-
GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
-
This connected clips can only happen in FCP X is nonsense — heard of nested sequences? Want everything connected forever and forever — line em up – nest em Done.
Everyone loves their NLE but it seems only FCP X users feel the need to defend their using it.
Andy Field
FieldVision Productions
N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852 -
[Bill Davis] “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?
“Im not sure I’m following correctly – but you do need absolute time. At least I do. I dont think about it while Im creatively doing my thing besides making sure Im not going over, but nearly everything I edit has to be to the frame a specific time.
-
[Tony West] “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.”Thats a great description of how it actually works instead of all the other mumbo jumbo. I would read your article.
-
[Andy Field] “This connected clips can only happen in FCP X is nonsense — heard of nested sequences? Want everything connected forever and forever — line em up – nest em Done.
Everyone loves their NLE but it seems only FCP X users feel the need to defend their using it.
“Nesting is a pain in the ass – collapsing as it’s called in avid is ok but you still have to drill down into to make changes which is an extra step.
I did just find the “group” feature in premiere today tho and that sort of acts like connected clips does but not nearly as elegant.
-
[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.
They only “see” snippets of content in relation to each other – divorced from that timekeeping. “
That is my point exactly. Often I don’t even look at the timing until I’m done cutting. And mostly that is when a producer goes, “hey, how long is Act 1 shaping up to be?” I always cut relative to the other clips, never based on the timeline time. (which, BTW, FCX does as well…has timing. The difference between it and say Avid is TRACKS, not time tics and duration…they both have that).
But EVERY editor worth their salt does pay some attention to timing when one needs to. Such as “a reel is about 20 min,” so they need to aim at that time. “A half hour show is 22 min,” so the editor needs to be mindful of the show timing. “Act 1 needs to be between 9 and 11 minutes.” So we are mindful of that. As every editor worth their salt should be, no matter WHAT they are cutting with.
But we aren’t concerned with “the music cue needs to hit 2 seconds after this moment and run for 2 min.” No…we start the cue when the moment calls for it, and end it when it needs to end. And then futz with it so that it fits within that story beat, that moment. Not exact timing.
[Bill Davis] “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?”
Because precise timing is needed in many cases, as I’ve outlined. Because we even need to do things like make acts end precisely at a :23 or :29 frame so the first frame of black is at :00…so the next act starts at :00. This is something that FCX does, and should do. As broadcast work is cut on FCX. YOU might not be hindered by these network requirements, but many of us are.
[Bill Davis] “What’s the justification beyond “because that’s the way we’ve always done it?””
Because networks demand it. Because knowing the duration is something most people want to know. “How long is this movie?” “Hey, how about watching this quick 5 min video with me?” “we need to make this commercial not only 1 min for the Superbowl, but also have a :30 and a :15 min version as well.”
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
[Neil Goodman] “[Tony West] “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.”Thats a great description of how it actually works instead of all the other mumbo jumbo. I would read your article.
“I agree, parts of this argument are nonsensical. The tracked editing description in the original article was badly explained and has sadly detracted from what was on the whole one of the best descriptions of editing in FCPX I’ve read.
-
I know that many of you agree with a lot of what I’m about to say. I supportively quote four of you in this thread, and I could have quoted a dozen of you.
But this is basically me trying to catch up on the past 6 months of not posting in one go, on every similar thread that I’ve missed along the way. ????
[Andy Field] “Everyone loves their NLE but it seems only FCP X users feel the need to defend their using it.”
I kind of get that part, because people really have spent a lot of time slagging X.
Some of the people making these kinds of presentations are unfortunately resistant to acknowledge that even Apple copped to X’s initial inability to support critical Legacy workflows, and in some cases would be not just postponing those workflows, but substantially abandoning them. People weren’t pulling this out of thin air. They were reacting to what Apple told them, and Apple was of course correct.
Note again please that I’m on the record as concurring entirely with Apple’s plan (perhaps the only person on the planet outside Apple to say so; I’m certainly the only one here I’ve ever seen) — but having said that, the people making and sharing presentations like this are right to insist that X has grown in ways that haven’t been acknowledged in some quarters.
On one hand, it’s lovely to see their enthusiasm (again, shared by me). They’ve found something that makes them happy, and they want to share that joy with people who they feel could be more joyful if only…..
However, it’s disingenuous to say that there’s not an evangelical component to many of these videos and articles as presented. They want to persuade the audience that this isn’t just one equally valid approach among many, but one that the audience should adopt. I know this, because they’re telling me again and again, by opening their presentations with the purported negatives of other approaches.
