-
Tedious track based editing
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Clip relationships drive every single edit, FCPX or not.”
From the editor’s perspective, yes; from the software’s perspective, no.
I’m curious to see where David goes with the relationship sub-thread he’s started. Perhaps I’ll have the opportunity to go into a bit more depth there.
[Jeremy Garchow] “From you: “While nothing will happen in a traditional timeline that the user doesn’t explicitly order, the FCPX magnetic timeline has a system of rules that guide operations during timeline maneuvers.”
So does every timeline everywhere. There are always rules. Plenty of crap happens in a “traditional timeline” that isn’t “ordered”.”
My very clumsily-made point here is that in FCPX, the timeline is ordered or laid out according to relationships only, and if the editor wants to alter the layout, he or she must alter the clip relationships. For example, the second clip in a primary storyline doesn’t start on frame 30 because that time is a property of that clip; it starts on frame 30 because it comes after the first clip and because the first clip ends on frame 29.
In a traditional timeline, the editor is responsible for the layout.
I think most of the crap that happens in the traditional timeline is because the traditional timeline tools don’t honor the relationships between clips.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “For example, the second clip in a primary storyline doesn’t start on frame 30 because that time is a property of that clip; it starts on frame 30 because it comes after the first clip and because the first clip ends on frame 29.”
I guess this where I have trouble. Thanks for saying this as I think I can finally see what you mean.
This seems to imply that it is harder, for some reason, to put a clip on frame (or second) 30 in FCPX when in fact it’s not. It’s one keystroke, just like FCP7. Sure, there might a gap clip that is created automatically by FCPX, but I don’t find that to be a hindrance. It’s actually nice to have to not create slugs all the time, or measure the empty space that is in FCP7. Those gap clips are really easy to change to exact timing by hitting control-d to change duration. But I digress.
In FCP7, the time is not as absolute as everyone makes it out to be, at least in my opinion. That clip that you put at 30 seconds does not take the ‘property of time’ any more or less than FCPX. This goes back to my comment of controlling the primary equals controlling time. With 7, if I put a clip at 30 seconds, it stays at 30 seconds until I ripple something in the timeline, or paste an insert, or insert edit, or drag the clip and move it. To me, this is the same as FCPX. If I DON’T ripple anything in the timeline that clip remains at 30 seconds. It’s really easy and not as complicated as people seem to be making it out to be. Am I wrong about that?
FCP7 does have the advantage that you can lock tracks, but this doesn’t mean you can lock one clip unless there’s a track with one clip. So this means if you want to lock one clip you have to move everything out of the appropriate a/v tracks, lock the track, do the move, then unlock, not that I ever do that as I usually just move the one clip up and down to empty tracks and move everything else around it. FCPX can make that type of move much easier, and as Oliver Peters had mentioned, you sometimes have to think and adjust connection points before you move instead move and then adjust. This is the same with tracks, you sometimes have to move clips in certain places before adding new clips. I find that with the non clip collision methods of FCPX, it’s really easy and fast to move things in and out of the primary when I need to keep time where it is. It could use some refinement, but as it stands, it is possible and no more difficult than adjusting a bunch of clips around in tracks to make room for more clips. In some cases it is much much easier even if it looks different.
Jeremy
-
[Walter Soyka] “Yes.
(My shortest post ever in this forum?)”
Short and sweet! 🙂
OK, I think we’re all on the same page.
I’m gathering my thoughts and will get try to get a new thread started soon!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “I’m gathering my thoughts and will get try to get a new thread started soon!”
Looking forward to it!
Steve Connor
‘It’s just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure” -
[Jeremy Garchow] “I guess this where I have trouble. Thanks for saying this as I think I can finally see what you mean. This seems to imply that it is harder, for some reason, to put a clip on frame (or second) 30 in FCPX when in fact it’s not. It’s one keystroke, just like FCP7. Sure, there might a gap clip that is created automatically by FCPX, but I don’t find that to be a hindrance. It’s actually nice to have to not create slugs all the time, or measure the empty space that is in FCP7. Those gap clips are really easy to change to exact timing by hitting control-d to change duration. But I digress.”
Ok, now I see where we went off the rails.
I was not trying to say that Legend could make cuts that X can’t. I was just trying to say that the timelines fundamentally work differently, so the mechanics of making and preserving the same edits are a bit different in X vs. Legend.
