Be STILL my BEATING HEART.

[David Lawrence]

[Walter Soyka] “FCPX must ultimately place clips at specific points in time, which is the way every other application on the planet manages time-based media. FCPX’s extra clip relationship data will be lost in the process.”

I think the point that I (and maybe @Gary) am not getting is what is it about this extra relationship data that is in any way meaningful about the editor’s intentions? Especially since all relationships must be expressed in reference to the primary storyline.

For example, if it were possible to connect clips to secondary storylines, or even other clips, then I’d be able to create meaningful relationships that actually reflect my grouping intentions. But given the constraint of everything having to connect to the primary storyline, whether it makes sense or not, I just don’t see any meaningful value.

Jeremy’s recreation of Kevin Federline’s timeline is a good example of this. Even though the timeline looks the same on the surface, the relationships have nothing to do with the editor’s intentions.

If we assume that:

V1 = primary
V2 = connected at In point IF no transitions
V2 = secondary connected at In point IF with transitions

rinse and repeat for both video and audio…

Doesn’t that get us 90 to 100% there for a useful percentage of cases? What would we really be losing?

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

[David Dobson]

And can FCPX have a timeline in which there are no extra connections or linkages or whatever they are? And if it can then why can’t it import a FCP7 timeline and just have be unconnected?

[Walter Soyka]

[David Lawrence] “I think the point that I (and maybe @Gary) am not getting is what is it about this extra relationship data that is in any way meaningful about the editor’s intentions? Especially since all relationships must be expressed in reference to the primary storyline.”

It’s only meaningful in one context: the operation of the magnetic timeline. When the operator intentionally connects a clip at a different point, or moves a clip into or out of the primary storyline, it alters the relationship between the clips, which alters the result of magnetic timeline moves.

If the translator guesses wrong about where a clip should be connected, or whether it’s primary or secondary, normal magnetic rippling could appear to break the timeline, because the editor’s intent about the relationships between clips wasn’t expressed correctly. Of course, the magnetic rippling would behave exactly as the timeline indicates, but the timeline itself would be wrong — or at least not what it would have been if the edit had originated in FCPX. Garbage in, garbage out.

[David Lawrence] “Doesn’t that get us 90 to 100% there for a useful percentage of cases? What would we really be losing?”

I absolutely think it would get us close enough for most of the cases. I don’t think we’d be losing much at all. It would be my strong preference to see this feature implemented. I think there are a significant number of corner cases, and I think that only simple timelines would translate with absolutely no prep or repair, but it’s certainly nothing a professional editor couldn’t very, very easily fix.

One of the lines from the SuperMeet sticks out in my mind: “sync is sacred.” My argument is that Apple has not implemented this feature not because they think legacy support is unimportant, but rather because they don’t want FCPX to appear to break its promise on the sanctity of sync even once.

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

[Gary Huff]

[Walter Soyka]One of the lines from the SuperMeet sticks out in my mind: “sync is sacred.” My argument is that Apple has not implemented this feature not because they think legacy support is unimportant, but rather because they don’t want FCPX to appear to break its promise on the sanctity of sync even once.

I think that’s a huuuuuge stretch there, Walter.

[Walter Soyka]

[Gary Huff] “I think that’s a huuuuuge stretch there, Walter.”

Fair, Gary — but I’m at a loss to think of another reason why they would give up their format lock-in (unnecessarily inviting their user base to migrate away), or deny FCPX the ability to finish a project started in any other system.

One of Apple’s biggest traditional strengths is a simple and consistent user experience.

If they’re not looking to protect one, why would Apple choose to make FCPX an island in an industry that thrives on interchange? Is it part of a not-so-subtle set of cues to actively push professionals away from the product for some reason?

This is a very honest question. If adding legacy import is an easy task with no negative consequences in terms of FCPX’s design and use philosophy, why not add it? Why specifically state in the FAQ that you have not and will not do it? Why intentionally close FCPX off to broader uses?

