-
The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows — Another Example
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “Sounds like a good plan – I’ll definitely give that a go. Thanks for all the great workflow ideas you are throwing up by the way – really useful and insightful.”
No worries. As I have said all along, Apple is asking a lot of us, but that doesn’t mean that the insight put in to FCPX is missing. It’s just not obvious as it’s so different, and sometimes, it’s just not there.
[David Lawrence] “Agreed. Always interesting stuff Jeremy, even if I don’t always agree 😉 Thank you!”
And thank you! Couldn’t do it without you! 🙂 These discussions will help everyone understand what they need to do, regardless if we agree or disagree. I applaud your willingness to dive in even though you disagree with some of X’s ways.
By the way, here’s the pic of the whole interface after opening one of those compounds in timeline, with Timeline Index and all. Sorry for the goofy marker names, this was done really fast and I didn’t want to show my real project for privacy issues, although, I’m sure no one would care. These days, you can’t be too careful. I think you get the idea, though.
Jeremy
-
-
Thanks for this great post Frank.
[Herb Sevush] “”Deciding the spine is the process of editing.””
Absolutely; the rest is finishing.
In fact when you work with an script the editing is half done.For me editing is not different than writing.
If you write reports for other people (often about stuff that you don’t understand or you don’t care about), you need a method, If you are writing a story you need absolute freedom.
I shoot my stuff and when I go to edit I need little organization.
What I need is to start to lie in a sequence the ideas are boiling in my head.
I start to finish things only when all the storyline is ensembled or when I get stuck and I need a break.[Tom Wolsky] “Other editors hate the chaos.”
What people may perceive as chaos, may be the more refined form of organization: Your own one.
You don’t need others to like it or understand it.
Leaving your car keys always in the same place or leaving them wherever they fall is ok as long you know where they are.
But if you have to share the car, you better leave them on the same place 🙂
rafael -
Tom
I’m not sure of your “editing intention” with this comment – I find it vaguely dismissive but not much more.
You’re description of my work as “jumble” and “chaos” seems to willfully ignore the kind of organization that I’ve spent some effort outlining.
I have no doubt in the capacity of my working method to make eyes roll, but your dismissal of my working method ignores the most important point that I made (in summary) so I’ll state it here again for you – it isn’t so much about how I work specifically, but how flexible the tool is in allowing different approaches to workflow.
[Tom Wolsky] “Have you had a chance to see them at work?”
Alas, only on film.
-
Jeremy,
Thanks. I did read your post. So far as I understand it (which I think I do) it seems useful. A couple of responses (some of which already brought up by Herb Sevush):
Keywording
While it’s true that I do spend time labelling my sequences as I break them down, the process of keywording seems like an extra step to me. On the other hand, I still log with pen and paper. I’ve tried on different occasions to adopt a form of electronic logging – nothing has stuck yet. I mentioned a suspicion of keywording in terms of its utility as a logging tool; nonetheless it seems useful.Compound Clip – An Extra Category
As far as I can tell, the Compound Clip seems to be something between a sequence and a clip … is this third category useful? I thought FCPX was supposed to simplify, and this strikes me as an additional complexity. But it raises the question – it isn’t a sequence, so I want to know what the limitations are (ie the qualities that make it a compound clip and not a sequence). Is this just a workaround when they realized that sequences in the browser might be useful?[Jeremy Garchow] “… how do you see FCPX prevent you from being able to use a a sequence to organize your thoughts?”
An important question. Perhaps it doesn’t prevent me. But I’m interesting in software that does more than simply “not prevent me” from working in a preferred way – it should aid and expand the possibilities of my workflow.
I’m quite confident I could find a way to edit on a moviola or in imovie or premiere elements and make the tool work in some way. There just isn’t a compelling reason for me to try. That’s where FCPX is.
