-
GREAT article in the Frame.io blog about WHY FCP X went “magnetic.”
-
[Walter Soyka] “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). “
Lovely.
But I would add this – relationships come and go, time, at least in the Newtonian world in which I work, is absolute. Basing your editing foundation on the fickleness of non-enduring relationships is like building your house on a foundation of mud – it can be done (see the city of Chicago), but why would you want to?
Above all, to paraphrase Bill, it seems the magnetic timeline prizes the maintenance of original editing decisions. But is that a good thing – I spend the majority of my time revising, redefining and often obliterating those decisions in favor of later ones.
As a cutter of PBS broadcast shows my absolute is 26:46:00, and to work in an environment that doesn’t prioritize that would be, for me, absurd.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “As a cutter of PBS broadcast shows my absolute is 26:46:00, and to work in an environment that doesn’t prioritize that would be, for me, absurd.”
[Herb Sevush] “Above all, to paraphrase Bill, it seems the magnetic timeline prizes the maintenance of original editing decisions. But is that a good thing – I spend the majority of my time revising, redefining and often obliterating those decisions in favor of later ones.”
It keeps the relationships until you break or change them Herb, just as easily as you would in a tracked NLE. What it does is KEEP those relationships intact as you work on the rest of the story.
It’s hard to “get” how another system works based on how other people describe (or wax lyrical) about it especially when you haven’t used it.
\”Traditional NLEs have timelines. FCPX has storylines\” W.Soyka
-
Walter,
Thanks.
But I think the comparison of the two models is more nuanced than that.
[Walter Soyka] ” traditional NLEs encode time directly …, while FCPX encodes relationships directly (and derives time).”
Again, I am asking how this changes the user experience. I understand the two data models, I am asking about their impact on the user experience.
From a user perspective, both models (relative and absolute) can be used to give absolute information (where in the timeline does this clip play?) and relative information (what comes next).
Further both models are capable of encoding relationships.
[Walter Soyka] ”… the FCPX data model — the internal use of clip relationships as the structure of the timeline — is the thing that enables FCPX timeline mechanics.”
Can you be more specific here. You’ve used a vague notion of “timeline mechanics”.
I think you mean ripple-by-defaut, collision avoidance, and the nuances of clip connections (vs. grouped clips). Am I missing something else? If we’re talking about these things, then it’s clear that ripple editing is in any tracked / absolute model and there has been suggestion (by David Lawrence) that there’s nothing about tracked / absolute timelines that precludes collision avoidance. In other words – both models can have these features, and I don’t understand why one model “enaables” these features while another model precludes them.
[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.”
I have outlined a number of clip relationships that are preserved in so-called “traditional” timelines. In other words, timelines are built to preserve relationships. I’ll give you these examples again:
“ … 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).”
Those are example of relationships of obviously related clips that are preserved in a timeline. As an editor I do not have to work to preserve these relationships – the software does it for me. Grouped clips (scenes) and multi-cam seem to me to common counter-examples to your argument.
[Walter Soyka] “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.”
There is work to do in the timeline regardless of which NLE you use. The original article tries to glide over the work of connection management for example. The argument is something along the lines of “some work is needed but it’s trivial” – so we’re back to subjective feelings of speed and efficiency.
Or, as I said, there is some slight difference in terms of how to manipulate relationships. As I understand it this essentially comes down to collision avoidance and (as I said above) some nuances of clip connections (vs. grouped clips).
Perhaps I can make it simpler (for myself to understand).
Can you give me an example of a relationship that one NLE relies on the editor to understand that FCPX does not rely on the editor to understand. Bear in mind the group clips function in most NLEs.
Franz.
(Edit: spelling and clarity) -
[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.”
Bill,
If you’re unclear on what Shane articulated you could ask him. If you’re unclear on what I have said, you can ask.
If you’re trying to conflate what I said with what Shane said, then I’d suggest you ask yourself why you’re doing that.
It is entirely possible that I have a perspective that is not shared by Shane and vice versa. It is odd to me that you might find this surprising. But I don’t see any contradiction in what I have written and what Shane has written.
[Bill Davis] ” … 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?”
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. What is an “artificial constraint”? What would be a natural constraint? What is being constrained? What do you want to do that feels limited? How has it been limited? Are we still talking about NLEs?
Franz.
Edit: “contraction” to “contradiction” -
Have you actually used FCPX, Franz?
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Again, I am asking how this changes the user experience. I understand the two data models, I am asking about their impact on the user experience.”
It’s in the tools. The difference is not about what you can do, but how you do it.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Can you give me an example of a relationship that one NLE relies on the editor to understand that FCPX does not rely on the editor to understand. Bear in mind the group clips function in most NLEs.”
I think that groups are really stored/recalled selections. Grouping clips does not change timeline mechanics, other than that selecting one clip in a group selects the whole group. Group some clips and try some edits around them. Perform an ripple/insert edit in the middle of a group; compare that in Pr with connected clips in FCPX.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Can you be more specific here. You’ve used a vague notion of “timeline mechanics”… both models can have these features, and I don’t understand why one model “enaables” these features while another model precludes them.”
At this point, tracked NLEs with relationship-oriented tools are theoretical, but we can discuss this more. Separate post to come.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “Have you actually used FCPX, Franz?”
Yes, though not much.
[Walter Soyka] “Separate post to come.”
Looking forward to it.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “I think that groups are really stored/recalled selections.”
Walter,
… on further reflection (and perhaps as further fodder for you upcoming post) I am trying to understand this qualification and take it further: in what sense is a timeline – any timeline – not “stored/recalled selections”. I mean they’re selections in relation to one another, of course, so can we not call a timeline a collection of “stored/recalled selections” set in relation to one another?
Franz.
-
Thanks for the kind words, Steve! I hope you put something extra in your tea before reading it all a second time.
[Steve Connor] “How about, to start with, we stop referring to track based editing as “the old way” ☺
“I had included this suggestion in my much longer first draft. I say this both to state my agreement with you, and to note that, yes, what I posted is the short version. ????
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Can you give me an example of a relationship that one NLE relies on the editor to understand that FCPX does not rely on the editor to understand. Bear in mind the group clips function in most NLEs”
If I’m editing standard clips (those that X maintains as video with embedded audio on import)
And I elect to set my timeline clip appearance to ALL VIDEO (audio veiled, essentially) when I cut trim or move the video, the audio tracks those decision changes even tho I can’t see it.
X is NOT relying on me to manage any AUDIO tracks at all. It is operating entirely in the background while presenting me with what I have elected to concentrate upon. Video.
It has automated expressing my trimming intent and applied it to my scene audio “behind the scenes.”
While, I might add, preserving ALL my options for when and if I choose to display and re-prioritize my audio.
That might be an example of X automating editorial functions without the need for user intervention, perhaps.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Tim Wilson] “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.”
Jeebus Tim,
That right there is the GENESIS of this whole thread, for heck’s sake!
I posted a link to an article by a young guy trying his best to do EXACTLY that.
And Shane popped in with his hair on fire to rag on him for being clueless.
Full STOP.
The rest is perfectly par for the “or Not” gestalt.
Go back and review just the first dozen posts in this thread.
With an eye to where any “ragging” arose.
Praise for FCP X in the forum ABOUT FCP X is still the emotional trigger it’s always been.
Thankfully, after the initial fuel burns off, the underlying discussion starts to reflect real value.
But only then.
You want the “passion?”
The rest comes with it.
And makes this forum what it is.
My 2 cents.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up