The magnetic timeline sucks! ;-)

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Charlie Austin] “And yeah, you’re right about that last clip breaking sync. Didn’t even notice. I put it down to my trim tool carelessness. :-)”

Charlie,

I’m more alarmed by the fact that you can slip clips within a group so easily – I thought they were more reliable. Grouping is one feature of PPro that I find attractive, but I haven’t experimented enough to discover that shortcoming …

Franz.

[Charlie Austin]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “Yes, I understand; this wasn’t really why I was asking.

I’m sort of fascinated (astonished?) that “video priority, always” as a design choice wasn’t more apparent before (and hasn’t been discussed anywhere).

(If I’m understanding you correctly, then compounding sort of constructs an implied slug video track, even if there is no video track in the compound.)

Fascinating.

Franz.”

Gotcha. And it’s actually the primary storyline which has priority, whether it contains video,audio, or gap, You could rearrange a radio spot really simply by using all connected clips and just cutting up the gap clip in the primary to “contain” each section and dragging them around,

As far as compounding, at least in the way I was specifically describing it, it would just collect all your various music clips and put them in one long clip which you could pin/connect to a primary clip that wasn’t moving thus preserving your overall sync. If you were for example just swapping a few shots or scenes and their associated audio around quickly but didn’t want your MX cut to change. if you were cutting out an entire chunk and pulling everything up, you might want the MX (or whatever) to move so you wouldn’t do this.

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “Charlie,

I’m more alarmed by the fact that you can slip clips within a group so easily – I thought they were more reliable. Grouping is one feature of PPro that I find attractive, but I haven’t experimented enough to discover that shortcoming …
“

Good point. As that clip was grouped, you’d think it shouldn’t move at all. :-0

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Charlie,

So, details of mechanics aside, here’s my more fundamental reaction.

The group you’ve move contains many audio clips that start before and continue after picture.

The example as you’ve illustrated it seems to imply that once the group is moved (and picture gaps collapsed), the move (let’s call it the “editing decision”) is finished. But in fact this editing decision isn’t finished by just moving the group. (Well, unless it really was, which I consider to be a minority case.)

Looking at your timeline, it seems to me that much of your audio probably has to be reconsidered. Does the audio that precedes the group picture still work (as it did before)? Does the audio that follows the group picture still work (as it did before)? Broadly, these clips are more often than not (more likely “almost always”) going to need to be adjusted, in order to finish this particular “editing decision”.

A comparison in execution between two systems should probably execute the full editing decision in both systems.

Franz.

[Charlie Austin]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “Looking at your timeline, it seems to me that much of your audio probably has to be reconsidered. Does the audio that precedes the group picture still work (as it did before)? Does the audio that follows the group picture still work (as it did before)? Broadly, these clips are more often than not (more likely “almost always”) going to need to be adjusted, in order to finish this particular “editing decision”.

A comparison in execution between two systems should probably execute the full editing decision in both systems.

“

Very true, and as i said, this was a completely arbitrary move in context of the spot I used as a guinea pig, so to speak. However, as it happens, the group I moved did work just fine, with the exception of the leftmost clip, which I could have left behind. The other overlapping clips were J/L cuts relating to the picture.

But, yes, as with any cut, you’d have to probably clean up the audio in most cases. In my experience though, it’s as fast or faster to edit audio in X due to not having to worry about collisions. I was working in FCP 7 all day today, with 24 tracks of audio. It was an enormous pain in the ass now that I’m used to working in X. And not for lack of experience, as I’ve been cutting on FCP “classic” 5 days a week for 11 or 12 years. Tracks get in my way now. 😉

————————————————————-

~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~

[Bret Williams]

It does. But the first thing any MC editor did back in my MC days was put a frame of something on the sequence, and insert 30 min of black before it so that the damn thing operated like it should. 🙂

[Jamie Franklin]

[Bill Davis] ” In mostly the same sense that MATH is a cognitive hinderance to those who don’t have much familiarity with it.”