The meta data implementation seems interesting. And completely compatible with tracks; I think (hope) we’ll see similar features expanded in Premiere and Avid. Roles also seem interesting and useful. And completely compatible with tracks. The idea of sticky clips or connections or grouping (or, indeed, “nested sequences”) has been used in DAWs as I have previously pointed out and I’d love some sort of implementation of that in my software of choice.
Franz.
-
Ok, as I understand your workflow, you use seqences to chose your useful clips and then pick those up to drop into your final output sequence.
Question.
You do this becasue you just like doing it, or is it because bins suck, and this is the only efficient option ( i.e. WORK-AROUND ) you and other similar editors do to “adapt” to FCP7’s UI?
And that’s exactly my point. Apple might have sent /interviewed high level editors and how they worked and observed this frequent but “unintended” use of sequences to pick good shots.
So they though of a genius solution. 1. Skimmer 2. Keyword collections.
Because as I see it, you can do your workflow in FCPX faster and more efficient by doing the following.
1. Import your footage and tick organise in to keyword options, this will give you a rough initial organization at least for the focal length, shaky, shots that you might have.
2. Keyword collect all your “scenes” into how you might wanna view them. This puts all related media into one word, (“like scene 1,scene 2, scene 3, like how it is in the clapper.or wal,talk,run, etc”) you can click that keyword and boom, everything else disappears but the clips that you organized for that keyword.
3. Then you further narrow down the shots that you actually want by marking them as “favorites’ (pressing in out points the pressing f). The you click above to just show favorites. Now if you put the skimmer at the beginning of that organizer window, press space, you can play our all your favorites as if its on the timeline. Voila, you’ve just created a rough cut in a few minutes. If you like them all, press ctrl+a then E. They all drop in the timeline.
4.Then put your transitions, cut adjustments, edit audio, balance out exposure, then when you think that particular sequence is almost ok, select all convert it into a compound clip, then you can move on to your next scene.
5.Repeat from Step 2.
Optional. You can do a lot of step 2 first before you start working on your timeline, after you have selected all your usable clips in step 2.
The idea of discovery, and making things up as you go along, is still there, your just doing it in the right place. Apple made one for you. They saw how pathetic you look using the timeline to do stuff you’re not supposed to do in there, so they made a special section on FCPX to do that part of the workflow for you. Faster. More efficient. Organized. And it has its own real estate on the upper left hand side of you mac. Is’nt that great?
I cant see how not so many people can see this. Its like apple saw you homeless, so the gave you a house.
Quobetah
New=Better -
“Alas, only on film.”
And remarkably methodical they were.
Please don’t mistake brevity for dismissiveness. I’m editing myself.
I understand you appreciate its flexibility, and clearly FCP no longer offers that kind of flexibility. It is a specific tool with a very specific method of use, with some limited adaptability.
I marvel at Jeremy’s ability and perseverance in making it fit as best as he can other work methodologies. What I am finding is that people who are new to editing video adapt to it effortlessly, and appreciate it’s logic and behavior. Those who approach it with a work methodology conceived in other applications have the most difficulty using it because they spend their time trying to adapt it to their way of working.
We work the way we work because of the tools we use. The tool you have been using allowed you to work the way you do, and you are comfortable with it. I appreciate that, if not the way you work. I would not, except in a great hurry, work the way either you or Mr. Lawrence work. My timeline’s rarely, except for a special effect, exceed three tracks. I work between multiple sequences rather than in one. The current version of FCP lends itself to that.
All the best,
Tom
Class on Demand DVDs “Complete Training for FCP7,” “Basic Training for FCS” and “Final Cut Express Made Easy”
Coming in 2011 “Complete Training for FCPX” from Class on Demand
“Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users” from Focal Press -
[Tom Wolsky] “I understand you appreciate its flexibility, and clearly FCP no longer offers that kind of flexibility. It is a specific tool with a very specific method of use, with some limited adaptability.”
