-
The Magnetic Timeline – What’s The Paradigm?
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “What others seem to be suggesting, without really outlining their meaning, is the the underlying changes (AV Foundation) offer the possibility of new paradigms or that the new paradigm exists in the way media and data is handled and might one day surface as something new in FCPX. (Is this really new, or just a better database?)”
I’m not at all sure if there is any specific OS X API that is responsible for the Magnetic Timeline. We know the project and event databases are managed via CoreData, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the Magnetic Timeline and its new model of connected clips with their explicit ties to each other is made possible by the use of that API.
AVFoundation allows developers to leverage lower level OS X frameworks like CoreAudio, CoreVideo, CoreMedia, CoreAnimation, and so on in a less granular way. It is just less work for the programmer to get the same sophisticated results. Using these APIs is how FCPX is able to be 64 bit, edit with H.264 and other complex asymmetrical interframe codecs, and do all the background rendering via Grand Central Dispatch. When you code for OS X’s tuned APIs, you get all those low level goodies with a lot less work than doing it by hand.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “The possibility alluded to [by] Andrew Richards that FCPX may allow different views of the same timeline seems interesting (and perhaps fundamentally new). That is something I’d like to know more about – is that the paradigm shift?”
What is fundamentally new about the Magnetic Timeline is the arrangement of the timeline by tethering media to other media, rather than laying media out in a particular order within the structure of a timeline. The pie-in-the-sky idea I laid out for revisualizing the timeline is only practical when the elements in the timeline have explicit relationships independent of their spatial relationships in the UI. Otherwise, how could the whole timeline redraw itself to illustrate something different about the edit? I’d be shocked if Apple ever implemented such a feature, but I think it would be pretty killer if they did.
I think the visual metaphor of the traditional timeline and the Magnetic Timeline are similar enough that lots of people are applying their understanding of traditional timelines, with fixed track relationships in the vertical space, and drawing incorrect conclusions about the Magnetic Timeline’s behavior.
Another thing I think is informing opinions, or at least it informed mine the first time I played with the MT, is that all the timeline management muscle memory from the last decade of legacy FCP is frustratingly useless. In other words, knowing what you want to do but not how to do it, and knowing you’d have it done it by now on the old timeline! I felt much the same way the first time I tried Avid after initially learning FCP 1.25 as a student.
But I also recognize that many of my timeline manipulation habits and techniques of the past were really just working around the weaknesses of the old timeline.
Best,
Andy -
Everyone, this is an fantastic discussion — exactly the kind conversation I hoped we’d get into. So many outstanding points being raised! Thank you for your great insights! I think I can let you guys write the next piece! 😉
I’m on the road until early next week and will be reading everything in this thread while I’m out. I’ll respond when I’m back. In the mean time, please keep talking. I think you’re really getting into the heart of the big issues. I hope I’ll have something interesting to add to the mix!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Simon Ubsdell] “It does seem as though the FCPX editing model is predicated on an essentially simplistic view of the process.”
I think it’s more along the lines of the famous Alan Kay quote, “Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.” Traditional NLEs make you micromanage clips in the sequence even when you’re doing something simple. FCP X relieves you of a lot of this, but still lets you get in there and perform low-level operations if you need to.
—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
-
[Chris Kenny] ”
I think it’s more along the lines of the famous Alan Kay quote, “Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.” Traditional NLEs make you micromanage clips in the sequence even when you’re doing something simple. FCP X relieves you of a lot of this, but still lets you get in there and perform low-level operations if you need to.”I think I’d prefer complex things to be just as simple 😉
I do think that when it comes to detailed complex editing the new model means you have to work harder than before. Conversely, I’d absolutely agree that simple editing has suddenly become vastly simpler – and in a good way.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
Actually I think that’s the real problem is that things that I think of as vastly simple have become substantially more complex. Reduce the audio of a single mono track. Add a transition to a B-roll shot. Add a super above B-roll. Cross fade audio tracks. Transition between sound bites. Just what pops into my head at the moment.
The secondary storyline is more of a problem than a solution. When you edit the B-roll clips they are inherently associated with what’s below, even only if as Randy Ubillos says in the editor’s head, though they are associated by being a time-specific event that even a 30-year EDL can understand. The secondary storyline however is physically connected to some other part of the primary and not associated with the time-related event directly below it. The connected clips work as a concept, but the execution has left it flawed.
All the best,
Tom
Class on Demand DVDs “Complete Training for FCP7,” “Basic Training for FCS” and “Final Cut Express Made Easy”
Coming in 2011 “Complete Training for FCPX”
and “Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users” from Focal Press -
[Walter Soyka] “Trackless editorial means we can’t use spatial arrangement as metadata anymore. I think that’s giving up a very fast, simple, and powerful tool that is well-suited to how our brains work (spatial arrangement), in exchange for a slower, highly flexible, and powerful tool that is well-suited to how computers work (relational database).”
