-
Editing scenario
-
yeah, sure, why the hell not. 🙂 optionally persistent. although that might more be the auto-favourite option Craig raised..
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
I know – that one gave me pause…. I know Jeremy is dogged, but that one stretches credulity to breaking point.
particularly seeing as how Lawrence and Seeman, hell Steve too stated there is an issue with non-persistent IO – lawrence spent about 20,000 words teasing an acknowledgement of the issue out of jeremy – and look at him now!
like. it. never. happened.
*shakes head sorrowfully*
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Walter Soyka] “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.”
Bingo. That’s the key issue as far as what we might expect going forward. The timeline UI – with all its current usability inconsistencies and limitations – seems directly driven by a very specific data model. If I had to guess, I’d say the data model was developed first and the UI followed. That’s great if you’re an engineer, but it’s often bad news for usability and for users.
The main reason I consider the current timeline bad design is because in order to use it effectively – in cases like Oliver’s example (or anything outside what the designers thought of for that matter) – the user is forced to understand the underlying object/container data model.
This is about as un-Applelike as you could possibly get. I can’t think of any other UI example where internalizing the data model was key to working efficiently with the UI. The user shouldn’t need to know or care.
Good UI design hides the underlying data structures with intuitive and internally consistent metaphor. This is UI 101. Apple used to be the world leader in this but these days, they don’t seem to read their own Human Interface Guidelines. FCPX violates HCI principles left and right. That’s the real reason it can be hard to learn and get used to. Not because it’s different or new.
I do agree that we’ve only seen the beginning of where this is headed and the timeline will improve. But I’m also skeptical that it can radically change without a radical rethink of the underlying project data architecture. Changing that would be a very big deal.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “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.
“Sorry man. In order t get persistent ins and outs, you hit i,o,f. It will stay with that clip forever until you decide to unmark the favorite or change. F. One more key, and you have much more functionality than 7.
You know it, I know it, my aunts cat lives in the wilderness and could care less.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “In order t get persistent ins and outs, you hit i,o,f.”
koff koff… translation:
in order to have persistent io, the user must intervene and package the io marks as a range off to a favourite collection, a favourite collection that then becomes filled with every IO ever made.
So: Wrong jeremy, innnncorrect – you are requiring user intervention in the form of sending the io points off to a favourites collection.
furthermore – as Andy Mees pointed out to you – that favourite range cannot be edited or altered later. you have made a favourite range using the IO points, if you forget to do so, and come back to the clip, the io range you would have used to make the favourite range is gone.
Give it up Jeremy – kneeeel before the God logic: io in X is not independently persistent.
end of. QED, summa cum laudae, I win, you lose, you’re wrong and you know it – tag you are IT. 😉
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “particularly seeing as how Lawrence and Seeman, hell Steve too stated there is an issue with non-persistent IO – lawrence spent about 20,000 words teasing an acknowledgement of the issue out of jeremy – and look at him now!
like. it. never. happened.
*shakes head sorrowfully*”
LOL, I’m doing my best, gents. Like Jeremy, I’m not backing down on this one 😉
I’ll try One. More. Time.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Ins/outs don’t work like fcp7, it doesn’t look like fcp7, it actually works a bit better than fcp7, unless you use extended markers (which I do in 7 a lot).”
FCPX Favorites are great. They’re a powerful, flexible and useful way of marking persistent ranges – ranges that have starts and ends (or in/outs). They’re like subclips on steroids.
Extended markers in FCP7 are cool too. I also use them, but I think Favorites in FCPX are better.
You could use an extended marker in FCP7 to create “persistent” in/outs but do you ever really use them for that? I don’t. I use extended markers as part of my logging process. As a way of keeping track of my “favorite” content – the stuff I want to remember as I build my edit.
If I were using FCPX, I’d use Favorites or keyword collections for that.
I use in/outs mainly to mark the cut. It’s simply a tool that’s intrinsic to the editing process. It has nothing to do with logging. It has nothing do do with “favoriting”. It’s just a tool, nothing more.
