Editing scenario

[Jim Giberti]

[Andy Field] “The bottom line is – this problem (and many others) didn’t exist before FCPX. And in fact doesn’t exist in any other NLE (well maybe IMOVIE)”

Amen Andy, especially coming from someone who knows the app and has written insightful stuff about it.

FWIW it echoes about everything I’ve written about X as someone who’s shop is producing with it 7 days a week.

It could really be something if Apple got over their vision thing and understood both the opportunity and the obligation regarding the other half of what the app needs to do in order to work as a true professional app.

I’m defining “professional” as an NLE developed for the spectrum of professional use not a demographic niche. If ever there was an instance and a time when a company could have it’s cake and eat it to, this would be it.

I mean this with all due humility.
One day in Cupertino with their team and I could give them all the consulting and direct input they would need to satisfy most every dissenter on this board – without spoiling their party.

I say this because I’ve listened to virtually every intelligent argument, frustrated 7 user and creative suggestion and because I’ve worked through FCPX’s shortcomings on project after project.

[Jim Giberti]

[Michael Benton] “What about creating from scratch your own ‘multi-cam-type’ traks from the music provided based on the multiple ‘story ideas’ the client provides then editing into and from there? You would then have multiple ‘pseudo-trak based’ options that can be manipulated as needed (while having multiple ‘options’ for the client) yet stay somewhat organized (as I am assuming the music would have the least amount of location adjustments within the timeline).”

Have you seen my posts about the “Tracked” concept I made for this Michael?

[Jules Bowman]

But the forum is called FCPX or Not: The Debate

[John Godwin]

I’m just suggesting “use FCPX or not”, which seems useful, as opposed to “is FCPX pro”, which is merely endless. But it’s only my opinion.

Best,
John

[Oliver Peters]

[Jim Giberti] “It could really be something if Apple got over their vision thing and understood both the opportunity and the obligation regarding the other half of what the app needs to do in order to work as a true professional app.”

I do believe there’s some internal movement at ProApps in that direction. I would doubt that they’ll give us tracks back, but who knows. In any case, there is a large group of “pros” – in any way one would like to define that term – who are very interested in seeing Apple succeed with FCP X. Part of that is a natural tendency to like all things Apple. It’s also that there’s a lot to like in X. From the POV of people trying to use X, it doesn’t seem like it’s that far off from being useable for a wide of of projects, some of which it isn’t yet quite right for.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Oliver Peters]

[Michael Benton] “As far as your challenges, Oliver . . . how would Jim’s trak-type solution move you in a helpful direction and what specific unique challenges would ‘X’ create when working from his trak-template?”

I’m not sure. I’ve got to give it some investigation and thought. But yes, it’s certainly helpful. Jim, thanks for reminding us.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Alex Hawkins]

Oliver thank you so much for this post.

This is the sort of thing I edit week in and week out. Please help me out here. What is it about X that is really so much better than PPro or Avid that makes you want to edit in it? Seriously?

Just reading your OP makes me wonder. The fact that you’re editing this piece in 7 speaks volumes. I just don’t get it.

Plus the whole terminology thing. All the way down this thread everybody speaks about timelines as ‘timelines’ not ‘projects’ because we all know that that’s what they are. Timelines. They speak about projects as ‘projects’ not ‘events’ because again, we all know that that’s what they are. Projects.

NLE’s have tracks because that’s what works best for complicated editing. Simple. Does anyone seriously disagree with this?

[Oliver Peters] “In X, it seems like the best approach is to have only a gap/placeholder on the primary storyline and then build everything as connected clips That seems the most workable, but it’s an incredibly, inefficient use of GUI space and the timeline is a complete mess.

The bottom line is how do you guys that have done this, tackle a similar project? Especially one in which each and every element in the project can be changed by the client and probably will be. Thanks.”

I don’t know how often this happens to you, but it happens to me all the time. It is my world. To the point where I feel that I don’t make videos, I just make changes.

So having read your OP several times and having only used X on one major project (yes that’s project not event) I am mightily relieved that I did not persist with it and thus have reverted to the older, faster, easier way of doing things.

Cheers,

Alex Hawkins
Canberra, Australia

[Jeremy Garchow]

Is there a way you can post a pic of your timeline, Oliver?

I do think that FCPX takes a lot of learning, as does any “new-to-you” NLE. FCPX does present a new and unique way to approach an edit. The biggest “hang up” for me personally, is multichannel audio. Right now, it’s far from efficient. As far as moving edits around in a timeline (read: client changes) are not impossible in X.

