-
FCP-X: Thinking Differently?
-
[David Lawrence] “I invite you to read and consider Mr. Federline’s recently posted comment here.”
I took the physical challenge.
…and I just read the post. He’s missing the new “back” composite mode in FCPx.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I took the physical challenge.”
OK, now expand your compound clips so we can see and manipulate everything in context at the same time, in the same window. Also, all transitions must still work.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “OK, now expand your compound clips so we can see and manipulate everything in context at the same time, in the same window”
You can’t. Still beats the nesting in FCP <= 7.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Mr Lawrence, I know you are all about the “scratch” area to work, on, so am I. This is so easy to do above the primary storyline with connected clips to a gap. I do not miss the patch panel and auto select tracks one bit.
“Ah, I just saw this screengrab (I usually read and respond via email so sometimes images slip thru the cracks).
This is great, thank you! Just the kind of test I’m looking for. Now can you please post another grab with view clip connections turned on? I think we need to see clip connections to get a better idea of what’s really going on here. Thanks!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “Now can you please post another grab with view clip connections turned on? I think we need to see clip connections to get a better idea of what’s really going on here. Thanks!”
That is an excellent point, not showing them was unintentional. I am away from the office next week.
Sorry to be a cliff hanger, just wanted to put things in a bit of reality and I had an hour this afternoon. Hope to get back to it in a weeks time, but no promises. We are fortunately very busy.
Federline never posted the finished work of that timeline, did he? I can guess at some of it, but not all.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ” it’s the creating of all the secondary story lines to get dissolves/wipes on the connected clips.”
pivoting swiftly to his various arguments andy said…
jeremy, muchos respect – but – sure just read that line again to yourself –
” it’s the creating of all the secondary story lines to get dissolves/wipes on the connected clips.”
does that make any sense? why. are. we. doing. this?
[Jeremy Garchow] “Making the audio into secondary storylines brings audio fade fuctionality back with a quickness.”
again bud, doesn’t this feel like a very brittle, easily broken paradigm? we end up doing a variety of things to reassert basic, basic decision space.
honest to god – does this thing FCPX feel well thought through?
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Jeremy Garchow] “You can’t. Still beats the nesting in FCP <= 7.”
Bingo. That’s my point and Shawn Federline’s as well. Many advanced editors have workflows that absolutely require this kind of flexibility.
I do agree that compound clips are better than nesting in FCP7. Thing is, I almost never use nesting when I’m cutting. For me, nests are useful when adding subtitles or credits to a finished piece, things of that nature. When I’m cutting, they get in the way because they force a context switch. Even though the implementation of compound clips is better in FCPX, this context switch is inherent and it’s still a problem.
Because nesting is central to the FCPX workflow, it makes wonder how FCPX’s workflow scales. How does it handle editorial situations where you don’t want to or can’t nest, but are required to, in order to perform the needed task? These are the cases I don’t think Apple has thought through with their timeline model. This is the kind of thing I’d like to see tested.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
mmmm.
Lawrence has a bit of a point there.
you stepped away a little carefully in your response.
sure don’t work too hard, just re-set the timeline view for clip connections and re-grab the frame?
No Work at all!
Sure go on Jeremy. show those clip connections. It can’t look that bad right?
dare.
dare.
dare.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “does that make any sense? why. are. we. doing. this?”
I wondered this aloud while doing this exercise today.
I’ve said it before, but I really think we don’t have all the language of FCPx yet. There has to be a good reason, it’s just not “turned on” yet in the software, so we can’t see it. It is definitely indicating something to FCPx; “this part is different”.
It’s really easy to make secondary storylines. Like, really easy, even with multiple clips. After a while, I wasn’t even thinking about it.
-
[David Lawrence] “Because nesting is central to the FCPX workflow,”
Is it? I was well on my way to making that timeline with nary a compound clip. I would say, they are optional, unless you need to effect the whole nest, something that was a pain in the arse to keep track of (and screw up) in FCP7.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up