[Jeremy Garchow] “X allows actual persistent in/out, when 7s last until you hit another in, or clear in/out in the browser. “
Not on the timeline, but I know you’ve acknowledged that. They have to fix it on the timeline and the way they fix it should work for the event browser too. The argument about FCP7 is just silly. :p
Maybe we need a new term term for tradition in/outs – semi-persistent?
[Jeremy Garchow] “So, really, what is your intention?”
Marking the cut. That’s it. And having the mark stick around until I decide to change it. If it dissappears because of an accidental mouse click, it’s a design fail.
I agree with everything you’ve said about Favorites and persistent in/outs. I think we’re really talking about two entirely separate issues. I think we’re both right. Functionality vs intentionality. Marking in/outs for a cut is a different intentionality than marking a favorite. Words matter.
That’s really all I got. Now I need lunch.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Oliver Peters] “They have the right to ask for adjustments when it wasn’t what they thought it would be in their mind’s eye.”
And managing client expectations has never been easier, in X. You simply select the proper pre-set called the “client is happy.” 😉 There’s also a preset for “invoice is paid on time.”
-
While I respect Jim’s faux tracks, I wouldn’t use them, but that’s just me.
I think it breaks X’s strengths, and breaks them good. No offense, Jim. Keep fighting the good fight.
I know you David, and Walter, and Aindreas have major issues with X’s timeline. I have a few.
Time is not one of my concerns.
[David Lawrence] “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.”
Mm, ok? So a stereo track can go on a mono track and vice versa, along with surround. Have you exported a multichannel QuickTime yet? How’d it go?
[David Lawrence] “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.
“How can you not do this with a secondary already, or a compound? You can zip tie whatever you want together.
[David Lawrence] “Multiple primaries seem like the easiest way to accomplish this within the existing data model.”
No, it’s just the most familiar. If you’re going to have multiple primaries, just use tracks, really. The convention is already built, no reason to add tracks back to a track system.
Keep trackless trackless, and build on the data control. Bring more power to Roles. Bring better implemented multichannel audio. Bring a click sortable audio visualization system. Bring Better XML control and field exporting/importing. Bring more native format support, but keep the current optimization system. Bring a few more controls like clip swap, timeline ins/outs that work better, secondary storyline targeting system so editing works in secondaries just like the primary. Basically, start to finish the ideas of the trackless timeline instead of trying to make more tracks. And of course, fix any stability issues.
I will also say this, I don’t think it’s the magnetism that bothers everyone, it’s the connections.
-
[David Lawrence] “I agree with everything you’ve said about Favorites and persistent in/outs. I think we’re really talking about two entirely separate issues. I think we’re both right. Functionality vs intentionality.”
Personally, I think we could probably all agree that it would be beneficial for FCPX to remember the IN/OUT ranges of each individual clip. There would be no harm to those who are currently not bothered by how they disappear, and yet it would be a tremendous help to those (like myself) who would find a use for it.
I use favorites a lot. They’re great. But they’re not the reason I have an issue with IN/OUT ranges disappearing. In FCP7, if I’ve been scrubbing through a clip (particularly if it’s a long one) and I find a shot I want, I mark an IN/OUT and edit it into the timeline. Then, let’s say, I go to another clip for another shot, and then come back to my first clip. I can hit play and the clip’s playhead picks up where it left off (at the OUT point).
If I attempt the same move in X, the playhead defaults to the beginning of the clip every time. There isn’t even an easy way to activate the range for a favorite so I can use the SHIFT+O to jump to the end of the favorite.
It would be real nice if there wasn’t just a “reset to start” for every activated clip.
Mi dos pesetas.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “I know – that one gave me pause…. I know Jeremy is dogged, but that one stretches credulity to breaking point.
particularly seeing as how Lawrence and Seeman, hell Steve too stated there is an issue with non-persistent IO – lawrence spent about 20,000 words teasing an acknowledgement of the issue out of jeremy – and look at him now!
like. it. never. happened.
*shakes head sorrowfully*”
Huh? What never happened?
Look here: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/32896
Then here: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/33912
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up