-
The Mother of All NLE Demos
-
[Carsten Orlt] “Sorry Herb, you’re absolutely right. I will go back to many hours of track assigning, setting up complicated asymmetric trims, rearranging music or fx so they don’t overlap because of this one slightly more involved workflow compared to what you have with tracks..”
Or you could just not make blanket statements and then get passive/aggressive when someone presents their own everyday scenario that shows your blanket statement to be false. 😉
You have your needs, Herb has his needs, I have my needs, Bill has yet another set of needs… the “It works for me therefore it must work for everyone else” approach never ends well because there are thousands of different editors out there with thousands of different workflows and thousands of unique challenges they are dealing with.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “One situation it’s not well suited for is large, shared-storage,…..”
Both are technical reasons. The first one I’m not sure as I haven’t tried it but seen stories were people use it happily with multiple users. Can you be more specific what FCP X can’t do in these environments?
If my only reason to choose an given NLE is because I want a Windows box then I’m not making decisions because of best workflow but because of money. I rather pick the best workflow. We’re not talking here about something set in from of you and you get the job if you use this piece of equipment, but what you choose if you were the boss 🙂
Happy editing
Carsten -
He asked – I answered normally – then he replies in a very ironic tone – then I reply the same while still making a valid (not necessary in this case) argument – now you call me passive aggressive.
Hmm. As I said before I guess I will never understand 🙂
Happy editing
Carsten -
[Carsten Orlt] “He asked – I answered normally – then he replies in a very ironic tone – then I reply the same while still making a valid (not necessary in this case) argument – now you call me passive aggressive.”
You made a blanket statement questioning other people’s needs and workflows, no one questioned your needs or your workflow.
You openly challenged the board, Herb cited a couple of his workflow needs, you made suggestions that were obviously inferior to what Herb was already doing, Herb said your suggestions were inferior to what he was already doing, and you said fine, you’ll stop using X. The response was completely nonsensical because no one was trying to impose their choices on you, they were just questioning you trying to impose your choices on them.
[Carsten Orlt] “Hmm. As I said before I guess I will never understand :-)”
It’s pretty simple, horses for courses.
-
[Carsten Orlt] “Both are technical reasons. The first one I’m not sure as I haven’t tried it but seen stories were people use it happily with multiple users. Can you be more specific what FCP X can’t do in these environments?
“What does it matter if it’s technical reasons or not? It’s all part of the decision making process about what’s the best tool for the specific job at hand. AFAIK multiple users cannot be working in the same library (I think that’s the right term) at the same time but in Avid it’s common for everyone to be working in the same project at the same time. If I’m in Project A I can open up bins from Project B or C and Avid projects can be modified at the Finder level. So I can drag a folder or bin from one Project A to Project B via the Finder (with Avid running) and if I have Project B open I’ll see the folder or bin from Project A appear in my Avid window.
Hopefully what I’m saying makes sense, but it’s hard to explain it if someone hasn’t worked in that type of environment before.
[Carsten Orlt] “If my only reason to choose an given NLE is because I want a Windows box then I’m not making decisions because of best workflow but because of money. I rather pick the best workflow. We’re not talking here about something set in from of you and you get the job if you use this piece of equipment, but what you choose if you were the boss 🙂
“Budget is certainly part of workflow development and Windows boxes can be more or less expensive than a MacPro so the I’m not sure what you mean by “because of money.” Windows boxes are much more configurable, expandable and upgradable which may or not be something meaningful depending on your preferences and workflow requirements. Gone Girl, for example, was cut using PPro in a mixed Windows and Mac environment but the Macs were the old MP because those could be configured to meet the post needs. If Resolve is part of your workflow then going Windows has multiple advantages. You have a wider selection of fully supported GPUs and the GPUs can be easily replaced when newer/more powerful models come out. You also won’t suffer from the ongoing GPU driver problems the Macs are currently having.
-
[Charlie Austin] “Now I know why you’re so adamant about tracks… you invented them! lol Very cool David.”
