-
FCP-X: Thinking Differently?
-
[Walter Soyka] “Film editorial always ripples, but I think that FCP is conceptually much closer to film editorial than FCPX is. Consider the concepts (and language) if things like bins, clips, and sequences, and the lack of concepts like storylines and clip connections. “
Conceptually? Or simply semantically? I think the ripple behavior is much more intrinsic to the comparison than what we name the icons in an NLE.
Best,
Andy -
It’s not as if ANY previous version of FCP was exactly instinctive.
It’s just that many are now familiar with it, sometimes after a bastard of a learning curve, and mistake current familiarity with ease of use.
____
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”
-
[Andrew Richards] “Editing celluloid involves gluing or taping two film ends together, creating tangible links between two clips. Seems to me that is a lot more conceptually similar to the magnetic timeline’s explicit clip connections metaphor than the metaphor employed by the traditional NLE timeline, which if translated literally into meatspace would look like laying strips of film out in sequence with nothing but spatial proximity linking them together. “
I agree that editing celluloid is conceptually similar to the magnetic timeline. Especially since it supports the argument that it forces unnecessary constraints on the user. 😉
The open timeline model discarded the constraints of celluloid and linear tape by allowing the editor to place media anywhere at any time in the timestream. It doesn’t matter how you want to build a sequence. You can work backwards if you want (I sometimes do). It’s totally fluid and open. With the magnetic timeline, you either do things its way or it fights you. It’s great if you want to do things its way. It’s lousy if you don’t.
Tracks allow easy, immediate, accessible layering and organization of media. It doesn’t matter if you have one track or twenty-eight. It works either way. And I can’t emphasize enough the value of scratch space to test ideas and play with footage.
[Andrew Richards] “In the example you cited, the post’s author insists no one could ever match his FCP7 sequence in FCPX. Baloney. Sure, it wouldn’t have all those open spaces on V1, V2, and so on. So what?”
Go back and re-read Shawn Federline’s post a bit more carefully. He doesn’t say that his timeline couldn’t be matched in FCPX, he says that FCPX is currently unusable for trying to create it. Keep in mind that when you look at Mr. Federline’s timeline, you’re looking at the result of many hundreds of decisions that were added to a blank canvas. The structure comes from the composition process. What we’re talking about is the efficiency of this process. Perhaps there’s no specific structural requirement for playback, but if the constraints of the UI makes getting the desired results impossibly cumbersome, then it’s unusable. It might as well be impossible.
I have yet to see any proof that the magnetic timeline adds efficiency to the creation of timelines like Mr. Federline’s. I believe him when he says it is unusable for him. Before you say he’s full of baloney, I invite you to prove that he’s wrong. Prove that FCPX is faster, more efficient, and a better way to work for advanced projects like these. I extend this invitation to anyone who believes the magnetic timeline is better. Let’s see the evidence. Show me how that it’s better for more than just simple assembly.
The open timeline model has proven itself with over twenty years of refinement and success. The magnetic timeline is the result of Apple engineers and marketing people deciding they know better than me how I should do my job. It’s a pretty arrogant stance to take with a professional industry. I’d say the burden of proof is on Apple’s new model.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Gary Pollard] “It’s not as if ANY previous version of FCP was exactly instinctive. “
“The only ‘intuitive’ interface is the nipple. After that it’s all learned.”
-
[David Lawrence] “I have yet to see any proof that the magnetic timeline adds efficiency to the creation of timelines like Mr. Federline’s. I believe him when he says it is unusable for him. Before you say he’s full of baloney, I invite you to prove that he’s wrong. Prove that FCPX is faster, more efficient, and a better way to work for advanced projects like these. I extend this invitation to anyone who believes the magnetic timeline is better.”
What, are we to stage a race? If I mischaracterized the point of his argument (focusing on the structure rather than the process) I was calling baloney on a misapprehension. All I have is a screenshot and his assertion he found FCPX “completely unusable for a project like the timeline [he] included”. What should I be seeing in his screenshot that is impossibly cumbersome to achieve in FCPX? Certainly not the compositing layering. Not the layout of the audio. Other than the elevation of some clips above some video tracks, what jumps out of that screenshot as being a nightmare to pull off in FCPX?
[David Lawrence] “Let’s see the evidence. Show me how that it’s better for more than just simple assembly.”
I’m not sure what kind of meaningful evidence anyone could gather in support of one side or the other on this point. Number of clicks? Time spent? Layers required to achieve a given effect? What is your metric for editorial efficiency?
[David Lawrence] “The open timeline model has proven itself with over twenty years of refinement and success. The magnetic timeline is the result of Apple engineers and marketing people deciding they know better than me how I should do my job. It’s a pretty arrogant stance to take with a professional industry.”
That’s a cynical way to charaterize it. Is it at all possible it was Apple’s UI designers studying how people use their software and seeking to remove barriers to common tasks? I don’t believe this thing is the product of a gang of cruel scientists and hucksters bent on insulting professional editors.
Best,
Andy -
Cool! Zombies could make this even more interesting.
-
I picked up FCP faster than any other editor I’ve used. Of course there is some learning but as soon as I did a tutorial or 2 I was really into the way they laid it out.
-
[David Lawrence] ”
The open timeline model has proven itself with over twenty years of refinement and success. The magnetic timeline is the result of Apple engineers and marketing people deciding they know better than me how I should do my job. It’s a pretty arrogant stance to take with a professional industry. I’d say the burden of proof is on Apple’s new model.”I’d say the open timeline goes back further than 20 years, a lot further. I think your analogy to written music was spot on. I think this is where the NLE timeline comes from. Time, space, notes or “media”, layers for instruments.
The advantage of open timelines or really computers themselves is that once the various pieces of the puzzle are loaded in, everything you have can be sculpted into your finished product, but also in any way you choose to go about it. You can also use empty space as a work bench just to keep various pieces or things you haven’t decided what to do with yet. I’m finding it hard to see why a new “paradigm” was needed.
-
Apple didnt handicap anyone.
You dont have to use FCPX1.0
Fcp7 still works great! ( for a 32 bit old code app)
Premiere and media composer still work great aswell!! -
I don’t think anyone would say that FCP-7 and the previous versions of FCP were perfect editing platforms, but it was the tool many editors spent the last decade learning with the assumption the program would be improved by the inclusion of the new technology Apple was adding along the way. (ie… Color…. Motion… STP… etc) without completely changing the UI. The program was getting better with each release since up until now the new technology was added in to the exiting UI. You have to wonder if they could have kept the UI similar and added some of the new features as options instead of the only option. Perhaps when they listen to the professional community and make the necessary changes….. oh wait a minute…. they didn’t listen pro editors when designing this version…. why would they listen to the pro community in the next version? I’ve been a Apple fan for years, owned stock in the company, bought way to many computers, etc…. but this one has me perplexed. I wonder what Steve Jobs thinks about all the feedback from this release? My hope…. he’ll kick some ass and we’ll see some of the old functionality added back into FCP=X….. that way we can all be happy…. ok happier?
Bill Paris
Producer/Director of Photography
Crew Hawaii Television
http://www.crewhawaii.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up