There are ways to hold pieces and parts of the timeline in place. Jim uses secondary storylines for track like behavior. I think this works well for music.

Sometimes you have to think a few moves ahead in order to keep things where they are in time, and it all has to do with the relationship to the primary.

With 7, all clips have a relationship (mostly) to time. It’s a big difference.

I’m not saying one is better over the other, although it is true, one is certainly more familiar to manipulate.

Connections, as we’ve pointed out before, represent the biggest challenge. If we could break apart audio/clips and attach them back to the video/clips that are secondary without compounding, instead of only to the primary, it would help. Or, if FCPX would show all channels upon clip “expansion” it would also go a longer way than the current method of semi-permanent clip “mix downs”.

Yes, sometimes things seemingly take more moves than a track based scenario, but other times, it takes less moves, so there’s a trade off.

There is a way to “lock” clips in time, and it usually involves keeping the primary in place, and sometimes it involves grouping a clip through a variety of methods, and perhaps changing the attach point. It might also be best to temporarily move certain clips out of the primary all together, work in connected clip space, and then when ready , commit relevant clips back to the primary. You have to know that if you move a “master” clip that has attachments, it will effect the connected clips and you have to make plans, in advance, to do so. 7 works the opposite way, really. You make the change, and move to clip relations later, whether that involves a company move of all clips before/after, further trimming, or perhaps swapping track positions.

In 7, it usually is done by deleting/replacing a clip and then moving all clips by selecting all forward/backward. This process in X is different, and in some ways more simple, you just have to think about the manipulation a bit sooner than you do with tracks, so it appears to be “more difficult”.

The X timeline is far from perfect, we have been clamoring for tighter control for almost a year now. Apple says they are listening and doing something about it. We’ll have to see…

I find moving bunches of clips around to be fairly “easy”, multichannel audio on the other hand is a bit of a chore. X could use a “clip swap” command that keeps the connected clips in place in time, but moves the primary clips only.

Plussed out Roles could help here as well, perhaps if Roles could be channel based in the context of one clip, and then we had a Role based channel mixer.

Would it be ultimately better than tracks? Dunno, it’s a personal decision at that point, and it will be up to Apple to implement a workable system.

I find the Event clip sort and organization to be pretty great for my needs, I do think it’s more powerful than bins, but that’s how I work and might not work for everyone.

Jeremy

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Sometimes you have to think a few moves ahead in order to keep things where they are in time, and it all has to do with the relationship to the primary.”

This in a nutshell is why I currently consider the current magnetic timeline bad design. I want to edit, not play a game of chess with my NLE. But that’s just me.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Jeremy Garchow]

[David Lawrence] “This in a nutshell is why I currently consider the current magnetic timeline bad design. I want to edit, not play a game of chess with my NLE. But that’s just me.”

And that’s fine.

It’s tough to learn a new way when we have been used to it another way for so long.

The way I approach it is that it might be a better way, and perhaps the traditional way hasn’t been the most efficient, just the most ubiquitous and accepted.

Jury is still out for me, and there’s more work to be done by Apple.

With 7, if I need to do clip surgery, I will usually throw the new clip on a top most track, and bottom most audio track and secure everything in.

Or, I’ll pre-cut a place for it and arrange room or space for the timing of the new incoming clip and it might involve moving part of the entire timeline.

That can take many steps especially when track patching/auto select is involved.

X can do edits like this in fewer steps. But, I have to know what I want, and learning that process takes time. The more I do it, the less I think about it. My intentions become more clear.

Editing is all a chess game, but X’s methods aren’t quite muscle memory yet. So that hesitation and unassuredness might be perceived as difficulty, or application design faultiness. And in certain cases, like multichannel audio, there are real road blocks and convolutions. No doubt about that.

I know people say its oversimplified, and for certain aspects it is, but in others situations, it’s not.

Perhaps people don’t like the unfamiliarity. That’s totally understandable. It’s a lot to learn.

You were involved in an earlier discussion about grouping as it pertains to Pr and Vegas. X is all about grouping, yowzas. And it’s all visually grouped and there’s several ways to group elements. Does it look like Adobe/Sony’s method? Nope. Do you have to learn to control them? Yes, absolutely. Do favorites look like persistent in and out points? Not in the familiar sense, but the very ideas are the same despite the different methodologies of use. I’m sure I’ll get punched right in the nose for that, but it’ll heal.