-
FCP-X: Thinking Differently?
-
[David Lawrence] “In fact, to take the analogy further, if a musical score behaved like the magnetic timeline, it would mean you’d have to write special “gap notes” between each of your regular notes to indicate silence. “
In a musical score you have to write pauses to indicate silence.
You even have to fill up a bar with pauses before you start a new one.
A musical note only defines pitch and duration, not an absolute starting time.
So each note is played directly after the note or the pause before ended.
Now, it is possible to indicate wether a note within its time frame is to be
played short (staccato) or connected to the following note (legato).
However, the physical space on paper stays the same.
If you want a crash cymbal to be played in bar 100 in a musical score, the absolute
time it is played is depending on how far the orchestra has progressed.
In FCP7 the crash would sound at 04:15 regardless of wether the orchestra started
a second late or the score/conductor had changed the tempo at some time.David, I’m not arguing wether the magnetic timeline is good or bad.
I just think the musical score analogy doesn’t work for an open timeline
and may even work better for the magnetic timeline. -
Music is mathematical. You indicate silence by inserting rests of a very strictly defined duration. You do not have to fill up a bar with pauses before you go on to the next. There most certainly are ways to indicate whether a note is to be played stacatto, legato, sostenuto, or otherwise. And because music notation is so mathematical and precise, that cymbal crash to which you refer, always happens at exactly the same place within the context of that piece of music. These are conventions that have been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They are understood by musicians the world over.
bigpine
-
[TImothy Auld] “You do not have to fill up a bar with pauses before you go on to the next.”
That’s not how a score is written or printed. if the bar isn’t full you write rests.
[TImothy Auld] “And because music notation is so mathematical and precise, that cymbal crash to which you refer, always happens at exactly the same place within the context of that piece of music.”
“Within the context” means the time that crash happens is connected to the underlying beat.
Unless the conductor is a machine the time it actually happens will vary each time
the score is played.[TImothy Auld] “These are conventions that have been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They are understood by musicians the world over.”
Still not shure what that’s got to do with the timeline of fcp7.
-
Nah fair enough, I was going conspiracy OTT there.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
Yes, if a bar is not otherwise filled up with notes you must insert rests to make the number of beats
conform to the time signature. But that’s not what you said. You said you must fill up the bar with pauses
before you go on to the next. Not entirely clear.Unless the percussionist is behind the conductor (which in most orchestral situations will get you sent
immediately down down to the minors) that cymbal crash will happen in the precise place it is notated to happen.As for what conventions that everybody understands has to do with the FCP X timeline, I’m going to let you think about that for a while.
bigpine
-
Add to that, how valuable are Dvorak skills in a world of QUERTY keyboards?
-
[Chris Harlan] “Add to that, how valuable are Dvorak skills in a world of QUERTY keyboards?
“https://www.kbcovers.com/servlet/Categories?category=Dvorak
The Mac supports Dvorak input.
-
So does Windows and Linux. It is easy to get working on YOUR computer. Many IT departments, however, will not allow you to tinker at that particular level with your work station. Many business have no interest in YOUR typing needs, so when it comes to altering the keyboard function of a shared computer, the answer is just “no.” Does this really need to be explained?
-
Chris-
I am very sorry that you are so angry with Apple. Please take your frustration out on them, or move on to another OS. You seem to snipe anyone who talks positively, and presents options.
I was simply posting a link to the possibilities that are out there. As someone mentioned, a person they met didn’t know what a Dvorak keyboard was, and now they were trying it out. Is it so bad for me to post that link for other people that might not know a Dvorak is an option?
Since I am the defacto “SAN Manager” in my office, which I guess makes me the “IT guy” too, I would never say no to someone who wants to use the Dvorak on their client. It’s not like if they had to switch back to Qwerty, they will forget how to use it. They will simply be bilingual. I’m sure that doesn’t need to be explained either?
-
[David Lawrence] “The problem with compound clips is that they rob you of your piece’s overall context. Any adjustments must be made inside their own little island. If you break them apart to see context, you lose any transitions.”
Excellent point. That needs to be improved. The context ought be displayed when you drill into a compound clip. You shouldn’t have to choose between working a fine edit in context and retaining the effects applied to a compound clip. I still like to concept, but it is too limited today to be workable.
[David Lawrence] “It’s fantastic in the abstract and would be a wonderful as an additional tool in the usual kit. But I don’t believe it’s a replacement for the flexibility of the spatial model. Especially for audio. I do a ton of multitrack mixing in FCP as part of my normal workflow. “
I agree in general; I think there needs to be a way to visualize and manipulate whole audio channels in aggregate. I’ve written about my idea for how this could be done a couple of times. Of course, it the here and now, none of that is available.
[David Lawrence] “Question: How much work have you done with Soundtrack Pro or Pro Tools? Do you think a trackless magnetic timeline model would be more efficient for these applications?”
Very little. I’ve always done as much of my audio editing as possible in FCP. I’ve only gone to STP for noise processing and the like. I haven’t used Pro Tools in anger since college. Like I said before, I think the concept of trackless is good, if very roughly executed this first go round. I think the advantages of trackless don’t have to exclude the advantages of tracks (even if the present execution does). I like the idea of the system being aware of explicit media relationships that can be exploited to revisualize the interface according to the task at hand. I think the guts necessary to support such a thing are there in FCPX.
I guess my enthusiasm is largely for the potential in the magnetic timeline model, rather than the current implementation of it.
Best,
Andy
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up