-
One Single Change
-
That’s a fine idea!
-
[Andy Neil] “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.”
For starters, I’d just like clips to stop moving vertically when a gap appears. I don’t want clips so desperate to be near the center of gravity that they rush toward every opening.
It’s why I’ve decided that tracks are simply a preferable way to organize and edit in many instances.
I find myself doing elaborate things to contain clips in secondary storylines and compound clips that was never a consideration before we went trackless and magnetic.Here’s the real thing, as I try and work through this all in real time on tight schedules. I’m a tweaker and a massager. I don’t know any good creative who isn’t. I constantly go back and adjust dozens of EQs and Compression and FX if I’m mixing a song and do the same with film and video. It goes on for days and weeks.
I was initially enamored by the grouping potential of Compound Clips. But after working with them for months, I realize that it is profoundly stupid that I can’t open a group and work with it in context of my project – only in context with it’s group.
That’s simply primitive. We moved beyond that level of guess work decades ago with things like basic mixing consoles. There are simply too many flaws with the X concept as it has been implemented, too many things that aren’t a better idea than what we’re already good at.
And I can’t see how making things stay somehow violates the important improvements of X.
I have eight Labradors and every one of them learned to stay as a first command.
-
[Jim Giberti] “Here’s the real thing, as I try and work through this all in real time on tight schedules. I’m a tweaker and a massager. I don’t know any good creative who isn’t. I constantly go back and adjust dozens of EQs and Compression and FX if I’m mixing a song and do the same with film and video. It goes on for days and weeks.”
I constantly tweak things as well. I don’t find that the lack of tracks makes this any more difficult. I stay organized with roles and tweak away. That said, there is definite room for improvement for audio editing in general.
[Jim Giberti] “And I can’t see how making things stay somehow violates the important improvements of X.”
The staying part doesn’t violate FCPX’s paradigm (horizontally that is). But any track style editing that could be incorporated would need to allow for the basic parent/child relationship that is the foundation of X’s structure as well as the audio embedded model that exists. It would need to be a hybrid feature like independent storylines that can accommodate connected clips as well.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
First of all Andy, I think this is a really relevant discussion, perhaps even more so for me because of all the 7 vs X comparison I’ve had the last month or so. I don’t see it as rehashing the track thing
I think now that we’ve had a chance to really work and compare, it’s a good time to assess.
[Andy Neil] “The staying part doesn’t violate FCPX’s paradigm (horizontally that is). But any track style editing that could be incorporated would need to allow for the basic parent/child relationship that is the foundation of X’s structure as well as the audio embedded model that exists. It would need to be a hybrid feature like independent storylines that can accommodate connected clips as well.”
Like I said in another post, like with the Canon 5DII, I just want manual control. I don’t want to work in “program Mode”. I want to shut off auto-pilot and fly my own plane.
The inherent design that makes vertical items, whether they’re clips, audio or graphics, simply drop into any free space in a gravitational manner is a logistical failure from a complex organizational standpoint.
It just is.
It’s interesting because if you read Edgar Rothermich’s FCPX graphic manual he focuses on the concept of the spreadsheet as his working analogy for the X paradigm. Well, spreadsheets are ultimately linear as he discusses at length…and for good reason.There’s a real conflict going on within FCPX that Apple simply didn’t resolve before bringing it to market. The parent/child, group/nesting concept has real value. But to the extent that it removes the easy ability to organize information into linear fields that make immediate visual sense, it’s more of a potential than a finished concept.
It simply needs to do both.
There is no way that random stacks of information work better than linear organization unless you strictly want to see things in chunks of information ONLY as they relate to a primary object.That’s way too limiting for day to day professional use.
Apple’s needs to solve this dilemma if they want this to be a future product.
As someone who’s enthusiastically used both X and 7.And working with metadata, keywords and search fields is great, but it’s not a replacement for real time, see everything in front of you in an organized way, layout of information. Metadata is an adjunct to the creative process, not a new way to approach it.
As someone who works in design, film and music, I can’t imagine a better way to make creative decisions than to have all my “data” organized clearly in front of me, in real time.
That is the optimum way to compare, assess and spark creative ideas.
Oh, and for things to stay where I put them.
-
This is where Zones would come in to play.
I think having a trackless visually organized timeline is possible, Apple just needs to take the metadata to the next level and allow sorting timeline clips by Role or otherwise, and give each Role a spatial equivalent on the timeline.
If we’re going to do this, let’s really do this, you know?
Jeremy
-
[Jim Giberti] “The inherent design that makes vertical items, whether they’re clips, audio or graphics, simply drop into any free space in a gravitational manner is a logistical failure from a complex organizational standpoint.
