-
No tracks, No Deal
-
[Mark Morache] “Do we imagine a time when DAWs will be trackless?”
Just for sake of comparison, can you imagine a time when a symphony score in front of a conductor is written without a staff and scales and without clear indication of which instruments are playing specific parts?
I think the trackless idea is utterly stupid, but the reality is that Apple is designing a program for people who infrequently deal with a client looking over their shoulder. This truth of the matter is that I rarely have those types of sessions either. A lot of reviewing over the web.
But when they do come, other NLEs provide a much better toolset. Especially where audio is involved. Right now that’s a Grand Canyon-sized gaping hole in the application. You simply cannot mix, on-the-fly, in real-time with FCP X.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Just for sake of comparison, can you imagine a time when a symphony score in front of a conductor is written without a staff and scales and without clear indication of which instruments are playing specific parts?
“I dunno, Oliver.
It seems to me that while yes, symphonic style music requires a strict communications structure, that structure is necessitated by the requirement of the communications complexity that’s particular to that large group dynamic. Personally, while I love massed sounds and group efforts, I find myself equally drawn to the creative spirt of the “singer songwriter” – the artist who creates and realizes an artistic expression more personally. Heck, seems to me that the most enjoyable music of the last 50 years, for the largest audience, has been written largely by individuals or small, small teams. Not by committee.
And while formal, structured music will never go out of style, at some point, the written “structured” part of the creation effort came AFTER the more free-form geniuses laid down their work.
I’m reminded of “Standing in the Shadows of Motown.” James Jamerson didn’t work from structured charts. He closed his eyes in session after session, and imagined dozens upon dozens of transcendentally brilliant tracks that still inspire the best players of today.
From the cubists to the impressionists, sure they understood the structure of their form and art (tho it’s arguable that John Coltrane came from somewhere in outer space and actually didn’t!) But many of the truly transcendent artists of the past had to DECONSTRUCT structure in order to move their art forward.
I have absolutely no clue whether the “trackless” structure of X will ever inspire some kid to do something weird that changes some fundamental nature of video cutting.
Or not. Nobody knows. But to imply — as many seem to do here — that the ONLY way to do quality cutting is to lock your brain into a stack of vertical time stripes seems …. I dunno…instinctively questionable to me.
And it’s certainly arguable that “time on a line” will turn out to the the best editing structure that’s ever going to be possible for all time and for all cases. But hey, what if thats NOT actually true? How will we ever know if we don’t get to try something different and see? Finally, with X. We have an option.
But what do I know.
It seems I’m actually finding I *like* a little radical change in my editing software.
Who knew!
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
I guess the part I’m most confused about is how the proposed edit environment benefits tracks. Are you saying that you don’t know the timeline well enough to do a replace edit? Or stack a few new SFX clips and turn off the ones you don’t need? Or haven’t explored what Auditions can really do?
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I guess the part I’m most confused about is how the proposed edit environment benefits tracks. Are you saying that you don’t know the timeline well enough to do a replace edit? Or stack a few new SFX clips and turn off the ones you don’t need? Or haven’t explored what Auditions can really do?”
Jeremy, I can tell by your questions that you have either a) not been in the kind of scenario I’m talking about, or b) are a truly extraordinary individual. Now, I’m guessing it is “b,” so I’m just asking you to take pity on us muggles who need our visual crutches to make it through a tight afternoon in the speediest way we can.
-
Fair enough, but help me understand. I do sit in supervised sessions, but they are pretty rare these days. It’s to the point now that clients almost sit in your lap as they almost want to operate the keyboard.
Help me understand “no way”. Just curious.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Fair enough, but help me understand. I do sit in supervised sessions, but they are pretty rare these days. It’s to the point now that clients almost sit in your lap as they almost want to operate the keyboard.
Help me understand “no way”. Just curious.”
I’m not sure I can make you understand, because to me it is obvious, and yet, it does not seem to be so to you. First, maybe you are not aware of the number of ingredients in a high energy :30. If it is reality or procedural cop/medical/etc., its 26 seconds of non-plate material can sport somewhere between twenty and forty (or more) separate images. Lines are pared down to their bare minimum, and what seems to be a simple full sentence is almost always cut down by a third or a half or more. These sentence will run underneath 2-3-4 images. On average there will be at least three pieces of music that interrelate with each other and represent different parts of the spot, and there will be somewhere between 15 to 35 sfx cues, including whooshes (singular, or in series) thuds, body blocks and falls, mental clangs, glass shatter, small ramps, gun shots, thunder, tweeker effects, etc. Almost all of this stuff overlaps some of the rest of the stuff.
So, for me, that’s a lot to keep in my head, especially when it is shifting around, and a lot to not have strong visual references for when working with others. You may not need to, but I need to see the whole structure at a glance, and then to zoom in and out of it at will. I need to be able to point at a series of clips and say “if we move THIS here than it is going to conflict with THAT.” I need to have my effects on an X/Y access so that I can locate something immediately, X=time, Y=track. When five or six 7 frame visuals share the same whoosh, I don’t want to wonder what it is attached to who. When I have to step out for whatever reason and another editor or an AE needs to do some things, I want them to know before even looking at my project where things are.
I can also see patterns and easily communicate them to others. If the timpani I’m burying underneath the thunder at the request of the CD doesn’t pay off on the third hit, I want to see immediately why, peripherally, without really having to dig for it. I want to glance down at the waveform in my music track and be able to say “I think the cellos in the piece we just moved here are canceling out the lower end of the midrange in the timpani, which is why you don’t think it is as powerful,” or conversely, I want to look up at the SOT track, and say “that deadening is coming from that traffic noise behind his dialog. That bus, right there. I can’t separate him unless we get an ISO, or some ADR, which I bet they don’t have.”
Does this help?
-
[Bill Davis] “I find myself equally drawn to the creative spirt of the “singer songwriter””
I know a few of those. They rely pretty heavily on Logic or ProTools – with tracks – to actually record and mix their song into a commercial format. The 60s era house bands at Motown and Stax were very in tune with the production concepts of the time, especially multitrack analog recorders and mixers that had parallel signal paths (i.e. tracks or channels). When those songs were transcribed by arrangers, they were placed into a score structure, even if the original writers couldn’t personally read it.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Maybe I don’t fully understand (and it wouldn’t be the first time) but I don’t see how you can have a magnetic timeline and tracks. Any tracks option would have to disable the magnetic timeline wouldn’t it?
I don’t necessarily hate the idea of a magnetic timeline – When I work in Avid I almost always have the sync locks on which is at least half a magnetic timeline) but I just don’t see how the tracks would work without being able to, at least partially, disable the magnetic timeline.bigpine
-
I appreciate the explanation.
I guess I am ignorant. I still don’t see anything that can’t be done in FCPX. Yes, you probably wouldn’t be as fast as you are in fcp7 on the first one, but you’d get faster.
I would love a screengrab of your timeline, but I understand if you can’t.
-
[TImothy Auld] “Maybe I don’t fully understand (and it wouldn’t be the first time) but I don’t see how you can have a magnetic timeline and tracks. Any tracks option would have to disable the magnetic timeline wouldn’t it?
I don’t necessarily hate the idea of a magnetic timeline – When I work in Avid I almost always have the sync locks on which is at least half a magnetic timeline) but I just don’t see how the tracks would work without being able to, at least partially, disable the magnetic timeline.bigpine”
There is a theoretical possibility that Apple could add the option of fixed secondary storylines, these would act as fixed tracks, the magnetic timeline also doesn’t work by default in secondary storylines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxGbDcnmfZs&feature=player_embedded
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up