The NLE that keeps moving forward?

[Tony West]

I got you, but my overall point was that there were many things that added together made it faster for me.

I listed 5 things, what about the other 4?

Maybe Apple looked and said nobody is using this patch panel for almost 10 years accept Tony West so lets get rid of it : )

[Jeremy Garchow]

[tony west] “Maybe Apple looked and said nobody is using this patch panel for almost 10 years accept Tony West so lets get rid of it : )”

I have it on good authority, this is exactly what happened.

[Chris Harlan]

[Jeremy Garchow] “[tony west] “Maybe Apple looked and said nobody is using this patch panel for almost 10 years accept Tony West so lets get rid of it : )”

I have it on good authority, this is exactly what happened.
“

NDA violation, man. Right there.

[Jeremy Garchow]

the truth is out there

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[David Lawrence] “The parent/child hierarchical metaphor that drives the magnetic timeline UI is a computer science metaphor, not an editorial metaphor. Maybe it’s an elegant representation of the underlying timeline data model, but the data model is irrelevant to the task of editing. I’ve yet to meet an experienced editor who explicitly thinks in terms of building hierarchies when doing the actual work of cutting. Do you know any?

Designing a UI around a data model may make sense to computer engineers, but it’s rarely good for users.”

this. essentially this.
apple made gigantic perception errors in the software engineering room.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[David Lawrence]

[Charlie Austin] “I guess, on reflection, I wouldn’t need “tracks’ per se, but as a mixer i’d want to be able to keep similar roles together in the timeline. Again I think some sort of z-order setting would do the trick. Assign whatever roles/subroles I want, and in the role index window use a drop down menu to order them. VO would be 1, Dia 2, FX 3 etc… So not really tracks, but visual groups. Add in the ability to assign roles to faders/busses and I’d be happy.”

Visual grouping thru roles would be great but in a DAW I would still want an external, absolute temporal frame-of-reference. Spiking everything to a big gap in the primary seems like a force fit.

Last year, we got into a pretty deep and productive discussion on this topic. As a sound guy who likes FCPX, you might find it interesting. If you have time, take a deep breath and start here:

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/16693

Then go here:

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/16886

I’d certainly be curious to hear more of your thoughts.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Richard Herd]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “However, it sounds like you found that unsatisfactory (or slow). Why?”

For me, I like having the viewer and the canvas. Ganging ain’t so shabby either. I didn’t actually measure whether or not it was slower, but it just felt slower. I surmise if I actually measured the time, it wouldn’t really be slower.

Here’s some additional details and comparison to X:.

I had

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Richard,

re: FCP7

You can open sequences in the viewer if you wish. I don’t work that way, so I’m not sure what sorts of issues you may run into.

– click and drag any sequence to the viewer (if there’s a shortcut for this, I don’t know it)
– mark in and out, drag to sequence or otherwise edit as if you were working with a clip – this will give you nested material (which is probably less useful), so …
– mark in and out, command-drag to sequence will give you clips

re: FCPX

I’m interested in a comprehensive comparison of project timelines in the project library vs. compound clips in the event browser. Is the only (practical) difference the location where it is stored? Are their limitations on the compound clip compared to sequences?

Franz.

[Chris Harlan]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “[Steve Connor] “Pot, Kettle etc”

Steve,

Haven’t we already had the “This forum needs a new name” post for this month?

Franz.”

LOL. I’d go with it. Especially if the Etc. were part of the title!

[Richard Herd]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “You can open sequences in the viewer if you wish. I don’t work that way, so I’m not sure what sorts of issues you may run into.

– click and drag any sequence to the viewer (if there’s a shortcut for this, I don’t know it)
– mark in and out, drag to sequence or otherwise edit as if you were working with a clip – this will give you nested material (which is probably less useful), so …
– mark in and out, command-drag to sequence will give you clips
“

What?! Been editing in FCP since 2003 and never thought to drag a sequence into the viewer. The ganging seems off, but I was just noodling around.