Bingo. Walter has nailed the issue for me. For years I have worked with software people at audio DAW companies and the constant issue is to drive the development back to operator ergonomics and sensibilities. Software people have to think along the lines of how the underlying code works. I was asked if i wanted to learn to code and I said emphatically no as it was important that I didn’t understand the code, lest I start to make decisions based on what was hard or easy to code versus what was best for the operator of the software.
As a company, I think Apple should do a lot more alpha and beta testing with a wide range of facilities and operators to get this software back on track. (pardon the huge obvious pun).
-
[Walter Soyka] “My most basic point is this: tracked editing allows an editor to use 2D space in the timeline to convey meaning. Trackless editing removes that ability.”
I think this idea that tracks are especially intuitive is nuts. Tracks are a digital emulation of the behavior of physical recording devices that were limited in their flexibility by their mechanical implementations. The brain fundamentally works in terms of relationships between things, and in terms of multiple overlapping taxonomies. Clip connections and tagging map to these much better than rigidly defined tracks and strict hierarchical organization of clips in bins.
I agree that there is some value in being able to see visually how various objects are classified. Tracks do allow for some of this, but arrangement in a flat 2D space is a pretty crude approach. For something like tagging audio roles, color coding would provide more flexibility.
—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
-
“Tracks are a digital emulation of the behavior of physical recording devices that were limited in their flexibility by their mechanical implementations.”
This is just not correct. Tracks are an emulation of time. They are linear and they go only in one direction and events occur on these tracks at intervals of time. The objects on the tracks is the relationship of when they occur, not a relationship to each other. What’s important is not that objects at related to each other, but what they represent occurs at a specific instance in time. That’s what movie and television and this whole medium is about. What you’re describing sounds like painting, a wonderful art form, but not one that has any time reference.
Apologies but I’m trying to write this on a phone and the text box is minute.
All the best,
Tom
Class on Demand DVDs “Complete Training for FCP7,” “Basic Training for FCS” and “Final Cut Express Made Easy”
Coming in 2011 “Complete Training for FCPX”
and “Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users” from Focal Press -
[Chris Kenny] “I think this idea that tracks are especially intuitive is nuts.”
Who said it was intuitive? Both tracked and trackless timelines must be learned.
[Chris Kenny] “Tracks are a digital emulation of the behavior of physical recording devices that were limited in their flexibility by their mechanical implementations.”
This is true — but tracks are also a mechanism for grouping related items.
You seem to want to drop tracks because their origin is no longer relevant. I think we should critically evaluate both tracked and trackless timelines from a design perspective to explore if one is really better than the other.
[Chris Kenny] “The brain fundamentally works in terms of relationships between things, and in terms of multiple overlapping taxonomies. Clip connections and tagging map to these much better than rigidly defined tracks and strict hierarchical organization of clips in bins… arrangement in a flat 2D space is a pretty crude approach. For something like tagging audio roles, color coding would provide more flexibility.”
The design challenge that we have here is representing editorial decisions on a flat 2D computer monitor.
Arrangement in a flat 2D space is hardly crude — instead, it’s the single most fundamental tool we have as designers for displaying information visually, because the brain subconsciously relates or disassociates items based on their relative positioning. The meaningful arrangement of objects in flat 2D space is the essence of graphic design and the foundation of UI design.
Of course, the magnetic timeline uses arrangement in 2D space to convey information — but it essentially ignores the principle of alignment as a tool for showing relationships. A tracked timeline can use alignment for visually grouping items, but a trackless timeline can’t.
You can add color-coding to a trackless timeline to convey meaning, but you could use color-coding in a tracked timeline, too — so a trackless timeline is still one dimension down.
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 -
[Tom Wolsky] “This is just not correct. Tracks are an emulation of time. They are linear and they go only in one direction and events occur on these tracks at intervals of time.”
In a traditional NLE, the horizontal axis represents time. FCP X preserves that entirely.
Tracks are the vertical axis. They’re one way of representing multiple simultaneous events in time. And they’re a way of representing simultaneous events based on the principle that such events have to live in explicit ‘slots’. This was true, as a matter of physical reality, when recording four simultaneous audio signals meant having four heads in a recording device write those signals to four vertical stacked areas of a tape. Traditional NLEs adopted this as a metaphor, but they don’t require its rigidity.
[Tom Wolsky] “What’s important is not that objects at related to each other, but what they represent occurs at a specific instance in time.”
I don’t agree with this at all. If I arrange shots A, B, and C, what’s important about shot C is that it comes after shot B, not that it starts 316 frames into the program, or whatever. Editing is almost entirely about relationships between shots.
—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up