-
The missing Source Window
-
[Ben Scott] “use command 1 or 2 to toggle whats on the viewer”
So the way it works is that you use command 1 and 2 to toggle back and forth between the source viewer and the record window? People are okay with that? I couldn’t work that way. Well I could but I can’t see why anyone should. It might be fine for doco work but for narrative filmmaking that sounds very slow, inefficent and also very taxing on the brain.
-
[David Roth Weiss]
“Daniel,Silly post Daniel!
Evidently you are unaware that Smoke is very well-known primarily as a finishing tool. It’s way too expensive for most as a primary edit station. My quote was from the website was simply to support my message to Brian, who knows very well that he is among very few users who actually use Smoke as an edit station, which is clearly not what it was designed for.
Anyway, what exactly is your intent, to get into a discussion of truth in advertising, or do you really have something to add here, such as that you are actually knowledgeable about Smoke and it’s usage, and that you can say with authority that both my message and the message on the Autodesk website are invalid?”
David,
The message on Autodesk’s website is correct.
You just have to read a little further than the initial splash page to
realize that Smoke is promoted (and used) as both non-linear editor
and finishing system. This I can attest to with authority.regards
Daniel Annefelt
Producer, Creative & Design
MTV Networks North -
[Dominic Deacon] “So the way it works is that you use command 1 and 2 to toggle back and forth between the source viewer and the record window? People are okay with that? I couldn’t work that way. Well I could but I can’t see why anyone should. It might be fine for doco work but for narrative filmmaking that sounds very slow, inefficent and also very taxing on the brain.”
Most of the people we hear from the most have no experience cutting narrative, and thus no idea why anyone cutting narrative/dramatic material would even care about the second viewer. As someone wise once wrote, “you don’t know what you don’t know.”
The bottom line is, prior to June 21st, if you had asked any of them to raise their hand if a single viewer was on their wish list, or if you’d asked them if it would enhance their editing experience in any way, there isn’t one among them who would have a raised hand. But, since June 21st they will defend it quite vehemently.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.comDon’t miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing “The Whale” to the Big Screen:
https://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfitandSuzanneChisholm/1POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
-
But a kem could have 2 or more, and I often linked multiple moviolas together, both upright and flatbed. So what’s your point? do you think editors would have turned down a preview head on a steenbeck if it was possible?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
When they implement multi-cam they will have to have 2 viewers and they will have to keep them up as long as you haven’t locked the edit, otherwise multi-cam is unusable. It would be insane at that point not to allow 2 viewers as on option for all editing.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
[Herb Sevush] “But a kem could have 2 or more, and I often linked multiple moviolas together, both upright and flatbed. So what’s your point? do you think editors would have turned down a preview head on a steenbeck if it was possible?”
My point was a countenance to Rafael who seemed to think you need two screens on an edit system for it to be professional. Clearly, that’s not the case.
BTW some eight plate Steenbecks had two screens too.
Liam Hall
Director/DoP/Editor
http://www.liamhall.net -
is that compared to using a mouse to change between windows?
-
[Walter Soyka] “And yet many complain about gratuitous chrome. Also, when FCP v1 was released, most screens were 1024×768. Even the smallest MacBook Air today has 33% more screen real estate than that.”
Yes, but on the other hand FCPv1 was designed around 4:3 DV, and not 16:9 HD. The UI now has to account for 26% more width per image in the media it must display. If you double that for two viewers, you have to find 52% more horizontal space to fit the twin viewers for an HD-centric UI. You can scale the images down to postage stamps, but it isn’t an even exchange.
I know Aindreas and others bitch about the chrome, so I wanted to quantify the “gratuitous” chrome to see if FCPX is wasting that much space compared to FCP7. As far as I know, gratuitous means uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted. As UIs go, I would take that to mean pixels that serve no purpose for conveying information or accepting user input. Anything else in the chrome has a purpose and cannot be gratuitous, no?
I borrowed this FCP7 screen cap from Walter Biscardi’s blog post about UI because it is essentially the default FCP7 layout. It is from a 2560px wide display, so I grabbed an FCPX cap of my own on a similar display. Then I counted pixels with Photoshop’s histogram palette.
I’ve blotted in red all the areas on the FCP7 UI that do nothing and convey nothing. The unused space in the timeline is not wasted, just un-utilized. According to Photoshop’s histogram data, there are 126,636 gratuitous pixels or 3.6% of that screen cap.Contrast with FCPX in fullscreen mode:
There is indeed a fair amount of gratuitous chrome. According to Photoshop’s histogram data, there are 313,317 gratuitous pixels or 8.5% of that screen cap.So the numbers don’t lie! FCPX must have bloated chrome. It’s that big open bar in the middle seemingly waiting for buttons the way a stripped down economy car has blanks where the higher trim level’s buttons and doodads would live.
[Walter Soyka] “My guess is that the loss of the source monitor was driven by the design decision to try to simplify or streamline the NLE’s interface by making it more contextual: since you can only shuttle or interact with one viewer at a time, you should only show one viewer at a time. The two-up then appears in context only for editorial operations that explicitly require it.”
I agree, but isn’t that the means to the end? The end being better utilization of available screen real estate more of the time? The bottom line is that the user should have more control over how the UI adapts to particular contexts.
Best,
Andy -
[Walter Soyka] “On the interface point I raised earlier, Smoke presents a pretty interesting comparison — its UI is very touchable (it was built for use with a pen), it works in panes within a single window, and it’s highly contextual, but it doesn’t draw the “dumbed down” complaints that FCPX’s UI does. What’s the difference?”
Gradients.
Best,
Andy -
[Andrew Richards] “Yes, but on the other hand FCPv1 was designed around 4:3 DV, and not 16:9 HD. The UI now has to account for 26% more width per image in the media it must display. If you double that for two viewers, you have to find 52% more horizontal space to fit the twin viewers for an HD-centric UI. You can scale the images down to postage stamps, but it isn’t an even exchange.”
In fairness, I did pick the lowest-res display Apple offers for my comparison. A more reasonable choice for editing (like 1920×1200 display on the MacBook Pro) offers almost three times the number of pixels that the 1024×768 display did. A 2560×1440 offers almost five times the number of pixels. Big net gain for 720 work, smaller net loss for 1080.
Of course, with HD, you can use a smaller scale and still make out the image better than you could with SD.
[Andrew Richards] “There is indeed a fair amount of gratuitous chrome. According to Photoshop’s histogram data, there are 313,317 gratuitous pixels or 8.5% of that screen cap.”
Nice work! Personally, I can live with 8.5%. It’s the loss of custom layouts that I’m mourning here.
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
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up