-
“Magnetic timeline” is a joke, want an option to turn it off
-
Chris, Re: the Finder.
Yes, and as I said about FCP7 vs FCPX after I watched the Supermeet way back when — the FCP7 Browser is really just a crappy version of the old Mac Finder. And the new interface is analogous to leaving behind System 7, System 9 et al and jumping into Tiger, Panther, Leopard, Snow.
Doug D
-
Sounds like TV news to me. I have a friend who has cut a lot of CBS news stories under those same circumstances.
But there ARE long-form editors working in documentaries and fiction who DO work in a manner closer to a writer shuffling his drafts, cutting and pasting and “finding” the story. The result is no more “comic book” than the universal process of “shot, when to come in, when to go out” string of clips that comprise every bit of film since its invention.
I used to cut 16mm at night when I started out, for extra money. There is the ultimate expression of your workflow: it’s all pre-determined, and you lose a frame on each end of a shot when you cement the neg, so no mistakes or “thinking” allowed.
But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t an enormous amount of time spent “thinking” during the actual edit. All you’re saying is you do your edit “in your head” as you screen the footage, then put it together in one pass, working on timing alone, as the Producer leans over your shoulder wondering, “Why can’t you just push the ‘finished’ button and be done with it?”
But there are plenty of people who get to take their time and work as I describe. What do you think Walter Murch’s elaborate extracting and printing of frames from every shot and then arranging them on a wall, before he puts two shots together in the NLE is all about? Is the result a comic book movie? Contrarily, you can cut a music video precisely as you describe, double clicking shots into the Viewer, in, out, slam into the timeline on the beat, never look back.
Either way, I can imagine the FCPX interface being designed for results, not process — and it is the disappearance and/or lack of control of that process that seems to bother everyone.
The process you describe, the one that, if you depart from it, will get you “fired’, sounds like it is perfect for FCPX.
Doug D
-
I’m sorry but I had to jump in here. I seriously don’t understand how the magnetic timeline is confusing at all. Once I figured out how to import files I started cutting immediately without issue. The magnetic timeline is very, very, very simple. It moves clips out of the way as your sliding clips left and right. That’s it. (Unless I’m missing something) And I love that it does that. It can easily be turned off by pressing the “P” button. I mean really, of all the issues FCPX has – this is the one the keeps popping up as being touted a “joke”. Which leaves me thinking how any person who edits on a regular basis would find issue with this feature. I just don’t get it. One of the naturally simplest new functions created – TO ME – and I love it.
-
[Chris Kenny] “I think particularly this last behavior is a serious area of misunderstanding and cause of resentment. A lot of people seem to be looking at the FCP X timeline as having tracks they can’t control. But that’s not really the case. Rather, it has clip connections which are precisely controllable by the user. Vertical space is just used to help display the clip connections the user has specified as clearly as possible. “
Good analogy Chris. It reminds me of lead based typesetters complaining about the inflexibility of computer based desktop publishing.
At this point I’m completely frustrated by people who don’t get. It’s one thing to note the major missing features but people are complaining about things that are major workflow advantages.
It’s like complaining that they can’t feed hay to the new fangled automobile or why they can drive the supersonic jet down the traffic congested side street. It flies over it!
They keep wishing the car was a horse. They don’t want to learn how to drive a car . . . or a jet.
Sorry to rant. It’s something I’m not prone to doing but I really have to question whether people are spending time to understand FCPX in various workflows rather than trying to get it to work like an old style NLE.
-
Sorry Michael A, my post left out the word “neg.” I used to cut 16mm negative; trying to make the point that yes, a cut show is a string of the right shots which come in and go out at the right time. And that cutting the neg is the most schematic final cut of that process, all thinking having already been done.
I was simply trying to say that you can do your “thinking” in the timeline, before committing to your trimmed, rhythmic final cut. And that FCPX interface and events organization seems to turn the process on its head, saying “don’t work with all your tools out on the table; hide ’em until you need ’em, one by one.” For me that could be a good “bad-habit breaker.”
I understand that for many, like my CBS news friend, that just sounds like extra steps to get back to a solid and transparent way of working, so why bother.
Doug D
-
Woah…
Ok, I kinda saw this coming, but you did say you were dodging town for the land of techniques, but I guess you needed your own V style parting shot…
Firstly, it was a minor jab, and considering Mr Kenny’s unrelenting resolve, he’ll brush it off. But the jab was pretty much both ways. Tiny tiny maybe on his side…but that line honestly did make me chortle, maybe a guffaw.
On to the pop-psych.
I don’t think I really need to hold your hand through anything, you’re a big boy. And I’ll give you the respect the other side seems to have decided isn’t required when going toe to toe on this abomination. But context is needed. There have been blogs, an unrelenting hum, an endless bucket of needless characterizations and EASY needless punches below the belt…comes off as projection to be honest.
