Premiere or FCPX, still hating FCPX’s timeline behaviour

[Steve Connor]

[Mark Snow] “So…. after some testing I must say: FCPX just keeps rearranging my Clips on the timeline, whatever hard I will try, this beast will shuffle around Clips or propose Snap-Edits without snap-activated and even worse change the track-order! This is just a nightmare!

Am I too stupid to adjust to this “new paradigm” or are you guys experiencing the same even with a lot of Know-How in this software?”

No you’re not, it just takes some getting used to, there are many good tutorials out there

[Mark Snow] “Is premiere purchasable as one-time License without the fancy CC and monthly-Pay stuff?”

Only the CS6 version

[Mark Snow] “Is there a downside comparing Premiere to FCP7 ?”

I don’t think that CS6 matches up particularly well to FCP7 in a lot of respects, however Premiere Pro CC is much better – but you have to rent it!

Steve Connor

There’s nothing we can’t argue about on the FCPX COW Forum

[Douglas K. dempsey]

I’m doing fairly low-budget docu stuff, mostly short form, with FCPX. I don’t have an issue with Timeline behavior; I agree with Steve that it’s probably just getting used to it.

Many people posting on this forum have complained about re-creating their FCP7 work methods, e.g. shunting various clips off to the right within a sequence, as they build the timeline. Using the timeline as an active “workbench” in other words.

I do this all the time in X, and find it actually easier in many ways. You just need to develop your own little techniques. For example, I will select and opt-cmd-up arrow (“Lift From Primary Storyline”) various clips or trims that I have decided NOT to use, but want to keep close by and visible as outtakes… because I may reconstitute them into the edit at any moment.

Once I am done pulling out these “non-selects” from a section of the edit, I will drag and select them all, hit cmd-G to make them into a single “secondary storyline” container, and drop that item at the end of my timeline, after a title “Outtakes.” I can shuffle that collection of clips — still in the original order that I worked on them — around in the timeline, copy to another timeline, copy or pull an individual clip out of the container. Eventually, when I’m near my fine cut, and have only real “keepers” in my outtakes, e.g. an alt sequence I may want to show to a client, I will make the outtakes into a compound clip and delete it from my timeline/workbench. It’s up there in Event Library if I need to access it.

When I do a delicate edit, with overlaps, layers, transitions, effects and 4 or 5 pieces of detached audio that are overlapping and “mixed” f… I will collapse that entire section into a compound clip (opt-G).

The nesting of compound clips is so much better than in FCP7 that it has become an everyday tool. You can delete a CC from the timeline at any time; it exists in the Event Library when you need it. When the CCs are in your timeline, you can double-click and punch in at any time to tweak your mix, effects, etc, back out seamlessly.

Probably the first thing to get your head around is just stop thinking of the word “tracks.” Once you treat everything as a media “object” — video, audio, A/V combo, title, graphic/still — you can be happy shuffling things around.

It seems to me a pleasant and easy to use “think while you work” creative environment.

If you are doing the more technical and mundane aspects of building tracks into export-able media for other editors/collaborators … e.g. preparing a raw edit that must be sent to an After Effects artist or ProTools artist … then you probably should have Premiere CC or a copy of Legacy for that kind of work.

Doug D

[Mark Snow]

Usually I need at least 4 video-tracks, tossing clips around and on top of each other without deleting or changing the other clips, all the while leaving the rest of the timeline the same in the meantime.

Even when I take the Position tool and construct some “Gap-V-Tracks”, FCPX doesn’t even respect those Gaps. It’s frustrating… What the hell is so wrong with normal Tracks!?

I think I can’t get used to the paradigm of having only one storyline that rules them all.
I don’t have a primary storyline! I would like to make a Video…

Every shot is as important as any other anywhere, but the shot that is on top is going to be in the movie, it’s that physical and simple, i think.

Unless FCPX gives me breathing space to edit (Tracks) and respect for my editing (stops moving and snapping around Clips without asking) I am not willing to “get used to” as long as there are alternatives.

I tried and watched tutorials too often now already. This timeline-editing behaviour is just not working for me, I guess. Besides I need Bezier-Speed-Controls built-in.

Again: Is it possible to “domesticate” this timeline-editing in FCPX or would I have to change how I edit?
Your experiences?

[Steve Connor]

[Mark Snow] “Usually I need at least 4 video-tracks, tossing clips around and on top of each other without deleting or changing the other clips, all the while leaving the rest of the timeline the same in the meantime.

Even when I take the Position tool and construct some “Gap-V-Tracks”, FCPX doesn’t even respect those Gaps. It’s frustrating… What the hell is so wrong with normal Tracks!?

I think I can’t get used to the paradigm of having only one storyline that rules them all.
I don’t have a primary storyline! I would like to make a Video…

Every shot is as important as any other anywhere, but the shot that is on top is going to be in the movie, it’s that physical and simple, i think.

