-
FCP X as a database
-
[Oliver Peters] “Or maybe they simply don’t like it and don’t see it as better.”
And that is half my point.
If there’s no value in it for the editor, personally, why stick with it? There are other tremendously valuable NLEs on the market today that are getting better every day.
The organization of FCPX, I find, to be the crown jewel. If a person doesn’t like the organizational structure, I can’t imagine they will like the timeline? If they don’t the organization and the timeline, WTF are they doing here?
-
[Charlie Austin] “Get Event Manager. It addresses every concern you just expressed. Seriously. Tick the boxes for the event and it’s associated project folder, press a button, done. Of course you could argue that that should be built into or bundled with X. I agree.”
agreed – but there are a lot of serious perception issues with the software – primary among them being that it is designed out of the guts of single operator persistent noodling software like iphoto/aperture. Software that greets you with all the things you have ever done. In its basic nature, it’s inarguable that FCPX looks to do this. It loads all events by default. No one ever asks why iphoto or itunes load all photo collections or playlists by default. And no one has ever tried to sell itunes playlistX manager.
All the approaches you suggest – like hodgett’s many diligently worked fixes to the software io and management, function – but apple need, at a minimum, to begin make a clear case for its usability in professional scenarios – after stealing event manager, apple, somewhere on their website, need to begin to make Germanically clear workflow arguments. Adobe are about to play a massive card with anywhere – and avid are a perilously small company, leaking money.
It entirely depends on how much Apple care: as to how much they are willing to reset themselves to the market, given that, in monthly wage terms, the market we represent doesn’t buy them a packet of gum.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[David Lawrence] “Sure you can.”
Not really. The range selection tool is timeline only in FCP7. You simply cannot perform the same browser side functions in 7 as you can in X with ranges as they simply don’t exist. You can’t set the beginning/end of range with keyboard shortcuts in 7, and actions applied to ranges are applied to that one clip only.
It’s a different ballgame.
[David Lawrence] “It seems pretty obvious but I’ll say it again. Marking In and Out is not the same as selecting a range.”
I know what you’re saying and I understand the distinction you are trying to make.
FCPX does have fixed in out markers when opening a compound clip. They are determined by the boundary of the compound in the enclosing timeline.
This functionality would not work very well the Event Browser, especially when you start to sort clips by Favorite, Keyword, Filmstrip, etc. It will fall down very quickly and start to not make sense, but that seems pretty obvious, right?
I mean, Apple added exactly what was wanted, and you really think they didn’t thought this through, or is it was designed “by a programmer and not an editor because programmers don’t know us like we know us”? Get the heck on outta dodge. This is why I think they gave the people exactly what they wanted because FCPX works the way it works, and it simply works differently. It isn’t any less capable that FCP7 with regards to PIOPs and the range system.
[David Lawrence] “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.”
I’ve asked for an off switch or modifier.
[David Lawrence] “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.”
The time indicator and skimming are done on the filmstrip. TC availability does need help. There needs to be more tc window than one.
[David Lawrence] “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.”
It’s annoying to you, but not to everyone. I believe that the way to move FCPX forward is not to turn off the magnetic timeline which has been asked over and over in this forum. As a matter of fact, the magnetic timeline does turn off if you know how to use it and it’s been there since day 1, like favorites.
Oliver wants to break up 100 cameras in to 100 Events. I’d use one Event and metadata. (No offense, Oliver, just saying).
There is no editing 101 when it comes to interface, only metaphors to technical limitations that have existed for a very long time.
It’s time to embrace Editing 102, or stick with 101, there’s plenty of places that still teach it.
FCPX has the modern production metaphor of grouping down. In my edits, more and more and more, handling large groups of footage is the norm. It’s no longer one camera, one shoot, but I guess programmers don’t know us like we know us.
Jeremy
-
[Walter Soyka] “We need NLE cheat codes, like typing FUPIOPS in the Event Browser to revert to 10.0.5’s range functionality.”
Now that, sir, is the best idea I’ve heard all day. It would allow to swear at the software and it would react.
Let’s all send Apple feedback on this all important feature.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “The range selection tool is timeline only in FCP7. You simply cannot perform the same browser side functions in 7 as you can in X with ranges as they simply don’t exist. “
Yes.
[Jeremy Garchow] “You can’t set the beginning/end of range with keyboard shortcuts in 7, and actions applied to ranges are applied to that one clip only.”
Yes.
[Jeremy Garchow] “It’s a different ballgame.”
Yes, and…
that does not change the fact that a range selection is still a range selection.
