-
The Magnetic Timeline – Time, Space and One Clock To Rule Them All
-
[David Lawrence] “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.”
[David Lawrence] “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.”
[David Lawrence] “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.”
Two followup questions to these points:
What challenge was this redesign meant to address?
What benefits (if any) are there to changing the way we think about how the NLE abstracts and represents the edit back to us?
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 -
[Matt Callac] “So some editing models just can’t fit in the new timing paradigm apple has created.”
Yes, that’s what I’m getting at.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Cherniack] “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?”
Outstanding observations and a key question, David. Great stuff!
Yes — what does this interaction model mean for rhythmic modes of cutting? Cutting is always about rhythm and pacing. What does it mean to be cutting to a relative frame-of-reference?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Walter Soyka] “What challenge was this redesign meant to address?”
Hi
i) As Craig has indicated, to find a way of graphically representing AV Foundation building blocks in an edit-friendly manner, and more importantly
ii) to make the ‘editing process’ more comprehensible to a (far) wider user base.ie Not the answer you want to hear I suspect 🙁
But the whole caboodle is reverse engineered from the viewpoint of ‘where the puck will be’.
Not from existing custom and practice… -
[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. 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.”
Yes, all correct. The question is, is this more efficient? Is it a better way to work? What happens if this behavior is not what you want or need for a particular situation?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] ” 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.”
Hi
You have got me thinking…
I can’t remember a single instance – not one – since I started editing professionally for the BBC in 1965 where I’ve made a story-telling edit (or an edit decision) based on absolute time. Everything is always ‘relative’ to other A/V assets, and the ebb and flow of the action within the clips or the music, and the precise time-irrelevant cut points.Sure I’d lay out a 93 feet 12 frames spacer in the 4-way synchroniser to time a 60 sec slot (PAL-land), but only at the end to get it to time – after the edit. Because the movieola or Acmade was too imprecise.
Similarly in a one-hour documentary the show would be assembled and then fine cut with only a very generalised notion of overall running time. Cutting down to make the exact timing would be the very last editorial process, long after the ‘story-telling’ had been locked down.
But I suppose for the BBC it was irrelevant and for ITV/C4 there was a relaxed policy of timing for commercial breaks.
-
[Paul Dickin] “I can’t remember a single instance – not one – since I started editing professionally for the BBC in 1965 where I’ve made a story-telling edit (or an edit decision) based on absolute time. “
Agreed. It’s not necessarily the absolute time value that matters (although sometimes it does). It’s that the spatial foundation for time is fixed and I’m laying out my edit decisions within that fixed frame-of-reference.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “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.”
Not sure I agree. What I’m seeing is simply that FCPx keeps the clip being trimmed (head or tail) static and shifts the rest. Yes that causes the time(line) to move differently from FCP7 BUT this is actually a good thing because it keeps the clip I want to change focused.
When you trim the first part in your example, it stays stationary and the second part moves, keeping the time(line) static.
—
I was talking to a friend (editor too) yesterday and told him that FCPx is strange because I’m not sure yet if the ‘new’ way is actually a better way. But your post and and analysing it showed me again that we are looking at it with old expectations and are confused when they are not met.
My judgment right now is that every day I discover that the changes are actually quite good but I still haven’t made the final call 🙂Carsten
-
[David Lawrence] “The question is, is this more efficient?”
It is when you’ve created stacks of items that are designed to happen relative to each other. The interview, cutaways, titles, fx, are relative to the words and actions in the interview and you can move that entire relative relationship anywhere in time and the relationship will be maintained.
[David Lawrence] “What happens if this behavior is not what you want or need for a particular situation?”
Yes it’s also possible that one wants a specific thing to happen at exactly (entire timecode number of choice) but as a “story teller” more often (for me) I want the elements related to where a move that part of the story if I move it.
If one wants an end tag to start at 26 seconds of a 30 second spot, the time and not the relativity are the guide in this case but that’s the roll of the Primary Storyline. If all things above it must stay locked to that time you can use the delete key that replaces with gap (as opposed to the one that ripples) and you have the device that “holds” that time and all things relative to it while you find your alternative clip that must be in that exact time.
FCPX requires a different understanding of time and it’s immutable vs its relative nature. I don’t think it’s worse or more inconvenient. In many ways it’s more flexible. It’s just that people aren’t used to it. That begs the question whether one should conform to past ways of thinking because they’ve become normative.
Back when I was very involved in various avant garde music circles these were actually very important questions regarding the composer and listener experience when it comes to things like microtonal work and different tuning temperaments vs the very nature of “notes” vs sound as something that evolves without discrete steps and how this relates to time signatures vs the “freest” of free jazz. I don’t think you can call anyone “correct” or “better.” The artist makes the choice and so does the listener. One’s guitar or instrument might be Avid or it might be FCPX. They are played differently.
One can even say the progression of instrument development is related. The rigidity of the harpsichord eventually led to the much more flexible piano but that eventually was part of the development of the keyboard synthesizer which creates timbres that don’t really exist in “nature” when various physical objects are percussively hit or bowed. Yet this variety of “unnatural” sound is now pervasive. Some musicians were even afraid (and many rightfully so depending on one’s values and goals) of such development. FCPX may yet become the new keyboard synth (or may not. Only time and Apple’s marketing effort will tell).
-
Hi
A piece of film hanging in a bin being transferred to a viewer doesn’t have a clock – only a frame rate.
The chinagraph marks are never applied with reference to a time-piece. No different in an NLE to my way of thinking 😉
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up