-
The Mother of All NLE Demos
-
[Carsten Orlt] “Gotta admire everybody’s energy to keep discussing this. And if we are really really honest we all know that it doesn’t matter but for our ego’s :-)”
Do you mean just in this thread or for the last 4 years? 😉
-
[Bill Davis] “You guys think in tracks because every system you’ve ever cut on has had tracks. Me too until 2011”
So in X, how would you go about meeting Herb’s workflow needs? Can it be done in X currently or is it one of the thiagns that could be solved if Apple adds roles-based mixing (a feature that even the Focus crew hopes will happen)?
[Bill Davis] ” just to keep an arbitrary track chart working. “
Except it’s not arbitrary. It’s a visual organization of what’s in the timeline. Maybe that’s not a big deal for how you like to work so not having it is a none issue. Maybe it’s a big deal for how someone else likes to work so not having it is an issue. It’s no different than keyword organization in X. If someone is a big keyword organizer then that’s a compelling feature in X. If someone isn’t a big keyword organizer then X’s robustness in that area is less of a selling point. It’s like layers vs nodes. Some things are better done as layers. Some things are better done as nodes. There is no universally best approach, just what’s best for a given user on a given project.
When I first stated editing I never paid much mind to what went where because I was the only one working in my timelines. Once I got into a collaborative environment where I was getting timelines from other editors and they were getting my timelines it quickly became apparent how valuable a tool it was to have a visually organized timeline.
I recently worked on a historical doc that was 99% archival footage and between using color coding and track assignments the other editor and I created a very clear and concise way to show in the timeline what footage was temp (orange), what footage was master (blue) and what footage need to be swapped out because we couldn’t secure a license for them (top track). Super simple for anyone to see and since it’s in the timeline itself it’s an easy, and constant, reminder of work that is still outstanding. To keep the producers in charge of gathering/tracking footage in the loop I just gave them a copy of my timeline. Much quicker and easier than writing up everything in a document and emailing it to them.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “So in X, how would you go about meeting Herb’s workflow needs?”
Differently. Just like you export a multichannel audio file differently in Pr than you do in X.
[Andrew Kimery] “I recently worked on a historical doc that was 99% archival footage and between using color coding and track assignments the other editor and I created a very clear and concise way to show in the timeline what footage was temp (orange), what footage was master (blue) and what footage need to be swapped out because we couldn’t secure a license for them (top track). Super simple for anyone to see and since it’s in the timeline itself it’s an easy, and constant, reminder of work that is still outstanding. To keep the producers in charge of gathering/tracking footage in the loop I just gave them a copy of my timeline. Much quicker and easier than writing up everything in a document and emailing it to them.”
The same could be done with Roles, in fact, I do it all the time. I set a role with TEMP footage or DO NOT AAF or whatever it is that needs to be selected or deselected. I can then select that Role in the index and all of those clips are highlighted. So while, yes, color coding is cool and I would welcome it in X, there are ways to do what you want to do, but it is different an it looks different, and it’s still very organized. I still owe David L a post on why an FCPX Project is much more than a timeline, and this is one of the talking points.
Also, with FPCXML being as strong as it is these days, and the Merge Events command, sharing isn’t such a big deal. It’s no where near Avid, but still, if you like the software, there are ways to get things done if you need to. It will look and feel different than anything else.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “So while, yes, color coding is cool and I would welcome it in X”
My biggest disappointment with the recent update was the lack of new features for roles.
-
[Steve Connor] “My biggest disappointment with the recent update was the lack of new features for roles.”
Sure, but I find them to still be pretty powerful. I have been doing a lot of surround and stereo masters lately with both interleaved and stems, and Roles are killer.
There’s a lot of untapped capability there, I’m still waiting to see if Apple motivates. I edit in other NLE’s too, mostly Pr (and sometimes 7) and X is simply more creative software for me and my needs, plus it helps me do the boring shit (like exporting stems) a lot easier and more efficiently from the exact same (*clears throat) Project without having to make another (*clears throat, again) timeline. I also have a lot of the audio I work with finished in ProTools by a professional, so track bussing isn’t very important for me as my audio is always roughed in and mixed later by the hands of the capable.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ” I edit in other NLE’s too, mostly Pr (and sometimes 7) and X is simply more creative software for me and my needs, plus it helps me do the boring shit (like exporting stems) a lot easier and more efficiently from the exact same (*clears throat) Project without having to make another (*clears throat, again) timeline. I also have a lot of the audio I work with finished in ProTools by a professional, so track bussing isn’t very important for me as my audio is always roughed in and mixed later by the hands of the capable.”