[Jeremy Garchow] “FCPX does have fixed in out markers when opening a compound clip. They are determined by the boundary of the compound in the enclosing timeline.
This functionality would not work very well the Event Browser, especially when you start to sort clips by Favorite, Keyword, Filmstrip, etc. It will fall down very quickly and start to not make sense, but that seems pretty obvious, right?”
Right. But compound clips have nothing to do with an editor wanting to mark their next cut.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I mean, Apple added exactly what was wanted, and you really think they didn’t thought this through, or is it was designed “by a programmer and not an engineer because engineers don’t know us like we know us”?”
Yep, I think the evidence speaks for itself. Why else would your selection workflow would be messed up right now? Apple’s recent history is filled with examples of poorly thought out software design choices. Breaking the “Save As” command Mac OSX Lion, for example.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I’ve asked for an off switch or modifier.”
Sure, that would help. But ultimately it’s a band-aid. I think a better approach would be for them to get the PIOP design right. It’s very doable.
[Jeremy Garchow] “It’s annoying to you, but not to everyone. I believe that the way to move FCPX forward is not to turn off the magnetic timeline which has been asked over and over in this forum. As a matter of fact, the magnetic timeline does turn off if you know how to use it and it’s been there since day 1, like favorites.”
[Jeremy Garchow] “There is no editing 101 when it comes to interface, only metaphors to technical limitations that have existed for a very long time.”
Yes, but maybe there’s another reason some interface metaphors have stood the test of time. Maybe it’s because they’re appropriate and they work well. Technology is just one aspect of Human Interface Design.
Don’t get me wrong. I love innovation and appreciate Apple’s drive to push it. There are many great new ideas in FCPX and it continues to get better with every release. But I think we agree there’s also a lot of room for improvement.
I believe the best way to move FCPX forward is to maintain a healthy critical eye and dialogue. It’s good for FCPX, for Apple, and ultimately us as editors. Otherwise, we’re more likely to see future design nightmares as programmers add new features. Another reason why this forum continues to be interesting and relevant.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “Right. But compound clips have nothing to do with an editor wanting to mark their next cut.”
No no brother. That’s not what I am saying. I am saying the ins and outs of compound clips are a fixed version of traditional in and out points, that ignore ranges.
Like this:
So now when we start adding ranges to this PIOP idea, and we start sorting clips by range views, flimstrip views, etc, the ins and outs won’t make any sense. If you are saying you want to attach an in point and an out point to a clip, like a marker, then I guess I see how that could happen, I just don’t know what it will accomplish that ranges don’t. You can add an in point and out, and sort the clips by another set of data and then the in and out will get all jumbled up.
Let’s say you mark an in and out on a clip that’s 5 minutes long, and you have 10 favorite ranges within that 5 minute in and out range.
You sort the (*edit) Event by favorites which makes 10 “clips” from that one clip. Now your in and out is spread out across two clips that are now discontinuous. What does FCPX do? What if you then want to sort back to all clips, does fcpx add back the original 5 min in and out? What if you take 5 of those 10 clips, mark their own in and out and want to add those to the end of the timeline? Then you sort back to all clips? Which in and out is kept?
This is the same argument rehashed from earlier discussions on PIOPs.
They should have just left alone and gave people more time to adapt.
The Event browser, when you start using it for all of it’s dynamic capabilities, doesn’t fit a traditional in/out structure, at least in my opinion. The favorite system, works very well, even if you have to add a key to your in/out marking process.
[David Lawrence] “Yes, but maybe there’s another reason some interface metaphors have stood the test of time. Maybe it’s because they’re appropriate and they work well. Technology is just one aspect of Human Interface Design.
Don’t get me wrong. I love innovation and appreciate Apple’s drive to push it. There are many great new ideas in FCPX and it continues to get better with every release. But I think we agree there’s also a lot of room for improvement.
I believe the best way to move FCPX forward is to maintain a healthy critical eye and dialogue. It’s good for FCPX, for Apple, and ultimately us as editors. Otherwise, we’re more likely to see future design nightmares as programmers add new features. Another reason why this forum continues to be interesting and relevant.”
And I think we have seen that PIOPs aren’t working well here. It’s time to change it up, which was happening, until Apple did us a solid by adding an old “feature” metaphor back due to user demand.
The people wanted PIOPs, they delivered. I know, I keep saying that.
I just wish Apple would carry out the ultimate vision, get in all the features they want without compromise. There’s evidence of what is possible, this latest released showed us a lot. It’s still not perfect, I’ve always known and said there’s room for improvement, but that is true of all software, even the most “mature”.
Jeremy
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up