Wow…you finally said something I agree with. It is like MATH, something we all have to learn, the majority find unpleasant and hope in our adult life we don’t have to use much of, if at all…

[T. Payton]

Back to OP. Here is my take on the Magnetic Timeline. In shot, I like it alot. This is the long version,

I’ve been watching some tutorials on lynda.com for Narrative and Documentary editing, for Avid MC, FCP X and Premier Pro. (Before I go on, I must say that Ashley Kennedy Media Composer’s tutorials on lynda.com are fantastic. Her take on preplanning for a documentary has saved me countless hours in my last few projects. I highly recommend them.)

From watching these tutorials for all thee NLEs, it is clear that Media Composer is a VERY powerful tool, and the big dog of the bunch, and Premier Pro is a capable “second generation” NLE, but FCP X is a revolutionary “third generation” editor.

Apple seems to have rethought every aspect of the editing process. It is staggering to see how many editing steps have been eliminated by the magnetic timeline and connect clips. Setting up track patching is FCP X unnecessary. Basic trimming is greatly simplified in FCP X and doesn’t require the explanation that it does in track based editing. The filmstrip in FCP X allows you to view all your visual footage in a fraction of what it takes to scrub through. These are just a few. As a designer myself, FCP X is awe inspiring in its ability to remove complexity in editing.

As a personal example, at my shop I trained an assistant on FCP X this past summer. She had never touched a NLE before and she was literally up and running with organizing, making favorites, editing a timeline, trimming and adding stills with just 20 minutes of instruction from me. (I have tried this with FCP 7 in years past, and that same instruction took several hours with lots of memorization) Now months later she is becoming a capable editor and I was talking with her about the benefits of FCP X, because she doesn’t know anything but FCP X. So I opened up FCP 7 and Premier Pro and showed her around the interface a bit. I showed her the patch panel in the timeline and she said “Do people STILL use software like this? That is very complicated.” I asked her to try to figure out how perform and edit to add an audio clip below V1. After a bit of tinkering she gave up. Frankly, I couldn’t even figure it PP either 😉

Now I completely understand a seasoned editor having an issue with the FCP X and the magnetic timeline. We become accustomed to the way we work, and if you’ve worked in Media Composer for years then FCP X is bizzar confusing mess. However, to say that it is only good for “skater youtube videos” is an insult made out of ignorance. Every type of edit I have had in the past year and a half has shown that FCP X is a tool capable of nearly any time of project.

I for one am inspired by the innovation of others. Just as other artists and editors work push me to be better, FCP X inspires me to work better and more efficiently. FCP X is treading new ground in terms of editing and I don’t think all of the conventions are completely worked out. (Audio mixing isn’t there yet, some editing tasks require too many steps, collaboration is non existent.) Perhaps Apple won’t be the ones who figure out the best way to accomplish certain tasks in editing in a “third generation” NLE, but they have started the ball rolling and frankly I’m enjoying the ride.

Sincerely,

An unashamed fan of the innovation at Apple and Final Cut Pro team.

——
T. Payton
OneCreative, Albuquerque

[Bill Davis]

[Jamie Franklin] “Wow…you finally said something I agree with. It is like MATH, something we all have to learn, the majority find unpleasant and hope in our adult life we don’t have to use much of, if at all…”

Ok, but please remind me not to shop anywhere you’re making change if the register loses power…

And heaven help you ever want to understanding the need for a 3:2 pulldown or 29.97 fps or whether a 40% speed reduction might result in more or less frame interpolation than at 35%,,,

That math stuff is such a terrible burden when applied to something as simple as video production! : )

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.

[Craig Seeman]

I’ve heard many other stories like that. I do think FCPX has a promising future.

Many of these young folks will go out into the business world as solo editors and, as time goes one, some of those solos will expand into small shops. Personally I think this is how FCPX will gain most of its professional market share.

Only a small number of current facilities have moved to FCPX. Some of them though will find their small free lance pool from the above group as well.

Personally I think Apple designed FCPX not simply from watching editors (those already plying the trade) but watching people interact with computers. This is both the gem and the bane of FCPX.

While many of use have arguments about specific features (or lack thereof), it’s the people who are part of the “paradigm” who will grow with FCPX as features are added. In some respects I do think this is similar to FCP legacy to the extent that many editors were only ever FCP editors and grew up with the feature set.