to put everything in secondaries. Particularly since there’s absolutely no reason to. I don’t mean this to sound mean spirited, but if you’re workflow really requires tracks there are other NLE’s which are very good.

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Timothy Auld]

So everyone in the FCPX world is happy then?

Tim

[Richard Herd]

I missed the “separated by oceans part.” D’OH. Agree that I think Chomsky’s nativism explains it well.

The new concepts in X (or any domain even if they are retreaded) is that the concepts can only be acquired via ostensible learning because the words describing the user interface/experience are changed, and, therefore, the new user to X does not have a background in the meaning; and hence, the meaning cannot be transferred via concept-to-concept — leaving ostensible concept acquisition only. That’s a fancy way of saying “You gotta use it to get it.”

For example, Charlie (and some others) have spent a lot of time in this thread explaining how to use X in X’s terms. I understand exactly what they mean, but that is because I had previously spent a lot of time using X, reading the manual, and teaching X, so I am familiar (ostensively!) with both the interface experience and the terminology.

I am also not claiming that X is earth shattering so throw away Premiere and Avid. Simply, I’m stating that the new concepts in editing that X presents can only be acquired ostensively. Moreover, this is why young kids new to editing have no problems learning X. They just jump in blind — a de facto Blank Slate* of ostensibility.

*I don’t actually believe in the tabula rosa as I understand (perhaps faulty) the Empiricists’ described it. I use the term as a way to reach back to a potential, almost nirvana, freedom of/from concepts. In reality, I think Vygotsky offers better practical explanations for the teaching of concept acquisition.