-
The Mother of All NLE Demos
-
[Bill Davis] “I’m just a bit tired of those who seem to argue that everything necessary or useful about audio in an NLE was TOTALLY covered by track based systems, and that because X is trackless somehow that means it’s also hobbled… That’s misinformation that requires addressing.”
Um guys, I thought this was going to be a thread about history? We could be discussing much more interesting stuff if you want. Just sayin’ 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[David Lawrence] “Um guys, I thought this was going to be a thread about history? We could be discussing much more interesting stuff if you want. Just sayin’ 😉
“David, you’ve been on here long enough to know that NO thread stays on topic for long
-
[Bill Davis] “I’m just a bit tired of those who seem to argue that everything necessary or useful about audio in an NLE was TOTALLY covered by track based systems, and that because X is trackless somehow that means it’s also hobbled. “
Totally agree. I think there’s also a perception that how X handles audio now is how it will always handle audio. I don’t think that’s correct, and i think the way Roles work, and how X in general works, offers some very interesting possibilities relative to track based audio handling.
[Bill Davis] “But to listen to some who have virtually no experience in trackless X style editing- argue that it’s somehow deficient? – nope. Not buying it. That’s misinformation that requires addressing. “
Also agree. There’s also a tendency, as has been pointed out a zillion times, for people to extrapolate their own workflow and preferences (with X, Or tracks, or whatever) onto “everyone”. When that happens, nice threads like this one umm… devolve… 😉
————————————————————-
~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Steve Connor] “David, you’ve been on here long enough to know that NO thread stays on topic for long”
LOL! I know Steve! 😀
But I thought you summed up the track vs trackless debate perfectly with your response above.
BTW and for the record, I like tracks for the exact same reason my sound guy likes them in Pro Tools.
And that’s the last I have to say on the subject. 🙂
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[David Lawrence] “Um guys, I thought this was going to be a thread about history? We could be discussing much more interesting stuff if you want. Just sayin’ ;)”
History?!? I remember scraping fades on mag tracks with a razor blade! And manually punching in video edits on tape! It worked fine! You kids inventing your newfangled computer thingies just piss me off!
Sorry. 🙂 I really did punch video and scrape fades on occasion, though we did have a DAW available… I wish I could remember the name.. before ProTools, it chased TC… very fancy…
EDIT: Otari Prodisc. ProTools had been out for a year, but didn’t chase TC reliably, This baby was geared for broadcast rathe than music…
————————————————————-~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~ -
[Bill Davis] “When someone posts that “X is just like all the other NLEs” no better or worse, just different. It strikes me as patently FALSE. “
I guess it depends on how you read that statement. I read it as X can get the job done, just like other NLEs, it just works differently. Which, to me, validates X as a viable alternative.
[Bill Davis] “So I try to remain mindful that we’re also speaking to the larger audience. “
There is a larger audience which is why blanket statements are so pointless. For example, you seem to look at the Focus team and extrapolate that since X worked for them X is good enough to work on any big budget, Hollywood film. I look at the Focus team and learn how X worked, and didn’t work, for them. I then look at the Gone Girl team and learn how PPro worked, and didn’t work, for them. I then look at, well, any movie that isn’t Gone Girl or Focus and see how Avid worked, and didn’t work, for those teams. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.
I think fundamentally we are just coming from different places. I want to find the best tool for the job and you want X to be the best tool for the job.
[Bill Davis] “So I’ll remain a voice arguing that by making it so different, Apple actually DID make it “functionally better” than it’s competitors. If not, what was the point? “
[Bill Davis] “My argument is that since X can do 90% of all projects that need getting done, AND that it can do them faster and easier with ALL the quality of any other software – theres no reason that opinion shouldn’t be articulated often and strongly. “
So it’s functionally better except when it’s not? 😉
[Bill Davis] “Andrew, if you feel that X and AVID and Premier are equivalent tools for video production. “
I think all three are ‘good enough’ but they each have pros and cons so a bit of investigating needs to be done to make sure the best fit is made between the needs of the job and the NLE.
[Bill Davis] ” But not EVERYONE needs to learn 3 NLEs. In fact, most people just need ONE to get their work done. And I’d like to see them learn X because it seems to me to be the best approach. “
I never said or implied that everyone needs to learn multiple NLEs to be employable. I feel *I* need to know multiple NLEs due to *my* individual circumstances, but I don’t assume to know what’s the best fit for anyone else. I do think it’s a good idea for freelances to know multiple NLEs (assuming their market supports multiple NLEs), but for shop owners it’s much easier for them to pick one and go with it.
[Bill Davis] “In fact, most people just need ONE to get their work done. And I’d like to see them learn X because it seems to me to be the best approach.
“The best approach to what? Without knowing anything about the situation, the user(s), the workflow, etc., you just assume X is the best fit because…? Many times you’ve lamented about people being reluctant to get out of their comfort zone yet you seem to have found a really comfortable zone in X.
-
[Bill Davis] “Andrew, it’s still fair to point out that this entire thread is two guys who DO NOT use X, arguing with a guy who does.
“Who knows Herb’s workflow needs better, Herb or Carsten?
To paraphrase the exchange between Carsten and Herb:
Carsten: Tracks suck and X can do anything a tracked timeline can do.
Herb: I use tracks for X, Y and Z. Can I accomplish similar things in X?
Carsten: No, but here are a couple of lame alternatives.
Herb: I don’t want to use the lame alternatives.
Carsten: Fine! I’ll stop using X! Are you happy now?!
