-
FCP X and the Future of Editing
-
[Oliver Peters] “I don’t believe it does. A lot of what you list was in there a lot earlier than you seem to think. But it’s irrelevant. The core functions of how you construct an edit on the timeline, how you trim, how you keyframe audio and effects, etc. The FxScript effects architecture. All there by at least 2.12.”
Fxscript was maybe 2, fxplug was certainly later, but I’d love it if you’d check my sources. A lot of the trimming, audio key framing, multichannel mixer was v3 and later, multichannel output was after 3. Auto select was v4. I could list them all, but I guess it’s “irrelevant” to this discussion about how things change.
[Oliver Peters] “Sorry to be so “glass half empty”, but I’m tired of working with an app that feels very sloppy when going from clips in the Event browser to the timeline (half the time it hangs up and has to be “fiddled with” to wake it up), that corrupts my renders, that fails to render some effects, that doesn’t allow mixing on-the-fly, that offsets my primary storyline when I trim or delete transitions, that re-arranges the vertical order of connected clips at will, yada yada yada…”
I don’t seem to have to wake up fcpx, 10.0.6 has been much more smooth for me. I don’t get corrupt renders (although I try not to render), I mix one clip at a time on the fly, and the other things you mention are easily fixable cosmetics, or a keyboard shortcut away. Really fixable problems. In due time…
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Really fixable problems. In due time…”
Why should I wait?
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Why should I wait?”
If the rest of fcpx is of no advantage to you personally, then there’s no reason to keep debating. You gave it a real honest to goodness shot and found it too annoying to continue.
No shame in that game.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “If the rest of fcpx is of no advantage to you personally, then there’s no reason to keep debating.”
My current position with it is to continue using it on a very selective basis for the few projects where I feel it’s right. I had been pushing everything through it and am starting to feel a bit burned by it on some jobs. So currently I’m moving a few more of those over to Media Composer for a while. Plus keeping an eye on Premiere, depending on how the market shifts. I’ve got a client who’s really hot for Smoke 2013, so maybe that’s in the future, too. Who knows?
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “My current position with it is to continue using it on a very selective basis for the few projects where I feel it’s right. I had been pushing everything through it and am starting to feel a bit burned by it on some jobs. So currently I’m moving a few more of those over to Media Composer for a while. Plus keeping an eye on Premiere, depending on how the market shifts. I’ve got a client who’s really hot for Smoke 2013, so maybe that’s in the future, too. Who knows?”
Certainly not me.
It is an affordable time to be an editor. It is a confusing time to be an editor. It is a time to commit many new shortcuts to memory and then forget them when you open the next newest greatest traditional 64bit cutting edge image stabilized ray tracer compositing grading hot mixing finisher.
-
[Andy Neil] “That’s not true at all. Even discounting multi-cam because “it was in development before”, the Event Viewer, Roles, and Audio Component Editing are all major changes to the editorial model of FCPX. You can even make a strong case for compound clip behavior in 10.0.6.”
I get what you’re saying but I disagree. The change in compound clip behavior addressed a crippling implementation flaw and should have been in place at launch. The other changes are welcome improvements but none fundamentally change the editorial model because none fundamentally change the timeline model. It is what it is. I’d love to be wrong but I don’t see it changing that much.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Bill Davis] “Secretly, this is one of the things making me happiest right now – since that takes pressure off for Apple to try to bend X’s feature sets and capabilities in a direction that’s mostly oriented towards the specific needs of large shop users. I’ve come to believe this would be a mistake since trying to satisfy this group would mean that the small wonderful ideas in X that appeal to the general editor but don’t particularly satisfy the large scale industrial users would be shunted aside in priority. “
Secretly? But yes, I actually agree with you. I think X should become great at what it is, and there are plenty of other programs that deliver what it is not.
-
[Walter Soyka] “So why use an IOP instead of a marker?”
Because an IOP is special. It tells the NLE to act on the marked point.
[Walter Soyka] “Defining a range prepares you for the next operation, whatever it is. “
Sure, but so does marking a single point.
[Walter Soyka] “In a three-point edit, the range of the one-point clip is defined by the duration of the two-point clip. “
Yes, but in FCPX, there’s no way to define a persistent one-point mark. It’s especially bad on the timeline itself. The one-point mark is held by the skimmer or the playhead position. It could’t be more fragile.
[Walter Soyka] “FCPX handles three-point edits perfectly well. “
No argument here.
[Walter Soyka] “I am still not really following. This makes two classes of operative ranges in FCPX. I think a command to recall the last (ghosted but visible) range — or even allow its re-selection with a mouse click — preserves the existing selection model without adding too much more complexity. “
The problem with this is you’re allowed multiple range selections per clip. Which one gets recalled?
[Walter Soyka] “How would you define the problem that your proposed solution sets out to solve?”
I think the problem is defined by the language of editing. When editors say “Mark in” or “Mark out” they’re referring to a very specific thing — selecting an exact point in time. Holding that point for an action now or later. A point is not a range and while range may be implicit, all that matters when we say “Mark in” or “Mark out” is often that single point.
I think FCPX needs a better mechanism to hold these single points that tell the system to “act here”. Right now, they’re either way too fragile (skimmer or playhead) or mixed in with range selection, which has led to the PIOP mess. I think an optional UI overlay/command set for these special, persistent markers would solve the problem. It would need to be properly thought out and designed, but I think it would work.
I don’t mind it being in a different class because “Mark in” or “Mark out” is different than range selection. I imagine it could be easier to understand and would be helpful to many editors who like myself, feel range selection alone is an oversimplification of the standard editorial toolset.
BTW, it’s not that range selection as the sole editorial UI excludes possibilities, it’s that it’s just another thing that makes the interface annoying to many editors who might otherwise give FCPX a chance.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Chris Harlan] “Secretly? But yes, I actually agree with you. I think X should become great at what it is, and there are plenty of other programs that deliver what it is not.
“Great comment Chris.
Steve Connor
‘It’s just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure” -
[David Lawrence] “…none fundamentally change the editorial model because none fundamentally change the timeline model.”
Then you’ve got an extremely narrow definition of what constitutes an editorial model, if the only thing you are counting is the trackless nature of the timeline. And conveniently dismissing compound clip behavior because it “should’ve been there” is just you creating a confirmation bias. It wasn’t there before. It wasn’t designed that way before. It was changed in 10.0.06 and it fundamentally changes how one edits in FCPX. To me that is very the definition of “editorial model.”
Take Roles for example. They allow for a completely different take on access of clips via the timeline index as well as completely change how audio is exported. A change in the editorial model.
The Event Viewer which allows for an event browser shot to be displayed alongside a timeline shot fundamentally changes how one approaches matching shots when editing in FCPX. Another change in the editorial model.
Audio Component Editing which makes single channel editing possible in clips where before audio had to be disconnected and therefore subject to sync problems, fundamentally changes how one edits audio in FCPX. Yet another change in the editorial model.
Perhaps you meant to only comment on the modality of the timeline, I don’t know. But you said “editorial model” in your OP and to me, that’s anything that changes significantly how someone can edit in an NLE. Like it or not, these additions, including multicam have done just that for FCPX. I agree that it’s unlikely that X will ever have track editing like you’re used to in legacy or Avid, but that doesn’t negate the possibility that Apple will make real changes to the editorial model that we all got in 10.0.0, since it’s obvious that they already have.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up