-
The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows — An Example
-
Thank you, Christian. You bring up some great points.
Once I get back to X at the office, I will address what you are saying here as a screen grab is worth a thousand MBs. Direct correlations of timeline pictures will help me as I think I should be able to address it.
The compound is one way of working. It was a response to seeing things strung together. I don’t and wouldn’t work that way as it’s not my style, but a skimmable clip of all your selects could/would/can be efficient.
Keep in mind that Apple really is asking a lot of us, but I do think that ultimately, FCPX is a pretty powerful program.
Statements like Rafael and others have made similar to, “I can’t edit a timeline in FCPX with audio, visual and titles” don’t add up to me as FCPX is definitely more than capable, and in my opinion easier to do with more creativity, albeit a bit different from a track based timeline. If FCPX isn’t working for someone, that’s totally fine. It can’t be for everyone and I still can’t use it without video out, but I have been asking a lot of questions like “how” and “why” these things can’t be done and then people end up getting mad at me for some reason. I haven’t really been getting solid answers. What this says to me is that there’s a lot of confusion and it’s creating a bit of anger. Totally understandable.
Questions like, “how is this better”, or “where’d the alternatives go” are great questions and fun to answer. I like to talk these things out, I think it helps everyone, and ultimately will help us get to where we need to go, whether that’s X or PPro, Vegas or Lightworks, Edius or GVS, and maybe even Avid.
Your point of the melting memory chips rings so true with me, I think FCPX will help in this regard, even with a cursory organization, as the access to the clips is so dynamic.
I think FCPX is providing a bit of muscle confusion at the moment, but this is not a bad thing.
-
Also as people keep pointing out, you don’t HAVE to keyword, you can work in FCPX in exactly the same way as FCP7, set your bins as keywords and I’ll say this loudly KEYWORDS CAN WORK IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS BINS.
I know this because I’m working like this every day on FCPX and I’ve spent the time learning how it works.
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
I”LL CHIME IN LOUDLY TOO.
TAGS ARE DIFFERENT TO BUCKETS.
BINS ARE CONTAINERS, TAGS ARE METADATA
koff koff – wait why am I shouting?
seriously tho – the keywords cannot be made to function like bins – you cant open and arrange multiple keywords on the second monitor so you can casually visually scan the contents of the various keywords. those would be bins. Instead you get to click on a tiny little keyword squashed up in the corner under all those dated events, then all the files associated with that keyword are populated to the right of it in the one virtual folder that exposes all the keyword collection – the event browser – but in this case its kind of the keyword browser? of course the items it exposes are the original clips, so then in list view you have to twirl down the stupid finicky arrow to see the assigned keywords.
TAGS ARE NOT THE SAME AS BINS. NOT AT ALL. NOT IN CONCEPTION, SEMANTICS, OR OPERATION.
I had a shouting fit again. I recognise the strength of tagging but if forced to, I will choose bins every last time – they’re way more muscular and robust overall and also allow for spatial organisation which is not to be underestimated. As opposed to that hulking stupid inappropriate iphoto persistent digital assets management library wedged up there in the corner of FCPX. I think that thing gets far too much respect.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
Purely because it was more fun when people were posting timelines in the beginning of this thread, I thought I’d post a snap of one of mine from back in FCP v5.
Branded graphic heavy long form training with many embedded video examples that had to function like a video driven powerpoint in live training situations.
Even the client wanted a picture of it when we were done to justify the huge number of hours/decisions (and update/revise points that remained accessible right down to the delivery wire) that were represented by the visualization scheme of classic FCP.
No, I’m NOT going to try the same thing in FCP-X right now, but I suspect that Connected clips et al and clearly the collapsing timeline could have made this whole thing a LOT easier to navigate.
Enjoy!
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
OK, fair point, I realise now how bad FCPX is, I’m convinced
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
ah that’s great! about time. isn’t our bitter kool aid nicer? now that’s all settled, lets close all this down and go to the pub.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
Cool, how’s the cat by the way?
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
Man, I tell you – that cat is doing great. eating like a hound, purring like a foghorn.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
[Aindreas Gallagher] “seriously tho – the keywords cannot be made to function like bins – you cant open and arrange multiple keywords on the second monitor so you can casually visually scan the contents of the various keywords.”
Totally true as a practical matter.
But.
In all fairness, isn’t that more to do with the lack of tear-away tabs than the nature of the clip container? If there could be multiple instances of the Event Browser, you’d be able to see inside different keyword collections simultaneously and have the same net effect you get with bins.
Conceptually speaking, I would maintain that keyword collections are bins+.
Best,
Andy -
Brilliant post Chris!
Your last paragraph is I think the summary of the problem here 🙂Cheers
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up