Same situation here, and same experience. Also, to Steve’s comment, I don’t think Apple have really dug into the Project/timeline yet, and think they most certainly will. Not coincidentally, that’s the part of the app that lots of unanswered “prayers” (Roles/Audio etc.) are associated with. fwiw…
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Bill Davis] “I know it’s a well understood system that developed over time and all that – but at some point, it’s possible that following rules designed for the days when electro-magnetic multitrack head stacks ruled the industry might be limiting when nearly nobody is using mag tape anymore.”
The UI design you speak of has absolutely nothing to do with “following rules designed for the days when electro-magnetic multitrack head stacks”.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
Hi Herb.
I think we’re pretty much on the same page vis a vis choosing an NLE that fits one’s workflow.
Here’s where I’m a little unclear:
On the one hand, [Herb Sevush] “I don’t think there’s anything that X can’t do.”
On the other hand, [Herb Sevush] “the difference is that the structure of a tracked NLE allows for this possibility.”
The logical inverse of this statement, to me, is that “the structure of a non-tracked NLE does not allow for this possibility.”I’ve frequently seen on this board some variation of “X’s trackless interface makes it impossible to do _______” Usually related to the kind of bussing and mixing process we’re talking about. What I’m getting at is the ease with which this idea is taken as orthodoxy.
Yes, in its current development state, X doesn’t do some of the track-based techniques that are important to some workflows (like yours). But I don’t see any evidence that X’s “trackless” mode prohibits the implementation of these techniques. Apple’s philosophy may prohibit such functions, but that’s a whole different thing.
So – does the “trackless” structure of X preclude the implementation of the mixing and bussing techniques commonly associated with “tracked” NLEs? (Not that I expect you to have the final answer, Herb!) I think this is a much more useful extension of the seemingly endless tracks vs. trackless merry go round.
-
[Jeff Markgraf] “So – does the “trackless” structure of X preclude the implementation of the mixing and bussing techniques commonly associated with “tracked” NLEs? (Not that I expect you to have the final answer, Herb!) I think this is a much more useful extension of the seemingly endless tracks vs. trackless merry go round.”
This. Many arguments on this forum hinge on the current specific implementations of tracked versus trackless, not on the nature of tracked versus trackless themselves.
There’s no roles mixer in FCPX today, but that doesn’t mean that a trackless system can never bus and/or mix. A track can only accommodate a single element at a specific time in Premiere Pro today, but that doesn’t mean that a tracked system can never avoid clip collisions.
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Differently. Just like you export a multichannel audio file differently in Pr than you do in X. “
Currently in X are there a better solutions to Oliver and Herb’s examples than what Carsten suggested? Because Carsten’s suggestions sound more labor intensive and less effective from a workflow stand point.
Of course this all comes back again to individual needs and preferences. In response to Oliver and Herb’s examples, Carsten says manipulating audio in that fashion is something he does maybe 2% of the time yet for Herb it’s something he does multiple times a day. Given the vast difference between “I need to do XYZ all the time” and “I need to do XYZ rarely” it makes since that maybe these two people just might be better off using different tools at this point in time.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I still owe David L a post on why an FCPX Project is much more than a timeline, and this is one of the talking points.”
I’d look forward to reading that. Your suggestion, if I’m understanding it correctly, sounds a bit limited though since I would have to select the “temp” role then look at the timeline, then select the “master” roll and look at the timeline and then select the ” this has to be replaced” roll and look at the timeline, etc., where as now I just look at the timeline. Color coding would certainly help fix that problem though (as would the seemingly popular feature request of being able to easily ‘pin’ things in the timeline).
Something I meant to mention in my previous post, but forgot to, is that I’m not looking to recreate my exact Avid, PPro, FCP 7, etc., experience in X but I am looking to recreate the end results I need. So, for example, I don’t explicitly need tracks for visual organization but I need the visual organization and currently I use tracks to help achieve it. Your roles suggestion (if X had color coding) would help to meet my visual organization needs.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up