Steve Kanter: What FCPX CAN Do

[Gary Huff]

That’s only a problem if you think in terms of “tracks” and “objects”. You can easily disregard all of that and say, “This element on Video 2 plays at 45 seconds, 10 frames, and because it is on Video 2, it will be shown instead of the element that is currently playing at that time on Video 1”, and so on, and then translate that to where it works under FCPX, which can then have all the relationships re-done by the editor who needs to make changes.

Again, FCPX is trying to hide “time” with it’s magnetism, but at its core it is still relating to time because that’s how video works. ¥ou can’t get around that, only hide it to a certain extent from the end user.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Gary Huff] “That’s only a problem if you think in terms of “tracks” and “objects”. You can easily disregard all of that and say, “This element on Video 2 plays at 45 seconds, 10 frames, and because it is on Video 2, it will be shown instead of the element that is currently playing at that time on Video 1″,”

Sure. That is the most simplest form, but what if it’s not that simple? What if v3 belongs in the primary storyline, with the other layers (v1,v2) UNDERNEATH it? Not even at all possible in FCP7. You can’t write this information via XML.

But FCPx doesn’t have that thinking so it’s not really that simple. A primary storyline does not necessarily equal V1 A1/A2 of FCP7. I am not talking about the magnetic timeline at all, I am simply talking about the layers and how FCPx “defines” them.

Also, in your example above, what if it’s a composite? “Travel matte” layering works differently in FCPx than it does in 7.

I also said, that I think the easiest way would be to being everything in as a connected clip (the most bare bones) and the FCPx editor will have to sort out the rest. That is not how Apple rolls, though. They will leave that math for someone else (hopefully Automatic Duck as they have been a crucial Rosetta Stone).

I agree with you, it’s possible and I think it will happen, but it’s simply not that simple.

Jeremy

[Gary Huff]

I never said it was simple, but you’re still over-complicating things. Can you provide an example of where Video 3 would NEED to be in the Primary Storyline track?

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Gary Huff] “Video 3 would NEED to be in the Primary Storyline track?”

Anytime it needs to be. Perhaps it’s an interview with audio, or it’s a keyed composite (there’s a new composite mode called “Back” in FCPx that’s not prevalent in FCP7) to name a few.

[Gary Huff]

Neither of which has anything requiring to be in a Primary Storyline.

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Gary Huff] “Neither of which has anything requiring to be in a Primary Storyline.”

Unless you want everything to trim correctly, you will want it in a Primary storyline.

I think you are assuming that all “primary storyline” elements in FCP7 are in v1/A1A2? It might not be that way.

[Gary Huff]

It only needs to playback correctly. Can you not easily move elements around to make for easier editing after import?

I would make the Primary Storyline Video Track 1 and Audio Track 1, and then layer everything else appropriately after that.

[Herb Sevush]

Jeremy –

If I can interject here, I think what Gary is saying is that if you simply wanted to play down the FCPX timeline, without making any further edits, it wouldn’t matter how X incorporated it. The problems would all come if you tried to edit with the incorporated footage – at that point mistakes in interpretation would become evident, but if all you are trying to do is create a project containing the proper clips, and have those unedited clips play out the right way, most of these issues would not be crucial.

For someone familiar with X you’re probably thinking, yeah but why would you want to do that? The answer is it seems like it would be a good place to start.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions

[Gary Huff]

Exactly Herb. I’m not asking for a 100% perfect import, and I don’t think anyone else who’d like to import legacy projects are either. Just make it play fine and then tweak it to fight the new editing paradigm.

Certainly beats completely re-constructing a project from scratch.

[Bill Davis]

I am, yet again, skewered by your rapier-like repartee.

I simply cannot withstand another of your devestating ad hominem attacks. I am in ruins.

So, bleeding and contrite, I’ll return to my small quiet corner of the production world to crank out yet more video embedded powerpoint/keynote/ipad delivery work for my current nameless massive global beer company client —  and you may return to your next electronic press kit for the LA movie studio industry that appears to be the heart of your work —  each of us keenly aware that YOU have demonstrated that YOUR viewpoint on everything from editing to the use of CAPS in internet discussions is – in every possible way – vastly superior to mine.

you win.

congratulations.

Oh, and thanks VERY much for letting me exercise my seldom used passive/aggressive muscles. Feels kinda nice once in a while.

; )

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Conner