The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows — An Example

[David Lawrence]

Awesome example, Aindreas. Thank you!

[Aindreas Gallagher] “ultimately, on a personal level, FCPX feels like very good engineering metadata/database thought and very poor editing practise workflow thought.”

Agree 100%. I’ve been saying for some time now that FCPX’s metadata/database tools are excellent and I’d love to use them in my logging workflow. For those who missed it, here’s what I proposed in the FCPX Techniques forum.

I have no problem with skimming and keyword collections when I’m logging. But when it’s time to start cutting, I’m fully in Aindreas’ camp. I want to see bins and sequences as objects that I can spatially organize any way I want on the monitor.

Keyword collections and bins may have functional similarities, but keywords are words. Bins are objects. We think about words and objects in entirely different ways. As I read the comments, it seems that the debate here is between people who think abstractly, in terms of words, and people who think spatially, in terms of objects.

I think visually and spatially, hence the title of this topic. My editorial workflow efficiency depends on being able to very quickly take in a complete, holistic overview of my entire source, at any time. That includes bins and sequences I use as bins. Color coding, grouping random piles of objects and working in space; all of this is essential to how I work.

BTW, I’ve never said you can’t build a project like my example in FCPX. I’ve done it. My issue is that the constraints of the magnetic timeline make the process inefficient.

Another thing to notice about Aindreas’ screen shot — Typography matters in UI design. Look at how many lines of text appear on his screen. Because the text is rendered in a small, single pixel thick font, it’s possible to view significantly more information in a single glance than you can in FCPX. In fact, because the FCPX UI designers chose large, bold text, you see less than half the information on the screen, both horizontally and vertically.

FCPX is filled with typographic and graphic design decisions that make is visually harder to find information. What possible professional benefit is there to these visual design decisions?

This is great you guys. Please keep posting screenshots to demonstrate your workflows.

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

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[David Lawrence] ” it seems that the debate here is between people who think abstractly, in terms of words, and people who think spatially, in terms of objects.”

yep yep.
I’m an object guy, I really do need to see, feel and spatially manipulate video objects and the containers for those objects.

for instance: who here uses hotmail, we’re all on gmail right? well I am – tagging in gmail makes eminent sense to me, as it does in google reader – multiple semantic tags building up into an accessible, relatable database of tags. But its also worth noting maybe that in most instances where we see searchable tags based clouds the parent material itself is usually itself text in some form. email, or GTD apps or whatever.

But as an editor I don’t want a sea of tags returning keyword searches or persistent saved keyword collections into a single browser window – i want a broad canvas of stored physical video objects – you can argue that in pure engineering grok terms it’s less efficient than tags as keyword collections, but what it looses in semantic flexibility it gains immensely in reliable spatial reality – after a decent interval with a completely setup and well named set of bins, well named video objects and sequence selects bins, I’m deeply familiar with all the assets available to me. Which is the trick really isn’t it?
because once you’ve got the assets at recall, all the relational tagging is happening in your brain at el warp speed.

however you get there really -but that’s how I get there.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Steve Connor]

[David Lawrence] “BTW, I’ve never said you can’t build a project like my example in FCPX. I’ve done it. My issue is that the constraints of the magnetic timeline make the process inefficient.”

David, can you elaborate, what exactly stops you from doing the same thing in an FCPX timeline than you do in a FCP7 timeline?

“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”

[Aindreas Gallagher]

[Chris Harlan] ” FCP X offers visually something that is akin to Avid’s Super Bin”

I am piggishly ignorant on Avid, i’m just unable to go there.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Chris Harlan]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “[Chris Harlan] ” FCP X offers visually something that is akin to Avid’s Super Bin”

I am piggishly ignorant on Avid, i’m just unable to go there.
“

If all things in my world were equal, I might have decided to drift towards Adobe as it seems to be most like FCP, and I will certainly spend more time using it. But in the LA Entertainment Biz, Avid has never not been king, though FCS really gave it a run for the money. It was a real serious rivalry that both Avid and FCS users gained from, though, sadly, I know many Avid editors who continued to sneer. FCP X has been rather roundly rejected for not coming out of the gate as a whole NLE. The safest bet around here is to migrate to Avid, especially since Avid has been making serious changes and delivering generous deals. However attractive Premiere might be, it is just not the overall wise choice for the muscle memory machine here. And, I have to say, being back on an Avid has brought back some good memories, and there are more than a few things I do like better than on FCS, though FCS was (and still is) a terrific experience.

[Aindreas Gallagher]

yes,
I’m sort of short form broadcast spots meself, a bit of brand online stuff, and a wee bit of long form factual – but
the thing is that no one in london, no facility or production house seems even willing to discuss FCPX? I’m not trolling – I mean it.
It’s not at all like a wait and see. People aren’t wearing it. There’s deep structural anger with what has happened.

In even the larger London facilities no one, (correct me if I’m wrong, world) no one is taking a punt and installing even a seat for whizz about value.

I’ve asked in say four fairly large soho shops with multiple existing FCP seats and it is a dead sentence. Worst of all, a recurrent client that is primarily an online short form pure play servicing a major american sports brand and gaming vendors with teens of FCP seats (with not a single tape deck) delivering mostly off red or 5D literally will not countenance the software. …and i actually think it makes some sense for them?
but they will not wear it – they’re sitting on an xsan and FCP studio seats and they are ill pleased. They just will not go there.

And I would have rather liked for them to have as it would have been perfect kicking ground to use the software in anger – its nearly all music and typography based shortform. Although don’t get me started on FCPX’s handling of music based edits..

from my end I’m slowly figuring its… a long tail dying of FCP7, then premiere for most of my stuff? (I probably have to actually learn Avid – thank you universe)

and well, FCPX sort of drifts into an aperture style agonising slow death?

And that’s about the final and total end of Apple pro apps isn’t it?

there. the sky is falling on our heads.

http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Gary Huff]

[Steve Connor] David, can you elaborate, what exactly stops you from doing the same thing in an FCPX timeline than you do in a FCP7 timeline?

Steve, perhaps you would like to re-read David’s comment that you yourself quoted?

[David Lawrence] “BTW, I’ve never said you can’t build a project like my example in FCPX. I’ve done it. My issue is that the constraints of the magnetic timeline make the process inefficient.“

[Steve Connor]

[Gary Huff] “[Steve Connor] David, can you elaborate, what exactly stops you from doing the same thing in an FCPX timeline than you do in a FCP7 timeline?

Steve, perhaps you would like to re-read David’s comment that you yourself quoted?

[David Lawrence] “BTW, I’ve never said you can’t build a project like my example in FCPX. I’ve done it. My issue is that the constraints of the magnetic timeline make the process inefficient.”
“

Yes I have and I’m still interested in exactly what constraints are making the process inefficient, is it the lack of tracks? is it connected clips?

“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”

[Steve Connor]

Actually I just found the secret keystroke that enables tracks in FCPX 🙂

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxGbDcnmfZs

“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[David Eaks]

Please elaborate, Mr. AdventuresinFCPX.