Could Adobe (or someone else) adopt magnetic timeline features in a tracked timeline?

[Walter Soyka]

[Charlie Austin] “So… back to Walter’s “fixed position” experiment (you here Walter?) the solution is:”

Still here!

[Charlie Austin] “Press and hold tilde, then shift, release both keys. Place a connected clip at an exact point in time in the Project, and never turn connections back on. It would stay right where it is, no matter what you did to any clips anywhere in the timeline.”

This was an answer I expected, but…

[Charlie Austin] “It would also, you know… defeat the whole point of having connections at all, but you can do it. No workaround required, just a keystroke.”

Not a workaround? You’re disabling a significant portion of FCPX’s functionality! How the heck would you get anything done this way? But that doesn’t matter. The point of this exercise is demonstrating the data model in action, not actually placing the clip in absolute time. Every FCPX solution to this problem is still consistent with the relative time data model, as I’ll demonstrate for each solution anyone offers.

Counterintuitively, connections off is FCPX’s ripple mode. (Search your feelings. You know it to be true.)

What’s rippling? The times of every anchor point of every connected clip.

In terms of absolute and relative time, the structure and rules of the magnetic timeline data model itself is completely unchanged, but the behavior of the tools is extended with connections off so that with every operation, children are also modified to offset the changes to the parent.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[Charlie Austin]

[Walter Soyka] “Not a workaround? You’re disabling a significant portion of FCPX’s functionality! How the heck would you get anything done this way?”

You wouldn’t, but if you absolutely needed to position a clip permanently without anything affecting it that’s what you’d do right? Or use another NLE. But saying it’s a workaround implies that the “data model” is less suitable, which it’s not. Just different.

Here’s why I feel like I do… right now, I am constructing a ridiculous dialog cheat. I’m working in Pr. the audio is on A1, 2 and 3. The tracks below these are crammed full. I just tried to set aside a word, in favor of an alternate read, by tossing it up above A1. But I can’t, nor can I just toss it below without moving something, so I need to lasso and drag the whole mess to a point in the TL where I have space to work, then put it back in the exact same spot. Not to mention switching in and out of sub-frame mode. It kinda sucks.

The track based model is flawed for precise cutting of audio. 😉

————————————————————-

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

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Walter Soyka] “Not a workaround? You’re disabling a significant portion of FCPX’s functionality! How the heck would you get anything done this way? But that doesn’t matter. The point of this exercise is demonstrating the data model in action, not actually placing the clip in absolute time. Every FCPX solution to this problem is still consistent with the relative time data model, as I’ll demonstrate for each solution anyone offers.”

I still don’t understand why this is being presented as a problem, rather than the way it works.

As Charlie points out, in order to “get anything done” in tracks, you have to move all the stuff out of the way, place the stuff you need in the certain place, and then heal the surrounding stuff back in to place. Is that a workaround? No, it’s not, it’s how it works.

If FCPXML didn’t represent the way FCPX works, there’d be a big problem.

[Walter Soyka]

[Charlie Austin] “But saying it’s a workaround implies that the “data model” is less suitable, which it’s not. Just different. “

Ok, but then…

[Charlie Austin] “right now, I am constructing a ridiculous dialog cheat. I’m working in Pr. the audio is on A1, 2 and 3. The tracks below these are crammed full. I just tried to set aside a word, in favor of an alternate read, by tossing it up above A1. But I can’t, nor can I just toss it below without moving something, so I need to lasso and drag the whole mess to a point in the TL where I have space to work, then put it back in the exact same spot. Not to mention switching in and out of sub-frame mode. It kinda sucks.”

It doesn’t suck, it’s just different!

Choosing a data model has consequences. It makes some things easier to do and other things harder to do.

Surely you would argue that the FCPX model makes things easier more often than it makes them harder. Perhaps David would argue that although more things may be easier, the things that are harder are much harder. I’d then argue something apropos of nothing about PCs, dynamic link, and image sequences, so perhaps I don’t have a horse in this race.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[Walter Soyka]

[Jeremy Garchow] “I still don’t understand why this is being presented as a problem, rather than the way it works.”

I am just trying to describe the way it works. I shouldn’t have used the word “problem” to describe my scenario. I don’t intend the negative connotation. I meant it like “math problem” not “Cupertino, we have a problem.”

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[Charlie Austin]

[Walter Soyka] “t doesn’t suck, it’s just different!”

lol.. true 🙂

[Walter Soyka] “Choosing a data model has consequences. It makes some things easier to do and other things harder to do.
Surely you would argue that the FCPX model makes things easier more often than it makes them harder.”

Correct. I guess my point all along has been that, contrary to Davids position, the X timeline isn’t built on flawed assumptions, any more than tracked NLE’s are. Different? Yes.

Also, I don’t think the X timeline is anywhere near done being refined/improved. It may be tomorrow or a year from now, but I’d bet that, like Libraries, multi-cam etc etc, we’ll be looking at a much different, and better, beast.

————————————————————-

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

[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi David.

Yes, I do a lot of dialogue cutting. Mostly in the promo world (massive cutting and franken-biting), but also some indie feature work and other stuff.

I didn’t mean to suggest that cutting isn’t a big part of audio. So add “cuts” to the “mix, process..” line.

[Mike Jackson]

I just want to add that when moving clips around the timeline in Premiere, holding down shift lets you slide the audio up and down between different tracks, without changing what track your video is on. Instantly solves the clip-collision issue in probably 75% of cases.

[Charlie Austin]

[Mike Jackson] “in Premiere, holding down shift lets you slide the audio up and down between different tracks, without changing what track your video is on.”

Similr in FCP 7. All due respect, it doesn’t solve the clip collision thing at all. In fact I’m in Pr now, swearing at it. I swear at FCP 7 as well. To be fair, I swear at FCP X too, but not nearly as much, and for different reasons. 🙂

————————————————————-

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

[Andrew Kimery]

Charlie Austin, NLE slave driver. 😉