Fascinating article on FCP.co today…

[Richard Herd]

[Walter Soyka] “Can you illustrate why you think this?”

To be sure you don’t want me to illustrate!

Here’s David’s screen capture I was pondering: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/70073

The original article states, “Simple databases can’t store the same clip being in two segments. Relational databases can. They can also store multiple representations of the same segment.” This post focuses on the “multiple representations” only.

First let me state it properly. The way 7 handles media is a flat database with many duplicate entries, and the way X handles media is a relational database with many duplicate entries.

It appears to be entailment. Please note I cannot find the html symbols for subset

Media (M);
Clip (C);
Sequence (S);

M subset is C
S subset is C1, C2,….Cn, where n is some number

But this is incomplete, because Sequences can nest.

S subset is Sn-but-not-itself and/or Cn; this is generally accurate for X although there is plenty of room for refining it, and updating the nomenclature.

And now an attempt to redefine for X

X has

Clip (C)
Role (R)

M subset is C and/or R

Library (L)
Project (P)

L subset is P
P subset is M

via P, L subset M subset C and/or R

And now let’s return to the quote above, in part, “Simple databases can’t store the same clip being in two segments.” True, but it can hold a duplicate. But in X, since the entailment (and relation) follow, it can.

It’s not a very pretty illustration, but no one wants me to draw! Very curious for some rigor, critique, and review.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Herb Sevush] “Except this patent was applied for in 2009. It preceded X, not the other way around.”

I don’t think this patent and FCPX have to be mutually exclusive. Why can’t this patented technology become a part of X, or why can’t it be a part of X already even if was applied for in 2009? Wouldn’t that disprove that Apple is walking back the design of FCPX, but rather, had this plan all along?

[Walter Soyka]

[Richard Herd] “The original article states, “Simple databases can’t store the same clip being in two segments. Relational databases can. They can also store multiple representations of the same segment.” This post focuses on the “multiple representations” only. First let me state it properly. The way 7 handles media is a flat database with many duplicate entries, and the way X handles media is a relational database with many duplicate entries. “

Thanks for taking the time.

I can’t suppose prove anything about FCP7’s engineering, but since you mentioned Premiere Pro CS6… open a .prproj file in a text editor. It’s just an XMLish text file.

Search for “MasterClip”. (Period placed literally, not grammatically.) Select the value of its ObjectUID and search on that. You’ll find various other objects — SubClips, ClipProjectItems — that reference it via this value. You’ll subsequently find VideoClipTrackItems that reference the SubClip records by their object reference numbers.

This looks like separate tables, relationally linked via unique keys.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[Richard Herd]

[Walter Soyka] “This looks like separate tables, relationally linked via unique keys”

It could be a single table with many fields, which may explain why/how Dynamic Link imports PP projects into AE, but AE comps (not folders) into PP. Why can’t PP import AE bins? (I’m on CS6, not CC, so maybe that’s changed.)

I’m arguing PP (perhaps) requires a single table in order for Dynamic Link to be the relational database. Hopefully, this also means lots more relational stuff for DL.

Last, sorry the long post was so opaque. Getting right to it, I attempted to analyze the data by its container. Sequences, for example, contain clips. The browser contains media. And so on. The interesting part is where 7 and PP contain sequences whereas X projects contain clips (as timeline). Well, if you get a moment to ruminate on that, I would be curious your thoughts regarding databaseyness (sic).

[Walter Soyka]

[Richard Herd] “It could be a single table with many fields, which may explain why/how Dynamic Link imports PP projects into AE, but AE comps (not folders) into PP. Why can’t PP import AE bins? (I’m on CS6, not CC, so maybe that’s changed.)”

I don’t think it’s a safe assumption that the absence of a feature implies the inability of a data model to support its implementation.

If you are interested in the Ae data structure, there’s a lot to be gleaned from the scripting guide [link].

[Richard Herd] “The interesting part is where 7 and PP contain sequences whereas X projects contain clips (as timeline).”

I’m sorry, I don’t follow here.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Wouldn’t that disprove that Apple is walking back the design of FCPX, but rather, had this plan all along?”

Jeremy,

I am continually amused that you assume development at Apple is at root rational and linear.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Richard Herd] “7 seems flat.”

Richard,

From where I am standing, the horizon is relational.

Franz.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “I am continually amused that you assume development at Apple is at root rational and linear.”

I aim to please, Franz.

Also, I never said rational or even linear, I just said there might be more of a plan than what gets thrown around here as Apple incompetence.

[Richard Herd]

The guide along with Mr. Ebberts in the scripting forum have been big helps.

[Walter Soyka] “[Richard Herd] “The interesting part is where 7 and PP contain sequences whereas X projects contain clips (as timeline).”

I’m sorry, I don’t follow here.”

It ain’t so fancy. The Browser in 7 contains media and sequences. When the media are opened in the viewer, the IOPs create a clip. Those clips are inside of sequences.

X is wholly different. The clips are in projects. This is not simply nomenclature, as I tried to detail.

(And full disclosure, I haven’t used X in over a year — CS6 kind-of guy these days.)

EDITED for clarity.

[Richard Herd]

Nicely said.