Unless FCPX gives me breathing space to edit (Tracks) and respect for my editing (stops moving and snapping around Clips without asking) I am not willing to “get used to” as long as there are alternatives.

I tried and watched tutorials too often now already. This timeline-editing behaviour is just not working for me, I guess. Besides I need Bezier-Speed-Controls built-in.

Again: Is it possible to “domesticate” this timeline-editing in FCPX or would I have to change how I edit?
Your experiences?”

It really doesn’t sound like FCPX is for you.

Steve Connor

There’s nothing we can’t argue about on the FCPX COW Forum

[Ronny Courtens]

Mark Dobson:I think I can’t get used to the paradigm of having only one storyline that rules them all.
Again: Is it possible to “domesticate” this timeline-editing in FCPX or would I have to change how I edit?

Mark,

You know FCPX works without fixed tracks and with a dynamic timeline, and that’s the way it will stay. If you say from the start that you are absolutely not willing to accept or learn this way of working I don’t think you should waste your time trying to find ways to work around it. Just use a track-based NLE instead.

But when you accept it as it is I think you will find FCPX particularly effective. Even some of our most experienced editors have been cursing like hell when they did their first real project in FCPX. Today I’m sure none of them would like to go back to a track-based NLE. Once you get used to working with it and not against it editing in FCPX is a breeze.

– Ronny

[Oliver Peters]

I agree with each side here. I would suggest X is also not for Mark. But, the most disconcerting timeline behavior is the tendency for connected clips to randomly move in a vertical re-arrangement whenever you add new and overlapping connected clips. There doesn’t appear to be anyway to control this, so your timeline becomes a mess. You end up organizing after the fact, as opposed to a track-based system, where you control that through patching before making the edit.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com

[Bret Williams]

X is like snowboarding. It’s better than skiing. Most kids learn snowboarding instead. It has one board, no poles, and it’s quicker to learn than skiing. But I’ve met lots of skiers that have tried it and said they didn’t like it. It was too difficult. They didn’t get it. Their butt hurt. Etc. But the real problem was that they were awesome skiers. They’d been skiing 20 years and they were good at it. They’d mastered it. Even if snowboarding was better, more efficient, simpler, cheaper, they were still happier with skiing. They didn’t enjoy being out of their comfort zone. They didn’t enjoy not being an expert.

I think X is arguably like that. We all became experts after 5-10 years of using a certain NLE methodology. Legacy, Premiere and Avid were just different brands of skis. X is a snowboard. You’ve got to enjoy tackling something new and ride the bunny slope a little bit. And when the little kids are in the half pipe while you’re still falling off the chair lift try not to scream “I’d kick your ass on skis!”

[Steve Connor]

[Bret Williams] “X is like snowboarding. It’s better than skiing. Most kids learn snowboarding instead. It has one board, no poles, and it’s quicker to learn than skiing. But I’ve met lots of skiers that have tried it and said they didn’t like it. It was too difficult. They didn’t get it. Their butt hurt. Etc. But the real problem was that they were awesome skiers. They’d been skiing 20 years and they were good at it. They’d mastered it. Even if snowboarding was better, more efficient, simpler, cheaper, they were still happier with skiing. They didn’t enjoy being out of their comfort zone. They didn’t enjoy not being an expert.

I think X is arguably like that. We all became experts after 5-10 years of using a certain NLE methodology. Legacy, Premiere and Avid were just different brands of skis. X is a snowboard. You’ve got to enjoy tackling something new and ride the bunny slope a little bit. And when the little kids are in the half pipe while you’re still falling off the chair lift try not to scream “I’d kick your ass on skis!””

I believe you may have come up with the perfect analogy for FCPX

Steve Connor

There’s nothing we can’t argue about on the FCPX COW Forum

[Andy Neil]

[Oliver Peters] “the most disconcerting timeline behavior is the tendency for connected clips to randomly move in a vertical re-arrangement whenever you add new and overlapping connected clips.”

Can you give an example of this, Oliver? Of the random nature I mean? I don’t really see this with my work so I’m curious what this means.

Andy

https://www.timesavertutorials.com

[Oliver Peters]

[Andy Neil] “Can you give an example of this, Oliver? Of the random nature I mean? I don’t really see this with my work so I’m curious what this means.”

Sure. You have series of connected sound clips – SFX, VO, etc. These overlap, so the clips tend to cascade vertically. Now you add another connected clip, such as a music cue. Depending on where you add the clip, it is placed above, below or somewhere in between other clips in this cascade. Thus, shifting clips up or down.

On video, I have connected clips. I want to add an adjustment layer as the topmost clip. Same thing. Most of the time it is placed below rather than above, which means you have to take an extra step to move it up. Sometimes when you do this, not all clips are re-stacked. Sometimes a few simply stay above and you have to then select these and manually move them below.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com