-
FCP X as a database
-
[Oliver Peters] “It’s a prime example of an editorial feature designed by a programmer and not an editor.”
I’m not opposed to editorial features designed by programmers — that’s at least in part how we got the good stuff in FCPX, right?
But editors do need to vet the design. This PIOP implementation should have been shot down in the beta program.
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 -
[Walter Soyka] “This PIOP implementation should have been shot down in the beta program.”
Apple – beta program? I thought that was the paying customer 😉
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Apple – beta program? I thought that was the paying customer ;-)”
I see you see what I did there 🙂
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 -
[Walter Soyka] “This PIOP implementation should have been shot down in the beta program.”
I guess I don’t understand what the fuss is all about. I mean, I was annoyed by the behavior up through version .05, but I got used to it. And I’m not crazy about having PIOP’s back, because I got used to not having them , but it doesn’t seem to be that big a deal. Take favoriting ranges in a clip.. pre .06 I’d set an I/O, hit F, maybe rename it or not, continue playing, do it again etc. Still works the same in .06.
Pre .06 if I set an I/O point for whatever reason, and then clicked on the clip, the I/O went away and the entire clip was set as a range. Now I need to hit the X key to have it do that, which is fine because maybe I didn’t want the I/O to go away, which is the whole point of PIOP’s right?
So unless I use a modifier key to set multiple saved I/O points, and I can think of a couple reasons why i might want to do that but mostly I wouldn’t… What’s the difference? the only thing I see is that now I need to hit a key (X) to have it behave like it did when I clicked on the clip in earlier versions… What am I missing here?
edit: Is the issue the fact that when you highlight a clip in the library it shows all your Favorited ranges selected? Again, the X key clears it, but I’m gonna send feedback to Apple requesting they turn that off and maybe add a “select all ranges” command or something. But again, it’s just a keystroke to make it go away…
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[Charlie Austin] “I guess I don’t understand what the fuss is all about. I mean, I was annoyed by the behavior up through version .05, but I got used to it. And I’m not crazy about having PIOP’s back, because I got used to not having them , but it doesn’t seem to be that big a deal. Take favoriting ranges in a clip.. pre .06 I’d set an I/O, hit F, maybe rename it or not, continue playing, do it again etc. Still works the same in .06. “
Jeremy put it very well a couple weeks ago [link]:
Jeremy Garchow “You have no idea what range(s) are in any of the clips, so if you start keywording a bunch of things at once or tagging them, you are only tagging the ranges, and not the clips. It was so much easier with just favorites as the favorite ranges didn’t override a clip range unless you selected those ranges. I’d like an option to turn this off.”
I was a PIOP cheerleader (still am), but this implementation is bogus. Like David said, ranges are now overloaded. Ranges and PIOPs have some overlap, but not this much.
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 -
[Walter Soyka] “I was a PIOP cheerleader (still am), but this implementation is bogus. Like David said, ranges are now overloaded. Ranges and PIOPs have some overlap, but not this much.”
OK, that makes sense. I vote for the “turn it off” button too. 😉 Although, In list view, you can see what ranges are set in the clip, though maybe not in filmstrip view. Until it changes, the X key, which sets the entire clip as the range, is your friend I guess…
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[David Lawrence] “The reason they blew it is because ProApps engineers 1) oversimplified the selection paradigm and 2) misunderstood what editors were asking for.”
Wow. A bit revisionist but I’ll allow it.
So now that the functionality is there, you don’t like it? What did you expect them to do? This is exactly why I didn’t want PIOPs as they make no sense in this application. It is not FCP8 or Pr 6.1, it is FCPX
You can’t compare FCP7 ranges to FCPX ranges, they aren’t even in the same league and don’t work in the browser at all.
[David Lawrence] “The rules should be simple and obvious — only one In and/or Out per clip. If set, they persist and take priority, and other than that, if you don’t want to use them, don’t set them and everything works as before — the range In/Outs take over.”
Fixed in and out markers don’t fit the X convention. Traditional in and out markers would get old fast when one starts to sort the timeline between all of the differing ranges and views.
What this proves to me is that people aren’t using the FCPX browser as it was designed and intended. They do not understand the dynamic nature of it (dynamic meaning ever changing) and must be locked in to fixed bin and viewer like behaviors. Old habits truly die hard.
That’s fine, there are plenty of other application that have those conventions. FCPX doesn’t need to work that way.
Jeremy
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “…people aren’t using the FCPX browser as it was designed and intended. They do not understand the dynamic nature of it (dynamic meaning ever changing) and must be locked in to fixed bin and viewer like behaviors. Old habits truly die hard.”
Hi
“…very eloquently and precisely summed up…” 🙂 -
[Jeremy Garchow] “What this proves to me is that people aren’t using the FCPX browser as it was designed and intended. They do not understand the dynamic nature of it (dynamic meaning ever changing) and must be locked in to fixed bin and viewer like behaviors. Old habits truly die hard.”
Or maybe they simply don’t like it and don’t see it as better.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Wow. A bit revisionist but I’ll allow it.”
I still firmly believe persistent In/Out marks are necessary. But yes, I have revised my thinking on how it needs to be implemented.
[Jeremy Garchow] “So now that the functionality is there, you don’t like it? What did you expect them to do? This is exactly why I didn’t want PIOPs as they make no sense in this application. It is not FCP8 or Pr 6.1, it is FCPX”
At first, I expected them to do something like what they’ve done. But it wasn’t until I actually tried it that I understood why you were complaining. The problem isn’t that PIOPs don’t belong in the application, the problem is that the basic UI model for selection and marking is oversimplified and incomplete.
[Jeremy Garchow] “You can’t compare FCP7 ranges to FCPX ranges, they aren’t even in the same league and don’t work in the browser at all.”
Sure you can.
The extra features and functions in FCPX are great, but that doesn’t change the fact that two entirely different editorial tasks have been shoehorned into range selection.
It seems pretty obvious but I’ll say it again. Marking In and Out is not the same as selecting a range.
It’s no surprise PIOPs are a mess. This is a classic example of programmers adding a feature without understanding the intention or need.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Fixed in and out markers don’t fit the X convention. Traditional in and out markers would get old fast when one starts to sort the timeline between all of the differing ranges and views. “
They could be if they were properly designed. The UI for marking In and Out needs to be completely separate from the range selection UI. Don’t like them? Fine, don’t use them. Everything would continue working they way you like. Why not build a UI flexible enough to give everyone what they want? I say it’s entirely possible.
[Jeremy Garchow] “What this proves to me is that people aren’t using the FCPX browser as it was designed and intended. They do not understand the dynamic nature of it (dynamic meaning ever changing) and must be locked in to fixed bin and viewer like behaviors. Old habits truly die hard.”
What this proves to me is that ProApps engineers need to do a better job understating basic NLE features and feature requests. Case in point – the new Event Viewer.
No time indicator and no skimming? Really? Why not put these directly in the Event Viewer window? Seriously weak.
I get FCPX is a new model. I really, truly do. It’s not about old habits dying hard. For me, it’s about whether the new FCPX UI model is flexible and scalable enough to accommodate the full universe of editorial needs and styles Legend once led.
I really hoped I would be more impressed with 10.0.6. There are some nice improvements, but the bottom line is the interface really is still annoying.
And it’s a drag that they’ve broken your workflow with this bogus PIOP implementation. I truly hope they fix it. But the way to fix it is not with an on/off preference. They need to fix it by understanding why so many editors were clamoring for it to begin with. It’s not old habits, it’s editing 101.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up