-
One Sequence Per Project?
-
[Craig Seeman] “The problem people are having is they’re trying to translate previous ways of understanding to a new language (new technical way of putting together media) that doesn’t necessarily translate directly.”
Fair enough, but the essential point is that operationally in terms of the actual GUI you’re sitting in front of, which is all that will really matter for the majority of users, a “project” is a “sequence” in every meaningful sense and it would only help to think of it that way – to tell them they need to get their head around a whole new universe of meaning because that’s the way it’s working under the hood isn’t really going to do much other than confuse unnecessarily. It’s best if they stay ignorant of the Matrix and don’t swallow the blue pill of wisdom (or was it the red pill?)
No?
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Stefan Buhrmester] “You can always create a new compound clip directly inside the event browser. That’s the closest you get to FCP7 sequences.”
No really, Stefan, it’s not that complicated – a “project” really is a FCP7 “sequence”.
Compounds clips are “nests” in all but name, or rather they behave almost identically to nests in FCP7 with the advantage that you can “break them apart” much more easily (with a single command).
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
OK, can you then have multiple FCPX “projects” open?
For example, in a current FCP7 project, I have no less than 16 different sequences for 16 different videos all based on the same media, but all sequences are unique, so Auditions and Compound clips won’t help. So in FCPX terms, who would I manage 16 different projects?
As you can tell, I haven’t downloaded it yet. No baseband video out was the killer for me for now, hoping for that change to come soon.
-
Sorry, I disagree. This is why I believe that Compound Clips are the equivalent substitute for Sequences. Not Projects:
FCP7 Sequence FCPX Compound Clip FCPX Project
Has it's own timeline Yes Yes Yes
Viewed in Media-/Event Browser Yes Yes No
Can be dragged into a project Yes Yes No
Can be edited like a media file Yes Yes No
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “OK, can you then have multiple FCPX “projects” open?”
Yes, fortunately you can. I rely on this absolutely when I’m cutting so am glad to see that it’s there.
You can “tab” between them using the arrow buttons at the top left of the Timeline window. And you can easily copy and paste between projects which is what I like to do all the time. So no real change from FCP7 there … at least 😉
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
As I just posted in reply to a post before your’s, I would not view projects as a substitute for sequences.
Here is how your setup would look in FCPX:
You import your media file and put it into an Event. Events are the new way to group media files together.
You have ONE project (not 16).
You create 16 compound clips based on your media.
These compound clips can be used in your project just like sequences can be used in FCP7.
-
[Stefan Buhrmester] “You have ONE project (not 16).”
You can have as many “projects” as you like – there is no sense in which an FCPX “project” is remotely the same as an FCP7 “project” which is what you appear to be saying unless I’ve got you wrong.
What FCPX calls a “project” is really just the same thing (for all practical purposes) as what FCP7 used to call a “sequence”. An old FCP7 “project” is much more like an FCPX “Event” – though there are much bigger differences here, not that they affect the basic sense of it.
I can see from your post that the change of descriptive language is really not helping people get to grips with FCPX, sadly.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “o tell them they need to get their head around a whole new universe of meaning because that’s the way it’s working under the hood isn’t really going to do much other than confuse unnecessarily”
But it’s the essence of the “why does it” or “why doesn’t it” questions that are leading to so much frustration. Someone things of it as a “sequence” and they ask “why can’t it do something that I’ve always done with sequences before.” It’s because it’s not a sequence. It’s kinda like a sequence but it really a whole lot different and it’s why it lends itself to some features and not others. The “gap” is a good example of that. Some might say “why do a need to add a gap now when I didn’t need to do that in a sequence before.” AV Foundation can’t have a “hole” any more than you can have a hole in a single Quicktime file (or any other typical media file). It has to be filed with media so FCPX “gap” is a media slug. Amongst other things it allows things to be linked to it before and after as well as “above and below.”
Sorry but it is the Matrix and it’s why people are frustrated. Once one understands where some of the frustration is coming from one can break through.
I remember a friend of mine from Venezuela was learning English and one day he woke up an excitedly said that he dreamt in English. That was a language breakthrough. His mind no longer needed to translate Spanish to English. Once you can break free of inadequate parallels and understand the new language, it makes INTUITIVE sense. As editors we want to work intuitively without having the “translate” things. When one is stuck in “translation” it slows one down. Once one understands the language itself intuitive instead of trying to be “comparative” one gets how the new thing works.
You can’t deny the HUGE amount of frustration going on here and it’s far beyond missing a few very important Pro features. There’s a fundamental “understanding” of the new language that hasn’t yet happened for most people. It may, it may not happen for some people but that’s what I see going on.
-
[Craig Seeman] “Sorry but it is the Matrix and it’s why people are frustrated”
Lots of interesting points there as always.
But I think I still disagree with you about letting people see the Matrix. For example read Stefan’s posts in this thread and you can see the level of confusion that results from not calling a spade a spade. I don’t think your point about gaps is really that much of a clincher – it’s a minor wrinkle in what is otherwise a very straightforward one-to-one comparison.
I think what a lot of people need when encountering new stuff like this are helpful analogies – and the analogy of FCPX “project” equals FCP7 “sequence” is surely entirely valid even if it doesn’t reveal the hidden truth. At this point I don’t think people need the hidden truth – not just yet anyway when there’s so much else they need to get their head round.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
So if I have a current set of FCPX events and projects, how do you archive?
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up