Also, as I mentioned before, X-users like Charlie, Oliver and Bret chimed on Carsten’s comments as well.
-
Oliver,
Taking to the risk to upset you but for me these examples are a weak justification for tracks. Granted we’re all different and different things apply to different people but we can’t use this to cut down any discussion at the source. I argue that I haven’t heart yet one strong ‘game changing’ argument as to why tracks are so much better. All pro arguments are basically about convenience as I haven’t heart one which says ‘you can’t get the same result for your story because you don’t have tracks’. And the convenience is more about finishing work rather than actual editing. And benefits for editing far outweigh benefits for fx work in my judgment of a Non-Linear-EDITING software. And referencing to other discussion threats here: Yes I think Final Cut X is by far the best editing software right now.
In response to your points:
The video example can easily be solved by compounding and applying a global parameter there.
For Audio actually the same applies though I understand if you need to adjust a level of an element you have to step back in and do not hear it together with your final fx. So you might have to press command-left or right bracket to switch between compound content and compound clip a few times to get it right.BUT I regard both these examples as only maybe 2% of the work I do when editing. Why would I sacrifice a little inconvenience for such small amount of my task when I loose all the tremendous benefits while doing 98% of the work constructing a story from individual elements just because I stick to tracks. This is the reason why I don’t understand the tracks argument.
If you would tell me that all you do all day long is to apply global parameters to entire timelines I would gladly admit that tracks are the best system for you. But do you? And yes maybe there are many ways to edit but somehow I’m not convinced that I represent the minority of picture editors who spent more time editing than with fx on a show.
And calling on Motion at the end of your post to further your argument is not correct because Motion has Layers not tracks. These Layers can have a length compared to Photoshop where they represent a single frame. But in Motion you can’t edit in a Layer horizontally so its not a track 🙂
Logic is the only software which has tracks and I can’t really argue about the benefit of tracks in music/sound post as I’m not doing it full time. I guess in audio mixing you want to combine certain audio tracks into different mix combinations and a track base system makes that easier now. But thinking of roles you can envision a scenario where you wouldn’t have to have tracks even in a DAW.Happy editing
Carsten -
[Carsten Orlt] “All pro arguments are basically about convenience as I haven’t heart one which says ‘you can’t get the same result for your story because you don’t have tracks’. “
Putting all technical, organizational, etc., arguments aside, the ability to tell a story is up to the editor, not the NLE. I mean, the award winning documentary “Tarnation” was cut on iMovie.
[Carsten Orlt] “BUT I regard both these examples as only maybe 2% of the work I do when editing. Why would I sacrifice a little inconvenience for such small amount of my task when I loose all the tremendous benefits while doing 98% of the work constructing a story from individual elements just because I stick to tracks. This is the reason why I don’t understand the tracks argument. “
Who is asking you to sacrifice anything or switch NLEs? You are asking other people to talk about other workflows so of course what they talk about might not be applicable to your specific situation.
The question, “Why do you use XYZ?” is much different than the question, “Why should I use XYZ?”
-
[Carsten Orlt] “Taking to the risk to upset you but for me these examples are a weak justification for tracks. “
No problem.
[Carsten Orlt] “I argue that I haven’t heart yet one strong ‘game changing’ argument as to why tracks are so much better. “
I don’t believe I said tracks were always better, nor game-changing. Why does it have to be game-changing, anyway? Merely that in these examples, tracks presented a better solution. I also pointed out that a node-based system would achieve the same results. So tracks aren’t really an absolute.
[Carsten Orlt] “The video example can easily be solved by compounding and applying a global parameter there.”
But compounding is always a workaround for this type of situation. I need the process to be immediate and interactive, which isn’t the case for compounds. Let’s say the effect I apply is a broadcast safe filter or a vignette and I’m grading clips below it. There, like with audio compression, I need to see the result of the effect and the combination of the two. Therefore compounding doesn’t help.
[Carsten Orlt] “If you would tell me that all you do all day long is to apply global parameters to entire timelines I would gladly admit that tracks are the best system for you. But do you? “
It depends on the job. In some cases, I do grading in X and then the entire job may be tied up this way. Or maybe 5 days for the project – 4 to edit and 1 to grade/mix. It all depends. I find it’s a mix of pros and cons – still after 4 years. For me organization in X is a lot faster. Actual editing is sometimes slower in many cases, because of all the workarounds needed. There are also a lot of things I like about X that have nothing to do with tracks or the way the timeline works.
[Carsten Orlt] “These Layers can have a length compared to Photoshop where they represent a single frame. But in Motion you can’t edit in a Layer horizontally so its not a track :-)”
That’s just semantics. If you consider a group as a “track”, then you can edit within a track. But whether you consider it a layer with timing or a track, it’s the same result. It’s a way to place a clip into a fixed place based on time, rather than parent-chlid linking.
[Carsten Orlt] “I guess in audio mixing you want to combine certain audio tracks into different mix combinations and a track base system makes that easier now. But thinking of roles you can envision a scenario where you wouldn’t have to have tracks even in a DAW.”
Right. So why would it be different when mixing audio in X? We like the thought about Roles, but so far that’s falling on deaf ears at Apple. I have to edit and mix with tools I have today, not what might be in the future.
[Carsten Orlt] “And benefits for editing far outweigh benefits for fx work in my judgment of a Non-Linear-EDITING software. And referencing to other discussion threats here: Yes I think Final Cut X is by far the best editing software right now”
There are aspects of X where I would agree with you. But, there’s just as much negative – especially when it comes to actually editing on the timeline. So for me, it’s still a draw.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up