-
The NLE that keeps moving forward?
-
[Charlie Austin] “The way i use it, that’s exactly how it works. Primary Storyline contains a chunk of gap the length of the spot/trailer/whatever. (actually usually longer so I can store random bits at the end.) Everything is connected to that “time track”. If I want canned transitions or want to use trim mode I make secondary storylines with whatever clips I choose. I can put all my “timeline markers” on the gap. And I can drag stuff around free form just like I’m used to doing but using all the magnetic goodness that X provides. FCPX is ridiculously flexible, contrary to popular misconceptions. :-)”
No doubt you’re using it exactly as the designers intended. 😉 I’d say the fact that you’re using it that way proves my point. But hey, if it works for you and you like it, enjoy! 🙂
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “How so? The relationship between clips on a timeline is always temporal. Locking a fixed temporal relationship between clips doesn’t require hierarchy, it requires grouping.”
In a group, the related clips are peers. In a hierarchy, the related clips are ordered. Different degrees of structure.
[David Lawrence] “When I group clips in Pr, how is this not expressing/preserving the desired clip sync relationship? Isn’t that all that matters?”
Maybe here’s a case where a single point (not a range!) is important. Groups do not codify the connection point that defines the relationship.
[David Lawrence] “I think all that matters is a simple way to make groups and when desired, a simple way to move individual clips without breaking the group. I think this could be done with better grouping tools and would give track-based NLEs most of the advantages of the magnetic timeline without the drawbacks.”
I agree!
Here, you’ve conceded that the magnetic timeline has some benefits. What are they, and where do they come from, if not from hierarchy?
[David Lawrence] “But if we buy into the FCPX paradigm of parent/child relationships defining the edit, the problem with the FCPX timeline isn’t hierarchy itself, it’s that Apple engineers got the top level parent wrong. The top level parent needs to be absolute, external time; not V1.”
I agree!
[David Lawrence] “I agree with Aindreas, hierarchy is meaningless in an editorial timeline.”
Having moved to graphics and finishing, I’ll need to defer to a proper editor here to discuss whether hierarchical edits actually track story structure in a creative edit, but but the places where I see hierarchy in my work are lower-thirds that are legitimately tiered under speaker clips, graphical elements that are related to specific pieces of content, and sfx that belong to specific moments or graphical hits. (I can see an easy case for cutaways, but I don’t think I have the necessary experience to know when they’d work and when they’d break.)
Let me flip the question around a bit: does hierarchy misrepresent the edit in all cases?
Again, I’m probably not the best person to defend the magnetic timeline, and I sure wouldn’t want to have to use it for all cases, but I do see some value in it. Really, adding multiple primaries would change a lot!
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 -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “come on. you’re joking right? given that FCPX is actually collapsing those two propositions into one unwieldy mess? Do you not see the difficulty?”
No, I’m serious.
Again, I’m not going to be the best magnetic timeline defender. I think you and I do some similar work, I prefer open timelines, too, and I think it’s clear I’m not adopting FCPX any time soon — but I do think the added abstractions in the magnetic timeline could be beneficial in many cases.
[Aindreas Gallagher] “say an edit – its component parts, with the director, the client, the design elements – is more than complex enough. the idea that the edit should independently start to declare expression linked relationships, continuously, as objects enter the timeline – that is just ludicrous walter.”
Or it could be a useful tool.
Seriously, why is telling your NLE “this clip belongs on V4 at time 00:05:12” inherently better than “this clip attaches to THAT clip at this point”? You can composite the same scene with layers or nodes, but you’d have to structure it differently. When changes come in, you’d have to deal with different re-structurings.
I am the Devil’s advocate here, but are there no cases where this crazy magnetic timeline could be a good choice?
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 -
[Charlie Austin] “The way i use it, that’s exactly how it works. Primary Storyline contains a chunk of gap the length of the spot/trailer/whatever. (actually usually longer so I can store random bits at the end.) Everything is connected to that “time track”. If I want canned transitions or want to use trim mode I make secondary storylines with whatever clips I choose. I can put all my “timeline markers” on the gap. And I can drag stuff around free form just like I’m used to doing but using all the magnetic goodness that X provides. FCPX is ridiculously flexible, contrary to popular misconceptions. :-)”
[David Lawrence] “No doubt you’re using it exactly as the designers intended. 😉 I’d say the fact that you’re using it that way proves my point. But hey, if it works for you and you like it, enjoy! :)”
I’m with David. The Giberti method works around deficiencies in the FCPX timeline (which I think multiple primaries could solve).
May I ask — why do you choose not to use clips in the primary timeline to drive the story?
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 -
[David Lawrence] “No doubt you’re using it exactly as the designers intended. 😉 I’d say the fact that you’re using it that way proves my point. But hey, if it works for you and you like it, enjoy! :)”
Well, I’m not sure the designers intended for me to work with it in a specific way though. My point, (which I think is proven as well, lol) is that it *can* work that way if you want it to, or it can work like an old skool avid with gap between all the clips, or like a canvas where you just throw throw stuff wherever. However you want to work is how it works. Unless you want tracks. Then you’re SOL. But tracks are stupid. 🙂
Anyway… X doesn’t work in only one, rigid fashion, but editors do, hell I did. X freaked me out until I really dove into it. I just don’t get the whole hulabaloo about parent/child vs temporal paradigms. I’m an editor, not a philosopher. 😉 All I know is that I can cut things just fine, and I can also do stuff I could never do in a million years in Legacy. It’s so deep i can’t see the bottom and it’s fun… for me anyway. But like you said, if an NLE works for you and you like it enjoy. 😉
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
All of which can be done in Avid FX. Grade with secondaries effects and composites, save as a preset and drop it on a clip.
-
[Walter Soyka] “I’m with David. The Giberti method works around deficiencies in the FCPX timeline (which I think multiple primaries could solve).
The who what? got a link to this method? Seriously, I’m interested. 🙂 It might be nice to be able to connect clips to secondary story lines, but I really think that would be overcomplicating it. Compound clips work pretty well in that regard.
[Walter Soyka] May I ask — why do you choose not to use clips in the primary timeline to drive the story?”
No real reason, other than force of habit. One of the things that drove me crazy about MC back at the turn of the century was all the trim modes with gap as media between clips. The X timeline isn’t really that exactly, but honestly I’m just not used to it yet. I may start messing with it at some point, but *not* using it really has no effect on how I assemble something, though I’m starting to see how it might be useful, especially with the new expandable audio “tracks” 😉
————————————————————-
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
-
[Charlie Austin] “The who what? got a link to this method? Seriously, I’m interested. :-)”
Here you go:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/29301
I think Jim made a template project available if you want to try it out.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Walter Soyka] “Really, adding multiple primaries would change a lot!”
Like what?
-
[Charlie Austin]”But tracks are stupid. :-)”
I know this is tongue in cheek but it suggests to me you have not experienced tracks in their full glory. Most NLEs under utilise possibilities with tracks. Legend sucked and Vegas does a much better job. Before you dismiss the usefulness of tracks though you really need to use a system that at least tries to do it properly.
Sometimes moving forward takes us up dead end alleys. I prefer a system that is moving smart. Years ago I suggested to DAW software people to embrace the idea of collapsing down a group of sounds into a grouped object that could then be manipulated by dynamics, EQ & levels as an object. I was told it wasn’t necessary due to sub mix routing and temporary grouping plus it would be screen messy to unpack the object to manipulate individual parts of the object. So I can see that there are times that a trackless object may be a useful thing. These days with drama sound design going into hundreds of tracks, I think DAW software could look at the group object idea again. Nesting was a poor attempt in Legend.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up