-
Is anybody here actually cutting multi track audio with X?
-
[Oliver Peters] “or even splitting out the various mics to individual tracks on each camera), it becomes a nearly-impossible working scenario in X.”
Well that’s good to know since that’s my exact workflow 90% of the time. This was one of my fears about working with X, apparently now confirmed. Oh well.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
Jim Giberti: In the end I had 12 discrete audio tracks under the primary storyline named, Tara, Izzy, Jackie, VO, Music Bed, Wind, Water, etc. Many of these were composite tracks (the actors takes) where applying master EQ and FX is a one step process, faster than bussing on a physical or GUI console. They stay connected to their primary clips until it’s time to buss everything to the master and then they go into their own discrete tracks for FX and bussing to the Master Out
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “And that’s why a DAW is not an NLE and vice versa. They are different tools for different jobs.”
Obviously. I don’t think anyone’s claiming otherwise. My point is when you strip away specialized features, at a very basic level, they share a common visual and interaction language. This is easy to see with multitrack audio.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Why do you think they were trying to solve a problem, instead of simply presenting a new interface? Don’t you think they know that the interface they are presenting has some issues and creates some different problems? “
Because Apple tells us so:
“Edit without clip collisions or sync problems… Assemble shots with ease as clips “magnetically close up to eliminate unwanted black gaps on the timeline.”
Clip collisions, sync and black gaps — those are the specific problems Apple says they’ve fixed with their new timeline paradigm. Funny thing is, I’ve never heard any skilled editor complain about these issues. If you know what you’re doing, they’re simply not a problem.
I have no idea what Apple thinks about any new problems with their timeline UI. They have their own agenda and they’re not saying. We know they’re getting feedback so it’ll be interesting to see what they decide to do. But I’m not betting on any radical change.
[Jeremy Garchow] ” It’s not the magnetism that’s the problem as you can easily control what shifts time in FCPX, it’s the connections that you have the most trouble with.”
It’s actually not the connections though that’s a part of it. It’s temporal frame-of-reference. FCPX forces everything to be in relation to a single track. If that works for you, great. But remember, with 99 fully independent, assignable audio tracks, FCP 7 was one of the most flexible NLEs on the market for editors who do complex editorial work with audio. How does Apple restore that level of flexibility to FCPX?
Tracks do more than just bussing. That’s why I asked:
[David Lawrence] “What about multi-track audio situations where you really need each audio channel in an absolute temporal frame-of-reference, completely independent of everything else? With track-based systems, this is a given. In FCPX, the current workaround is spiking Secondaries to frame 1 of the Primary. It works but I think it’s pretty weak.”
I didn’t understand your answer:
[Jeremy Garchow] “Put it in the primary storyline.”
How does that help with multitrack audio? Each iso track would need its own Primary to be completely independent. I don’t see how you can do it with just one.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “My point is when you strip away specialized features, at a very basic level, they share a common visual and interaction language. This is easy to see with multitrack audio.”
But they don’t operate the same way. Michael Gissing (again) laid that out pretty concisely. yes, they have tracks. A1 = A1, but in my experience with audio post, A1 doesn’t necessarily stay A1, or gets rearranged. My job is to get my intent over to audio post, just like it’s my job to get the intent over to color or a compositing app. Once in that app, the rules change.
[David Lawrence] “Clip collisions, sync and black gaps — those are the specific problems Apple says they’ve fixed with their new timeline paradigm. “
Clip collisions are simply annoying in FCP7. You can’t overwrite certain things when I want to, you can’t trim a clip over another clip with the keyboard if I don’t want to. Just yesterday I was having sync problems with a mixed multicam sequence where any time I would shift-delete, the multicam sync would come undone for no reason. So yes, there are real problems. FCP7 has some rules as well, and I don’t know if I’m a skilled editor or not, but there’s a lot of fighting the interface sometimes. it doesn’t allow me to do what I want to do. Now, I know all of this and working around it has become second nature. FCPX presents a different way of working, and it also has rules, mainly the primary storyline = time.
As far as the gaps in FCP7, yeah, I don’t see those as a problem, but the magnetic timeline works with them differently. I don’t mind it. They are now a tool of intent and actually allow more control and they are easier to use. You can slide a whole timeline by an exact number of frames/seconds/whatever simply by trimming the gap, instead of selecting everything to the right and left.
[David Lawrence] “But I’m not betting on any radical change.”