What stands out, though, is the stunning consistency with which they misstate how “editors” and “Other NLEs” “think” and “work”. Not just THAT they’re wrong, but HOW wrong they are, inevitably colors the reception of the rest of their presentations.
You’d hope that in entreating their audience to fundamentally reconsider the soundness of their own starting assumptions, that these fellas would do the same. Again acknowledging that many of the criticisms of X are no longer valid, if they ever were….
….but if addressing THOSE were the primary intent, then these Accounts Of The Light Bulb Going Off Pointing To A Better Way Thanks to FCPX, they would stick with THAT as sole the topic of their presentations. They wouldn’t waste a single second talking about how the less-good way is less good. They’d ONLY talk about the way that the better way is better.
Which makes me wonder — is perhaps their problem with tracks not intrinsic to track-based editing itself, but the fact that they never figured it out themselves? Or perhaps some disconnect between the way they wanted to work and the tasks best suited to track-based workflows? Maybe they were just holding it wrong. Because they’re sure as shootin’ explaining it wrong. Little of what they’re describing makes any sense at all. NO WONDER that X is working better for them!
Now before someone rushes in to defend the many editors who were at the peak of fluency of the right way to do tracks and who still prefer X, of course, such people exist. I just wish they were the ones making the bulk of these presentations.
Actually, I don’t. I’d love for people to talk about what excites them, what drives them forward, without spending a single second on what they think is wrong with other alternatives.
The irony of this dynamic is that such presenters and their supporters so often paint themselves as a beleaguered tiny bastion under constant attack by The Industry…. or….something….when in fact X’s audience grew to the full size of Legacy and surpassed it, supposedly the mightiest force in mainstream editing of its era, in a fraction of the time, with the full backing of the richest corporation in human history.
Calling it the most goliath Goliath of all time doesn’t begin to do it justice, as it now approaches triple the size its founder left in his passing just a few years ago. This ain’t the Alamo. It’s the Citadel. The shiniest city on the highest-ever hill.
So why are the people making and sharing these presentations not accepting the fact that the industry has substantially said “Yes” to X? “Because there are still so many misconceptions” — fine. Address those. We’ll all be further ahead if we’re not spending so many cycles addressing these presenters’ misconceptions of a way that they’ve already rejected.
The saddest irony is that in demanding a kind of — what? acceptance? respect? validation?– that they have in fact already been granted by the world at large, they’re trying to enforce an orthodoxy more rigid than the one they’re putatively rejecting. Anyone pointing out that the people making these presentations “don’t get” the basics of track-based editing are in return being criticized for not getting X, when in fact the two have nothing to do with each other.
Not only do you not not need to understand one to understand the other, some here have suggested that the only insurmountable obstacle to understanding X is trying to carry forward what you previously learned about tracks. Which is fortunate for these presenters who’ve chosen X! These presentations so often really don’t appear to get track based editing in the least — again, not that they need to. They’ve chosen FCPX.
And apparently just in a nick of time! If what some of them describe is what they were actually doing while on the clock before, it’s a wonder they got anything done at all. I admire their previous fortitude, and am glad that the path ahead of them promises to be so much smoother.
Without trying to psychoanalyze any individual human, the part of me that did in fact train in psychoanalysis can’t help but detect the redolent aroma of passive-aggressive condescension in this approach to building up X on a foundation of dragging down Not X.
To rhetorically overstate a bit: “*I* am enlightened enough that, when shown the advantages of X, I was quick to adopt it. *You*, on the other hand, must first be persuaded that you are wrong to think that Not X is a good place to edit. Only after I show you just how wrong you are can you then see how X is better.”
Again, this may not substantially represent the view of any of the individuals making these presentations, but the dynamic is consistent. You know how you can tell when someone is excited about X for X’s sake, and that they have no stake in talking down anyone else’s choice? When that’s what they actually do. It’s unfortunately rare.
That’s why the most productive parts of these threads to ME are when people talk about what they do and why. Not when they rag on what somebody else is doing.
LISTENING to other people’s perspective from THEIR perspective, instead of me TELLING them what their perspective is, is the foundation of empathy. The fact that the first parts of these presentations, videos, articles, etc. are “telling” track-based editors things about themselves that they don’t recognize as even vaguely in the ballpark nukes any possibility of empathy, or any basic communication at all.
Beyond the condescension, this dynamic masks its own impediments to insight. “It’s only the OTHER guy who misunderstands something. It’s only the other guy failing to be rational. He’s the one frozen in his assumptions.” My own experience suggests that when a thought like this crosses my mind, it’s only my own calcification speaking. Your mileage may vary.
