-
FCP X Explained…
-
BTW – just so we don’t get too wrapped up in the tracks versus… issue, it’s worth noting that broadcast-oriented NLE products started with the Quantel Harry, developed in 1985 (before Avid). In its original incarnation, it used a filmstrip metaphor instead of a track-based timeline. Not as elegant as the FCPX magnetite timeline, but certainly the same concept with clips linked to each other in succession, rather than against time.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Oliver: To quote a popular Youtube channel, everything is a remix. This applies to many of Apple’s best products including their mouse driven interface and the ipod. In this view, FCPX is hardly revolutionary, but it was certainly a step in a different direction, which continues to be an issue in editing circles years later.
-
Well explained, Tony.
Sometimes it’s hard to break down and express this stuff because most of us just “do” our editing without thinking about it too much.
Time and again on my personal shift from Legacy style editing to X style editing – I’ve just realized that things that used to take me significant time to accomplish are suddenly NOT taking me anywhere near as much time.
Responding to client requests for changes are a HUGE area where I find this to be particularly true.
Concentrating on initially BUILDING a story will sometimes miss the impact. But when it comes time to CHANGE a story you’ll see it very clearly.
The thing is – once you learn that it can have a major influence on how you edit. When you see improvements that you can make to your work – the lower the “effort penalty” that’s applied to making those changes, the more likely you are to make them. You’re freer to simply take a chance to try something different.
Its a hidden benefit to having learned that the cost of “exploration” has been significantly decreased by the nature of the tool.
FWIW.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Claude Lyneis] “everything is a remix”
Absolutely. But, since there seems to be this ongoing need after 5 years to still explain the software, I have to gently wonder – and I don’t mean this as a criticism of any particular person or idea – was something inherently wrong or missing in the product design? Clearly there are many people – both experienced and newbies – who simply don’t grok the application. And it’s usually not for want of trying.
In my own mind, software is a very personal thing and you can’t arbitrarily or objectively say something is better or faster. It depends on the project or the person. In that sense, picking an NLE is no different than preferring to write with Word versus Pages or the other way around. For example, I’m currently on a project where I’m bouncing among FCPX, Resolve and Premiere Pro, because each is more appropriate for a portion of the job than the others.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “software is a very personal thing and you can’t arbitrarily or objectively say something is better or faster. “
Sure you can.
You can say that it is faster for you. Or you can compare the same exact task Like the swapping video.
-
[Tony West] “Or you can compare the same exact task Like the swapping video.”
I should clarify. I didn’t really mean specific functions, because you can definitely pick an item in any given app and point out that it’s faster. I was talking more in general terms, like overall workflows, which tend to be more specific to users and/or projects.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
My background: I worked in film with Steenbecks and synchronizers. I guess that’s called NLE. Only once or twice in video linear. Which seemed very clumsy. Then FCP7 which had a timeline that resembled a synchronizer, then moved to Premiere which also has a fixed timeline. Still struggling to comprehend the FCPX concept, which seems to write on a page without a fixed timeline. This demo shows how to do certain kinds of edits that I rarely do (switch order of shots) and how they are “easier” in FCPX. Maybe so. But I don’t need them to be “easier”, just want to understand what’s happening on the timeline. I think the FCPX timeline is always in flux, lengthening and shortening, according to content. Pieces on the timeline are linked to each other, not to the timeline. One day I’ll try this out, one day start with a new piece and see what happens. Not now.
Honestly, I could follow this piece to half-way through, then my eyes glazed over..Robert Withers
Independent/personal/avant-garde cinema, New York City
-
[Bill Davis] ” the lower the “effort penalty” that’s applied to making those changes, the more likely you are to make them. You’re freer to simply take a chance to try something different. “
Well said yourself Bill,
So much of it for me goes back to cutting my doc. I didn’t have a script and I was learning about the topic as I went along. You meet and interview more and more people and suddenly they are telling you something that’s a game changer.
You know of nuclear waste being dumped at an official site. It’s official, so a lot of people know, but then a worker tells you about another site. One that isn’t official, one that nobody but a handful of workers know about. One dangerously closer to the public. He points to a spot on the map, “no”, I say “it’s farther north right?”
“I’m not talking about that one, I’m talking about this one”
It’s time to start moving stuff around.
-
[Bill Davis] “It’s clear traditional NLEs did things in a somewhat simplistic fashion based on what was possible in the early days of NLE design”
I think you may have missed the part in the very beginning (around 1:38) where he actually explained WHY he thinks NLEs were designed to work the way they did. They were simply trying to mirror the way ANALOG editing was done as closely as possible to appeal to film and most of all TAPE editors, with complete disregard for what was or could have been possible or even better for that matter if they didn’t. Essentially they didn’t want to scare people away from giving it a try and not have to rack their brains too much about the logic behind it, since the paradigm was so familiar, lest intuitive and as efficient as possible by embracing ALL the advantages of working digitally. Because it’s not like what FCP X e.g. does with the magnetic timeline wouldn’t have been just as well possible back in the 80’s and 90’s.
Basically the same as if the inventors of the automobile hadn’t gone with gas and brake pedals, but rather had people yell “Hiiiyaaaa!” to get it moving and “Brrrrr!” to slow or stop it. ?
So, for me, that’s essentially the exact opposite of what Apple (fortunately) did with X. They were the first and only to NOT have the established approaches of yester-decades dictate how to do things, but had the courage (yeah, courage) to rethink matters. They, so far, are imho the only ones to recognize that those workflows are far less productive and efficient in today’s and future market of 100% digital workflows. The “how would we do it and like it to work” as opposed to the above “how can we blindly appease our audience sans any improvements, to avoid an avalanche of whining”.
[Herb Sevush] “the issue is that you can’t have it only when you want it, it’s all or nothing”
Ouch. That’s just… oh never mind.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Oliver Peters] “it used a filmstrip metaphor instead of a track-based timeline”
:-)))
Right. And that has what to do with anything? Substituting one point with an inane “Apple didn’t invent the phone!”-style ‘issue’ gets us where exactly? I’m actually surprised to see you of all people bring something like that up. By that logic I guess every motorcycle today isn’t a REAL motorcycle or “original”, since it’s not a Mercedes motorcycle? Hmmm… what about the wheel? Tough one.Why not go straight back to Xerox Parc while we’re on the subject and diss Apple for any and everything they’ve ever done for GUI design or the Mac? Because, you know, they only stole everything, as they did the entire FCP paradigm, right? But then let’s at least be consistent and take PPro into the equation! Look at those shameless plagiarists! Wow. ?
Completely irrelevant to the discussion and quite the logical fallacy imho. The only thing that’s relevant in any of the above examples in the end is how they are done, which is what sets them apart. Otherwise do tell us what actually deserves the “never seen before and never done before” moniker nowadays. Oh right… nothing. Pointless, circular argument du jour I’d say. One that doesn’t lend anything of substance to the discussion that at least I can recognize.
– RK
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up