Some of us have drawn our lines here. I dug my heals in the sand and took exception once there was a blog post decidedly ripping into the reasons we don’t like it, that entirely made it personal…it was nothing short of sand being kicked in the face of those who have serious problems with this. Doesn’t mean I can’t keep good cheer, and have. But with the occasional borderline troll-ish post, which most are said with tongue firmly planted in cheek and not vicious in any manner, in parallel I have asked we pick up the class in this joint and quit this talking down to mentality to those that have serious issues here.
It’s gotten so bad it’s like having a conversation with someone whose back is turned to you listening to their ipod…or it’s conversation hegemony….instead of addressing it, they dismiss it, re-invent it and say it another way trying to take over your own personal feelings and tell you what you really think…good god. It does make one scratch their head….calling this out occasionally is nothing to get snitty over and to tell me to leave…am I name calling? Am I trolling the techniques forum..? I’m in what is now a discussion forum. I think you get that. Which is why this seems to have halted your patience here where you have continually mapped out your quest to leave. So, if this is your parting shot, I wish it was a better one, and sorry you are taking my posts with such disdain. But my convo with David was a lot longer than 2 posts and crossed his blog, and Chris here I’m sure can take it like the man he is (and proven in spades)…I do feel somewhat bad since I have a technical question I’m sure he’d love to answer, but probably won’t now…crap
Cheers
-
It is not news I cut. It is theatrically released feature films. The amount of thinking and editing in your head is enormous indeed. It starts with reading the script in pre-production if I’m lucky enough to get hired that early. It continues during production with shots coming in every day. But the next day they’ve wrapped the director comes and I have to show them the story that makes sense. Yes this part is mostly about the order the shots come. I can be sloppy in timing and matching shots at these point if the schedule is tight and the shooting ratio is huge but I cannot be sloppy in presentation. The story has to make sense. That’s what they expect to see and that’s what they pay for.
Then the director is on it for as long as he likes or as long as the producer foots the bill. Still it isn not a Babylon tower of stacked shots on the timeline and an endless list of sequences containing the same cut just with a few frames shaved off here or there in the browser. I must show him the alternate take the instant he wants and edit it into the scene the second he likes it. And I must undo and redo all these changes right away. Which I do without resorting to keeping copy of every minutely different variant. When recutting a scene don’t keep the older version. When you need to revert to it if it was good you’ll reassemble it on autopilot. If it wasn’t good chances reassembling it manually you’ll make it better. The versions you keep are the ones that screening were scheduled for and notes taken. There aren’t that many.
Then it is time to polish there is no time to make your project ramble. To ear the heart-beat and the breath of your film you must focus on the film itself, not on the difference between “most fine finest fine cut”, “fifth director’s cut”, “rainy afternoon cut” and “the one we did just for laughs cut”. You will get distracted, lost and frustrated.
Well, to make it short whatever you do on the timeline do it as fast as you can. Keep your eyes on the picture, not on the interface. That will leave you more time to think and it will let you cut better.
-
[Chris Kenny] “I could write this precise sentence in support of the magnetic timeline.”
Sorry, it wasn’t about magnetic timeline. It was in response to Douglas’ description of his approach to editing.
[Chris Kenny] “Coud you explain what you mean by this? How does it not respect timing?”
It ripples. Clips ripple. Transitions ripple too. The design priority was to prevent a user from accidentally creating flash frames and short gaps.
[Chris Kenny] “This has been the precise opposite of my experience.”
My apologies again we are just trading words here. I didn’t have an opportunity to see what you do in the non-magnetic timeline to make a comparison. Chances might be you simply “don’t get” the non-magnetic timeline.
-
[Reed Black] ” seriously don’t understand how the magnetic timeline is confusing at all. “
It not confusing in the slightest. It just does the exact opposite of what the timeline in an NLE should do.
[Reed Black] “The magnetic timeline is very, very, very simple.”
Yes, it is.
[Reed Black] “It can easily be turned off by pressing the “P” button”
Wrong. Try to press “P” and then Command-X/Command-V
-
[Michael Aranyshev] “It ripples. Clips ripple. Transitions ripple too. The design priority was to prevent a user from accidentally creating flash frames and short gaps.”
This doesn’t really answer my question. OK, things ripple. How does this mean it’s not respecting timing? It’s not changing the lengths of your clips. And most actions can be performed without rippling.
[Michael Aranyshev] “My apologies again we are just trading words here. I didn’t have an opportunity to see what you do in the non-magnetic timeline to make a comparison. Chances might be you simply “don’t get” the non-magnetic timeline.”
It’s far more plausible that something that came out last week isn’t being understood properly than that something that has been around for almost 20 years isn’t being understood properly.
—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up