-
It’s All Connected — Clip Relationships and The Magnetic Timeline Paradigm
-
Hi David,
Great discourse here.
I follow to an extent.
Want to truly grok the mechanical difference between X’s connected, parent/child clips vs. traditional tracks, particularly as it relates to relative vs. absolute time. I’m not adding anything of my own here, just want to follow the leaders, get the complete idiot’s guide to the thread. So if the analogy below is misguided then please suggest an alternative that would be as concrete. Though most likely one has already been suggested and went over my head or under my radar.
If I understand correctly, the traditional timeline is comprised of a stack of (layers of) linear tracks that begin at 0 and progress in absolute time to infinity. Each track is independent of the others with a set of rules that govern what is seen by the viewer when played back? Each track can be as empty or as full as the editor decides. So in a traditional timeline at any given point in time the tracks have a defined vertical relationship, but horizontally they are independent.
In X, and forgive me but they still look like tracks to me, there is one track (storyline) and all other clips (below or above) must be connected to it. For all connected clips, their relationship to time is dependent on the connection and not on a specific amount of time from zero. Further, although these connected clips may appear to be on a certain track, they are treated independently of each other unless they are grouped together in a secondary storyline. Even then, this child storyline needs to be connected to the parent and has no specific place in time of its own.
If I were putting data in an Excel spreadsheet, I could fill whatever cells I wanted in each row or column. A1 could be filled, A2 could be blank, and A3 could be filled. I could make each cell and all cells in the same column as wide or as narrow as I wish. But if I make cell B2 wider, then all of column B is wider and all columns from C on are rippled away by that exact amount from the edge of the left margin. I could move or copy whatever data I wanted from one cell to another without changing the width of my spreadsheet.
So would it be fair to say that traditional timelines function like a spreadsheet in that each cell can be empty or full and emptied or filled independently? And not like a spreadsheet in that a clip on a track can be expanded or contracted independently of the clips in the tracks above or below it. If the track was a row in a spreadsheet, cell B2 could be made wider without affecting the width of B3 or any other cell in B column.
Would it also be fair to say that X is like a spreadsheet in that I can insert a cell and ripple the rest of the spreadsheet cleanly out of the way by that exact amount? For example if I insert a cell between B1 and C1 then any cells in columns C D E … are rippled out of the way (the former C1 becomes D1, D1 becomes D2 etc.). And not like a spreadsheet in that there is only one actual row and all other cells must be connected to that row at a certain point. So I could connect a cell (B2) to (B1) without creating an independent row 2.
Using the comparison from a different perspective, I feel like X behaves more like a spreadsheet in that clips behave like cells that have a defined spatial relationship to each other and can therefore be very cleanly pushed one way or the other, whereas in traditional timelines everything is defined by time and all clips and all tracks must play by the same set of rules governed by an absolute constant with the smallest component being a frame. The frame and therefore time is relative only in that you can have different frame rates.
MacPro4,1 2.66GHz 8 core 12gigs of ram. GPU: Nvidia Geoforce GT120 with Vram 512. OS X 10.6.x; Camcorders: Panasonic AG-HPX170, Sony Z7U, Canon HV30/40, Sony vx2000/PD170; FCP 6 certified; write professionally for a variety of media; teach video production in L.A.
-
[Walter Soyka] ” the implied relationships between formally unrelated clips. Just as clips may have implied relationships in a traditional timeline by virtue of their placement, so can you end up with implied relationships in FCPX that you cannot codify with a single connection point.”
I tried to construct a rant about that above, but, you know, I’m trying to learn premiere now, so I should probably stop that – still.
Is there not an issue where FCPX is continuously divining relationships that themselves go continuously out of date? I have never gotten beyond making peasy image music experiments in FCPX, but I find the requirement to re-arrange the clip connections before an edit or a move, because they no longer represent what I want to happen kind of infuriating?
can anyone who does this in anger speak to this? Edits are utterly malleable, aren’t default parent child relationships at the point of entry to the timeline a gimmick in effect? If I am required to continuously re-arrange them in complex fluid short form edits? Lifting everything up like a lump has a certain thrill, and I actually think it benifits the rapid generation of long form doco narrative stuff more than anything – but in short form, where you are throwing things, quotes, and twelve frame cuts around like no ones business, isn’t this default “i am your father” a needless hinderance?
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
Great post Walter, thanks!
[Walter Soyka] “I think that many here would argue that magnetic reflow is one of the primary benefits of the magnetic timeline, and consistent and predictable reflow depends on having every single relationship in the timeline defined (in other words, having every clip connected to something). “
Agreed, however I’d argue that in it’s current implementation, timeline reflow is neither consistent, nor predictable.
[Walter Soyka] “Sidebar: I think that FCPX’s “ripple” is different enough compared to our traditional understanding of “ripple” that it’s confusing to use the same term — that’s why I’m calling what FCPX does “reflowing” instead of “rippling.””
Excellent. I agree and really like your terminology. I’m using it from now on.
[Walter Soyka] “With FCPX’s clip connections, one clip is connected to another in terms of the latter; one clip is a parent, and the other clip is a child of that parent (anchored at a specific point on each side of the relationship). Moving the parent affects both the parent and the child because the child inherits from the parent. Moving the child affects only the child and not the parent because inheritance is one-way.”
Yes, because the relationship is defined by the hierarchical data model.
[Walter Soyka] “With Pr’s grouped clips, the clips are peers. Their anchoring is based on a common externality (absolute time); there is no single pivot point for that linkage. Once the clip is grouped, they are fundamentally treated as a single object, not as two objects with a hierarchical relationship.”
True, but in this case the relationship as you point out is flat and peer-based. The fact that they’re selected as a single object can easily be addressed in the UI. For example, in Adobe Illustrator (and After Effects) There are two selection arrows. The black arrow always selects groups, but the white arrow lets you select individual points or objects. A similar dual selection UI for Premiere’s object groups would give you the benefits of both peer object flexibility and one-way hierarchical inheritance.
[Walter Soyka] “What do you gain by parenting clips so that a specific point in time in of the child is related to a specific point in time of the parent? Context! It’s not important what timecode of a child links to what timecode of a parent; it’s important what’s happening in each clip at those timecodes. Correctly defining the linkage point of a clip connection is an editorial decision based on the content or meaning of both clips and the editor’s rational for defining one clip in relation to the other. This action encodes a little piece of meaning, a little piece of the editor’s motivation for making for that edit, that FCPX is designed to preserve through subsequent maneuvers.
There is no construct in a traditional timeline that’s anything like this. There is no way to connect a happening in one clip with a happening in another (thanks to FCPX, I can’t call them “events” like I wanted to). Context can be implied in a traditional timeline through an editor’s track organization, but it cannot be codified in the edit like this.”
Here I disagree. In FCP7, this is essentially a synchronized replace edit. You are matching specific frames between the source and footage being cut in. The FCP7 manual describes how do do this (scroll about midway thru the document and look at “To replace an entire clip in the Timeline with a clip synchronized to a point in the sequence.”
By default, FCPX makes the connection (sync) point the first frame of the cut and codifies it as the the relationship between the primary and the connected clip. It also allows the connection point to be moved as necessary.
From the standpoint of editor intention, I see no difference between this and grouping a sync edit between clips in a traditional timeline.
[Walter Soyka] “The benefit to the editor would be that the editor can concentrate on the story in terms of the story, without engaging in the editorial bookkeeping necessary to keep a traditional tracked timeline following a story. The challenge to a traditional editor is to stop thinking in terms of clip placement and start thinking in terms of structural relationship. “
Again, agreed. This is why I think FCPX is an ideal tool for assembly and for producers who don’t want to worry about the specialized mechanics of editing.
[Walter Soyka] “My variation on this question is this: what does this abstraction change? What drawbacks does it have? What control (if any) is lost to the editor with a magnetic timeline versus a fully manual tracked traditional timeline? What are the real ramifications (if any) of assuming a story-driven, A/B hierarchical edit?”
All great questions. Let’s explore!
[Walter Soyka] “Interestingly, there’s a place where this relationship model falls apart — the implied relationships between formally unrelated clips. Just as clips may have implied relationships in a traditional timeline by virtue of their placement, so can you end up with implied relationships in FCPX that you cannot codify with a single connection point.”
Exactly! And I think for many of us, this is the root of the problem with the magnetic timeline.
Franz did an amazing job codifying the many possible relationships on a traditional open timeline. When I edit, I’m constantly managing and changing *all* of these inter-related relationships in real-time, in my head with every edit decision I make. That ability is the art of being an editor.
FCPX only codifies a single specific type of relationship — a relationship drive by an engineering data model, rather than specific editor intention. When editor intentions and the data model happen to line up, the magnetic timeline works.
What about all those relationships that are implied? What happens when the forced relationships of the data hierarchy conflict with implied relationships that are more important to the editor and the edit itself?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “can anyone who does this in anger speak to this? Edits are utterly malleable, aren’t default parent child relationships at the point of entry to the timeline a gimmick in effect? If I am required to continuously re-arrange them in complex fluid short form edits? Lifting everything up like a lump has a certain thrill, and I actually think it benifits the rapid generation of long form doco narrative stuff more than anything – but in short form, where you are throwing things, quotes, and twelve frame cuts around like no ones business, isn’t this default “i am your father” a needless hinderance?
“In actual use the simple answer is no, you learn to use the primary and secondaries so that you can define the relationships if you wish, or if not then you use secondaries and gap clips. You are correct that long form involves a lot of parent/child clips and this works very well for me when constructing and changing narrative flow in Doccos When editing fast paced short form I use secondaries over gap clips much more.
Of course there are points where a clip ends up connected to another which blocks an edit action for a moment while you change the connection, but this doesn’t seems to happen much less than track conflicts used to do in FCP7.
I honestly do not feel constricted in any way by the FCPX timeline, it has certainly not limited my creativity in any way on the dozens of projects I’ve completed using it. I’m trying PPro on a few projects at the moment and that feels much more limiting to me now, but then again I’m not as familiar with it as I should be!
Steve Connor
‘It’s just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure” -
[Walter Soyka] “The benefit to the editor would be that the editor can concentrate on the story in terms of the story, without engaging in the editorial bookkeeping necessary to keep a traditional tracked timeline following a story.”
Walter,
This I need to respond to, as it is a fundamental ideological standpoint that I have problems with.
The purpose of an NLE is to arrange video and audio in time. Broadly, we call this activity “editing”.
Storytelling is one application or approach to editing. It does not encompass all that editing is.
Further, A/B editing is one approach to the problem of editing. It does not encompass all that editing is.
Apple have made an ideological choice in an editing model based on A/B editing, and further like to fill out this ideological choice with the language of “storytelling”.
What I see as ideological limits no doubt aid many in their editing. They should not be taken as the limits of – nor even the best way of describing – what editing is.
As an aside, for me the best way to think about editing is in terms of structure – my own theory is that “story” is an effect felt by the audience, and therefore of limited value in terms of thinking about approaches and mechanics. By way of analogy – when you’re trying to learn how to pull a rabbit out of a hat, thinking of the effect (the illusion, the way it plays for the audience) only gets you so far; for the rest, you need to be a magician with attendant stagecraft.
All of which is to say that any marketing campaign that focuses on “letting me tell my story” seems just that – marketing. Storytelling, structuring, editing, filmmaking are complex undertakings. Better tools will help me edit better. That’s what I want.
Franz.
-
ADDENDUM
Though he claims the opposite, Walter (below) has provided a good definition of the special kind of groupings that are parent / child connections.
PARENT / CHILD GROUPINGS
[Walter Soyka] With FCPX’s clip connections, one clip is connected to another in terms of the latter; one clip is a parent, and the other clip is a child of that parent (anchored at a specific point on each side of the relationship). Moving the parent affects both the parent and the child because the child inherits from the parent. Moving the child affects only the child and not the parent because inheritance is one-way.
With Pr’s grouped clips, the clips are peers. Their anchoring is based on a common externality (absolute time); there is no single pivot point for that linkage. Once the clip is grouped, they are fundamentally treated as a single object, not as two objects with a hierarchical relationship.
The presence in FCPX of that movable connection anchor point means that reflow is contextual, and editorial maneuvers on one side of the anchor will have a different result than maneuvers on the other side. More on the ramifications of this difference in a moment.
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/41599
-
[David Lawrence] “FCPX only codifies a single specific type of relationship — a relationship drive by an engineering data model, rather than specific editor intention. When editor intentions and the data model happen to line up, the magnetic timeline works.
What about all those relationships that are implied? What happens when the forced relationships of the data hierarchy conflict with implied relationships that are more important to the editor and the edit itself?
“this – sweet god this.
Why, in effect, would we allow an editing system to blankly ascribe canon parent child relationships, at the point of entry to the timeline, to every object in the timeline? When we are talking about the continuous process of discovery in editing? How does that make sense?
Parent child relationships in all other aspects, be they an IK chain in 3DSmax, which I know half well, or downstream effects in complex nuke/flame/smoke scenarios – which I also know having driven a flint on Indigo hardware for two years – these I understand.
However – simply umbilically tying all the elements of an edit together, without asking, clip by clip, parent to child, for no other worth than their entry onto the timeline, strikes me as utter madness.
IT’S a timeline people. Its a scenario in which my thoughts about all of the elements are liable to change.
Its my. bloody. timeline. mine.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Its my. bloody. timeline. mine. “
That would make a great screensaver!
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “IT’S a timeline people. Its a scenario in which my thoughts about all of the elements are liable to change.
Its my. bloody. timeline. mine.”
I wish I could hit the “like” button on this post a thousand times. Aindreas, next time I visit the UK
I’m buying you a drink!_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
the kick is, its also true oliver – we are supposed to approach material in the context of a really, really blank canvas.
https://manhattaneditworkshop.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/editfest-ny-2012-milton-ginsberg.html
the fascinating point in that video is that editing can imbue true – and transportive – meaning.
it is less likely to do so if cupertino is allowed to make a reductive lego play-set from its dis-assembled, and falsely joined parts.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up