If you had already bet on radical change you’d be a winner! 😉
[David Lawrence] “It’s actually not the connections though that’s a part of it. It’s temporal frame-of-reference. FCPX forces everything to be in relation to a single track. If that works for you, great. But remember, with 99 fully independent, assignable audio tracks, FCP 7 was one of the most flexible NLEs on the market for editors who do complex editorial work with audio. How does Apple restore that level of flexibility to FCPX?”
I think we need to start working in real world examples. Are you saying that you couldn’t have 99 clips of audio stacked in FCPX? And that you can’t “assign” those clips to an output? I would say you can. That single track, is time, just like the 99 tracks that you need have a relationship to time.
There’s no question that multichannel audio editing in FCPX needs work. I am not disputing that.
[David Lawrence] “[David Lawrence] “What about multi-track audio situations where you really need each audio channel in an absolute temporal frame-of-reference, completely independent of everything else? With track-based systems, this is a given. In FCPX, the current workaround is spiking Secondaries to frame 1 of the Primary. It works but I think it’s pretty weak.”
I didn’t understand your answer:
[Jeremy Garchow] “Put it in the primary storyline.””
Time. You said a time reference. If audio is the time reference, it should go in the primary storyline. In there, it is completely independent of everything else. You seem to think that video is what needs to be in the primary, and that’s not always the case.
[David Lawrence] “How does that help with multitrack audio? Each iso track would need its own Primary to be completely independent. I don’t see how you can do it with just one.”
Whatever is driving the time is what goes in the primary.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ” You can slide a whole timeline by an exact number of frames/seconds/whatever simply by trimming the gap, instead of selecting everything to the right and left.”
This is revolutionary…oh, wait…Avid’s been doing that for 2 decades.
Chris
-
[Chris Conlee] “This is revolutionary…oh, wait…Avid’s been doing that for 2 decades.”
Sorry, I thought we comparing FCPX to FCP7.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “in my experience with audio post, A1 doesn’t necessarily stay A1, or gets rearranged. My job is to get my intent over to audio post, just like it’s my job to get the intent over to color or a compositing app. Once in that app, the rules change.”
I get where you’re coming from. But there are many collaborative workflows where everyone agrees what A1 is and it stays that way through the pipeline. Maybe roles will evolve to the point where this doesn’t matter. But I also think shared visual mapping will always be very important for many collaborative workflows.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I think we need to start working in real world examples. Are you saying that you couldn’t have 99 clips of audio stacked in FCPX? And that you can’t “assign” those clips to an output?”
No, I’m sure you can do all of that.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Time. You said a time reference. If audio is the time reference, it should go in the primary storyline. In there, it is completely independent of everything else. You seem to think that video is what needs to be in the primary, and that’s not always the case.”
[Jeremy Garchow] “Whatever is driving the time is what goes in the primary.”
No, I get that you can put either audio or video in the Primary. Maybe I’m not being clear. Let me try again.
What if you need time itself to be the fixed external frame-of-reference? Forget about tracks. media could be layers, or channels or blobs or whatnot. What if you want to compose media events simply in relation to time itself, not a preselected media asset in a constantly shifting container? The UI standard for time is the window space. Time is external. Any asset in the window is independently mapped directly to time via its position in space. Multitrack is a nature extension of this paradigm.
I get that the X paradigm is different. I question the value and the limits of the difference.
Look at the new multicam Angle Editor. Note the frame-of-reference. Why did they design it that way?
Getting back to audio, here’s a simple multitrack example:
Four completely separate audio tracks — drums, bass, guitar, vocals. Which one goes in the Primary?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “…here’s a simple multitrack example:
Four completely separate audio tracks — drums, bass, guitar, vocals. Which one goes in the Primary?
“
Hi
The click track playing in the drummers headphones, which momentarily he won’t necessarily stick to, but the others will follow him.
Or the conductor’s baton – which he’s most likely synced up crochet-equals-60 to a video of a looped seconds leader or T/C readout superimposed over the video he can see on a monitor.To take real world examples of music sessions for video production… 😉
-
[David Lawrence] “Look at the new multicam Angle Editor. Note the frame-of-reference. Why did they design it that way?”
Can you elaborate on this, I haven’t tried it out yet.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “Can you elaborate on this, I haven’t tried it out yet.”
I haven’t either. I’m judging from the picture of the UI:
It appears that each angle gets its own independent “track”. This makes sense given what you would be doing with the tool. Anyone who’s actually used it — please let me know if this is correct or not.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up