-
Re: After a year has perception of FCPX changed?
-
[David Lawrence] “2012 technology has nothing to do with UI design. The UI metaphor is whatever the designer chooses. A trackless timeline is a design choice, not a technology.”
And in a metadata environment, I’d guess the audio UI should be nifty. “Should” is a pesky word there, subjunctive mood. Simultaneously, it means the hypothetical future and the past tense. Oh Apple! What they should’ve done; what they should do! An entire forum devoted to the cause.
-
[Richard Herd] “I hope your clients are happy! I hope they return for more work!”
Me too.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I guess I just see things differently, David. Really, I bust things down to their parts. Fcpx is hardly an a/b model if you don’t want it to be, anymore than a track based program is. X has layers. I can’t believe we are still having this conversation about layers. Sometimes, I feel you are taunting us.”
Of course we see things differently, Jeremy, lol! That’s why this debate forum is fun. And nope, not trolling, Just thinking about Clint’s questions about FCPX and his workflow from my perspective.
[Jeremy Garchow] “If I were doing this (and how I edit multichannel (or screen) events) is to make three timelines with the soundtrack in each timeline and begin the edit.
I then add the three timelines nested in fcp7 to three video tracks with the soundtrack in that master timeline and arrange each nest so that they are visible.
That way I could independently edit any channel and also view all the nests together as one program. After the edit is complete, I usually bounce the whole thing out to AE and break it up in to it’s disparate parts via automatic duck. Sometimes it’s one big blended screen, sometimes it’s a combo of blended and disparate satellite screens that are all sepearate pieces, sometimes different aspect ratios, but comprise a whole program. Since AE had much better scaling and resolution independence than FCP7. I’d finish it all up in AE. Changes were a pain in the a$$.”
Yes, that’s would certainly work. But what if you’re building your soundtrack and your video channels all at the same time? What if you need to create and manipulate interrelationships between all channels simultaneously?
[Jeremy Garchow] “How would you do it, in your NLE of choice of course?”
Well, as you know, I’m a big fan of the spatial approach to editing. I think of multi-channel video works like “Primetime” the same way I think of a multi-track musical composition. So I would compose the piece using tracks and open space as a blank canvas. Each track is fully independent but all tracks share the same sync reference. It’s perfect for the job.
Years ago, I met Melhus and asked about his process. He told me he essentially treated FCP as a superDAW, using it to compose everything from TV and Film A/V samples. He starts with audio, but video is integrated throughout. I don’t know specifically what his timelines look like but I got the sense that the flexibility of the open timeline was essential to his creative process.
It’s also been a while for me but if I was doing a multi-channel piece today, frame size, program type and the way sound is used in relation to picture would be the main factors on how I would approach it. As you know, there’s a lot of other things to consider as well. In the past, I’ve used AE to create content which was synced and mastered in FCP. Regardless of what I would use today, I’d still want tracks and absolute time for final A/V multi-channel sync. I can’t think of a better or more natural way to visualize the final piece.
Again, I’m sure FCPX is capable of doing multi-channel work. But are you working with the design or fighting it? It’s all about having the best tool for the job and using the tool as it was designed to its best advantage.
The magnetic timeline is great for certain kinds of workflows but if you ask me, multi-channel production isn’t one of them. I don’t think the UI designers even considered it. If you wind up doing a multi-channel in FCPX, please share what you learn. I think it’ll be interesting.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “[tony west] “What somebody did then, you should be able to recreate with 2012 technology some ten years later.”
2012 technology has nothing to do with UI design. The UI metaphor is whatever the designer chooses. A trackless timeline is a design choice, not a technology.
“I don’t know if I agree with you on that one David.
technology |tekˈnäləjē|
noun ( pl. technologies )
the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes,But more to the point, was that video supposed to be an example of something that could not be done in X?
-
[David Lawrence] “Yes, that’s would certainly work. But what if you’re building your soundtrack and your video channels all at the same time? What if you need to create and manipulate interrelationships between all channels simultaneously?”
