The Magnetic Timeline – Time, Space and One Clock To Rule Them All

[Matt Callac]

[Carsten Orlt] “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 think he’s using this as a visual metaphor. The timeline is moving while the clip is staying still, b/c the Clip in the primary storyline IS the primary timekeeper. Whereas in all other edit systems, the timeline itself is the primary timekeeper.

-mattyc

[David Lawrence]

[Carsten Orlt] “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.”

Yes, this is what it does. But this behavior is inconsistent. If you trim from the clip tail, the object changes but the timeline does not (of course, objects to the right will ripple down, but that’s another story). My point is that frame-of-reference is relative and changes depending on how you interact object on the timeline. Depending on your zoom level, it can be disorienting. Is this a good thing? How does this make the actual task of editing easier?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Jim Giberti]

Good stuff David.

I wonder whether these essential but esoteric questions would occur to someone using FCPX as their first experience with temporal design.

For instance, many of the graphic designers in my shop over the years had virtually no grasp of these concepts – things that were common to those of us who evolved with linear film and audio tape in our g studios. I’ve had some great designers that were virtually lost when I tried to explain how we were incorporating their work into a timeline.

I’m thinking of at least a couple of senior art directors I’ve had that were masters of the layered space that they designed in but nearly dyslexic or at least phobic regarding animating or incorporating their work in time.

Just wondering if new editors, whatever their age, would quickly adopt the X paradigm, without a thought of the things being discussed here.

[Glen Hurd]

I feel like we’re giving Apple too much consideration. It’s like a committee of linguists studying a recently discovered collection of free-verse, spending days discussing the potential insight and irony of this genius, while, unbeknownst to them, it’s actually the meandering words of a child – signed by a playful parent – e. e. cummings.

This isn’t meant to diminish anything written here. David L’s comments could/should be collected and used with every “Intro to Editing” course (with his permission), as a means of showing how much depth exists – and is required – in the editing culture. I thoroughly enjoy the philosophical underpinnings to his observations about FCP X and editing in general. But that’s another topic.

But why don’t we see industry leaders stepping forward saying, “I was a contributor, and it was my idea to do this!” Where’s Walter Murch, the Coen Bros, etc.? I mean, if Apple was serious about improving the industry, don’t you think they’d talk to the big boys? I cannot believe that we are talking about the possible merits of FCP X with the assumption that programmers for Apple could POSSIBLY have more insight into what’s needed for editing, than those who edit!!! And if those who edit contributed to all this, then where are they? Why aren’t they standing up and admitting it was their idea, that they grew up as kids loving magnets, and felt that clocks played havoc with their creativity?

Where are the luminaries? (I know that many of the supporters for FCP X, here at the cow, were indeed beta testers, but even they don’t claim actual responsibility for these ideas.)
Are we assuming that Randy and crew came up with these insights on their own? Or were they handed gold tablets while walking their dogs in the morning dew? Why is someone like David caught flat-footed here, left to wrack his brain around what Apple is trying to do, let alone define the problems that Apple was trying to solve? Obviously, he, nor any of his circle of friends/associates, were consulted.

Are we really contemplating that Apple knows best? And . . . we’re not embarrassed by that?

I think psychologists will use this event in their classrooms to simply demonstrate the power of branding, years to come.

Apple.
Final Cut Pro.
Hmm . . . must be good . . . 1 million editors just gotta spend 6 more months to figure out why.

I don’t accept that Apple was trying to improve the editing paradigm and spent 4 years in a monk-like trance dreaming up the “new way forward.” If they were that passionate about our art, they wouldn’t be killing off other applications along the way, let alone forcing us to adapt to rigid methods – or else.
What, are we sinners, needing Apple’s redemption?

Again, I do enjoy looking at the underpinnings of FCP X in an effort to “study the trees” – a method of understanding Apple’s purpose, and, of more benefit, to define who we are as a community (I think the latter will be more valued).
But I also see a forest on fire, and a company who continues to exceed profit expectations from iPad sales, not to mention a yet-to-be-released upgraded telephone. Woo-f-ing-hoo!!! So the trees aren’t speaking to me.