[Jeremy Garchow] “In FCP7, the time is not as absolute as everyone makes it out to be, at least in my opinion. That clip that you put at 30 seconds does not take the ‘property of time’ any more or less than FCPX. This goes back to my comment of controlling the primary equals controlling time. With 7, if I put a clip at 30 seconds, it stays at 30 seconds until I ripple something in the timeline, or paste an insert, or insert edit, or drag the clip and move it. To me, this is the same as FCPX. If I DON’T ripple anything in the timeline that clip remains at 30 seconds. It’s really easy and not as complicated as people seem to be making it out to be. Am I wrong about that? “
I think we still differ in opinion here, but the difference is very subtle.
I am suggesting that FCP7 lets the editor lay clips into the timeline at specific times, and then FCP7’s toolset allows the editor to refine the edit by adjusting the time properties of the clips. Relationships are fragile, as they are primarily governed by manual selection.
In FCPX, the editor lays clips into the timeline with respect to what is already there. The toolset allows the editor to refine the edit by adjusting clip relationships, and it re-determines clips’ locations in time accordingly. Relationships are strong, but malleable, and they are foundational to the timeline’s structure.
In a nutshell, FCP7 relates all clips to time, not to each other. FCPX relates all clips to each other, not to time (though time can be derived from the relationships and clip durations, and this is why Xto7 is easier than 7toX).
In all cases, editors may think of clips as related or as located in time, and may make adjustments accordingly, but the way the tools in Legend work is fundamentally time-based whereas the tools in X are fundamentally relationship-based — even when they do the same thing from a user’s perspective.
The degree to which you need to adjust your thinking about editing in X vs Legend is the degree to which you internalize the data model.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “The degree to which you need to adjust your thinking about editing in X vs Legend is the degree to which you internalize the data model.”
And that in a nutshell, is the problem with FCPX. More soon.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Walter Soyka] “The degree to which you need to adjust your thinking about editing in X vs Legend is the degree to which you internalize the data model.”
I’ll wait for David’s new thread. 🙂
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ”
In FCP7, the time is not as absolute as everyone makes it out to be, at least in my opinion. That clip that you put at 30 seconds does not take the ‘property of time’ any more or less than FCPX. This goes back to my comment of controlling the primary equals controlling time. With 7, if I put a clip at 30 seconds, it stays at 30 seconds until I ripple something in the timeline, or paste an insert, or insert edit, or drag the clip and move it. To me, this is the same as FCPX. If I DON’T ripple anything in the timeline that clip remains at 30 seconds. It’s really easy and not as complicated as people seem to be making it out to be. Am I wrong about that?FCP7 does have the advantage that you can lock tracks, but this doesn’t mean you can lock one clip unless there’s a track with one clip. So this means if you want to lock one clip you have to move everything out of the appropriate a/v tracks, lock the track, do the move, then unlock, not that I ever do that as I usually just move the one clip up and down to empty tracks and move everything else around it. FCPX can make that type of move much easier, and as Oliver Peters had mentioned, you sometimes have to think and adjust connection points before you move instead move and then adjust. This is the same with tracks, you sometimes have to move clips in certain places before adding new clips. I find that with the non clip collision methods of FCPX, it’s really easy and fast to move things in and out of the primary when I need to keep time where it is. It could use some refinement, but as it stands, it is possible and no more difficult than adjusting a bunch of clips around in tracks to make room for more clips. In some cases it is much much easier even if it looks different.
“I’m just going to negate all of this, he said grandly.
quite simply, I do not desire the natural state of my timeline to be ripple mode, and I do not desire the natural state of all of my clips to be connected, such that I am periodically required to re-arrange their relationships.
that’s it jeremy. I require an open, clean multi-track, object dis-interested timeline.
this is not a nodal compositor, apple were stupid to introduce faux child relationships when no real downstream information (as in cc correction) was being imparted – its a stupid conceit they introduced, and they are in the process of being fully punished by the market.
thats it.
https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics
-
Alright Gentlemen, please join me here at:
It’s All Connected — Clip Relationships and The Magnetic Timeline Paradigm
I’ll be out tonight and much of tomorrow but look forward to your thoughts and continuing the conversation.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “quite simply, I do not desire the natural state of my timeline to be ripple mode, and I do not desire the natural state of all of my clips to be connected, such that I am periodically required to re-arrange their relationships.”
Rearranging relationships is the basis of editing. They are built in FCP7 and FCPX.
FCPX makes certain rearranging much easier so you aren’t fighting the interface, but actually creating new and more meaningful relationships. At the very least you can go out on a few dates to test the waters without completely destroying your weekend.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up