-
It’s All Connected — Clip Relationships and The Magnetic Timeline Paradigm
-
[Walter Soyka] “you have A-roll which is primary to the story, and B-roll which is secondary to the story (and attached to the A-roll).”
I am still having trouble with this.
So if there’s a gap clip with a clip attached to it, the gap clip is ARoll?
I am failing to see why a clip has to be attached to another video/audio clip below it. It can be attached to nothing. This makes ‘the nothing’ A-Roll?
-
[Herb Sevush] “n multicam this distinction is often moot, there is often no A storyline camera, and the same camera angle will alternate between sync shots and cover shots, sometimes this will happen in the middle of a shot.”
Understood — and I don’t mean to suggest that the “A-roll” concept must be on the source side. I see how you may want to use a shot as primary here and secondary there within the same scene.
But are you saying that you can’t structure the multicam cooking edit in terms of a series of primary edits with connected secondary edits?
I can understand how your edit ends up, but what is the process you use to actually get there? Do you cut some kind of spine, then use cutaways to heal any gaps or clarify content, or is there never a single spine or set of decisions (across tracks as necessary) that drive the edit?
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Jeremy Garchow] “I am still having trouble with this. So if there’s a gap clip with a clip attached to it, the gap clip is ARoll? I am failing to see why a clip has to be attached to another video/audio clip below it. It can be attached to nothing. This makes ‘the nothing’ A-Roll?”
In my understanding, A-roll and B-roll are terms for the conceptual role the footage plays in the edit, which is reflected in its structure. With primary and secondary tiers built into the application, FCPX internalizes this model.
Connecting things to a gap strikes me as a clever hack, moreso than the way FCPX designers intended the app to be used. Their language and their demos suggest that they see tiering clips as primary or secondary to be a part of editorial.
I think they thought about how (most) people structure their edits and then redesigned the process with that in mind.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “But are you saying that you can’t structure the multicam cooking edit in terms of a series of primary edits with connected secondary edits?”
I don’t know if I could, I know that I don’t.
These shows are mostly audio driven – radio with pictures. Everything is a secondary edit to make the audio as seamless as I can.
[Walter Soyka] “but what is the process you use to actually get there? Do you cut some kind of spine, then use cutaways to heal any gaps or clarify content, or is there never a single spine or set of decisions (across tracks as necessary) that drive the edit?”
From the assembly through about the third rough cut I don’t make any camera angle selections, I’m leaving the multicam set to the WS master but I’m only looking at the multicam window where I see all angles – it’s all a process of winnowing down the audio from about 120 minutes to around 23 minutes of final content. After the third rough I’m generally a bit over 40 minutes and at this point the main object is to keep tightening the show while covering the audio transitions cleanly, sometimes by using CUs, sometimes by switching angles on the talent.
The narrative is the recipe, the spine is the audio, which changes as I try to find the right balance between information & humor while still keeping the illusion of a quasi real-time feel.
To compress time and increase visual interest I’m often taking the audio from expository exchanges and running them under the action of preparing the food. In these cases the sync sound is put on my effects tracks and the voices are left in the dialogue tracks. When the exposition ends, the effects become sync and I move them up accordingly. My guess is that I use my WS master about 15% of the time – everything else is up for grabs.
Except when compositing graphics I end up with my video all on track 1. I use the higher video tracks quite often when playing around with positioning and timing, but once a decision has been made I move everything down to track 1. Most of the audio comes from a mixed track on Ch 1 of the WS master, but I also use the various iso tracks scattered thru all of my video sources for both effects and to clean up the mix where needed.
If you can figure out what’s my primary video and what’s secondary, your a better man than I (which you might be anyway.)
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Walter Soyka] “In my understanding, A-roll and B-roll are terms for the conceptual role the footage plays in the edit, which is reflected in its structure. With primary and secondary tiers built into the application, FCPX internalizes this model.”
So the gap is ARoll then?
