-
Editing scenario
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I guess I have a hard time seeing how this would be a problem in X.
No matter what, completely remaneuvering a timeline takes work in any NLE.
I find that you still have to edit in X, its not automagic as people seem to claim, as you know.
This is a wild guess, but it seems that the a1/a2 tracks drive a lot of that piece, and they would be in the primary.
The long stretches of music and accompanying broll could be in secondaries, or simply just connected to a gap until you get the timing sorted. if you want to get really crazy, you could put the music in the primary during those sections, but it’s not necessary. What I really like about fcpx is how much you can move things around and experiment very easily with no penalty of losing clips. Everything really does slide out of the way. Most of the time it’s flexible, and you might have to rearrange the “stacking order” to accommodate.
There’s still replace edit functions in X, and dragging connected clips around is very easy. You could always make little groups of secondaries to keep certain related clips together if needed. Changing every edit takes work, I don’t think there’s any difference in magnets or not in that scenario.”
Couldn’t agree more
Steve Connor
“Sometimes it’s fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl”
Adrenalin Television -
[Oliver Peters] “While that is true, the timeline and editing model were all in place in 1989 and conceptually has never changed. Basically they got it right, straight out of the gate.”
Really?
It was way more basic in 1989. X has those same basics.
Smart Tools weren’t available until recently, avid has a “mode” style of editing. Are those “right” straight out of the gate?
Smart Tools, from what I’ve read, caused a storm of emotion from the avid faithful, and it was something that could be turned off! Does that mean smart tools were wrong, or simply ignored by long time avid users?
X foundations, I think, will remain.
I’m not sure if tracks are needed, certainly more control is needed, but it doesn’t have to take up the track method. Roles need to do more for the edit.
[Oliver Peters] “I’m not saying Apple got it wrong, but rather that the UI design is as important – maybe more so – to the user experience than the underlying guts.”
Surely. People that have to no NLE experience move on ok with fcpx. People who are used to a track based system sometimes struggle, some don’t. Each user experience is relative. I don’t think Apple is done, and I don’t think fcp 10.0 was what they ultimately wanted to put out, but I have no idea if that’s true or not. I’ll probably never know.
-
[Chris Harlan] “Steve, I agree with you. Since the latest version, its really a matter of taste. There are things like sync marks that might be major for somebody but not for somebody else. Its really now about how well the tool fits you and the degree to which you are willing to re-imagine your own habits and approaches. You can certainly argue that this sort of work or that sort of work will require fewer key strokes or fewer work-arounds than in other bits of software, but I’m guessing there is little or nothing that can’t be accomplished on one that can’t be accomplished on another.”
I think that sums things up nicely Chris
Steve Connor
“Sometimes it’s fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl”
Adrenalin Television -
[David Lawrence] “+1 for Laurie Anderson.”
How can you not?!
-
[Walter Soyka] “Jeremy, I’d love to be wrong about this, but I’d find it pretty unlikely that the timeline will be seriously overhauled.”
I’m not sure what you mean by seriously overhauled. I’m not sure if it needs serious overhauling. It needs to expand on what is started.
[Walter Soyka] “The timeline, as it stands now, is a direct expression of the data model revealed by FCPXML. All the tools in FCPX are built to manipulate the unique objects of this data model. Any changes to the timeline must be compatible with the parent/child data model, or the data model must change with it; any changes to the timeline may also require overhauling the NLE tools.”
How? I’m not talking about changing X in to a track editor. No.
I’m talking about using what it already has and making it better. Look at multicam. Do you really think that was a 3 month add-on or was that planned from the beginning? Despite the audio shortcomings, it’s pretty well thought out, and expands on the fcpxml data model or whatever it’s called.
What hasn’t been implemented completely yet, is Roles. There seems to be a wealth of potential there, but it’s not present. You think that isn’t thought out, and Apple is winging it? I know there’s a lot to “distrust” Apple about I guess, but do you really think they are winging this? I look at the foundational structures (the things I mentioned before to David) and all of those things are usually after thoughts in NLE, and it’s where fcpx started. San locations, started very early on in the app. You don’t think those will get better/add more power?
[Walter Soyka] “In other words, I think the timeline model in FCPX is foundational to the program, making the scope of change very, very big.”