I’ve been a tireless evangelist for many years, and FCP X has turned me into Nietzsche.

[Carsten Orlt]

[David Lawrence] “But this behavior is inconsistent. If you trim from the clip tail, the object changes but the timeline does not”

Hmm not following you here as it wouldn’t make sense it it would be the same 🙂

Think of time is to be read from left to right. If I change the out of a clip I change this point in relation to the master time either making it later (and therefor needing to add more frames to the clip itself) or earlier (therefor taking frames away from the clip) Therefor the time ruler is not changing but the clip(s) after.

If I now trim the head of clip 2, I do NOT change the point in the master time. The edit point remains at a fixed time because otherwise I would have to overwrite clip 1.

In fact when you switch to the trim tool (T) and do a roll edit the time ruler stays static and the clip move.

All makes perfect sense 🙂

FCPx just does something that no other NLE does and that is shifting the timeline on the left as well when needed to keep the clip you’re working on in focus.

Carsten

[David Roth weiss]

[Glen Hurd] ” Why is someone like David caught flat-footed here, left to wrack his brain around what Apple is trying to do, let alone define the problems that Apple was trying to solve?”

I think the answer is quite simple Glen, it’s because Apple isn’t talking. They’ve left it up to all of us to figure out what the heck they’re up to and what the heck they have in mind for the future.

Trying to interpret the many disconnects left dangling by Apple since June 21st is really a ridiculous waste of time, but no intelligent person can resist trying to interpret hieroglyphics, so here we are…

David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.com

Don’t miss my new tutorial: Prepare for a seamless transition to FCP X and OS X Lion
https://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/FCP-10-MAC-Lion/1

POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™

Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.

[Craig Seeman]

This brings up an important point in how Apple may have done their GUI research.

One software developer once had me sit in front of their GUI and asked me to perform certain task. This was deliberately without any manual or help of any kind. They wanted to see where I would attempt to find things and how I try to do those tasks and how quickly I’d understand how the program does these things.
Of course my choices were influenced both by my preconceived thinking of where certain things might be and how certain things might be done but were also influenced by my “natural” inclination to try things in ways I thought would be most convenient.

Tests like this can guide someone in the development of a GUI. It may well be Apple looked at people’s “natural” inclination to try do to things without the heavy influence of pre-existing NLE use as well as people who had such background and watched the mix of history vs the desire that thinks made be easier in this new interface.

They may have decided to go with a GUI that those with strong prehistory were least comfortable with because they found that a more “natural” attempt lead to a different GUI. They may have found that people’s concept of time and vertical use was very different than the GUI that most NLEs used. Since the greatest market growth may be in people who don’t have the pre-history, that’s where they want. BTW that does NOT mean they would be locked into a consumer or prosumer market. This may well be the next generation of very advanced professionals.

[David Lawrence]

[Carsten Orlt] “All makes perfect sense 🙂

FCPx just does something that no other NLE does and that is shifting the timeline on the left as well when needed to keep the clip you’re working on in focus.”

Yes, I agree it makes logical sense, but I’m not sure the last part — shifting the timeline on the left — makes intuitive sense with how we expect objects to behave in space.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Craig Shields]

Hi David,

Are you using FCPX now? If so, how much time are you spending with it? Do you have or can you create examples of the potential problems of which you speak?

I’m asking these questions as someone who has spent a lot of time reading various viewpoints of the new software. Like many, I see the potential of FCPX but I am also concerned about the potential pitfalls.

Thanks.

[Carsten Orlt]

[David Lawrence] “but I’m not sure the last part — shifting the timeline on the left — makes intuitive sense with how we expect objects to behave in space.”

But why does it have to?
If I’m trimming an edit point I’m at this very moment most interested as to how the edit works. Keeping the clip I’m trimming in focus does exactly that.

If my interest when trimming is the total length of my story (to use the ‘new’ terminology) I would agree with your analysis. And of course there are cases when it would actually be the main goal of a trimming operation. But in 99.99% percent (or in other words the majority as I have of course no proof for the number) of trimming operations I’m interested in the edit I’m trimming, NOT the master time.

Carsten