-
Selecting all clips after click point.
-
It takes longer to say than to actually do. It’s really not that many steps. If there were a shortcut that Lifts from the Primary Storyline and simultaneously creates a secondary storyline out of those clips, then that would be awesome, but I’ve actually used the workflow I suggested several times and its very simple and easy.
Of course I typically leave the audio in the primary storyline and just insert clips into the secondary for broll, but you seemed interested in adding clips down the line instead of in sequence, so this seemed like the better approach.
By changing audio to a secondary storyline, you only have to do it once, as opposed to adding connected clips, selecting them and making them a secondary storyline. Then adding more connected clips down the line and continuing to do the same.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “Isn’t the appearance of a “row” soemthing of an illusion in that the interconnection is all vertical rather than horizontal?”
Secondary storylies are horizontally related as is the primary storyline. Basically if one can create a secondary storyline a-priori as it were (before clips are added) it would solve an issue.
Actually FCPX does things like that in other contexts. You can create a Compound Clip in the Event Browser and have no clips in it. That Compound Clip has a fully functional Primary Storyline in it. You can edit in it and then Connect it to the Primary Storyline. It’s an entirely separate beast in which such things as the Precision Editor works (unlike a Secondary Storyline).
Although not precisely related, in the Event Library you can create a new empty Keyword Collection as well as a Smart Collection (kind of odd though).
The ability to create “empty things” though is there in parts of the function and GUI, just not with Secondary Storylines.
I can even create an “empty” clip (Gap clip) as a spacer that can later be replaced with a video clip.
Why not allow for the ability to create a Secondary Storyline which contains a Gap clip?
As to the row being illusory, try selecting two Connected Clips, one on top of the other, and try creating a Secondary Storyline . . . beep . . . can’t be done. Clips displayed on the same row can become a secondary storyline and those that aren’t, can’t.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “if you can think of scenarios where you need one secondary storyline to act like a primary one, then I’m sure there will be other editors who can conceive of the need for an unlimited number of storylines that act the same way. In a sense it’s odd that this isn’t already implemented – what’s so special about two as against ten or twenty or a hundred?”
Exactly.
The notion of a single “primary” storyline is IMO, the biggest conceptual flaw with the magnetic timeline. In a multi-track open timeline, there’s no sense of “primary”. Any track can be used of by the editor as primary to the the edit. Why not have that in FCPX?
What if we discard the the notion of “primary” and “secondary” storylines and instead call them “storylines” (allowing as many as the editor wants) and “connected storylines”? To me, this is conceptually cleaner and would allow for much greater flexibility.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Craig Seeman] “Secondary storylies are horizontally related as is the primary storyline. Basically if one can create a secondary storyline a-priori as it were (before clips are added) it would solve an issue.”
Fair enough – I misunderstood what you were asking for. This would be a very welcome improvement.
[Craig Seeman] “As to the row being illusory, try selecting two Connected Clips, one on top of the other, and try creating a Secondary Storyline . . . beep . . . can’t be done. Clips displayed on the same row can become a secondary storyline and those that aren’t, can’t.”
Hmmm – I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. You can for example select two connected clips on different “rows” that do not overlap and make them into a secondary storyline, so I think there might be some arbitrary limitation on connected clips that overlap vertically. If what you are suggesting were true, then FCPX has effectively implemented “tracks” but made them inaccessible to the user which would be ironic to say the least 😉
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[David Lawrence] “What if we discard the the notion of “primary” and “secondary” storylines and instead call them “storylines” (allowing as many as the editor wants) and “connected storylines”? To me, this is conceptually cleaner and would allow for much greater flexibility.”
Absolutely – this rather quaint binary system of storylines seems entirely arbitrary and not exactly helpful. It is very easy to see how FCPX arrived at this point from its iMovie origins where this makes a lot more sense (in terms of simplifying things around a primary storyline model) but it’s a curious restriction in the big brother version! There does seem to be, as you say a conceptual muddle, going on here.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
The only reasons I can see for changing the editing paradigm would be either to give us more control, or make the workflow easier, right?
They clearly haven’t given us more control. It seems like we have the same amount of control or slightly less.
As far as making things easier, I find it terribly ironic that they went from a paradigm where you do one thing, edit your shots down into tracks that you can see, and Apple makes the workflow much more confusing. Now I need to decide whether I want to make a clip a storyline, or connect it to something, and where do I need the connection to happen, and when do I need to change it, and I need to press buttons to see the hidden audio to make adjustments to it, and I need to press more buttons to see the opacity line in the timeline, and I need to open a clip in timeline view to adjust the audio tracks separately.
This is light-years from “easier.”
I understand the paradigm. I’m trying to make it work, but I truly don’t see how this is one speck easier.
Going back to my first observation in this post about the possible reasons for the paradigm shift. I left one out: arrogance. Absolute, abject arrogance with extreme prejudice.
I just got an e-mailed apology from Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix. It’s refreshing to see a company own their actions and when necessary, say “I’m Sorry.” Not “we’re sorry” but “I’m sorry.” I still have to face the fact that my netflix pricing is changing, but they explained it to me like I mattered to them. Maybe if Apple had more than professional editors jumping ship, and their stock went down, we’d see the same action? I don’t know.
I’m still withholding final judgement until I see an update, but I’m frustrated.
———
FCX. She tempts me, abuses me, beats me up, makes me feel worthless, then in the end she comes around, helps me get my work done, gives me hope and I can’t stop thinking about her.Mark Morache
Avid/Xpri/FCP7/FCX
Evening Magazine,Seattle, WA
https://fcpx.wordpress.com -
To the initial question: If you just want to select all behind the a certain clip, because you want to add a gap (I did that a lot in FCP7 also) you put your playmarker to the certain time in the timeline. Then hit “OPT-W” which will create a GAP-CLIP from this point on. That you can now drag as far as you want. So you didn´t select all behind, bit you can still fit in a gap.
Another way would be to Lasso the clips and move them with the “P” tool selected (position tool). That will also create a GAP.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up