-
Jony Ives and the next FCPX GUI
-
Tracks versus trackless. Your info is largely incorrect. These systems had at least 1 picture track and 2 audio tracks. At least Avid did. Before that film tables did, too. Linear systems as well, since you were editing to a linear tape format. By definition these had 1 picture and multiple audio tracks.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Craig Seeman] “NLEs, CMX6000, I believe the first version of Avid 1989, Media 100 I believe was only a title track. So early NLEs were also trackless. Avid added tracks IIR and then others followed (CMX went under). I believe EMC also had no tracks although I only trained but never did actual jobs with it.”
I owned an EMC and it had A/V tracks. I worked briefly on Media 100 and it had A/V tracks. What did the CMX6000 timeline look like if it didn’t have tracks? Seriously, if you could post a drawing I’d be interested.
The fact that Avid didn’t have tracks early in it’s gestation but then switched over might tell you something. You’ve already posted about your long experience working with both Premiere and Avid – tracks in both cases, and I bet you spent a lot more time with them than with the CMX 6000.
No matter how you want to spin it I would guess that over 90% of your own career spent working on anything with a timeline, previous to X, was spent working on something that had A/V tracks. Which is why as much as you keep fighting it, the truth is “normal” and “trackless timeline” don’t go together.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
Tracks as far as something one used as an organizing tool, didn’t happen until one had more than one Video track and more than two Audio tracks.
At that point tracks developed two (and in my opinion conflicting) functions for layering and organizing. That is the root of the problem for me.
[Oliver Peters] “Linear systems as well, since you were editing to a linear tape format. By definition these had 1 picture and multiple audio tracks.”
And layer meant building elements on separate reels which one labeled and saved separately. Those “tagged” elements are much close to Roles (Roles being separately tagged elements based on clip and not track).
-
[Herb Sevush] “No matter how you want to spin it I would guess that over 90% of your own career spent working on anything with a timeline, previous to X, was spent working on something that had A/V tracks. Which is why as much as you keep fighting it, the truth is “normal” and “trackless timeline” don’t go together.”
See my response to Oliver. Personally I think one NLE when in the direction of layered tracks and the others followed. If one had thought of these as elements (Roles) then something could have headed in the direction FCPX is going in.
To me, FCPX seems in many respects another natural outgrowth of the linear edit system. The Time Index, a metadata improved version of the scrolling edit decision list and Roles are the tagged elements used when compositing or otherwise layering simultaneous events.
-
[Bill Davis] “The yelling guy will NEVER be the driver of systemic change because his effectiveness is blunted by the fact that for every guy who loses it and yells, there are a hundred (or more likely ten thousand) who have the manners NOT to yell at the counter guy because they know he can’t effect any meaningful change. “
I take it this means you don’t believe in the “squeaky wheel” thesis.
[Bill Davis] “So now we have a peculiar and kinda wide swath of longtime pros who are nearly 2 years behind the curve in learning the quirks of what increasingly looks to be ONE long range professional contender for the future of editing. Kind of a bummer for them.”
Well if those poor fools don’t ever use X, because it is only one of many NLEs, they will have saved themselves a lot of time.
On the other hand, if they do turn to X they will likely benefit from all the pioneers like you Bill, who have learned thru trial and error the best practices and have mapped out the way for the rest to follow.
Kind of a bummer for all those early adopters, but hey I’m willing to take advantage of all their hard work.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Craig Seeman] ”
And layer meant building elements on separate reels which one labeled and saved separately. Those “tagged” elements are much close to Roles (Roles being separately tagged elements based on clip and not track).”I think you are REALLY stretching the analogy!!! 😉
If you edited in a linear bay, you often had multiple source playback decks and a 2 or 3 M/E video switcher. This let you layer composites that were recorded to a single video track. If you are really determined to compared this to FCP X, then think of this comparison as a Compound Clip. Definitely not Roles. 😉
But to Herb’s point – to date, almost every linear and nonlinear edit system that deviated from tracks ultimately went back to establishing a track-based timeline. Or the product or company has long since gone out of business.
I’m not saying Apple will do that with FCP X, but that’s the history so far.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
OK so now I see where the semantical problem is coming from. You define as “trackless” anything that only has 2 audio tracks and 1 video track, regardless of the fact that they have actual tracks. OK got it.
I will still bet dollars to donuts that you’ve spent the overwhelming majority of your career working on tracked timelines vs trackless. And since this whole mini-thread was based on your calling trackless “normal” as opposed to “preferred” your still wrong.
Look, I know you can’t ever bare to be admit error, but it would really be good for you, I promise on my 25 years in therapy – it’ll be ok, it’s a small point about word useage, it doesn’t mean you’re “wrong” as a person, it was just a tiny misuse of a word, a slip of the writer’s tongue as it were.
Go on, you can do it, you know you want to say it … I was wr…..
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Oliver Peters] “I think you are REALLY stretching the analogy!!!”
No, I think there’s reasons why some veterans (maybe not many) liked FCPX early on. After thinking it through I’m finally able to articulate one possibility. I’ve felt tracks were a kludge the moment I had to deal with the conflicting use of layers vs organization. Organization had always been separate for me and I prefer it that way. I don’t think I’m alone in that.
[Oliver Peters] “If you edited in a linear bay, you often had multiple source playback decks and a 2 or 3 M/E video switcher. This let you layer composites that were recorded to a single video track.”
Often I had to build and layoff elements to layer. This was even more so in the days before pre-read or the Abekas recorder.
And yes the separate machines didn’t exist as “tracks.”
[Oliver Peters] “If you are really determined to compared this to FCP X, then think of this comparison as a Compound Clip. Definitely not Roles.”
If I built an element reel of mattes or fills or voices overs they each played a role. The reel ID (role) could be found in the list. While you may look at builds or elements as compound clips, i’m thinking of ID elements that would appear in my decision list. The timeline though was singular though. With FCPX those items are non destructively “connected” and movable.
-
[Herb Sevush] “you’ve spent the overwhelming majority of your career working on tracked timelines vs trackless.”
That doesn’t mean I liked it or preferred it. I spent over 10 years pre tracks and the next 20 some unhappy that tracks created a conflict between layering and organizing.
[Herb Sevush] “Look, I know you can’t ever bare to be admit error”
It’s not either/or. There are several different ways of looking at things. Several interpretations. There are reasons why some veterans like FCPX from the beginning and I am articulating one point of view. Obviously not your point of view. I never liked the layer/organization conflict.
For some of us, FCPX felt like a “natural” progression and I now understand why.
I still have my decision list with Timeline Index but with major metadata improvements.
I’m still dealing with a single Timeline but with the ability to layer.
Each “shot” is tagged by purpose (Role).To me, and I suspect other older editors, this is a natural progression. Someone who didn’t feel it was a natural progression would have been less inclined to like FCPX. Different points of view. I believe it’s why some few veterans liked it (or saw its potential) even when it was bereft of critical features.
-
[Craig Seeman] “To me, and I suspect other older editors, this is a natural progression. Someone who didn’t feel it was a natural progression would have been less inclined to like FCPX. “
I see, now we’re moving from “normal” to “natural.” Hey they both start with the letter N so I guess it works.
Craig, I’m glad I’ve never had to negotiate a contract with you.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up