-
Tedious track based editing
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I’ll have to remember this line as a delicate way of expressing myself when I don’t like a cut.”
LOL, good one!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Clip relationships drive every single edit, FCPX or not.”
Yes I agree. Let’s talk about that.
[Walter Soyka] “The FCPX magnetic timeline has a different underlying data structure (parent/child hierarchy) than a traditional timeline (EDL). I’m arguing that both timelines express their data models in the tools they offer the user and the way timeline maneuvers work. I’m arguing that FCPX exposes its internal data model in its external UI. I’m arguing that because clip relationships underpin FCPX’s representation of a timeline, FCPX automatically reflows (and shows you those magnetic preview reflows) every time you make (or consider) an editorial change, and that it does so according to a set of rules that are a consequence of that parent/child data structure. I’m arguing that there is no parallel for this behavior in traditional timelines, because they lack this higher-order construct relating clips back to the beginning of the timeline.”
Walter, I think this is a *great* description of what’s going on under the hood.
A few posts up, I compared clip connections and the FCPX relationship paradigm to Pr’s grouping feature. I want to expand on this a bit:
Let’s ignore the FCPX data model and the collision avoidance/overlap behavior of connected clips and think strictly about the notion of clip relationships from the standpoint of user intention.
If I have the ability to group objects together on the timeline so that they always move together in sync, would you agree that this group explicitly specifies a relationship between clips?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “If I have the ability to group objects together on the timeline so that they always move together in sync, would you agree that this group explicitly specifies a relationship between clips?”
If you are asking me, the answer is surely.
-
David, thinking of all these young folks who are starting out on X and really liking it…….at what point do you think they will stop using X
Seems to me as they use the program and develop their skills on it it will be harder to pull them away from it.
-
[tony west] “David, thinking of all these young folks who are starting out on X and really liking it…….at what point do you think they will stop using X “
When they decide they want to pursue a career making feature films in LA.
Admittedly, this will be a very small percentage of the FCPX user base, but the high-end of the post industry has always been a niche market.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “[tony west] “David, thinking of all these young folks who are starting out on X and really liking it…….at what point do you think they will stop using X ”
When they decide they want to pursue a career making feature films in LA.
Admittedly, this will be a very small percentage of the FCPX user base, but the high-end of the post industry has always been a niche market.”
So if the person is 16 now, let’s say they graduate at 22, that would be 6 years from now.
No telling where the industry will be at that point seems to me. It will be interesting to watch what happens.
-
Well, this thread has meandered a bit, but all great points. Here are some random thoughts I’ll toss out there for more pixel fodder…
Zero time and the magnetic timeline
This is not new with Apple, although the FCP X implementation is a new twist. Avid has done “magnetic” since its earliest days, though limited to a single video track (with sync audio) and cuts-only sequences. Simply set the timeline view to “head & tail frame” and you can move around clips magnetically. Also Avid has been based on timelines with zero time value since the beginning. You could never edit a clip 10 minutes down onto a blank timeline. This came in with FCP “legacy” (maybe with other NLEs, too), but at least with Avid, you had to insert “filler” (same as gap or placeholder clips in X) to create “emptiness” between clips on a Media Composer timeline.
Clip connections
The biggest PITA in X as far as I’m concerned. Part of the problem is that connections always default to the start of a clip. This means you frequently have to move a connecting point BEFORE you make the edit you intend to make. It also gets in the way of good workflow versus tracks. Take this example. You have a clip at the end of a :30 commercial. There’s a connected clip for a logo graphic and a connected clip to add a black generator with a fade (so both the graphic and video fade together). The fade-to-black is a constant because that’s where :30 ends. It would be if these were on tracks. But with X, if I need to slip the video clip to get the right timing for the end of the spot, the logo and the generator+fade slide along at the same point as I slip the clip. So I never get the right relationship of the end of the clip versus the fade without a bit of trial-and-error.
Apple and NLE business models
I believe Apple is banking on the belief that the “traditional NLE” as we understand it today in Premiere Pro, Media Composer or FCP “legacy” will disappear. Functions will become more preset-based and the NLE will be more of a “platform” where you can bolt on specialty items you might need. It’s pretty early in that process, but look at other tools, like The Foundry’s Hiero and you see a similar concept. In effect, Premiere+AE is along those same lines. Today, established film editors are mentally locked into Avid or “legacy”. But those folks are dying and/or retiring. I already know film/TV editors in LA, who are very Avid-centric, but admit to losing jobs because they didn’t know Final Cut (“legacy”). Not that they haven’t worked, but rather, they missed the opportunity to get projects that they really wanted to have. That’s a process driven by producers, not editors. When you consider that X is $300 for up to FIVE OWNED SYSTEMS, that’s a pretty powerful incentive for producers – who want to bring post in-house – to move to X as it improves.
Apple software development
So far that’s been a spotty record. Apple develops cool software, but has yet to create something that’s an industry leader (ignoring OS X or iOS for sake of argument). FileMaker Pro, maybe, but mainly because they were spun off as a subsidiary. Apple revels in the 80/20 rule and seems to get software up to a passable point and then stops development other than maintenance. Look at Logic, Aperture, iLife apps, iWork apps, etc. They are a mass market company that occasionally brings a product up to a standard that it’s “good enough” for professional use. However, when those same pros become too “needy” Apple loses interest.
