-
One Single Change
I’ve had the opportunity to do a bunch of stuff in FCPX over the last several months and recently have been reworking a lot of projects in FCP7.
So I’ve had plenty of time to discover the strengths and weaknesses of X and now a good opportunity to see them in direct comparison with 7, including “on-board” audio post in X and external audio post in Digital Performer with 7. I think I’ve been fairly agnostic to this point, while talking about some of the things that I really like about FCPX.
FWIW, here are my opinions on the basic paradigm issues (as I see ’em, sorry if it’s a bit of a tome.)
Is the Magnetic Timeline better?
No. It’s different and it’s a nice concept in some instances and counterproductive in others.Is the trackless concept better?
No. In some instances using CCs as bins for both organization and group FX is great. In other instances the lack of tracks is very counterproductive.With the caveat that it’s still way too buggy and immature – In essence I really like FCPX. I like the look, the feel and access to the main creative tools, and use of real estate. I especially like the ability to keep projects “in-house” right through finishing and mastering – some projects.
The creative process is, at it’s essence, about pushing beyond limits and restrictions.
Well, not surprisingly, magnetism can be restrictive.
Conversely, the ability to easily define linear order is not restrictive.
It’s all about context.
A visionary concept should allow for a workflow that’s easily adjustable to context.So, if it’s so obvious to a simple guy like me, it can’t be that big of a concept.
It’s the 21st century, it’s about choices, not boxes.Magnetic Timelines and trackless editing can be liberating in some instances.
They are confining in others.
Ironically, sometimes they create a box, other times they actually increase complexity.
It depends on the project, workflow and creative style.Track based editing with no magnetism is liberating in other instances, offering complete control and fluidity during the proces.
Both concepts work, but not at the same time or for all needs. That’s why a basic choice is obviously better.
Fortunately, better is quantifiable – just ask users what’s better for them.
I bet the opinions would run sort of like this: Sometimes magnetic/trackless is better and sometimes track based is better.So, it can’t be better to restrict users to one better way of doing things in the name of another better way of doing things?
They’re both better, depending on what they’re compared to, in context.
The best creative environment will always offer more, not less, options.My single change:
One button – Magnetism Off/Track Grid On.Everything else can stay essentially the same and Apple would offer the best creative environment on the market, IMO.
-
30 Replies
-
[Jim Giberti] “So, it can’t be better to restrict users to one better way of doing things in the name of another better way of doing things?
They’re both better, depending on what they’re compared to, in context.
The best creative environment will always offer more, not less, options.My single change:
One button – Magnetism Off/Track Grid On.”Excellent and well balanced post, Jim. I agree.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
I should add, one additional thing I’d love to see is some kind of Fairlight-like layering for tracks as Michael G. often describes.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
Terrific overview.
[Jim Giberti] “My single change:
One button – Magnetism Off/Track Grid On.
“That would get me involved pretty fast.
-
Who can argue with this?
“Magnetism” (which I enjoy and enhances my work) remains…
And in a circumstance where someone want it off, they can turn it off.
Everybody wins.
(Probably there’s an engineer somewhere at Apple reading this and groaning while thinking how “non-trivial” this would be to implement, but the dream is sure nice!)
“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
-
If Apple are reading and groaning Bill, then it really doesn’t matter. Years ago the software guys at dSP offered to teach me to program so I could experiment with their DAW. I said no for the simple reason that if I understood what was easy and what was hard, it would taint my ability to ask for what was good and an improvement from a users point of view.
So regardless of hard or easy, Apple really need to listen to this sort of feedback. I know I have a particular bias but general reading accross this and other forums plus talking to lots of editors who don’t post, the magentic vs tracks debate is the single biggest divide and regardless of updates and missing features being restored, this single button fix is the most important thing.
-
Totally agree with your post. Sony Vegas has had the magnetic timeline for years and I love it and use it all the time but it’s an OPTION! I have it turned OFF probably 90% of the time while cutting. In Vegas you can also choose to use it on a single track or the entire timeline – of course you need “tracks” for that option.
I think Apple has a great foundation with the current version and now it’s time to start listening to users and make the little changes here and there that can make it a great NLE. Let’s hope Apple is listening…
Lance Bachelder
Writer, Editor, Director
Irvine, California -
Yes a couple programs have a ripple mode. I’ve asked this a few times now and not been able to get an answer yet: In practice is FCPXs magnetic timeline really that different to editing in tracks locked/ripple mode in a program like Vegas or Edius?
-
Thanks, David, Chris. I was kind of dreading going back into FCP7 after the hiatus. But once I got back to it, it wasn’t a situation where 7 felt kludgy with old fashioned conventions. It’s more the realization that some established conventions are outmoded while others are well evolved.
At the same time, I like and understand the new media, metadata, GUI, the Inspector, groups…concepts like in Motion, it all works, they’ve got me onboard. So just shut off the magnet and turn on a grid when you want and it really makes sense.
Even wonderfully evolved cameras like the Canon 5D3 that captured much of “Act of Valor”, have full auto controls. In fact we had to lobby Canon heavily for a year to get manual control for HD – the very thing that’s made the camera iconic. Auto controls are great for casual users of pro cameras and for pros who, in a pinch, can utilize them in fast changing and uncontrollable circumstances.
It’s great for FCPX to have the same “auto” control. But in many circumstances it’s just not a pro feature because, in the name of redundancy, pros will always demand full manual control.
It’s like autopilot. What a wonderful technology, in so many ways superior in it’s ability to manage routine flights. But find me a pilot who would allow it to permanently override his ability to fly the plane as he needs in different circumstances.
Pros will always want full manual control of their cameras and every tool they use to create with – for all the obvious reasons.
Canon is a big company with a different, but no less private, culture than Apple’s certainly. We were told they would never modify the camera for full manual control…it would never happen. But a lot of us wrote pieces and had conversations with management and they evolved it within a year. It made sense. Of course it did. And it ushered in a revolution.
Not to get all grandiose, but Apple could really help usher in an X revolution with a Full Manual upgrade like Canon delivered.
-
While I agree with your assertion that the trackless and magnetic aspects of FCPX are strong in some places and weak in others, and that this is also true for any NLE (where said NLE has strong aspects and weak aspects), I don’t think instituting an OFF switch (or ON switch in the case of tracks) is a doable change.
This is because FCPX treats audio differently than other NLEs, and you can’t institute a track system without adjusting the entire audio paradigm. The closest you might get is something where you can have multiple independent storylines for your project (similar to how the new multicam angle editor looks). But audio would still need to be embedded in the video clips. To edit audio on separate tracks would require breaking apart the clips and moving those audio tracks to their own storylines. That would be a long workaround.
For that reason, I’m not sure track lovers would be happy with any track style implementation. At least when it comes to audio. Personally, I wouldn’t mind having the ability to create independent storylines occasionally, but I don’t miss it much when I edit in X. I’d actually be happier with a modifier key that I could press to hold a connected clip in place while I slip the primary clip below it. Then I can keep the advantage of connected clips, while gaining the ability to adjust those clips separate from each other.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Andy Neil] “a modifier key that I could press to hold a connected clip in place while I slip the primary clip below it”
An auto-gap function/key?
What do you mean?
Thanks!
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up