Charlie – Thanks! I do think we invented something genuinely new, but it wasn’t tracks. 😉
[Michael Gissing] “Great to see this David. I just wanted to know how much the Fairlight CMI or the Synclavier influenced the layout and the tracks concept.
When I went to the meeting at Fairlight around this same time to discuss a version for film & video post, I asked why the horizontal layout. Why not vertical tracks like a dubbing chart and a mixing desk. They said the layout had been developed by software people in the UK and based on musical notation so horizontal stacking of tracks.”
Michael – Some context — GTV, the interactive program I was producing was a media experience primarily driven by sound. Since sound was as important as picture, we didn’t give one media type priority over the other. The project was named “Multimedia Production System”, because were developing a general purpose interface and authoring model; one that would work well for all media types and media experiences. MPS was made to produce interactive video, but the interface worked just as well for linear video.
We considered sound a solved problem in terms of digital production quality. We could easily produce and deliver CD quality sound with the hardware and software available at the time. On the other hand, high quality digital video was many years away. I remember when Apple gave us one of the first demos of QuickTime. We looked at the slow, grainy, postage-stamps Apple was calling “movies”, all of us thinking “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.” 😉
We were definitely aware of what was going on with digital audio at the time. Applications like SoundEdit 16 and MOTU Performer were our everyday production tools. We put in a request for a Fairlight (or maybe a Kurzweil) to make music for GTV but we didn’t get it, lol.
Re: influences and why a horizontal layout – I’m pretty sure we were influenced by the typical digital audio software we were using, with waveforms drawn horizontally. But there were other important considerations. We (Westerners at least) read from left to right, and monitors are typically landscape shape. A horizontal layout gives us the most efficient use of screen real estate. For all these reasons, horizontal made sense to us.
Another important influence (mentioned in the video) was the Macintosh Human interface itself. The idea that you point, click and drag to interact. The idea of making a picture of what your program looks like to perform edits.
One of the biggest breakthroughs during development was when the engineering team decided the system would be object-oriented. The workspace would hold collections of multimedia objects (pictures, running video, sounds). These objects could be placed and arranged on the time editor. The length of a box representing media directly corresponded to the length that piece of media would play in time. The horizontal position of the media object along the timeline determined when that media object would play. Empty space between objects (we called them “time bubbles”) would simply play black video and/or silence.
The picture was your edit, and the system had simple building blocks and tools to make the picture. It was very direct, Mac-like and simple. So simple, we believed (as Doug Crockford says in the video) anyone with Macintosh experience could learn it in an hour.
That’s what made this system really different from anything else at the time. The MPS introduced what I now call the “open timeline”.
[Charlie Austin] “Seems like Avid totally ripped you guys off, MC even kinda looks the same today. ;-)”
It’s actually a bit more nuanced than that 😉 I remember we knew we had something important in terms of UI. I told my managers I thought we had a new, billion dollar industry in the palm of our hands. But as the project was winding down in 1990, There was no LFL interest in making a business. George didn’t care to push it forward and the momentum and the moment evaporated. Apple eventually started showing this video to third parties, including IIRC, Avid. The rest as they say is history. Needless to say, I was deeply disappointed.
I want to be clear that there was a lot of parallel development happening at the time. The modern NLE was an inevitability. But it’s interesting to look at the EMC2 and Avid/1 demo videos which were made around the same time as this and compare their UI with our UI. Neither of them performed the actual editing operations on the timeline itself.
I don’t think anyone can say who was first and it really doesn’t matter. All I know is we made something new and special, and it’s a missing link in the history of the tools we use everyday. I’m happy I can finally share it with all of you.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
I started with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portapak
We edited using two similar machines (one source, one record), a stopwatch and a grease pencil. Put a mark on each of the reels, use the stopwatch to get timing, then manually synchronize, and punch in on the mark. “Punch and crunch” editing.
MPS was my dream come true.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Carsten Orlt] ” I will go back to many hours of track assigning, setting up complicated asymmetric trims, rearranging music or fx so they don’t overlap because of this one slightly more involved workflow compared to what you have with tracks..”