If I have video and audio in the primary, and I cut to a clip that’s attached to it, and it is now the main audio and video, is that still broll?
Broll, to me, is footage that is covering voice over or “in to the camera” dialogue (i.e. news). I don’t find that a piece has to have VO or news style footage in order to be cut in FCPX. The footage can be anything.
I don’t see FCPX as an A/B roll only situation, so I am just trying to understand how others might view it as such.
[Walter Soyka] “Connecting things to a gap strikes me as a clever hack,”
OK. I see it as how the program works. I’m not talking about having everything attached to a gap (I always use the primary), I am talking about having one clip attached to a gap next to clips in the primary like this:
This gives you layer priority, it would allow a layered cut instead of an inline j/l cut, and it allows me to change the clips around as I see fit.
I don’t find this a hack, merely an option and tool.
[Walter Soyka] “I think they thought about how (most) people structure their edits and then redesigned the process with that in mind.”
So, it you are cutting a traditional dialogue scene, FCPX can’t do that? Why not?
-
[Herb Sevush] “These shows are mostly audio driven – radio with pictures. Everything is a secondary edit to make the audio as seamless as I can.”
So then your audio is the primary?
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “So then your audio is the primary?”
Yes.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Jeremy Garchow] “So the gap is ARoll then?”
No. The gap is structurally the primary for FCPX, but not conceptually A-roll for the story.
Ordinarily, the A-roll (story-carrying footage) is also primary (structure-building clips). Perhaps in this case there is no primary or A-roll.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I don’t see FCPX as an A/B roll only situation, so I am just trying to understand how others might view it as such.”
I’m not saying it’s A/B only; I’m saying it’s A/B-oriented, and that secondaries are a clever way to keep B-roll with the A-roll it’s conceptually related to.
[Jeremy Garchow] “So, it you are cutting a traditional dialogue scene, FCPX can’t do that? Why not?”
Not saying FCPX can’t do it at all. A traditional dialog scene is mostly A-roll, right? If you were cutting this in FCPX, you’d have most of the edit on the primary and very little on secondaries.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “No. The gap is structurally the primary for FCPX, but not conceptually A-roll for the story.
Ordinarily, the A-roll (story-carrying footage) is also primary (structure-building clips). Perhaps in this case there is no primary or A-roll.”
So then we can agree that FCPX isn’t an a/b only convention?
[Walter Soyka] “A traditional dialog scene is mostly A-roll, right?”
I wouldn’t call it A-Roll, but yes, you usually aren’t “covering” the audio with footage that is outside of the current scene.
I just keep hearing that FCPX is A/B roll oriented. I don’t think it necessarily is. Just trying to stay in topic is all. Sorry!
[Walter Soyka] “I’m not saying it’s A/B only; I’m saying it’s A/B-oriented, and that secondaries are a clever way to keep B-roll with the A-roll it’s conceptually related to.”
But isn’t a secondary more like a track than a connected clip? It certainly has track like behavior (like the primary), it just doesn’t extend from zero to infinity (although you could do it if you’d like).
In this picture, the clips in the secondary are not related to the clips below it anymore than in FCP7:
I feel like I am always posting screen grabs.
Jeremy
-
[Walter Soyka] “So what if FCPX isn’t the perfect general-case NLE? We are very focused here on the situations where FCPX is a poorer solution than Legend. Might not there be cases where it’s a better solution?
“If I were hired to do a small to medium market, magazine-like show, I would seriously consider X. I’m not sure I would end up with it, but I would give it a lot of deliberation. It has interesting assets for that arena which might enough to override my current preferences. I don’t think there is any way it can compete, currently, with ISIS for the large markets. For trailers and promos, I just don’t see any advantage in switching (though the enthusiasm of Charlie Austin and John Davidson does give me pause.) So, yes; I can definitely see areas where X might be a better choice. That said, even though it might be a better choice in some areas, the comfort I feel in using what I know might still outweigh the advantages it offers.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up