Roles: got ’em to work.

[David Lawrence]

[Chris Harlan] ” I can easily see making a select reel on the go, for instance. “

Yep, same here. I wouldn’t use it for any serious cutting, but it’s still interesting as a $299 DAM tool. I can put it to work as soon as someone figures out a way to translate keyword collections into bins.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Steve Connor]

What do you need keywords to be able to do?

“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”

[David Lawrence]

[Steve Connor] “What do you need keywords to be able to do?”

Here’s an example –

My typical FCP7 logging workflow is:

1) import clips to appropriate bins
2) skim/JKL thru each interview or dialogue clip in browser adding color-coded markers with log comments
3) drop marked clips on timeline and begin cutting.

I can imagine a FCPX preflight workflow something like this:

1) import clips to event
2) separate interviews/dialogue and b-roll with keywords
3) skim/JKL thru each interview or dialogue clip marking favorite clip ranges with log comments

Then I’d just need a translation utility that would covert keyword groupings into bins and favorite clip ranges into markers with duration and export as XML so I can cut with tools I’m faster and more comfortable with.

This would be especially useful in field-based and quick turn-around situations, but I can also imagine using it as a general logging scenario. I think it plays to FCPX’s current strengths and benefits.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Steve Connor]

That’s an interesting thought, one of FCPXs big strengths is the speed you can get through footage in the event library, I can log and sort in it quicker than any other NLE I’ve used.

“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Steve Connor] “I can log and sort in it quicker than any other NLE I’ve used.”

Ya dern tootin. This is what is most exciting to me about FCPX at this moment is the power and ease of both organization and viewability. If some aren’t exactly thrilled with the timeline, that can and will evolve and change, but the backbone of FCP (which is the database) seems pretty strong. This has always been Avid’s advantage over FCP Legacy (as is Media 100).

Jeremy

[Craig Seeman]

[David Lawrence] “1) import clips to appropriate bins
2) skim/JKL thru each interview or dialogue clip in browser adding color-coded markers with log comments
3) drop marked clips on timeline and begin cutting.

I can imagine a FCPX preflight workflow something like this:

1) import clips to event
2) separate interviews/dialogue and b-roll with keywords
3) skim/JKL thru each interview or dialogue clip marking favorite clip ranges with log comments”

Import folder as keyword collections (bins) or create empty keyword collections and drop the clips in and they’re keyworded.

JKL and use Markers with comments as part of the marker name. Double tap M and add your name/note.

drop in timeline and start cutting.

Your Marker names are visible and searchable in the timeline index

[David Lawrence]

[Craig Seeman] “Import folder as keyword collections (bins) or create empty keyword collections and drop the clips in and they’re keyworded.

JKL and use Markers with comments as part of the marker name. Double tap M and add your name/note.

drop in timeline and start cutting.

Your Marker names are visible and searchable in the timeline index”

I’m not trying to exactly duplicate my FCP7 logging workflow, I’m more interested in the parts of FCPX that seem better. I can quickly skim/JKL in the event browser, then hit I and O to set a range and F to mark the range as a favorite. Then using list view, I enter a comment in the notes column. This is a fast and efficient workflow for logging and works great for me. At that point, I would want to move to a more flexible editorial environment to cut.

FCPX doesn’t have to be an all-in-one solution to be useful. If there’s a clean way to get work out, then it can find a place in many workflows as part of a larger set of tools. Mix and match the tools using just what you need to fit your style and maximize your efficiency.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Jeremy Garchow] “But what would stop you from layering the tracks as you like?”

Isn’t this exactly what you can’t do in FCPX?

In FCPX I have no real choice as to how my audio clips get arranged vertically – the only way I kind more or less control it is to be very systematic about the order I edit the various items into the timeline.

As long as I do all my dialogue edits first, then my effects, then my music, they will more or less stay in that order, with the proviso that they will (as per my diagram) sneak their way upwards at the slightest opportunity.

However, if I don’t edit in this order then the vertical arrangement gets completely muddled based – whatever clip is edited in last goes down to the bottom where I like it or not. If for example I add in a new effects clip after I’ve already laid up all my dialogue and effects and music as per the above system, it will sit all the way down below the music and separated from the rest of the effects, which I wouldn’t want. I can see this easily becoming very messy and “visually cluttered”.

On another note, however, having reached a better understanding of the colour coding in the Timeline Index, I do now see that it’s easier to pick out what’s what in the timeline – but they do need to think about introducing distinct, user-selectable colours for each role and not just the video/audio distinction.

One final thought – on reflection, I really do like Roles a lot. But I keep thinking that they would be even better applied to a traditional track-based timeline – the randomness of the magnetic timeline ironically means that a lot of their usefulness is getting wasted.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Simon Ubsdell] “Isn’t this exactly what you can’t do in FCPX? “

Layering? Of course you can. You can drag the layers up and down, they just will constantly “push” the stack to the top as you know and have mentioned, but you can order the layers however you want.

[Simon Ubsdell] “As long as I do all my dialogue edits first, then my effects, then my music, they will more or less stay in that order, “

You can drag them up and down at any time.

[Simon Ubsdell] “However, if I don’t edit in this order then the vertical arrangement gets completely muddled based – whatever clip is edited in last goes down to the bottom where I like it or not.”

Yes, it goes in to the timeline where FCPX sees it fits best, then you have to drag the layers to the vertical stacking order you want. You son’t have to edit in that order.

If you set your timeline to show roles instead of clip names, a potential scenario could be if adding a new Effects clip:

Dialogue
Effects
Effects
Music
LF
RF
C
LS
RS
Sub
Stereo
Effects

Then simply drag the Effects up to the layer order you want:

Dialogue
Effects
Effects
Effects
Music
LF
RF
C
LS
RS
Sub
Stereo

FCPX does not prevent you form stacking the layers as you want.

[Simon Ubsdell] “On another note, however, having reached a better understanding of the colour coding in the Timeline Index, I do now see that it’s easier to pick out what’s what in the timeline – but they do need to think about introducing distinct, user-selectable colours for each role and not just the video/audio distinction.”

Totally agree. Right now if just follows the color of different clips in the timeline. Blue for video, green for audio, orange for generators, purple for text, etc. More user options here would help.

Jeremy

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Jeremy Garchow] ”
FCPX does not prevent you form stacking the layers as you want.”

Yes, I had realised that, I wasn’t suggesting that you can’t manually move things vertically – but the point about this is that it involves a lot more “housekeeping” that isn’t there with the track based model where you can choose your “layering” with one editing step, and not have to go back and revise it if it doesn’t go where you want it to.

Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com