-
Editing scenario
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Fcpx’s are [persistent] if you just hit f. I will argue this in to the ground.”
also this. they are not persistent if you have to make a favourite out of them to retain them, you might argue it into the ground jeremy,
but you would still be completely wrong 🙂https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Jeremy Garchow] “You see a problem? I guess I’m wondering how this can’t be done in X, or changed in X.”
It’s not that it can’t be done — it’s just that it’s done differently. Is it a problem? I said “issue,” but I guess this is a problem just like clip collisions were. Perhaps “side effect” is a better term?
With FCPX, you don’t have to think about clip selections/collisions as you shift stuff around like you did in FCP7; you do have to think about what kind of container on the timeline each clip belongs in. Maybe this nets out to the same amount of work.
I think Oliver is saying that one of the design goals of the magnetic timeline was to reduce the amount of work necessary to make changes like this. He’s asking if there’s a correct way to stuff clips into containers on the timeline when he first makes the cut to make the magnetism just work later when he changes it.
Numerous people here are suggesting that he should either use Jim Gilberti’s faux tracks or that he should plan on bouncing clips in and out of the primary storyline. That suggests that there may not be an upfront solution, so the magnetic timeline may not save time or work as designed in a case like this.
I’m not trying to slam FCPX here. I just think this is an area where the different timeline model affects how you get your work done, and these are the interesting corner cases where understanding the differences in the model and techniques for working within it may make one tool more suitable than another.
There are certainly cases where the magnetic timeline lets you work faster. Why couldn’t the inverse be true?
[Jeremy Garchow] “I guess it seems unnecessary. If you control the primary, you control time.”
Sure, I’d agree is unnecessary. Like you said, it’s not like you can’t perform this edit in FCPX. You still have to work it like you would in any other NLE.
That said, a lot of really good features are unnecessary. (That doesn’t mean this is necessarily one of them!)
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 -
Good idea!
Thanks! -
[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.”
Not to oversimplify this too much Walter, but I think I’ve already proven that it’s not.
With a very little bit of thinking and manipulating the existing timeline rules, I got FCPX to behave like an EDL that respects horizontal relationships as well as vertical ones – within the parent/child paradigm.
It’s as simple as “fooling” the program at the first frame and then fooling it again with a forced clip at the end of a secondary. These two simple things create an environment that does everything that FCPX was meant to do while allowing for a more disciplined timeline in the traditional editing sense.
You can edit into fixed unconnected tracks.
You can move clips free of any primary or secondary connections on any track.
You can drop main audio/synced audio into a fixed audio track without selecting it each time.
You can bring everything together at final edit exactly as in a FCP7 timeline in a matter of seconds.So it’s clear that FCPX can have a traditionally organized timeline exactly as it existed in version 1.0.
I imagine it would take no time at all for Apple to do what I did and add the feature to the program tomorrow.
It has nothing to do with shutting of magnetism either.
It works with magnetism, uses the strengths of magnetism and the parent/child concept. -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “well. that’s completely wrong for starters.”
i,o add to timeline.
Go back to same clip in browser, hit I or o.
Your persistent in and out marker is now kaput.
-
ah jeremy – you’re funny – even you can’t buy what you’re saying there.
Return to the clip, and the io marks are there until you iterate with a new set. but when you came back – they were there, where you left them, until you set fresh io.
you can make a sublip out of them or whatever you like.
come back to the clip in X – they are gone. You know it, I know it, my aunts cat knows this to be true.
Old ground Jeremy – and a debate where Craig even took the opposing position.
io in X is, with any argument, not persistent.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “io in X is, with any argument, not persistent.”
It’s optionally persistent as opposed to automatically persistent? 🙂
Steve Connor
“Sometimes it’s fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl”
Adrenalin Television -
[Jeremy Garchow] “[Aindreas Gallagher] “well. that’s completely wrong for starters.”
i,o add to timeline.
Go back to same clip in browser, hit I or o.
Your persistent in and out marker is now kaput.
“Wait, I’ve been trying very hard not to follow this particular point of contention, so let me understand this: Are you actually making the point that by setting new in and out points you are getting rid of the old in and out points?
Maybe its time for everybody to just let this one go?
-
[Jim Giberti] “So it’s clear that FCPX can have a traditionally organized timeline exactly as it existed in version 1.0.”
You’re right. A traditional timeline is a subset of the magnetic model in that each clip could be a child of an absolute parent — as in your faux track setup, and as in DL’s multiple primary idea.
However, it’s clear that although this is possible, it wasn’t the design intent of FCPX. If it were, the data model and toolset might be very, very different.
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 -
[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?”
[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).”
Walter’s correct. The idea is to let the editor to decide how many “primaries” they want. Want to keep it simple? Use one. Need more flexibility? Add as many as you need. It would let you do exactely what Jim has done with his pseudo-track project template without resorting to a hack.
Think of it this way – one of the great new features in PPCS6 is format agnostic audio tracks. Standard audio tracks happily let you mix whatever audio format you want on the same track.
Apple could raise the bar even further with media agnostic tracks (or storylines). Create a new track container and put whatever you want inside. How cool would that be? I’d definitely want to check something like that out.
Walter’s right that things could get a bit weird with video compositing depending on how you set things up, but I think that’s OK. A professional tool should be flexible enough for a pro to do exactly what they want if they know what they’re doing; and for a novice to get themselves in trouble if they don’t. You can only simply so far without losing powerful features.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I guess it seems unnecessary. If you control the primary, you control time.”
Well yes and no. It goes back to the original problem of relative time vs. an absolute, external time reference. The single primary forces relative time. Multiple primaries would enable absolute time as on option. I believe this is the thing people who are asking for tracks miss the most. Multiple primaries seem like the easiest way to accomplish this within the existing data model.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up