Really? Philip Hodgets said that adding new functions to fcpxml is not so bad. A multiclip, looks like a compound, looks like an audition, yet they are all very different in functionality. I don’t know guys, it’s early days yet, and I don’t think Apple is quite done, just as Adobe isn’t done. I do think that the trackless foundation will remain, not worried about that, but I also think we will see more control. Apple said they are working on it, I can understand if no one believes them anymore. I take them at their word as they’ve done everything they’ve said they were going to do with X thus far.
[Walter Soyka] “David Lawrence’s idea of multiple primary storylines is the best possible scenario for a timeline overhaul, I think — it would push the timeline back into absolute time, but still allow local relativity. I think it would basically work with the data model as it stands by adding a global absolute parent and removing the restriction that all children must be non-primary (assuming that restriction is arbitrary) — but compositing could get really weird, and this would not eliminate the FCPX-specific editorial task of object/container management.”
I think that multiple primaries would be way over designed. If that’s the way it’s going to be, just go back to tracks. Why have only two primaries, when you can have three? Or four? How about unlimited?
I think the connections need to change. We shoud allow to connect clips to more than just the primary. It’d be a relatively easy fix, fits in to the “data” thingy, and wouldnt be that hard to manipulate. It would also solve a lot of the breaking apart of audio problems.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I’m not sure what you mean by seriously overhauled. I’m not sure if it needs serious overhauling. It needs to expand on what is started.”
Sorry — I must have lost track of where your reasoning fit in with all the track-no-track talk. I agree that we’ll see more from Apple, and I think we have a pretty good idea where they’re going.
However, I don’t see a solution to Oliver’s issue here. The problem of object/container management is inherent in the new design (just as the problem of clip selection and collision was inherent in the design of other NLEs).
[Jeremy Garchow] “I look at the foundational structures (the things I mentioned before to David) and all of those things are usually after thoughts in NLE, and it’s where fcpx started. San locations, started very early on in the app. You don’t think those will get better/add more power?”
I think the foundation of the app is the stuff we’ve seen early. FCPX is totally file-based; why should SAN locations be a hard, foundational item?
What would be hard and foundational is something like live project sharing.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Really? Philip Hodgets said that adding new functions to fcpxml is not so bad. A multiclip, looks like a compound, looks like an audition, yet they are all very different in functionality.”
Again, sorry I misunderstood. I was saying that any changes to the parent/child data model are huge in scope. I agree with you that changes like multiclips are smaller in scope since they are consistent with that model.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I think that multiple primaries would be way over designed. If that’s the way it’s going to be, just go back to tracks. Why have only two primaries, when you can have three? Or four? How about unlimited?”
I don’t think DL ever suggested limiting it to two. Multiple primary storylines gives you all the advantages of tracks (if you want them) and all the advantages of the magnetic timeline (if you want that).
It’d be better than going back to tracks (by adding optional magnetism), and it wouldn’t take anything away from the magnetic timeline.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I think the connections need to change. We shoud allow to connect clips to more than just the primary. It’d be a relatively easy fix, fits in to the “data” thingy, and wouldnt be that hard to manipulate. It would also solve a lot of the breaking apart of audio problems.”
Absolutely agree.
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 -
What are the steps?
Thanks!
-
[Walter Soyka] “However, I don’t see a solution to Oliver’s issue here”
You see a problem? I guess I’m wondering how this can’t be done in X, or changed in X.
[Walter Soyka] “I think the foundation of the app is the stuff we’ve seen early. FCPX is totally file-based; why should SAN locations be a hard, foundational item?”
Why shouldn’t they. They work completely differently from the rest of the application, and have one vague reference in the manual. Think it’s complete?
Project sharing right in the app would be impressive, that also takes some gear. My feeling is it’s not there yet, but my hunch is that it’s planned.
[Walter Soyka] “I don’t think DL ever suggested limiting it to two. Multiple primary storylines gives you all the advantages of tracks (if you want them) and all the advantages of the magnetic timeline (if you want that).
It’d be better than going back to tracks (by adding optional magnetism), and it wouldn’t take anything away from the magnetic timeline.”
I guess it seems unnecessary. If you control the primary, you control time.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I’m sorry man, but Fcp7 in and out marks aren’t even persistent.”
well. that’s completely wrong for starters.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Richard Herd] “What are the steps?”
Create a new Project in your event called let’s say “Exports”
Select the section you wish to export and copy it to the “Exports” project and export from there.
Yes it’s a workaround and I’d rather not do it, but it’s not that time-consuming to do
Steve Connor
“Sometimes it’s fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl”
Adrenalin Television
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up