-
The Magnetic Timeline – Time, Space and One Clock To Rule Them All
About me and my background:
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/9060The Magnetic Timeline – What’s The Paradigm?
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/9629Standard disclaimer – Everything in all my posts is my opinion only. I have no special insider knowledge or connections with Apple. I’m just calling it the way I see it, having thought about this stuff for a while. If I get something wrong or if you have information I don’t, please feel free to correct me and/or add your knowledge to the pile. I’m all ears.
I personally believe that the usability of FCPX’s new UI/interaction model is the most important question we need to explore as we try to figure out whether we can work with it or not. Many of the missing parts in FCPX can and will be fixed with plug-ins and updates. But if Apple’s fundamental design assumptions about editorial workflow don’t work for you, it won’t matter. You’ll eventually switch to something else.
In my previous post, I asked “What’s the paradigm?” The goal was to start a discussion about the new interaction model FCPX brings to the table. Thank you for your thoughtful comments! The thread raised a couple key issues I hoped would come up which I’ll explore further here.
We’ve talked a bit about how FCPX is built around a database managed, container-based, object-oriented data model.
One of the analogies I frequently see in this forum goes something like this — “Using FCPX is like using a relational database as opposed to using a spreadsheet a la FCP7 and earlier. People having difficulty using FCPX are simply not getting the relational database model. They’re stuck in the spreadsheet way of thinking.”
While this analogy has factual basis, I think it’s a mixed metaphor and misses the larger point:
FCPX is built around an object-oriented data model. FCPX uses a relational database to manage this data. Structured data objects in a relational database can be manipulated in very powerful and flexible ways. All of this is true and we see the potential of this throughout FCPX. Metadata, keyword tagging, etc. are powerful organizational features. But there’s a inherent disconnect.
A relational database can have an infinite number of dimensions. It can store any type of data set in innumerable ways. But there’s one Very Big Thing a relational database doesn’t understand or even know about.
Time.
A relational database exists completely outside the dimension of time. In a relational database, all possible data relationships exist simultaneously in a timeless, abstract state. They have no human perceptible meaning until we use tools to call and display them. In order to experience time-based data, we must play it. In order to represent time-based data on a computer screen, we must use space.
Human beings work with data and time very differently than computers do. I think this point is getting lost in much of the discussion of FCPX’s interaction model.
While it’s true FCPX uses a relational database foundation and metadata is a powerful, flexible way to organize, it’s also true that humans don’t process data or time like a computer. We use pattern, space and physical reference points to understand and navigate the world around us. This is wired into our bodies and this is why all NLEs use timelines.
Timelines give tangible, perceivable form to the abstract data and relationships held by a computer. Timelines allow us to perceive and manipulate time-based data in a way that makes physical and experiential sense.
FCPX introduces a radically different approach to the timeline interaction model. It replaces the familiar model with something that borrows many similar representational conventions, yet behaves very differently.
I’m convinced that any similarities between the old and new timeline models are fundamentally necessary. Yet Apple’s newly added differences run counter to years of expectation in regard to the timeline’s central frame-of reference. This makes it unintuitive for many editors.
Frame-of-reference is key, and leads to the fundamental truth about the timeline I hinted at in the end of my last post:
There must be a Master Clock.
In any NLE:
There is always a Master Clock.
The Master Clock dictates absolute time.
The Master Clock is the master frame-of-reference for time.
The Master Clock must be represented in space.This is where things get curious with FCPX. FCPX has changed the master clock.
FCPX changes the frame-of-reference for the master clock from what we’ve used for decades — the sequence window, a fixed, external frame-of-reference defined by absolute spatial position — to a container object inside the sequence window.
Here’s an illustration:
In FCPX the primary storyline is the master clock.
This is why there can only be one primary storyline. This is why connected clips only connect to the primary storyline. In object-speak, the primary storyline is the parent container for all media events in the sequence (project).
This change in itself is a big deal. It means that in FCPX, we edit the temporal frame-of-reference as we edit our piece.
