-
FCP-X: Thinking Differently?
-
[Gary Huff] “And how long will they be given to do so? Will this topic still be rolling along with the same arguments and rebuttals 6 months from now because FCPX is still essentially the same software? How about 12 months from now? How long will it take?”
Your point being? Mine was simply a response to somebody with confidence as to what Apple will do in the future that none of us has a clue what Apple will do in the future.
But in answer to your question they can take as long as they want because I no longer consider Apple a “pro apps” provider and will take my business elsewhere.
And BTW nobody is forcing you to read this thread.
-
Maybe. It all depends on what this segment of their business means to them. Reading between
what few lines Apple has provided to date, I am driven toward the opinion that the answer is
“not very much.”bigpine
-
Good point. I should have said “pro” software. 🙂
Best,
Geoff -
[Walter Soyka] “Maybe the FCPX primary storyline’s functionality is a bit overloaded. It seems meant to both drive the story and provide the foundation in time for the rest of the edit. This is probably apt for narrative. Here, though, the VO is driving the story and the soundtrack is providing the foundation in time.
It’s not insurmountable, but it strikes me as a bit awkward. Am I really just thinking about this wrong?”
no I really don’t think you are. I think it exposes the lack of thought apple gave to the variety of real world implementations their reductive metaphor would have to meet – the primary storyline is limited in its successful application – the idea that you have to fill it completely with VO or music video audio to stabilise the edit is insane. Then you’re up above trying to edit the actual visuals in connected clips with no transitions, (what if you’ve cut the audio down so on the primary storyline the music track is composed of multiple edits? what happens when you want to re-edit the audio track? aren’t there connected clips hanging off it?) or maybe you’re pushing stuff into secondary storylines …dear sweet god… because the metaphor is so overly simplistic and reductive, complex or non-standard scenarios become insanely poorly handled really fast. This isn’t “fighting the software” as andrew would put it, it’s a pretty seriously use simplistic piece of thinking on apple’s part.
there are unintended consequences everywhere. I honestly think this software is critically flawed. The minute I heard someone saying – just fill the primary storyline with the music track – I just sort of laughed weirdly to myself.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Walter Soyka] “Back to your original point, Andrew, I do think that compound clips (or nests, or precomps, or super-nodes, etc.) are an important construct. I also think that pervasive metadata is the single most important advancement in FCPX, because as we build more and more media, metadata becomes increasingly important in managing, sorting, and searching it.
I don’t think that compound clips/explicit relationships/metadata and spatial arrangement are mutually exclusive, though, and I’d certainly prefer a system that offered both.”
So… basically, the managment of video source material vs. the execution of editing the video source are actually two different factors that need to be considered when editing.
Where meta-data based managment may have advantages over a file based system… however… incorporating a pre-defined editing timeline structure only limits the abilities of the editor (and creativity of molding the final edit).
Sort of a “stand-up comic routine” vs. “improvisational comic routine” work flow. Where FCPX is good for an established comedy routine but not so much for improvisational comedy. Unfortunately, I can not think of many instances where editing isn’t a case of where it is both improvisational and routine.
Your analysis is interesting… obviously not something the developers at Apple gave much thought.
-
[Andrew Richards] “Facts I do not dispute and facts that are off topic. Here I’m exploring whether or not the magnetic timeline can be used effectively for complex edits. I’m well aware of FCPX’s other documented shortcomings.
“Whoa! You’re about as controlling, there, as the FCP X timeline, aren’t ya? I think if you actually paddle back a bit, you’ll see that I was making a direct response to one of your statements, so if anyone is “off-topic” its you.
But hey, let’s pretend that “off topic” isn’t French for “shut up,” and I’ll show you why it is exactly on topic for what you want to talk about. I’m thinking you just can’t see it because you are, as you say, more of an engineer.
You want a normal everyday timeline that is too complicated for FCP X? Look at audio tracks, and how they are clustered. My default track set up goes like this:
1-4: DIA / SOT
5/6: VO
7-10: SFX
11-16: MU
This allows me to not only deliver the wide variety of stems that my clients require, but to visually organize the many, many audio cues. For instance, 1) I often create a single sfx out of multiple sfx in a cluster that spans all four tracks–say part of a gunshot, thunder, a whoosh, and a bit of timpani. 2) There are often overlapping sfx around or near a transition that are actually related to the separate pieces of video on either side, but need to exist only in the no man’s land of the transition. 3) Depending on delivery requirements, some SFX–which I relegate to tracks 9 & 10–need to be reclassified as music. 4) Sometimes a portion of the SOT elements–say track three from a four track input– needs to be reclassified as sfx, but remain available to be delivered on a SOT track, 5) On some projects, entire layers of audio sfx–say a particular whoosh for all wind wipes–needs to be turned on and off so that an alternate audio track of, say, swishes can be heard, 6) Temp VO needs to easily spotable on track 5, with free track 6 to allow precise placement of new VO. 7) Overlapping dialog can have a very complicated relationship that can easily be mapped in time, but not in relationship.