[Franz Bieberkopf] “re: FCPX

I’m interested in a comprehensive comparison of project timelines in the project library vs. compound clips in the event browser. Is the only (practical) difference the location where it is stored? Are their limitations on the compound clip compared to sequences?”

I cannot think of any limitations, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there. I’m happy with how CCs work. I prefer CC to Sequences. One big practical difference for me — since you asked — is being able to apply entire audio effects and color correction to an entire CC. Those effects then follow the CC.

For example, a scene of matching singles (actor A and actor B). I select the A-camera footage and put them on top of the primary then compound them. B-camera stays underneath and compound clip that one too. Then I apply a first pass color correction and audio eq and compressor to the individual compound clips. Then I compound the whole thing so its one unit and I apply a color correction look to that roll-up (which is typically sitting in the spine). And the spine is the actual piece that will be delivered, so if you imagine there’s several compounds from each shooting location that have all been “first-passed.” Then I compound the whole thing and apply a color “look” to the spine. For me, (and I’m very good in color), this has been a practical application gain.

No one ought to work like that in 7: In comparison this would be like having a Sequence with V1 (B-camera) and V2 (A-camera) stacked on top of each other and then sending V1/V2 (stacked mind you) to Color. When they return, contain/nest those inside of a 3 Sequence that then rolls into a 4th Sequence that has more nested clips right next to each other in the sequence. All of those have been first pass cc’d and eq’d. Then send the whole thing to Color to apply the final look. That would be a lot of rendering and media storage time and space.

But is it really a practical advantage? I don’t know because that’s not the way to work in 7, of course. The workflow is totally different. I assume you know the proper workflow and won’t belabor that issue.

Narrowing the practical advantage even further is that the compound is keyword-able and available in the Event, which means it could be available to any subsequent project, but so what? I do not need Client-A’s stuff available to Client-X. Sometimes it could be useful if Client-Y had a giant 3 year project and they needed a sizzle reel or something and I did not need to cull through the stuff, but then culling through the stuff is how I find the stuff. It’s a creative intuitive process, for me, a feeling. So it’s all a little weird, to me, and a bit oversold by the X fanatic that keywords are better than putting it all on a sequence and actually watching all the footage because the obvious problem with a big 3 year project is the keyword lexicon. (Hope that makes sense.)

Here’s some audio explanation regarding practical advantage: The audio eq and compressor/limiter stuff is an actual practical advantage, for me, but that has nothing to do whatsoever with X because in 7 I always round trip audio into STP if I’m doing it or ProTools for an actual audio person. Anyway, in X, one practical advantage is a bussing-like technique gained via Compound Clips. By CMD-clicking clips, individual clips can be added to Compounds. Then entire effects, limiters, eqs, can be added.

In 7, to accomplish the same deliverable, I roundtrip to STP and apply fx to channels and bus the channels. Then send back to 7. Same outcome. Same deliverable. Is it an actual practical advantage? I don’t really know.

Although it’s not the compound clip v Sequence dialectic, cutting Js and Ls, for me, is the biggest practical advantage because the audio is embedded in the clip. CTRL-S and the audio shows up. Double-Click the “space between the clips” and the precision editor shows up. Then I either use the keyboard or mouse to adjust where the L or J is. WOW! That has been very accurate. In 7, to get the same deliverable there’s much more steps involved (unless I’m missing something, but I don’t think so). For me, X is superior to 7 in cutting dialogue coverage. It’s in the dialogue coverage editing where I use auditions the most because I use the cut-to to control the pacing. Audition are cool for structure of course, but for me that seems kind-of simpleton obvious. Pacing a dialogue edit is much more subtle. I count frames, 5, 6, 7, which frame in the close up does the actor’s pupil dilate for the emotion? Auditions allow me to make these subtle changes and watch them, for a feeling. I do not show these auditions to the producer. These are for me to make decisions.

I hope that answers some practical stuff. I tried not to talk about specific clients or projects even if I lose a bit of ethos. Maybe other posters will contribute their point of view.