Will that happen with X? Who knows? Apple is very different today than in SJ’s heyday, but in many ways they haven’t changed in some areas. They tend to maintain smaller development teams than other software companies and share engineers across product boundaries. For example, UI developers who work on more than one product in order to maintain a consistency across the board. That being said, I like the sandboxing of the apps and the way the App Store functions most of the time. I certainly prefer that to the hiccups I get with Adobe’s updaters 90% of the time.
OTOH, I’ve been most happy as a professional user with Avid’s approach (on the Mac), where the uninstall/reinstall of updates is very smooth. At least I can revert to older versions if I need them, because THEY ACTUALLY STILL EXIST ON THE WEBSITE.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Clip connections […] There’s a connected clip for a logo graphic and a connected clip to add a black generator with a fade (so both the graphic and video fade together). The fade-to-black is a constant because that’s where :30 ends. It would be if these were on tracks. But with X, if I need to slip the video clip to get the right timing for the end of the spot, the logo and the generator+fade slide along at the same point as I slip the clip. So I never get the right relationship of the end of the clip versus the fade without a bit of trial-and-error.”
Yes. A feature request to be able to hold a modifier and slip clips without their connected clips moving would be all that’s needed. For now, you have to easily move the clip out of the primary, slip, and move back (very easy shortcuts, but still more trouble than it’s worth).
There also needs to be a way to use the keyboard to select connected clips without using the mouse. This process would go even faster.
Or do this:
The “opacity fade” clip is a generator. Yes, I restabbed the clips to the opacity fade, but that takes less than a second. It’d be nice to be able to select both clips and hit the kb shortcut have the connection point repositioned, but alas you have to do it one clip at a time.
It is moments like this where FCPX shows its young age.
-
[Oliver Peters] “Clip connections”
It’ll be interesting to see where they go with this. With FCPX all things are relationships (that relational database thing as they’re building it IMHO) so nothing is ever “free standing” even temporarily. Some would say that one should lock the relationship to time rather than a clip when needed. One can move the clip connection around but that’s not the best solution in some circumstances. I imagine Apple will think this through but I don’t think the solution is as “obvious” as some of us think.
[Oliver Peters] “I believe Apple is banking on the belief that the “traditional NLE” as we understand it today in Premiere Pro, Media Composer or FCP “legacy” will disappear.”
If they’re all the same, how would Apple differentiate itself. I suspect part of Apple’s decision with X was not just to be first with feature types but to be different and some argue that being different for the sake of that is part of “the problem.” More likely is that it’ll be some kind of combination. Knowing that the established NLEs have to hold on to their current base will slow their progress in some areas. Ironically Apple’s ability to jettison their base has given them the ability to “attempt” a great leap forward in thinking through the design and principles of an NLE.
[Oliver Peters] “When you consider that X is $300 for up to FIVE OWNED SYSTEMS, that’s a pretty powerful incentive for producers – who want to bring post in-house – to move to X as it improves.”
Relates well to my “win by attrition” theory. As new editors grow with the app, some will grow into facilities. The barrier to entry is extremely low when you expand from on to five computers for example and your software cost for new seats is zero. Of course this may be paying fast/loose with the licensing terms but Apple isn’t likely to be greatly concerned as you’re buying more Mac dongles.
[Oliver Peters] “FileMaker Pro, maybe, but mainly because they were spun off as a subsidiary.”
Just an aside comment but at one point I thought this might happen to the pro apps division. I suspect Apple saw the benefit of very direct control though.
[Oliver Peters] ” Apple revels in the 80/20 rule and seems to get software up to a passable point and then stops development other than maintenance. Look at Logic, Aperture, iLife apps, iWork apps, etc.”
My thought is, how does the phrase go in financial reporting, something like “past results don’t predict the future” (sorry, I botched it but I hope you know what I mean). Logic X is taking a very long time and my hunch is that it’s going to be a major rewrite with very good FCPX integration. Apple’s frequent significant feature updates with FCPX, indicate to me, they’re aren’t simply looking for stasis. I do think part if it is that the changes in this industry are more radical more quickly than in other areas.
Although not directly related, I think iBook Author is another area where Apple is taking on something new but there’s a lot to the business model that might slow growth there. Books are moving to digital and interactivity in the new frontier in that market. There’s a lot of fights in pricing and distribution though. One could say that last bit is also related to AppleTV’s walls as well. My point though, is that Apple’s goal is no longer blanketly stasis.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Yes. A feature request to be able…..
….Or do this:….
…..It is moments like this where FCPX shows its young age.”Completely agree and I understand these alternate methods. But these are all workarounds and “tricks” that are counter-intuitive in ways that make one pine for a track-based system.
This also adds another wrinkle we haven’t discussed much here. A lot of the way X works is like flinging **** against a wall and re-arranging the mess. One editor does it COMPLETELY different than another. If I were to pick up a project after another editor on X or the other way around, it seems that the two approaches to the timeline may be so radically different, that neither would have any idea how to decipher what the other editor had done.
The app has both a rigid structure and no structure at all, which makes it all so confounding.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up