#1 – The main lesson I have learned from this forum is that there appears to be a near infinite number of workflows being pursued by a very large number of very highly schooled editors working on a staggering array of different sorts of projects.
I have never used an asymmetric trim in my life, because I detach all my video from my audio once my assembly is complete. I’m amazed that this is not a universal process, but then I checked in with paragraph number #1 above, and am no longer surprised. But still, FCPX saves me from nothing there, so you’ll have to do better.
My music and FX don’t overlap, even when moved, because they’re kept on separate tracks. If you mean that FX would overlap with FX when moving segments in overwrite, then yes that happens, but what happens when you have these overwrites in X — they now co-exist non-harmoniously in adjacent “lanes” till you either disable or move one of them further. So in sum X allows you to clean up your mess after you make it, other NLe’s insist you plan ahead and don’t make a mess in the first place. Ahh the revolution is here.
Track assigning, especially in Ppro, is a pain in the ass, X is an improvement there. But of course only if your comfortable with the lack of visual information provided by the X timeline. This is a preference issue, if you don’t care about the visual clues, then X is faster – but see paragraph # 1 above.
We haven’t even gotten to the issue of no round tripping from a gfx/compositor. I’ve gotten used to round tripping ever since *edit and *combustion allowed this possibility. I realize that X allows for some fairly complex effects work, but there are projects where it’s clearly not enough – what, prey tell, do you do then?
I believe Andrew has answered for me adequately elsewhere, but I really think you should check in with paragraph #1 a little more often.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Carsten Orlt] “Ok walk the talk and tell me what exactly it is not suited for and why??”
Sure. The comparison isn’t entirely tracks or not, because some things that tracks do well could also be done well in a true nodal system. One of the main issues is when things have to be applied globally. Two simple examples.
1. Video – Let’s say you need to apply something over the entire length of the sequence, like a mask, corner bug, creative LUT, counter, vignette, etc. In a track system, like Avid MC, I might apply this effect onto track 5, leaving me V1-4 for picture, cutaways, supers, etc. I never have to worry about moving the global item out of the way – and it always runs the length of the timeline, unless I specifically trim the ends.
With FCP X, I would do the same by adding an adjustment layer, which has to be pinned somewhere. Often this means pinning it to an artificial piece of media at the head of the sequence, like a slug of a few frames. Because I have no control over vertical hierarchy when I make the initial edit, there may be connected clips later in the timeline that incorrectly appear above this adjustment layer. Now I have go to those and move the adjustment layer and/or the clip up or down (frame-accurately) until they pop into place. Same thing if I add a connected clip later during the edit – I have to do this vertical cha-cha-cha.
2. Audio – I often apply a mastering filter at the end of my mix, like a compressor, limiter, etc. I might also apply a loudness meter (as a filter), too. In Adobe PProCC, I’ll send my tracks to a submaster track where I would apply compression/limiting. The submaster would be routed to the master where I would apply the loudness meter. Now I can adjust anything in the mix – clip or track – and always see and hear the result of my action.
With FCP X, I would have to create a compound clip of my unprocessed mix and apply compression to that compound. To adjust the mix, I have to step back into the compound, where I no longer hear how compression is affecting the mix as I make changes.
[Carsten Orlt] “but nothing better than a little provocation to wake up the church :-)”
Do you mean the one that prays to Cupertino? 😉
In all seriousness, though, Apple has certainly chosen to keep tracks and/or layers where needed. For example, Motion, Logic and even Photos. Ironically Motion is the most obvious place where they could have (and maybe should be) changed from tracks. They had Shake, which used nodes. Why not rebuild Motion as a hybrid node/track system? So clearly using tracks in those cases does not mean they are stuck in the past. Or does it? It’s merely a design choice. Both approaches are equally valid and useful.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[David Lawrence] “I started with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portapak“Ironically a booth at NAB had the studio color version of one of these. It was marked “Sold, more available.” I can get you the contact name if you REALLY want to relive your youth 😉
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up