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

[Gary Huff]

[Walter Soyka]This is a very honest question. If adding legacy import is an easy task with no negative consequences in terms of FCPX’s design and use philosophy, why not add it? Why specifically state in the FAQ that you have not and will not do it? Why intentionally close FCPX off to broader uses?

Perhaps because FCPX is not the successor to FCP7, but is instead the “pro” version of iMovie, necessitating a clean break from the past?

[Walter Soyka]

[Gary Huff] “Perhaps because FCPX is not the successor to FCP7, but is instead the “pro” version of iMovie, necessitating a clean break from the past?”

So is your thinking that Apple was willing to cede the traditional professional market and a significant portion of their existing user base to another application in order to garner a larger and less demanding audience?

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

[David Roth weiss]

“[Walter Soyka]One of the lines from the SuperMeet sticks out in my mind: “sync is sacred.” My argument is that Apple has not implemented this feature not because they think legacy support is unimportant, but rather because they don’t want FCPX to appear to break its promise on the sanctity of sync even once.”

Let me see??? If I understand correctly, what Apple is really saying is, if you haven’t bothered to learn to operate FCP properly up to now, and thus don’t know how to properly maintain sync, just take the time to learn this completely new app and all of the completely new and different nomenclature we created, then sync will no longer be an issue for you.

If learning is such an impediment for these people, what makes Apple think they’ll actually bother to learn FCP X?

Here’s an idea for Apple’s new ad…

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.com

Don’t miss my new tutorial: Prepare for a seamless transition to FCP X and OS X Lion
https://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/FCP-10-MAC-Lion/1

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™

Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.

[Gary Huff]

[Walter Soyka]So is your thinking that Apple was willing to cede the traditional professional market and a significant portion of their existing user base to another application in order to garner a larger and less demanding audience?

I don’t think they believed they had to cede anything. It’s quite possible they thought that it would be a “one size fits all” editing program that would bridge the gap for more enthusiast users and professionals all at once, adding on to it as it goes, just like they did before with the FCP series.

[Aindreas Gallagher]

ye are both in a deeply jesuitical conversation here.

two cents – if I have a messy as hell FCP7 timeline, if I have three clips on V6 with transition between them, a space, then a bunch more clips, a few solids above, and a mess of stuff below relating to alternate editing decisions below, and then some more traditional V1 V2 interview with b-roll stuff going on..

what is FCPX going to do? given where the stuff with dissolves is its going to have to designate secondary story line, to retain the dissolves, but there are orphans clips everywhere below – presumably then FCPX is going to try and thread down vertically to create connected clips, tunnelling down to the holy primary on V1, but what if it encounters more clip dissolves on the way down?

better again – what if I have slipped audio on the b-roll to get clinks or bird song nats in where i want them? what happens to that audio? Does it get exploded out of the secondary storyline or the connected clip? how?

the point surely is not that the software is intelligent – far from it, rather the point is that a basic software translation of assets is made incredibly more difficult when the dumb software is called upon to sort a timeline created in an entirely freeform editing environment into the large number of strict arbitrary rules of FCPX. I can’t have a dissolve here? excuse me? it has to be what? a secondary what now?

To repeat – I do believe that very soon after the AXEL specifications are published we will have the ability to import sympathetically arranged FCP7 timelines into FCPX. there will be rules easily understood as to where clips can or cannot be. To the extent that retaining dissolves will require thought.

Walter’s point is sound however – Apple were simply not willing to release such a hobbled set of instructions, because the timeline they built would break a large portion of in process, multilayer timelines. I find it very easy to imagine a number of really messy outcomes. I imagine that they didn’t have to imagine it. they tested it and refused to release it under their banner.

We’ll still get stuff in, and probably fairly painlessly with some nous, but the demand for intent in the vertical relationship and the machine translation problems that presents with incoming FCP7 timelines is, as Walter outlines it, significant.

Apple don’t do messy, so, after washing their hands, they dropped us.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics