-
Jony Ives and the next FCPX GUI
-
I just had to make corrections to a FCP X timeline for the first time. I have not worked in FCP X at all so I am a biased FCP Legacy professional. It is very hard to look at the new timeline and understand how the previous editor got there. Did he decide to expand audio clips? Is there mixed resolutions and framerates hiding all over the place. How will subtitles and adjustment layers ripple as I start mucking around?
I am also an online editor and if you think I get mad when an AVID editor stacks up more then three tracks imagine the ulcer that FCP X produces.
Tracks help editors organize. Sound design requires lots of tracks.
Can’t we all get along?
James
-
You have to take responsibility to learn the language of FCPX.
Bad mistake for someone throwing FCPX at you without proper training.
FCPX is well organized (assuming the previous editor had the wherewithal).
Understand the timeline, Roles, the use of metadata and you’ll understand FCPX.No I don’t want tracks and that’s precisely why I like using FCPX after decade of linear editing, decade of Avid editing, decade of FCP Legacy editing.
[James Sullivan] “imagine the ulcer that FCP X produces. “
No ulcer as it’s all very obvious to me and much harder to screw things up IMHO.
[James Sullivan] “Sound design requires lots of tracks. “
Which should be done in the appropriate program. It’s not difficult to find things if Roles were properly used.
-
I am with you. That is why I prefaced the whole comment by explaining my ignorance of FCP X.
The point I was trying to make was platform agnostic. I can open up an AVID, Premiere pro, FCP 7 timeline and know what to expect by looking at it. Even when I get to be comfortable with the new paradigm I still believe that the magnetic timeline, in it’s current state, has issues on a very fundamental level. Also, any new editor out of school will never have seen an avid. (Mostly true?) There will be no discipline and as a result FCP X timelines are going to suck to correct by somebody other then the original editor until more information is presented or able to be expanded to the person catching the project as it finishes.
I am not saying that I do not think FCP X is bad. I am just expressing my frustration knowing how it is going to make life difficult for a ton of people until they make it awesome. Was final cut pro 1.0 good? No it barely worked.
I should be able to sound design in an NLE. Is it a proffesional mix? Hell no. But until producers decide to stop changing things and let me promote a project to mix then I would jump out of any NLE as soon as possible. Will this ever happen in the current state of the grind?
Holler,
James
-
I’m going to vehemently disagree with you.
The fundamental problem I have with other NLEs (and have since 1990) is the conflict with tracks as a compositing vs organizing tool. I want organizing as a separate utility. While Roles still needs more work as an organizing tool, I think it’ll make it far easier to find things.
As far as audio work goes, I’d much prefer a direct (smart) link to a proper track based audio tool such as Logic than trying to cram tools that are at cross purposes into an NLE. One might view that as a “track mode” where necessary but I don’t want to “walk into” an NLE with tracks at cross purposes. Personally that was what I dreaded back when I did Avid freelance. With FCPX I find it much easier to find things, especially with the Timeline Index, which, as an old linear editor, provides me the best of a scrolling EDL (now on steroids as far as finding stuff) along with a non linear timeline where, at any given point, I can see exactly what’s happening without having to sort out what purpose a track serves.
-
[James Sullivan] “Did he decide to expand audio clips?”
Expanding audio clips is non destructive. You can expand and not expand at will. you can also expand just the splits which makes it easy to see overlaps.
[James Sullivan] “Is there mixed resolutions and framerates hiding all over the place. “
You can select all the clips in the timeline, open the inspector, and check. If you get a “Multiple Values” returned in the frame rate field and frame size fields, then the answer is, yes. 😉
I hope that the timeline index and pick up this information one day as it would make conform, or at least identifying what needs conform a snap.
[James Sullivan] “How will subtitles and adjustment layers ripple as I start mucking around? “
Just as you want them to, or not.
[James Sullivan] “Can’t we all get along?”
yeah, just as long as you do it our way. 😀
-
Great point! I actually am looking forward to the right project to start learning how to use FCP X the way it was designed. I can’t wait to tag footage and setup massive amounts of metadata about all of the assets that hit the timeline.
Roles are going to be good too. My concern s that not everybody will use the program the “right way”. Tracks were at least some common denominator that forced everybody into doing some things that made sense at the time.
I am curious. How many “tracks” do you normally get to in a standard edit? 3 deep on video and then however many audio tracks stack up?
James
-
Craig, I’ll concede everything you wrote except for this one line:
[Craig Seeman] “With FCPX I find it much easier to find things, especially with the Timeline Index, which, as an old linear editor, provides me the best of a scrolling EDL (now on steroids as far as finding stuff) along with a non linear timeline where, at any given point, I can see exactly what’s happening without having to sort out what purpose a track serves.“
There is no “sorting out what purpose a track serves”, that’s the beauty of tracks. You establish a format, put it on a post-it if you need to, and then you know at a glance exactly what’s on any track without any sorting out, and it will be consistent no matter where you are on the timeline. In many cases it is consistent from timeline to timeline. For the most part any experienced editor can look at any other trained editors timeline on any NLE ever created (except for X) and they will know what they are looking at without any “sorting out.”
With X you need to go through your index which highlights roles, but only highlights one role at a time, and whenever you move anywhere in the timeline you have to do it again because unless you are working around the magnetic timeline with some sort of “secondaries” strategy, you can never know what’s going on just by looking.
I understand that you find this a trifling trade-off for your perceived gain, but it is a trade-off none the less. At this moment there is no way for FCPX to be as visually coherent as a normal timeline. Whether or not Apple feels like changing this in the future is debatable, especially since editors like you seem to find it so unimportant.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[James Sullivan] “Roles are going to be good too. My concern s that not everybody will use the program the “right way”.”
In fact the very subject is often a hot topic here. If one tries to force into being something it’s not (track based) it will be a frustrating experience for the editor. Given it’s the only NLE (at the least the only “major” one) that’s not track based, it require a lot of rethinking.
[James Sullivan] “Tracks were at least some common denominator that forced everybody into doing some things that made sense at the time.”
True. But I never had them as a linear editor (had to build elements for composting and keep them well labeled for revising) nor in my first NLE, CMX6000. In many respects, with 20/20 hindsight, a now see FCPS as the “other” direction NLEs could have gone in when they first appeared entirely on computers in the late ’80s.
Keep in mind that FCPX isn’t going to inherently present an editor picking up a job, an easier experience finding stuff. Like any NLE, it really helps if the preceding editor knows how to organize the project. Just as one can badly organize tracks in an Avid or have poorly organizes bins, one can badly organize Roles and Keyword collections in FCPX.
The key, and the thing many of us are still learning in FCPX, is the depth, variety and control one has in organizing things in FCPX. As articles appear online by experienced FCPX editors discussing their workflows, one begins to see how there are many different ways and philosophies in organizing things in FCPX, even for the same type of content.
The key to finding things in the timeline though is Roles and, admittedly, there’s still some shortcomings in the current implementation. If the project’s well organized, with Roles and the Timeline Index, it should be easy to find “John Dialogue” or “SFX” or “SOT” or “Music” though.
-
[Herb Sevush] “There is no “sorting out what purpose a track serves”, that’s the beauty of tracks.”
As per my follow up post. It’s easy to find “John Dialogue” Music, EFX, SOT, etc. as long as it was properly tagged. It’s not displayed linearly though and I can see some have a serious problem with that. To me, personally, I find “John Dialogue” more helpful than trying to remember what A6 is for example. In fact, for me, That’s even easier to deal with then trying to figure out what A15 is compared to A19 when you start getting into many different track organization functions. For me, the name is more important than the linear display. Admittedly that’s because how my brain seems to work.
[Herb Sevush] “You establish a format, put it on a post-it if you need to”
There’s nothing like picking up another person’s edit and not finding the post-it. Your V5 may not be what I use V5 for. Roles forces you to put the “post-it” on each clip. Of course if that’s not done (things left at defaults when that’s inadequate) walking in to an FCPX job would certainly be a bad experience. There’s nothing like seeing “Dialogue” when you really should have broken things out to “John Dialogue” and “Jane Dialogue” but then you can walk into a track based edit and find someone put Dialogue and SFX on the same track at times as well. FCPX is not exempt from poor organization. I just find “John Dialogue” easier to understand than trying to figure out what A5 was used for.
[Herb Sevush] “With X you need to go through your index which highlights roles”
But I like this. I guess as a linear editor I find the index like a much improved EDL with metadata in which I can find any clip and any Role and click on it and be there. At that point in time, on the timeline, I see everything I need that’s relevant without out a slew of empty tracks. I like the consolidated vertical space.
[Herb Sevush] “At this moment there is no way for FCPX to be as visually coherent as a normal timeline.”
To me FCPX is the “normal” timeline and tracks are aberrant. Vertical space is used only to the extent needed at that point in time. Horizontal space (time) stretching before/after what I need to see isn’t important to my task at hand precisely because I don’t have to worry about track composting vs track organizing continuity.
-
Sorry I am still in the middle of FCP X growing pains. I used to be able to look at a timeline and know what my dad was going to be like.
A question for Craig: What is the most important thing you have learned from adapting to so many new NLEs? I am only on my 4th and want to tap out.
James
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up