-
Spatial awareness and memory recall
-
Nothing. Worst most off topic post I’ve seen Bill write in at least 36 hours. I don’t think he gets it.
-
[James Culbertson] “Interesting to hear of others workflows. “
It is, isn’t it? That’s one of the cool things about this spot.
-
Bill, this has been a pretty interesting, earnest thread and I think you are missing the boat by not having a closer look. It really gets down to the fundamentals of why some people cotton immediately to X, while others find it uncomfortable and disconcerting. Really, it is worth a thought or two, and might add a little light to just why there is so much contention.
-
[Bill Davis] “Too much FUD in this thread to even begin to address.”
Bill, you’re missing what’s going on in this thread, and you are misunderstanding what Andy was talking about. Really, I think you should take a step back. This is a particularly interesting and relatively non-judgemental thread, where-in people discuss and/or discover that their reactions to X might just have something to do to with the way that they interface with the world at large, and that it is not necessarily because it is a good or bad program. Maybe you could put your sigh away?
-
[Herb Sevush] “The non Mac versions support ProRes decode so I’m guessing that on Mac it will support full encode and decode in ProRes.”
Good to know. I’m actually impressed with how far its come.
-
[Chris Harlan] ” It really gets down to the fundamentals of why some people cotton immediately to X, while others find it uncomfortable and disconcerting.”
I really do think the concept of visual versus textual learning is important. I’m in the middle of my annual 3-week stretch of teaching college film students about editing. This includes about 16-hours of hands-on lab training with a mix of real projects. This year I have them on FCP X. Part years I’ve done FCP 6/7, Avid and even Premiere (before Pro) years ago.
I find it quite fascinating to watch what really trips them up and what they take to. In general, they are learning X at about the same rate as similar classes have learned FCP “legacy” and Avid in the past. No big advantages that I can see. Some take to it and some are completely baffled. Most seem to have issues with the same things the pros do – namely the magnetic, trackless timeline.
Most tend to work visually. Others like to thoroughly keyword and organize first. Both valid, yet different approaches.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “I’m afraid you misunderstood his interpretation of “reel”. He’s talking about an assembly of selects to a timeline/sequence. And then cutting from that selects “reel” (i.e. timeline).”
Fair enough. But I’d question why, in the X workflow, this is desirable? That “selects reel” laid out as a horizontal visual process can be mostly done in the Event Browser via a simple keyword collection. Admittedly, it can’t be visualized “full screen” and it scrolls up rather than across, but as to the presentation of visual information, it communicates exactly the same information. The difference is that in Legacy, you can’t really DO anything to the laid out clips aside from the most rudimentary of arrangement and perhaps limited color taggins, where in X, you can sub-range, and retag things infinately.
Just because that workflow was required as a work-around for poor source organizational tools in Legacy doesn’t mean it’s going to continue to be the best way to work when you are given more sophisticated source ID tools.
FWIW.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Andy Field] “So you are saying you can tag a group of clips and then click on something that makes it one log-able scrub-able exportable and then reimport able XML reel? If so. Very cool”
scrubable – YES
log-able – That’s what keywording IS in X. It’s “logging” your decisions as you go.
exportable – YES with a temp comand A – W – then export the new range – process which takes about 5 seconds.
scrubbable – EVERYTHING is scrubbable in X. Events, timelines, audio tracks, everything. you use a keystroke to turn live scrubbing off – it’s the program’s default state for everything.And yes, X does XML input and output – but really, some of us find that unlike our prior software where the only path to really top notch results was constantly going out of – and then back into the NLE to perfect picture and audio – X’s rebuld on top of Core Video and Core Audio in the new Quicktime free 32bit floating world – means less need to do that. But it’s conditional. If you shoot well and record good audio in the first place, and so don’t need more than common corrections – theres less need to go outside the software than I’ve ever experienced before.
If you’re inside a collaborative workflow or if you’re dealing with serious problems, then NO, you won’t get with X the same level of collaborative tools you might be used to having in other NLEs.
I wouldn’t mix down a music session inside X. And I wouldn’t try to shade 10 different model cameras inside X for a multi-cam shoot. It’s tools are darn good for most tasks but not built for that kind of truly exacting precision work yet. (then again, I haven’t had a weird shot come in from the field with a screwed up color cast that I haven’t been able to get to a “darn decent” look in X, but I’m generally NOT trying to match subtle skintones in mixed lighting or do other stuff that some folks live and die by – so the realistic answer is X is NOT a good “step in” substitute for a high end workflow right now.
But the way it’s growing, I wouldn’t bet against what X will be in a few years. Not at it’s rate of constant improvement.
FWIW.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Chris Harlan] “Really, I think you should take a step back. This is a particularly interesting and relatively non-judgemental thread, where-in people discuss and/or discover that their reactions to X might just have something to do to with the way that they interface with the world at large, and that it is not necessarily because it is a good or bad program. Maybe you could put your sigh away?”
Message received.
Fair. I’ll step back.
But just understand that I’m sensitive to people who keep talking about what X does with very little experience using it.
I’m ALL for the theoretical discussions that take place here all the time. And I agree they are often useful and illuminating. But they simply MUST start from a place where the capabilities of the software are accurately reflected. It’s no good to start a serious discussion with the presumption that the reason the thing is considered “broken” is that the people who use it least – happen to see it in that light.
People come here all the time and ask open and fair “does it do this?” Questions. But the whole “spacial awareness and memory recall” concept seems to me to be highly suspect.
For this reason….
At it’s heart, it’s NOT (as Charlie is often fond of saying) really all that ‘different” from the way most other NLE programs operate.
It has layered some extra and different capabilities on the old model. The database, keystroke defeatable magnetism, clip compounding – these things are not very weird at all. They just take precisely the same dedication and conditioning that learning to operate Legacy well took back during it’s first few years.
The ONLY difference between then and now is that there wasn’t a huge cadre of editors invested in NOT having to re-learn stuff. Well, to leverage the capabilites of X, one must. Period. Simple as that.
So to argue that the reason some won’t warm to X is that thee’s a problem with their “spacial awareness and memory recall” is far sillier than to simply acknowledge that those folks don’t have ANY problem with sensory systems, they just either don’t have the time or the interest to learn the software. Period. Full Stop.
In that way X is EXACTLY like every other NLE program in existance. Those who don’t “get it” are those who don’t use it. True of AVID, and Premier, and Vegas and X in perfectly equal measure, IMO.
X is NOT simple software. But neither is AVID or Premier.
To judge any of them, you need to KNOW them.
Simple as that.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
Okay, civilly and amicably…
What part of X does anyone here see as lacking “spacial awareness and memory recall” capabilities?
When I have a storyline in X. What is inherently “less spacial” about it?
When I have a visual array of source clips in my Event Browser, what makes that less “spacial” or less “memorable” than clips in a bin?
If I do a “scratch” timeline in Legacy and then bring that in as an element in my final Master Timeline – in what way is that functionally different from doing a compound clip in X?
What about a nested clip? Is that somehow counter intuitive in Legacy? And if not, why is the compound clip in X an issue?
What precisely is the “spacial awareness or memory” challenge that X fails to address that Legacy solved?
To my thinking I can edit in X a LOT like I edited in Legacy for 11 years. Yes, I miss a LOT of what’s special in X, but I can certainly just toss clips on a timeline and start cutting. Think of Events as BINS and go on my merry way – no keyword no hassles.
So what’s the consensus? IS there something fundamental about the X approach that makes it less approachable?
And if so, what is it?
I’m listening.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up