-
FCP-X: Thinking Differently?
-
[David Lawrence] “1) Compositing still works by layering from the top down.”
Generally, sure, but not necessarily when using the new “back” composite mode
[David Lawrence] “2) Clip connections can only be made to the primary storyline – the base layer.”
Yep. Hence my choice to make the VO the primary on this one.
[David Lawrence] “3) If you turn composite groups into compound clips, you lose the ability to edit their elements in context.”
For sure, same as FCP7.
[David Lawrence] “Everything must be in relationship to the primary storyline”
Which could be a gap in this case, in fcp7, the vertical relationship is implied, in X it’s “forced” but it doesn’t take long to figure out. Horizontal relationships are held in tracks in fcp7, if they are needed in X, they are maintained through secondary storylines.
It doesn’t hurt as bad as I thought it might.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Generally, sure, but not necessarily when using the new “back” composite mode”
Are you talking about the “behind” mode in the alpha group? I’m sure it’s useful but it reminds me of the position tool – something they had to add to deal with new problems that weren’t there before.
[Jeremy Garchow] “In fcp7, the vertical relationship is implied, in X it’s “forced” but it doesn’t take long to figure out. Horizontal relationships are held in tracks in fcp7, if they are needed in X, they are maintained through secondary storylines. “
In FCP7:
Horizontal relationships define the edit.
Vertical relationships define the composite.End of story. It doesn’t get any simpler. They’re both always needed. That’s why it’s important to have a solid foundation to build on. Tracks do this well for both.
In this example, the clip connections specify relationships that don’t make sense given what the editor wants to do. What if the relationships that matter are between the composite elements? If new model is about defining relationships, then it needs to be much more flexible. Being forced to connect to the primary storyline is a huge limitation. Being forced to nest doesn’t fix this.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “I’m sure it’s useful but it reminds me of the position tool – something they had to add to deal with new problems that weren’t there before.”
Hmm. I find it more flexible, as you dont have to get adhere to the strict layer order of FCP7, although youncan if you want to.
[David Lawrence] “In this example, the clip connections specify relationships that don’t make sense given what the editor wants to do. What if the relationships that matter are between the composite elements?”
I, again, disagree and don’t see so much of a problem here The VO is obviously “driving” this piece. So, the clips above that are related to that. The horizontal edit, and vertical composites still remain. Just because a clip is connected to the primary doesn’t mean you have to composite to the primary storyline. In FCP7 the only thing defining the vertical relationship is sight, in X it’s a physical connection to a literal foundation clip. Is it better? Maybe, maybe not. In this timeline, I think it helps. There’s some truth in the analogies that were made to nodal compositing. Not really, but kinda.
[David Lawrence] “If new model is about defining relationships, then it needs to be much more flexible.”
Perhaps, but in some ways it already is. Audition is a good example of this.
Also, you don’t have to nest (unless you want the broadcast safe filter to work :-D). And nesting is also very fast and easy
If I didn’t go through this exercise, perhaps I wouldn’t feel this way. It is certainly a different model. I do find the editing to be really fast, although it takes a while to get used to it.
All that being said, I still can’t use it for real work. It’s not ready.
-
I think I’m finally done.
In FCS, all I need to do to move even the most complicated composite of audio and video–I mean 15 layers that belong together–is to hit ctrl V at my in and out points and then lasso the whole mess. I can drag and drop or cut and paste. It is just so simple. All of this crazy trackless-ness to avoid clip collision is insane.
David, thanks for all your insightful comments. You’ve really helped me see that I’m not walking away from something useful because of prejudice. I wish the FCP Xers well. At the end of the day, after years of devotion to FCP, I just have finally–fully–come to the conclusion that I don’t want to use this thing. I guess that might change. I’ll check back from time to time, but the underpinnings–for my usage–are such a bag of hurt that I just don’t see any value. Pity. I really liked FCP.
-
[Chris Harlan] “In FCS, all I need to do to move even the most complicated composite of audio and video–I mean 15 layers that belong together–is to hit ctrl V at my in and out points and then lasso the whole mess”
In fcpx, you simply grab the clip in the primary and the whole stack (or mess) moves.
If you want just the connected clips, lasso and drag, or copy/paste, whatever.
-
Jeremy, it amazes me the degree to which we don’t understand each other. I DO understand that that is how you would work in FCP X. I DO understand that the actual move itself is potentially easier than in FCS. The point I am making is that–from my POV–getting rid of tracks to make that happen with just a little bit more ease is a ridiculous tradeoff. If it is not to you, great, more power to you. I really don’t want to argue about this stuff any more. I don’t find it useful. I think tracks are important. Actually, after contemplating, FCP X for several months I would say I’ve come to the conclusion that tracks are fundamental and essential. Not having them, imho, is totally bogus. I know you disagree.
-
[Chris Harlan] “Jeremy, it amazes me the degree to which we don’t understand each other”
I thought you were replying to me, apparently you weren’t.
I am now replying to you. (Select text and hit shift-q to quote on the cow, or use the quote button).
I just find it funny that things that people say can’t be done, can be done in fcpx, and sometimes it’s easier albeit different. Just humor me for a second, because I’m pretty sure I understand where you are coming from when it comes to this conversation and where you want your NLE life to go (or stay). To move a layer stack, would you rather manage 15 layers, or drag one clip and all that comes with it to achieve the same edit? as you read it, which sounds “easier”? How about faster? Have you actually tried to do this in FCPx?
That’s all I’m trying to say, and say this to folks who might be giving FCPx a chance, or want to learn more. My last reply was more to the general population, not just to you.
The interface is the least of my worries with fcpx at this point. I am more worried about format support. The wrap everything to a .mov is getting old. Really. Old.
Good luck on your next NLE endeavor, we will all need it.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “To move a layer stack, would you rather manage 15 layers, or drag one clip and all that comes with it to achieve the same edit? as you read it, which sounds “easier”? How about faster? Have you actually tried to do this in FCPx?
“I don’t have to “manage.” I just have to lasso, cut and paste or drag and drop. But, I agree. Dragging a single clip sounds easier. The act itself is probably faster. Yes, I have tried it. I have given the whole paradigm a great deal of thought. NO, I don’t like it. NOT when it comes at the expense of tracks, which are far more useful to me in a whole variety of ways than any little boost I might get from the magnetic timeline. You may like the trade-off; I don’t have to.
[Jeremy Garchow] “That’s all I’m trying to say, and say this to folks who might be giving FCPx a chance, or want to learn more. My last reply was more to the general population, not just to you.”
I do get that. In many respects, my replies are for similar reasons. I want people to understand the pitfalls of the software. I don’t want producers expecting me to achieve results on FCP X that are similar to what can be done on FCS/Avid/Premiere/Edius/Vegas, etc., when those results cannot be achieved. I also want them to be aware that there is a fair amount of unhappiness in the editorial community with the product.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up