-
Editing scenario
-
I’ll try da vinci. Good idea.
Thanks!
Any hope that X will compete with Smoke? (Camera layers, expressions/scripting, lighting, etc.?)
-
[Richard Herd] “Any hope that X will compete with Smoke? (Camera layers, expressions/scripting, lighting, etc.?)”
Not a chance in the world. Smoke is an entirely different type of product with a different target user in mind. Completely different development mindset and completely contrary to the type of software Apple designs in-house.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Richard Herd] “Any hope that X will compete with Smoke?”
No. I do think that fcpx will be an excellent companion app to smoke 2013.
-
[Richard Herd] “You cannot export a range.
“Yes you can, it just takes two more very simple steps.
Steve Connor
“Sometimes it’s fun to poke an angry bear with a stickl”
Adrenalin Television -
[Oliver Peters] “I don’t know about that. Timeline/editorial design is such a fundamental part of creating editing/compositing software that it’s the first thing you do, not the last. I firmly believe that what we have in X is exactly how it was intended, not a stop on the way to something else.”
I don’t know either. I would disagree about the timeline being the first aspect of software design.
Look at Avid. First and foremost, it’s a robust database/media tracker. It’s how it was conceived and designed. Over the years, more and more functionality started coming to the timeline.
I see fcpx in a similar fashion. Different reasoning, but similar idea.
[Oliver Peters] “OTOH, I do believe it will change and improve, but only because the ProApps team has had their collective hands slapped by senior management after the continued flak they’ve been getting over the state of X.”
Ya got me there. I have no inside track to what is going on inside the minds of Cupertino.
-
[Oliver Peters] “The timeline is simple. It’s in the ease of making changes where the tactical issues come up.”
Thanks for your timeline.
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.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Look at Avid. First and foremost, it’s a robust database/media tracker. It’s how it was conceived and designed. Over the years, more and more functionality started coming to the timeline.”
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. 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. It sets expectations and creates the skeleton that you flesh out.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Steve Connor] “Interesting thoughts but I’ll ask you the question as well, in edit terms what CAN’T you do in FCPX that in turn makes it “semi-amateur”? and you can’t regurgitate the usual battle cries of “there’s no tracks, they called things different names, it looks like iMovie, Apple mad me sad when they dropped FCP7”
In down and dirty editing what can’t you do in FCPX that is vital for “Professional” editing that you can do in other NLE’s”
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.
However stimulating it has been to contemplate it, I’m personally glad that I don’t have to rethink how I edit. Pr6 and MC6 promise that. So, as Laurie Anderson says “Let X=X.”
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “People seem to think fcpx is complete. It’s not. I have said from the beginning, that the timeline is what is going to change about fcpx. “
Jeremy, I’d love to be wrong about this, but I’d find it pretty unlikely that the timeline will be seriously overhauled.
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.
In other words, I think the timeline model in FCPX is foundational to the program, making the scope of change very, very big.
I think you’re right that cutting a project like this is challenging in any NLE. What’s uniquely challenging in FCPX is that you have to manually manage the object/containers in order to make these edits, where other NLEs would make you manually manage clip selection and collision.
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.
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 -
+1 for Laurie Anderson.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up