There is so much more, but you get the idea. This is average complexity for a :30 episodic, involving 14-16 audio tracks, and 10–40 clusters of non-SOT events. It is very easy to manage visually on a traditional time line. Even if/when they get stem export happening, “average” would still be a nasty thing to try and manage with FCP X. God forbid it would ever actually get complex.
-
Which works fine when building consumer oriented devices, but does not work fine when building specialized commercial software. Talk about someone using the wrong side of a hammer to hit a nail.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
[Chris Harlan] “Even if/when they get stem export happening, “average” would still be a nasty thing to try and manage with FCP X. God forbid it would ever actually get complex.”
How can you comment on a process that you haven’t seen in action?
-
I’m sorry. How can this be confusing to you? Apple has publicly stated the manner in which they plan to eventually support audio track-like export and it does not include reinstating tracks, so needs I was talking about above won’t change.
-
[Chris Harlan] “Whoa! You’re about as controlling, there, as the FCP X timeline, aren’t ya? I think if you actually paddle back a bit, you’ll see that I was making a direct response to one of your statements, so if anyone is “off-topic” its you. “
Our subthread got rather removed from the context of a specific criticism of the magnetic timeline that Aindreas linked to. I was focused on that example, which was 90% video track complexity. Almost no audio complexity, and it didn’t appear to be more than a two channel mixdown. I’m sorry if my reply to your post had a crass tone, my mind was still in the weeds of that one example. I apologize.
[Chris Harlan] “For instance, 1) I often create a single sfx out of multiple sfx in a cluster that spans all four tracks–say part of a gunshot, thunder, a whoosh, and a bit of timpani. 2) There are often overlapping sfx around or near a transition that are actually related to the separate pieces of video on either side, but need to exist only in the no man’s land of the transition. 3) Depending on delivery requirements, some SFX–which I relegate to tracks 9 & 10–need to be reclassified as music. 4) Sometimes a portion of the SOT elements–say track three from a four track input– needs to be reclassified as sfx, but remain available to be delivered on a SOT track, 5) On some projects, entire layers of audio sfx–say a particular whoosh for all wind wipes–needs to be turned on and off so that an alternate audio track of, say, swishes can be heard, 6) Temp VO needs to easily spotable on track 5, with free track 6 to allow precise placement of new VO. 7) Overlapping dialog can have a very complicated relationship that can easily be mapped in time, but not in relationship.”
This is perfect. Exactly the kind of specifics I want to explore in detail. Point by point:
1) Isn’t this a perfect use case for compound clips? You cluster your audio into a nest and it acts as a unit, but you can explode it to make fine adjustments at will.
2) You can either pin the audio to the first or second clip, at the head or tail (normal vs backtimed clip connections). Or you can make a compound clip out of the clips with transition and pin to that.
3-5) This where metadata shines. Your track assignments in a fixed track timeline are immutable. With roles assigned as metadata for each audio clip, you get to assign output based on role and not have to put any effort into maneuvering your clips into different tracks to meet an output requirement. At least that’s how Apple stated it would work in their FAQ. Further, you can quickly select and disable audio channels by searching the timeline using the same metadata.
6) Tag Temp VO accordingly and it can be located and disabled very easily. Aligning finished VO doesn’t require a free track (since there aren’t tracks), only that you can easily locate the temp VO chunk by chunk to lay in the finished VO.
7) Can’t generalize an answer for this one. I know one of the recent videos touched on overlapping audio though. I guess it depends on the situation.Maybe you don’t like the looks of those techniques, but they’ll get the job done and might even prove speedy in the hands of an experienced user.
[Chris Harlan] “This is average complexity for a :30 episodic, involving 14-16 audio tracks, and 10–40 clusters of non-SOT events. It is very easy to manage visually on a traditional time line. Even if/when they get stem export happening, “average” would still be a nasty thing to try and manage with FCP X.”
And I disagree. It might be foriegn, but nasty? Maybe this engineer’s opinion is of little value, but to my mind metadata as a means of assigning output channels is a lot more flexible than fixed track assignments and sacrifices little in terms of usability. I like compound clips and the idea of using them to umbrella effects and organize a timeline. I don’t see a huge downside to using clip connections as a way of aligning supporting clips. The abstract nature of the new paradigm appeals to me.
But Apple does need to follow through and hook it all up to the rest of the pipeline or it is all moot.
Best,
Andy
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up