Well, how would you do this in a track based system? That’s how you’d do it in FCPX the only difference being you might have to move some things in and out of the primary and perhaps reattach some connection points just like you might have to juggle some clips around to different tracks in FCP Legend. X does not mean you don’t have to think about what you’re doing, you still have to think about it. Once a person learns the system, you react instead of think just like we’re all used to doing in 7.
If you need to see everything on the screen at the same time you can either go back to the nested comp, or if you’re building everything scaled down in to one comp, you’d have to do the same in FCPX.
[David Lawrence] “Well, as you know, I’m a big fan of the spatial approach to editing. I think of multi-channel video works like “Primetime” the same way I think of a multi-track musical composition. So I would compose the piece using tracks and open space as a blank canvas. Each track is fully independent but all tracks share the same sync reference. It’s perfect for the job.”
OK. So don’t use FCPX. I, personally don’t see a problem with using FCPX for this. Sometimes, I don’t start in the primary. I’ll start as connected clips to a gap. Then nothing moves unless I want it to. Once things get further refined, I can then move them in to the primary with either a keyboard shortcut, or the ‘p’ key if it’s audio only. And sync points? FCPX has selectable sync points, I understand that you don’t like it and it doesn’t make sense. That’s perfectly fine as it isn’t exactly as easy as everyone claims it to be, especially when it comes to audio.
[David Lawrence] “Again, I’m sure FCPX is capable of doing multi-channel work. But are you working with the design or fighting it? It’s all about having the best tool for the job and using the tool as it was designed to its best advantage. “
If I am trying to get it to work like a track based system, I’m fighting it. If I am using it as designed, I’m working with it. Just as if I wanted to move stuff around with tracks, I’m fighting the tracks, when in FCPX I simply grab and move what I want and everything else gets out of my way without losing sync, or any relationships. It’s all a matter of perspective. If we can get better reliability (10.0.4 is much better, but we need more yet) and some multichannel audio controls, I’d start slowly employing it today and grow it’s use as it grows in capability.
Apple can take more time and keep refining it. FCP7 is still working just fine for now.
Jeremy
-
[Clint Wardlow] ” I am freezing my current mac in time and hoping it will still work 3 years from now”
We’re doing a time freeze thing to the workstations at our facility. All our Mac Pro’s 2010 have been fitted with new hard drives, and I’m leaving FCPS2/Snow Leopard untouched on the old system drive. Clean install of Lion on the new drive, which will hold FCPX, CS6, Smoke and Lightwo^H^H^Hwhatever. In six months time, I guess the perspective on both FCPX and the rest has shifted a lot, and most likely we have singled out one of them as the main platform, with the rest of them on there as well, in case we have work or editors that need other tools.
Erik Lundberg
Technical Director, Media Technology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
-
[tony west] “technology |tekˈnäləjē|
noun ( pl. technologies )
the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, “Hi Tony,
Yes, that definition is correct, but I’m talking about something a bit different. Wikipedia has an excellent entry on user interface design. If you do a word search on the article, you’ll find that the word “technology” appears nowhere in it. That’s because while it’s true that technology is the underpinning of any computer interface, the interface design itself is a wholly conceptual representation that can use any metaphor the designer chooses. In that sense technology has nothing to do with it. The magnetic timeline is a design choice, not a technology choice.
[tony west] “But more to the point, was that video supposed to be an example of something that could not be done in X?”
No, it was intended as an example of some of the kinds of non-traditional media experiences Clint was describing. I have no doubt it could be produced in FCPX. Probably Jim’s template would be the most straightforward way to go, though Jeremy’s ideas may work as well. I personally think tracks are the most efficient way to represent multiple channels, but that’s just me. YMMV.
BTW, I was fascinated by Charlie Austin’s approach which he described in his article – avoid storylines altogether and just cut with connected clips. Very interesting…
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up