-
GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
-
I did, all the points about time/ versus story etc. That was in my post. Also the stuff about prep making your timeline editing easier which is relavant to every NLE, that was in my original post. I guess you missed that.
It’s not a tracks/trackless argument. It’s about basic editorial principals.
-
[Bill Davis] “Got it. X is nothing new. The last six years of debate were worthless. Because everything is just the same as it’s always been. Nothing to see here. Move on.”
No. All of this has been pointed out before, even just a year ago. BUT, OK…fine, let new people see this. It has valid points.
[Bill Davis] “ut don’t tell me I’m not practically faster at making story-centric alterations and versions via the X magnetic system – because I know I am.”
I didn’t. I said that all of the points after his initial statement are valid…good. The way FCX works does speed things up in many ways.
The only issue I have…AGAIN…is that how the author describes track based editing is completely wrong. The premise is wrong. That’s all.
Could it be described any clearer? yes, yes it could Because how it does it now is confusing, and wrong.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
[Bill Davis] “But what if “convert” wasn’t Ruben’s goal at all? What if it was simply to illuminate the WAY X elected to re-think what it re-throught?”
Then he failed, because he lost me when he described a way of editing that literally no one does. When someone says, “you know that way that you use pencils, where you had to remove the eraser and put it on the other side before you could sharpen the pencil? Well, you don’t have to do that with this mechanical pencil, a couple clicks and you are ready to go.”
Base argument…mechanical pencil is better than normal pencil. No sharpening! Two clicks and you have lead and it’s always sharp. Great…that’s true…but wait, what? Who the heck takes off the eraser and puts it on the other side and then sharpens it? What? No one does that. Of course that would be a silly thing to do, I mean, you have the other side ready to be sharpened.
So his arguments were true, there are many things about the magnetic timeline that are better than having tracks. But describing editing the way he did, completely wrong…started him out on the wrong foot and lost credibility with me. Because it indicates that he might not understand some things about how editing works…and is making bad assumptions on track based editing. So he lost me right out of the gate.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
Let’s party like it’s 2012.
I get why Shane and Neil reject the premise of the article. It’s too bad, because I think the author was so close to nailing it. He’s talking about how the editor thinks, when he should be talking about how the NLE itself “thinks.”
As an editor with a traditional NLE, of course you do not think “I must start this clip at 3:05.” You read the timeline and place the clip visually where it belongs.
But then the NLE thinks, “This clip starts at 3:05.” Traditional NLEs only understand in and out points. Your edit may happen to be near other edits on the timeline, but the NLE doesn’t know how they go together.
FCPX is fundamentally different. Clip relationships are incidental and only implied in traditional NLEs, but clip relationships actually form the very structure of the edit in FCPX. All the timeline mechanics in FCPX are based on clips’ relationships to each other.
If you look at how the timeline data is stored, a clip in the primary storyline in FCPX doesn’t have an in and out point on the timeline stored; it just comes after the previous clip in the primary. It’s “in point” is derived on the fly from the combined duration of every clip on the primary before it. Likewise, connected clips are stored relative to a connect point on a clip; their in and out times are derived on the fly from combined duration of clip before their connection, plus the time of the connection itself.
FCPX zen: Editing is like redirecting a river. You don’t move the water itself. You reshape the earth around the river, and the river re-flows accordingly.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
Interesting article, but a lot of “so what?”.
One of the things I find pointless is the commonly cited “swapping two clips on the magnetic timeline” example. This isn’t done all that frequently. Sure, maybe with B-roll shots, but with X, these would be connected clips, so magnetism isn’t really all that important in the move.
But let’s say you want to move a scene from 30 minutes into the program earlier to the 1 minute mark. It’s nearly impossible to effectively drag this down through your magnetic timeline and hit the target correctly. The more often used technique is to copy, delete, and then paste insert. Those steps work about the same regardless of NLE. And every NLE – X included – will require some clean-up in both timeline spots to finesse such a move.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Bill Davis] “Prepped assets that can be imbued with the editors actual EDITORIAL INTENT before they arrive.
“Again, how is this different than another NLE.
Even in Imovie, I can set the in and out, on a bunch of clips and organize to my hearts content. Then when its time to put stuff down, ONLY the things I as an editor choose go in thetimeline, and the exact point in the story or point of reference that I CHOOSE.
Welcome to non linear editing ????
-
[Walter Soyka] “Let’s party like it’s 2012.”
Walter, indeed.
It’s difficult not to eye-roll at how this post (and thread) retreads common misconceptions about editing and NLEs that continue to prop up the evangelist posts.