And it gets more complex because FCPX’s master clock has gravity. Locked in ripple mode, the primary storyline always pulls all contained objects to the singularity of 00:00:00:00. This is useful if you need help avoiding black gaps in your program, but it has a side effect of constantly changing the time position of everything else you’re working on. This may or may not be a problem depending on what you’re doing.
Here’s a simple exercise you can do to see how FCPX treats time in the sequence (project) window:
Drop a clip in the primary storyline. Hit shift-z (zoom to fit) so you can see the full clip. Use the blade tool to make a cut in the center of the clip. Use the trim tool to select only the head of the clip on the right. Now drag the selected head right and left to trim the clip head forward and backward. Keep your eye on the time indicator. Notice what happens to the timeline and where time is in the window space. Time is moving in space relative to the object being trimmed.
Try the same thing in FCP7. Use the ripple tool to simulate the FCPX trim mode (which is currently ripple only). Also try this with the regular trim tool.
The difference in how each version of FCP performs this function demonstrates how each version treats the master clock frame-of-reference.
In FCP7’s open timeline, time is absolute in relation to the sequence window. Changes to any media objects on the open timeline affect the objects only. Time in space is constant.
In FCPX’s magnetic timeline, time is always relative to 00:00:00:00 on the primary storyline. Depending on how you manipulate objects on the timeline, 00:00:00:00 can and will move in space. Time in space is variable.
Question – In the FCPX exercise above are you trimming the object on the timeline, or pulling the timeline into the object?
FCPX’s new interaction rules and behaviors are loaded with assumptions about how you should edit. Depending on your needs, they’ll either help you or get in the way. But make no mistake. If you work in FCPX, you must follow them.
Next post, I’ll look at the rules that govern object and timeline behaviors in FCPX. The floor is now yours.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
124 Replies
-
David –
You’ve created a new genre, the page turning cow post. Can’t wait for the next installment.
Thanks.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
Well that certainly shut everyone up….at least for a while.
Thanks David, I look forward to pondering the ramifications through with you and others here.
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
A question: what are the ramifications of this cutting segments and ‘projects’ to time. The broadcast slot is, of course, absolute ( in more meanings than one 🙂
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
I’m one of those who mention the spreadsheet vs database comparison.
Another concept I’ve tried to express is that time is relative to the relationship of media objects rather than an absolute time grid . . . or maybe as you say the handling of the master clock.
Clip connections (and Secondary Storyline connections) are relative to each other as shown through the “connection” point. The connection points themselves can be moved in relative time (Command Option and click the top of a media object/clip). This is such that if a clip overlaps two clips in the primary storyline once can change the connection to any frame of the clips below it through all overlapping points in time (frames).
That it is relative to that can also be shown when slipping a clip in the primary storyline as the connection stays linked to a given frame of the media object/clip within the primary storyline rather than to a specific point in time along the time grid. In other words, use the trim tool and do a slip on the clip in the primary storyline and the connection, linked to that frame, will move in time with the specific frame.
Tangentially, that several connected clips can be made into a Secondary Storyline becomes wrapped as a single media object and, therefore has only one clip connection to the primary storyline.
Perhaps you can correct and/or expand on or better explain the above. A key though is how this might benefit the editorial process because I think people are missing that. I think understanding the relative nature of clip connections in time is key to unlocking some of the power of FCPX .
One way I’ve had of looking at and describing this is that the “connection” is a “time node” and as such the node connection can be changed relative to the media object while they cross (overlap) each other in time. Also, Storylines can embody clips that relate to each other sequentially (transitions, effects) and each connected object (clip or storyline) to the clips below it relative to the connection point which is itself a mobile connection for overlapping time.
-
Craig, I think David’s point is that sometimes master time needs to be absolutely fixed. Ideally, an editor is a story teller, and the story should be the master. Hence the primary storyline being the movable adjustable clock for the edit. Problem is All editing isn’t ideal and a lot of times you are a slave to absolute time. a commercial that is 30 seconds. A documentary for Television that has to fit nicely in 5 designated timed segment etc etc.
