-
FCP-X and “modularity”
I woke up this morning thinking about the “why” of FCP-X and it struck me that now that I’ve spent some time editing with it, the central issue might be that the new approach is built on “modularity” in a way unfamiliar to traditionally trained editors.
The central organizing unit of X, the “connected clip” is starting to appear to me to be the editing equivalent to the practice in modern electrical device design where instead of one monolithic “circuit board” where all the discrete resistors and capacitors live and work (akin to custom arrays of clips on tracks), FCP-X moves us toward packaging content creation functions as “modules” that are then assembled into a larger whole.
The point of modularity is that when a module fails or becomes obsolete or needs improving, you can more simply locate and replace that module. The rest of the overall device remains functional.
Also, it drives significant efficiencies. Instead of having to “deconstruct” and rebuild everything from scratch every time, once you create an array of “modules” that fit your purpose, those building blocks can be assembled and re-assembled at will.
This has benefits and drawbacks, of course. If you’re used to working at a very granular level, being shoehorned into constructing devices by “plug and play” would naturally feel limiting. And the reaction of many that they took away “control” makes great sense in this context.
On the other hand, modern manufacturing has shown us that when you have a vast number of “consumers” for something – modularity is a brilliant organizing model. The producer doesn’t have to custom build everything to order.
Walter S mentioned “plussing” edits in another thread. Isn’t this just another way of saying “incrementing modules?”
Perhaps in FCP-X, the real decision is whether in the future, you will continue to need to create one thing at a time —every instance purpose built and customized — or whether you someday find yourself creating content that fits within environment that can benefit from such modular change capabilities.
Think of what this will mean for the training industry. Think of those modules as they relate to searchable content delivery systems. Web repositories of snippits, searchable and “pull-able” to employees, audiences, and yes, consumers.
This might be a part of HUGE changes in how video will be consumed on a daily basis in the future.
I’ve always felt that for a company with a track record for being as smart and “future thinking” as Apple to have made such a massive shift, they MUST have seen something fundamental about how information use and distribution is likely to change in the future.
Is this shift toward the “modularity” of the connected clip a sign of that?
Or do I just need more sleep?
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
3 Replies
-
I think you need more sleep, Bill 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
Yeah, I wondered about that.
Still, I can’t get the idea of connected clips as small self-contained content modules out of my head.
Probably should just take a nap and hope it all goes away.
Sigh.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
Modularity has been Apple’s philosophical mantra ever since jobs dreamed about how computer will work. iOS is a great example of modal computing and is Job’s ultimate OS dream.It is definitely the future. But I think you need to get out more Bill, if FCPX is what you think about before you sleep, you have some social issues to attend to.;)
Quobetah
New=Better
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up