It just is.”That’s your opinion and I respect that. I’m just saying that I don’t have a problem staying organized using Roles, Index and Timeline views. And in some ways, not worrying about what track a particular clip is assigned to can be a freeing and speedy way to edit. And BTW, the timeline doesn’t place things in random order at all. There is a method to it. I know it’s not what you’re used to or want, but its unfair to say it’s random.
Still, I suppose it’s possible to create a kind of virtual track (or zone as Jeremy calls it) where you can reconcile a static vertical position that only adjusts in circumstances where clips collide. If you edit a connected clip, it defaults to the closest position to the primary storyline, but then with a shortcut like OPT+up or down arrow, you can push the clip into a lower or higher vertical clip position. They would stay there unless pushed by a clip collision.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I think having a trackless visually organized timeline is possible, Apple just needs to take the metadata to the next level and allow sorting timeline clips by Role or otherwise, and give each Role a spatial equivalent on the timeline.
“I like that Jeremy.
Yes let me organize my projects with Roles that have a parallel relationship to the Primary. Then I get the benefit of that form of data organization, searchable and in list form as well as the missing visual association, in realtime, to my project.
We don’t design with metadata. Metadata is just a newer word and system for reference files. Ultimately it’s about getting as much of what the metadata refers to, in front of you, in order to make ongoing creative decisions.
And the next thing we want to do as organized thinkers is arrange all of that stuff in logical categories for quick assessment and manipulation.
-
[Andy Neil] “And BTW, the timeline doesn’t place things in random order at all. There is a method to it. I know it’s not what you’re used to or want, but its unfair to say it’s random.”
Sorry, I didn’t mean for it to sound like it’s an accidental placement, but you’re point is mine – if it’s not where I want it then it’s not manual control.
It’s very much a form of auto or program mode that assumes, to the best of it’s ability, what the user wants in an average situation. Program mode, auto exposure, auto gain – the things DSLR filmmakers pleaded with Canon to restore, and they quickly did, to HD.
Roles are great, but they don’t replace the ability to visually assess your creative in front of you which is certainly a standard practice of visual artists. They give you a mental, representational organizational tool…a way to define your intent. Combine that with a spatial, real time reference to your project and you’ve got something much better than what it is now, because it offers both valuable ways to organize and create.
It’s why Motion is a more sophisticated interface IMO – it intelligently offers a very dualistic approach to creative development – with groups and parent/child relationships that can be opened and closed in one tab and a linear timeline representing the same information that can be opened or closed in another.
It’s a good debate Andy, and I appreciate your ideas.
-
[Jim Giberti] “We don’t design with metadata. Metadata is just a newer word and system for reference files. Ultimately it’s about getting as much of what the metadata refers to, in front of you, in order to make ongoing creative decisions.
And the next thing we want to do as organized thinkers is arrange all of that stuff in logical categories for quick assessment and manipulation.”
Agreed. When you bust it down to essentials, tracks are metadata really, they just have a place in space. Selectable and dynamic metadata could even be more powerful (in my opinion) but it definitely comes at the cost of more complexity…under the hood, in the XML, in other applications, etc.
Great databases are, well, great. Bad ones are a chore to use.
Apple has their work cut out for them to design this data in to a visual method that is at once powerful, but not a chore to use, advantageous to the people that need it, but stays out of the way for the people that don’t need it.
I think a controllable spatial representation of “data”, and the advantages of the trackless timeline will actually serve us well. We just have to see what Apple his in store (if anything).
I just hope that are thinking conceptually about these issues as we are.
We all know, multichannel audio is a chore.
-
[Jim Giberti] “It’s a good debate Andy, and I appreciate your ideas.”
I agree. I also think there are some great ideas in general in this thread, and hopefully Apple has been considering some of the same ideas as they move FCPX forward.
It’s one thing to dismiss an idea because someone just wants their old style of editing back, but Apple should realize that there are some legitimate concerns regarding how editors edit that can’t be easily reconciled simply by telling us to think differently (see what I did there?) 😉
I think and hope that more control over the interface will added as FCPX matures. I like Jeremy’s idea of zones; mostly because it doesn’t require changing how I already like to edit in X. I don’t really want tracks back, but there’s room to modify the timeline arrangement with more manual control for those who like to organize that way.
[Jim Giberti] “Roles are great, but they don’t replace the ability to visually assess your creative in front of you which is certainly a standard practice of visual artists.”
I will however, disagree with you there. Roles do allow you to visualize your your creative work. You can minimize clips that aren’t necessary and expand and highlight those you want to work with even if they aren’t on the same “track” making it very to see at a glance. Here’s a pic of what I mean.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up