So some editing models just can’t fit in the new timing paradigm apple has created.
-mattyc
-
Hi
Shut up!!!! Not much chance of that here 🙂i) For me, existentially, time is almost never ‘linear’ – except when I’m counting the seconds – ie never when I’m editing. So for me, whilst visual story,-telling seconds=centimeters can never be a valid metaphor.
ii) I used Premiere 3.1.3>6.5 almost as long as I’ve used FCP (1993-2001). With its A&B roll topography, and especially its precisely rulered timeline, always marked in meaningful seconds (unlike FCP for a PAL timeline), it was much more a layed down linear representation of time in a line, with meaningful overlaps for transition points. I know editors who still hold Premiere as a ‘better’ NLE for that reason.
Getting used to meaningless timeline time rulering was the biggest hindrance to me when transferring to FCP v2 – it took me all of two weeks to get my head around that…iv) My favourite ever Mac program was mTropolis, and object-based nodal multimedia authoring program like Director. It had no problems with ‘time’, as any time-based object had its own timeline. So as a descendant of that philosophy I welcome FCP X. 🙂
iii) There was, briefly, a totally trackless Mac NLE called Montage made by Arboretum. Limited though it was it had no really fundamental problems for its being trackless – it was just too simplistic, and therefore limited, to compete with Final Cut Express. Complexity goes with the territory.
Complexity = learning curve. -
Some observations that may fall out of your post:
FCP-X’s timeline is a creation from the minds of object oriented software engineers.
As you point out we experience the playback of a timeline in absolute time, not the relative time the objects and their containers exist in.
So in a sense the creators of the absolute time playback are creating in a relative time container. This leads to a significant question:
Is it appropriate for editing with a sense of timing and rhythm?
David
AllinOneFilms.com -
[Matt Callac] “Craig, I think David’s point is that sometimes master time needs to be absolutely fixed.”
But in FCPX things relative to that master and its clips are only relative to the clips. They are not fixed to the master time. They are fixed (connected) to a point in time of the object. If that point in time in the object moves, so moves those related to it. Alternately one can change that point so it links to the object at a different point. That too can move though. You can connect to frame 1 or frame 100 of a clip. You can connect to clip 1 or clip 2 as long as the media object in the primary storyline is crossing the time path of the connected object (you can only connect to points that overlap rather than any frame in the object).
So the master storyline may be fixed but its internal components are mutable and so are the relationships to them.
-
[Craig Seeman] “But in FCPX things relative to that master and its clips are only relative to the clips. They are not fixed to the master time”
Right, but sometimes it’s necessary for things to be locked to a Master Time, and not what you might call Story Time (time as dictaded by the primary storyline).
-mattyc
-
[Craig Seeman] “Perhaps you can correct and/or expand on or better explain the above. A key though is how this might benefit the editorial process because I think people are missing that. I think understanding the relative nature of clip connections in time is key to unlocking some of the power of FCPX .”
You’re doing a thoughtful and articulate job explaining this Craig. I agree with your descriptions about how the clip relationship model works in X. I think where we might differ in opinion is on the question of what this brings to the process of editing. I’m open to the possibility that this might be better, but I’m highly skeptical. I want to see proof.
I think we may be seeing different sides of the same coin. Here I can only speak for myself. When I edit, any relationships I create between clips comes as a direct result of where I place them in time. My concern is always time first. This event happens now. The now part is very important. The relationships arise from this placement. I might not even understand them before I perform them! For me, this is the intuitive, creative part of editing. This is why I want my time foundation to be fixed. I want absolute control of what happens and when it happens.
This is not to say that I never ripple. I do all the time. But it’s never my default mode. It’s always intentional.
I’m not suggesting that the relative/relationship model can’t work. What I’m saying is that it’s not what you want all the time.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up