-
Could Adobe (or someone else) adopt magnetic timeline features in a tracked timeline?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “As mentioned in your original post, it needs to be easier than that.”
Way easier, lol! 😉
Seriously, that video is a perfect demo of why the magnetic timeline in it’s current design is a nightmare for spatial workflows. 😉
My example: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/16979
Franz’s example: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/17728
I wish Franz was still around to chime in!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
Bill, I am trying to make the same point as you are.
The purpose of my line of questioning was not to answer “How do I do this?” or say “Ha, look what FCPX can’t do!” but rather to demonstrate without making a value judgment what’s different about storylines (relative time) versus timelines (absolute time).
(Hint: it’s right there in the name!)
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
As I think I mentioned earlier, I’d be happy with a simple “connect to timeline” or some such option that would let me lock a clip to the sequence timecode directly. It would behave like a primary clip, but it wouldn’t move unless I moved it on purpose. It could be an actual additional “track” or just an option to lock on a clip-by-clip basis.
Not sure of all the ramifications of such a scheme, but it would be useful in much of what I cut. Thank locking the start of music bed to the top of the piece. Or locking an end plate to :26 seconds for a promo. That sort of thing.
An additional option rather than a broader “trackification” of X.
-
[Jeff Markgraf] “As I think I mentioned earlier, I’d be happy with a simple “connect to timeline” or some such option that would let me lock a clip to the sequence timecode directly. It would behave like a primary clip, but it wouldn’t move unless I moved it on purpose. It could be an actual additional “track” or just an option to lock on a clip-by-clip basis.
Not sure of all the ramifications of such a scheme, but it would be useful in much of what I cut. Thank locking the start of music bed to the top of the piece. Or locking an end plate to :26 seconds for a promo. That sort of thing.”
Jeff, that would take care of most of my issues as well.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[David Lawrence] “What if you could press a button and add a second primary? It would sit above or below the first. It would have the exact same affordances as the first primary, but all of its clips and clip relationships would stay attached to it instead. Primary #2 would be temporally independent of and unaffected by any changes in primary #1.
This would enable the benefits of absolute time while at the same time keeping the magnetic timeline’s other benefits as well.
I don’t see any downside. Do you?”
Nope!
-
[Steve Connor] “I don’t see any downside. Do you?”
Nope!”
Yep! 🙂 You’re just adding “tracks” and targeting. You could add the ability to connect clips to secondaries as well which would accomplish the same thing more or less, but it creates the same issue. Adding complexity to the UI where many (most?) people don’t need it. Down that road lies the MC/Pr UI. Lot’s of functions for every possible use case, and a huge, confusing mess. (IMO of course)
However, I do like Jeff’s idea of optionally pinning to timeline time. One extra KB command, no UI changes needed. Add the ability to create timeline markers while we’re at it. Then the ability to visually group (connected clip) Roles, Mix/bus/add effects to Roles. Anything else?
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Charlie Austin] “Adding complexity to the UI where many (most?) people don’t need it. Down that road lies the MC/Pr UI. Lot’s of functions for every possible use case, and a huge, confusing mess. (IMO of course)”
Don’t need it? Don’t use it. Stick with one primary and everything stays the same as now. I don’t see any problem here. 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[David Lawrence] “Don’t need it? Don’t use it. Stick with one primary and everything stays the same as now. I don’t see any problem here. ;)”
Well, sure,but wouldn’t the ability to connect to a point in time in the sequence accomplish the same thing? And in your scenario, I bet it wouldn’t stay the same as now, at least “under the hood”. They’d kinda need to re-invent how the timeline works. IMO that’s unnecessary.
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Charlie Austin] “Well, sure,but wouldn’t the ability to connect to a point in time in the sequence accomplish the same thing?”
Sure, and I also like your suggestion of being able to connect clips to secondaries. That was one of the first things I tried when I got my hands on X and I was surprised it didn’t work. FCPX would be much more flexible if secondaries had all the abilities that are currently reserved for the primary.
[Charlie Austin] ” And in your scenario, I bet it wouldn’t stay the same as now, at least “under the hood”. They’d kinda need to re-invent how the timeline works. IMO that’s unnecessary.”
You mean like when they completely reinvented the way libraries work? Yeah that really sucked. Libraries were perfect when FCPX was released. Why’d they have to go and screw them up? 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[David Lawrence] “You mean like when they completely reinvented the way libraries work? Yeah that really sucked. Libraries were perfect when FCPX was released. Why’d they have to go and screw them up? ;)”
lol. well, there were no libraries when it was released, but I see your point. But, since everything in a project is placed relative to a Spine (which is the primary I think… I like to snoop around in app package files using BBEdit…) what happens? 2 spines? I think there are probably less “invasive” ways to accomplish the same ends…
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up