[Tom Wolsky] “What I am finding is that people who are new to editing video adapt to it effortlessly, and appreciate it’s logic and behavior. Those who approach it with a work methodology conceived in other applications have the most difficulty using it because they spend their time trying to adapt it to their way of working. “
[Tom Wolsky] “My timeline’s rarely, except for a special effect, exceed three tracks. I work between multiple sequences rather than in one. The current version of FCP lends itself to that.”
Tom – thanks for sharing more about your process and thinking. I’m in basic agreement with you.
One thing I wonder about is if the short-term benefits of FCPX’s ease of use for new editors outweigh the fact that they’re learning a system with a completely different approach and language than the rest of the industry. This thread has had some interesting discussion on this topic.
I also wonder if a tool that promotes a specific style of working ultimately benefits an individual’s creative process as much as a tool that is completely open. The analogy I’ve used in the past is the smart instruments in GarageBand. They make it easy for a beginner to make great sounding work quickly. On the other hand, a regular instrument may take years of practice, but ultimately allows for individual style and many more possibilities. Curious about your thoughts.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Franz Bieberkopf] “But I’m interesting in software that does more than simply “not prevent me” from working in a preferred way – it should aid and expand the possibilities of my workflow.”
The problem is that the workflow you explained above was built upon the features AND restrictions of the NLE you worked on. You didn’t come up with this manner of working and then go looking for an NLE that allowed you to do it.
Similarly, workflows will emerge for FCPX that take advantage of its features AND restrictions. The question is, are you willing to spend the time to discover what those workflows are?
Your workflow, in my opinion, is a workaround. You don’t care for the browser and bin structure of FCP7, or you don’t want to click 20-30 clips searching for a shot; you’d rather just have everything available in a sequence. That’s fine.
But if you consider WHY you work the way you do, and then apply that to FCPX instead of just trying to make it do the exact same workaround you use in FCP7, you might have better results with X.
Some of your workflow, as suggested by others could be accomplished with compound clips which would have a great deal more flexibility than sequences in FCP7. You mention that you dump all your raw into sequences. You could do the same in X, by simply selecting all your clips and hitting OPT+G to create a compound clip from all that media.
Now you have one clip that you can mark INs and OUTs just like any other clip, or open in timeline mode for blading, copying and pasting if that’s your thing. And since compounds can live in an event, you can have them all within easy reach, or choose to to organize them further with collections (read: bins).
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Gerald Baria] “You do this becasue you just like doing it, or is it because bins suck, and this is the only efficient option ( i.e. WORK-AROUND ) you and other similar editors do to “adapt” to FCP7’s UI?”
That’s not any workaround. Is a solid method, although it needs a bit of brain.
Is not for everybody.[Gerald Baria] “They saw how pathetic you look using the timeline to do stuff you’re not supposed to do in there, “
Pathetic (and pretentious) is to consider that there is only one correct way to do things, or to consider that Apple know more about video editing than the thousands of professional that are migrating.
Books method are OK for beginners, so don’t get lost.[Gerald Baria] “And that’s exactly my point. Apple might have sent /interviewed high level editors and how they worked and observed this frequent but “unintended” use of sequences to pick good shots.”
I don’t know how you edit, but imagination you don’t lack.
Have you got interviewed by any chance?
If Apple would have interviewed some high level editors, they probably wouldn’t have released FCPX.[Gerald Baria] “And that’s exactly my point. Apple might have sent /interviewed high level editors and how they worked and observed this frequent but “unintended” use of sequences to pick good shots.”
“Unintended” use of sequences?
Unintended for who? for Apple?
Apple haven’t invented the “sequence”.
in fact Apple haven’t invented NOTHING in video editing.[Gerald Baria] “I cant see how not so many people can see this. Its like apple saw you homeless, so the gave you a house.”
Yes they are The Good Samaritan and we are just a bunch of unthankful, insensible idiots.
Are you feeding your a family editing with FCPX?
I’ve been doing that for 7 years with FCP. I’f I would try that with FCPX I would be starving.
Apple is not giving us any new house, they are just kicking us from the old one.
rafael
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up