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing.” Discuss.However, since you have dropped in (and in the interest of possibly contributing and learning something), I thought I would. But it’s to call you on this:
[Walter Soyka] “FCPX is fundamentally different. Clip relationships are incidental and only implied in traditional NLEs, but clip relationships actually form the very structure of the edit in FCPX. All the timeline mechanics in FCPX are based on clips’ relationships to each other.”
I know you’re enamored of the underlying structure of the information that FCPX uses. We have talked about this before. However, I’m going to argue that from a user perspective there are actually no differences. Or only slight difference in terms of how to manipulate relationships.
This is my argument:
When I place clips in a tracked timeline, I have indicated very specific relationships. They are not implied. They are there to be seen, to be used, to be changed. The proof is that when I play back, the clips play back as expected, in the relationships that I have indicated, and when I use the clips (change relationships, rely on relationships for technical or creative reasons) they behave as expected.
The timeline encapsulates and preserves the relationships.
These relationships are serial and parallel in nature. (Horizontal, Vertical, or in depth as with multicam).
These relationships can be transferred: for example, select all, copy and paste to a new timeline; same relationships; or through export formats to other software. Or through an export which “executes” the relationships to an independent media file.
These relationships have sub-relationships within them: for example: clips with video and audio, clips that have been linked, clips that are multicam, clips that have been grouped (we could call them scenes), clips that have sync relationships that can be indicated, clips that have duplicates that can be indicated, clips that have through edits that can be indicated, clips that have proxy media (two media files), clips that have “enhanced media” (ie. After Effects links).
All these relationships are – from a user perspective – not “implied”. They are explicit. They can be seen, used, relied on, and changed by any editor, and they are encapsulated by a timeline.
Now, from a programming perspective, it may be very different. But from a user perspective, whether clips are referenced to master time or to each other, there is no difference.
I think you are going to argue that clips in so-called “traditional” NLEs reference only master time and therefore “aren’t related”. My argument is that it is precisely through this “master time” that they gain their relationships to one another.
Franz.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I think you are going to argue that clips in so-called “traditional” NLEs reference only master time and therefore “aren’t related”. My argument is that it is precisely through this “master time” that they gain their relationships to one another.
“But I thought Shane’s original contention was that the timing relationship (as it relates to the tickmarks on a timeline) was functionally irrelevant. No editor worth their salt considers THAT in the slightest.
They only “see” snippets of content in relation to each other – divorced from that timekeeping.
Which causes me to wonder, what’s the point in artificially constraining time markers on any story assembly system to a linear array of NEVER-changing tick marks. What’s the point of THAT?
What’s the justification beyond “because that’s the way we’ve always done it?”
Historically, a pretty shabby reason, IMO.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
I wouldn’t have gone with his premise myself, and I understand Shane’s arguments against the “premise” of the article.
I actually enjoyed Ubillos’ description of his program better than this article.
Ubillos: – “FCPX broke away from the idea of specific tracks and just allowed audio to overlap as needed, letting the software figure out the details of how to mix it.”
” letting the software figure out the details”
That’s it right there for me. What I noticed about X right off the bat is how much the software is trying to handle the edit for you. “figuring out details” as he says saves me time because I’M not doing it. it is.
It’s moving clips out of the way for you.
It’s trying to anticipate which tool you will need next.
It’s trying to organize your footage for you with smart collections (rather you use them or not)
It’s trying to fix your audio (if you allow it, most of us won’t)
It’s trying to do things that you may or may not feel like doing yourself.People often describe the program as “getting out of your way so you can focus on the story.”
When actually, it’s participating in the edit with you like some sort of assistant editor.Ubillos: “One of my biggest goals in the software I worked on was always to reduce the amount of time spent in the mechanics of editing,”
YES. But how is it doing that? By doing some of those mechanics for you.
I could certainly cut my grass faster if I had an automatic mower cutting the back on it’s own, while I was cutting my front myself. I would finish in half the time.
So that’s the new title.
“FCP X, it’s two lawn mowers”
-
[Bill Davis] “But I thought Shane’s original contention was that the timing relationship (as it relates to the tickmarks on a timeline) was functionally irrelevant. No editor worth their salt considers THAT in the slightest.”
If looked at analytically, Franz’s overall time assessment seems quite logical.
I think what Shane was referring to was the overall process of editing. And if looked at through that lens, the notion of time and how it connects and relates to clips in a timeline is all irrelevant.
Throughout a typical workday I never look at any editing time element. I don’t look at timecode from clips or any time markers in my timeline. I don’t consciously think in terms of what relation the clips have to the overall timeline or what time any particular clip may have or where it’s placed in the timeline.
The thought process throughout a typical edit day is solely focused on story development. The thoughts that consume the day: Does the story makes sense, is it flowing, does it have a solid arc, etc.
All time elements happen at a subconscious level and therefore can’t easily be quantified or analyzed.
I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
– Orson Welles
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up