Look, maybe most people understand most things. Maybe even most people who prefer X understand tracks just fine. It’s a shame that they’re not doing more of these presentations, because right now, the largely compelling presentations of X itself are being undermined by how far they miss the mark on alllllll the rest.
I say this as someone who’s been called out for my enthusiasms for X as much as anyone here, and more than most — but for all that these presenters are calling for respect for X and its users that I’m the first to acknowledge that they don’t always get, there are precious few of them willing to just accept that it’s enough to talk about X’s advantages, and only X’s advantages, without staking any credibility on disrespect for other NLEs and their users.
It’s stifling any possibility of peer-to-peer communication, because you’ve already tipped your hand that you don’t think I’m your peer. I’d have to be nuts to edit that OTHER way you’ve demonstrated– and on this, we agree. What I see described is the height of folly, which is why I never did it that way, and never observed anyone else doing it that way either.
Quoting Steve, who’s quoting Neil Goodman, who’s quoting Tony West, and I’m agreeing with all of ’em:
[Steve Connor] “That’s a great description of how it actually works instead of all the other mumbo jumbo. I would read your article.”
“I agree, parts of this argument are nonsensical. The tracked editing description in the original article was badly explained and has sadly detracted from what was on the whole one of the best descriptions of editing in FCPX I’ve read.”
Exactly. I’m simply suggesting from a marketing perspective, that it’s more productive not to make your opening gambit how clueless the other guy is. Keep that to yourself. ????
Instead, shine the brightest possible light on what’s making you happiest. Leave room for the possibility that you’re wrong about some of the basics about the rest, just like you’re asking me to be, and maybe we’ll both have room to grow.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “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… 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.”
I’d say that traditional NLEs encode time directly and rely on the editor to understand relationships, while FCPX encodes relationships directly (and derives time).
But “so what?” is a really good question. Why does the data model matter?
Because the FCPX data model — the internal use of clip relationships as the structure of the timeline — is the thing that enables FCPX timeline mechanics. And from the user’s perspective, FCPX seems significantly different than traditional NLEs, doesn’t it?
[Franz Bieberkopf] “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.”
I agree with you that most editors think first in terms of clip relationships, not ins and outs and timecode. That’s where the premise of the original article lost everyone, but it’s also exactly why FCPX is so interesting to me. FCPX’s data model, and the toolset for manipulating that data model, enable this:
[Tony West] “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.”
With a traditional NLE, you read the timeline, and you can see and use and change the relationships. But it’s on you, the editor, to use and preserve the relationships of obviously-related clips during operation. The traditional NLE only offers you tools to manipulate clips. You have to make multi-selections, both vertically and horizontally. You have to toggle track locks to preserve some pieces you want to keep. You have to play Track Tetris to make clips fit after a move. You, the editor, have to do a lot of timeline work to keep related clips related during operation.
Because FCPX actually encodes clip relationships (this clip comes first, then this clip comes second; this clip connects to that clip at this point), there is no work that you, as the user, must perform to keep related clips related. The relationship is defined by the editorial operation that puts it into the storyline in the first place, and of course you are free to redefine the relationships at any time.
Traditional NLEs have timelines. FCPX has storylines. This is a real semantic difference.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “With a traditional NLE, you read the timeline, and you can see and use and change the relationships. But it’s on you, the editor, to use and preserve the relationships of obviously-related clips during operation. The traditional NLE only offers you tools to manipulate clips. You have to make multi-selections, both vertically and horizontally. You have to toggle track locks to preserve some pieces you want to keep. You have to play Track Tetris to make clips fit after a move. You, the editor, have to do a lot of timeline work to keep related clips related during operation.
Because FCPX actually encodes clip relationships (this clip comes first, then this clip comes second; this clip connects to that clip at this point), there is no work that you, as the user, must perform to keep related clips related. The relationship is defined by the editorial operation that puts it into the storyline in the first place, and of course you are free to redefine the relationships at any time.
Traditional NLEs have timelines. FCPX has storylines. This is a real semantic difference.”
Ladies and Gentleman, we have a winner!
-
[Tim Wilson] “Instead, shine the brightest possible light on what’s making you happiest. Leave room for the possibility that you’re wrong about some of the basics about the rest, just like you’re asking me to be, and maybe we’ll both have room to grow”
Great post Tim, it made go and make a cup of tea and read it through again. Lets’ hope people take the suggestions onboard.
How about, to start with, we stop referring to track based editing as “the old way” 🙂
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up