-
Fascinating article on FCP.co today…
-
I somewhat agree-
https://disproportionatepictures.blogspot.ca/2014/05/roles.html
Roles could simultaneously enable better Project organization and improved audio workflow/mixing options.
-
[Walter Soyka] “The fact that FCP, for example, had the idea of of master clips [link] suggests that it is in fact a relational database (sorry, Bill); a flat database would require an enormously complex and highly inefficient implementation to support something like this.
“It could be a duplicate entry in the table and not necessarily relational.
New paragraph: the databaseyness (sic) of Roles seem to be worth contemplating here too.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “That’s why this forum was created, and it’s why Apple made FCPX so they could patent it. You want a reason why they changed all the terms and conventions? There it is.”
Jeremy, this thread is not about FCPX, but about an un-named piece of software that Apple started patenting in 2009 that seems to have been created specifically for long form work.
https://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1453-apple-s-segmented-timeline-pa...
I’m arguing that FCPX has most of the good features in it already and this other software is not very necessary – what are you arguing?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Richard Herd] “It could be a duplicate entry in the table and not necessarily relational.”
Yes, that’s why I said this:
[Walter Soyka] “a flat database would require an enormously complex and highly inefficient implementation to support something like this.”FCP was written in the mid- to late 1990s. Relational databases are the easy way to handle problems like these, and they were posited in 1969.
Occam’s Razor suggests that NLE databases are relational. (Although an appeal to Murphy may suggest flat…)
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Herb Sevush] “I’m arguing that FCPX has most of the good features in it already and this other software is not very necessary – what are you arguing?”
The building blocks of these features are in FCPX, and apparently Apple just won a patent that sort of relates to some of the ideas that seem to be somewhat present in FCPX, but currently you can’t do. If it quacks like a duck…
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “It reminds me of that article where the editors were saying that they don’t have enough time to edit the entire film by themselves because they can’t even get through all of the footage, so they have multiple groups of editors working simultaneously on one film. Now, I can’t find that article.”
Multiple editors working are different sections of the same TV show or film is common enough that we don’t need the link as supporting evidence. 😉
One show I worked on would typically have 3-5 editors working on each episode (each one gets an act) and this was on Avid and ISIS. Everyone would work in the same project but each editor would have their own timeline (one for each act) and whenever an output needed to be done the AE would take all the individual acts and put them into a single timeline that had the proper slates, blacks, etc., and calculate all the timing information.
If FCP X eventually had a multi-editor ability so that each editor could work inside a compound clip and all the compound clips where in the same timeline (which would have all the proper blacks, slates, etc.,) that would making doing outputs much faster and easier. There still would be some prep time (calculating running times and updating slates) but it would be much more straight forward than what has to happen currently.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “ne show I worked on would typically have 3-5 editors working on each episode (each one gets an act) and this was on Avid and ISIS. Everyone would work in the same project but each editor would have their own timeline (one for each act) and whenever an output needed to be done the AE would take all the individual acts and put them into a single timeline that had the proper slates, blacks, etc., and calculate all the timing information.
If FCP X eventually had a multi-editor ability so that each editor could work inside a compound clip and all the compound clips where in the same timeline (which would have all the proper blacks, slates, etc.,) that would making doing outputs much faster and easier. There still would be some prep time (calculating running times and updating slates) but it would be much more straight forward than what has to happen currently.”
Thanks. You said it better than I did.
-
[Walter Soyka] “Occam’s Razor suggests that NLE databases are relational. (Although an appeal to Murphy may suggest flat…)
“7 seems flat. So does PP.cs6 and AE. And they appear to rely on many instances of duplicate entries. One example is the David L workflow of X > 7 > PP. His screen captures were interesting.
-
[Richard Herd] “7 seems flat. So does PP.cs6 and AE. And they appear to rely on many instances of duplicate entries.”
Can you illustrate why you think this?
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Jeremy Garchow] “The building blocks of these features are in FCPX,”
Except this patent was applied for in 2009. It preceded X, not the other way around.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up