-
The Open Timeline and Spatial Workflows — Another Example
-
[Rafael Amador] “That’s not any workaround. Is a solid method, although it needs a bit of brain.
Is not for everybody.”I think Andy means it’s a workaround for FCP Legacy’s shotty clip browser. It’s a method of working, not necessarily a work around. I know it takes some thinking, but I think FCPX’s browser is in fact or can be, a timeline based method of working. You can add efficiencies and more data that is searchable by text, or by sound and sight very easily, very fast, and very well done. Yes, it looks different from FCP7’s way, but the overall idea is the same. Have a sequence, make selects. FCPX allows you to do this from the browser, and transfer that to your working sequence (Project), that’s all. Yes, you don’t have a tab, but you can do it.
[Rafael Amador] “If Apple would have interviewed some high level editors, they probably wouldn’t have released FCPX.”
Why? I’m not a high level editor I guess (although I bang on our systems pretty hard) and I think FCPXs approach is a good one. I’m not foolin’. Some day, it might even be great. If I had been interviewed, I would have said “carry on, let’s see where this goes, but you should probably release it with a bit more interchange to start it off”. They wouldn’t have cared what I said.
[Rafael Amador] “in fact Apple haven’t invented NOTHING in video editing.”
Mmm ProRes. An XML method that was commonly adopted. A timeline method that seems to be lamented over. The idea of lightweight native codec editing over firewire and laptop, in Ok (dv), better(dv50), and pretty good qualities (DVCPro HD). For a while there, everyone was playing catch-up. So, they didn’t really “invent” these things, but they sure did leverage it. i understand being mad about the present offerings and the new direction, but I don’t think you can deny what an effect Final Cut Studio had on an entire industry.
-
[Andy Neil] “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?”
Brilliantly put, every time I have changed NLE I have changed my workflow, FCPX is no different
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
[David Lawrence] “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”
For me workflow is just mechanics, the creative process comes from me, whoever I may be collaborating with and the edit decisions we make.
As long as I can cut, paste and move clips around with precision then any NLE is just a tool.
The only difference for me is speed of implementation.
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
[Steve Connor] “As long as I can cut, paste and move clips around with precision then any NLE is just a tool.
The only difference for me is speed of implementation.”
[Steve Connor] “For me workflow is just mechanics, the creative process comes from me, whoever I may be collaborating with and the edit decisions we make. “
I guess I just don’t see it that way. I find there’s no separation between the two. For me, mechanics, process and creative style are all intrinsically connected.
It would be like saying to an expert guitarist that the mechanics of playing guitar don’t matter. As long as the notes are there, it’s all the same. Never mind the fact that this new guitar we’re giving you doesn’t use strings, the notes are in different places and certain chord combinations are no longer allowed.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “It would be like saying to an expert guitarist that the mechanics of playing guitar don’t matter. As long as the notes are there, it’s all the same. Never mind the fact that this new guitar we’re giving you doesn’t use strings, the notes are in different places and certain chord combinations are no longer allowed.”
I don’t agree with that analogy at all, the music comparisons don’t always fit.
It’s about the end result FCPX allows me to make the same edits as any other NLE, it does not limit my edit decisions and therefore the end result, it affects the way I achieve that end result.
All those years ago working on offline tape was hugely limiting but it never affected the programmes I made, it just took longer.
Different NLE’s do not make good Editors make better or worse programmes, the creative process in editing has remained the same from Steenbecks to iPads.
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
[Steve Connor] “[David Lawrence] “It would be like saying to an expert guitarist that the mechanics of playing guitar don’t matter. As long as the notes are there, it’s all the same. Never mind the fact that this new guitar we’re giving you doesn’t use strings, the notes are in different places and certain chord combinations are no longer allowed.”
I don’t agree with that analogy at all, the music comparisons don’t always fit.
It’s about the end result FCPX allows me to make the same edits as any other NLE, it does not limit my edit decisions and therefore the end result, it affects the way I achieve that end result.
All those years ago working on offline tape was hugely limiting but it never affected the programmes I made, it just took longer.
Different NLE’s do not make good Editors make better or worse programmes, the creative process in editing has remained the same from Steenbecks to iPads.
What we do is not analogous to a musicians performance, we are not performing we are composing, and in music it doesn’t matter whether a good composer uses a computer or a piece of paper and a crayon, the music will still be the same.
-
[Steve Connor] “Different NLE’s do not make good Editors make better or worse programmes, the creative process in editing has remained the same from Steenbecks to iPads.”
On this I agree completely. But that’s not what I’m arguing. For me the musical analogy is perfect. FCP7 is my instrument. I play it like an axe. But whether or not you agree with the musical analogy, my point is about the difference between open vs. rules-based tools systems like the magnetic timeline. Franz said it well:
[Franz Bieberkopf] “But, and this is a point which is fundamentally more important than anything I have said so far, the real flexibility of the “open timeline” (and accompanying project structure) is most apparent when you consider that it allows my approach to working as well as the bin and source monitor approach, as well as, no doubt, many other approaches; to wit it doesn’t dictate one method of working, and easily accommodates many ways.”
The open timeline model has proven its value in everything from the simplest home movies to Oscar winning feature films to broadcast to interactive to everything in between for over 20 years. It allows for many different workflows and accommodates many different needs. The magnetic timeline has yet to prove itself better at anything but the most elementary assembly style editing.
If you find it faster and more efficient for the work you do, by all means enjoy. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind.
What I object to is Apple and others saying that this new ripple-only trackless paradigm is better. That it’s the future of NLEs. A little criticality on that point would be a good thing for everyone. Talk is easy, but where’s the proof? Let’s see screenshots of a project in FCPX that is as complex as the examples from Franz and Shawn Federline, from someone that actually needs to produce at that level. Not just simple mockups, real actual workflows that go all the way to finished product. I’d like to see proof that FCPX is faster for complex, multidimensional jobs.
The other question I keep wanting to go back to is industry standards and other related digital media workflows. Let’s assume Apple’s ripple-only trackless paradigm really is better. When do you see it becoming standard across all NLEs? When do you see it becoming widely adopted by DAW vendors? Will Apple’s next version of LogicX be ripple-only and trackless?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
To Franz Bieberkopf:
Let’s turn your post series into an article for the Creative COW Library. This is some very good stuff!
Would you be so kind as to contact me via my link at https://www.creativecow.net/contact_us.php, or just click the “Contact Us” link at the top right of your COW page.
I hope to hear from you!
Nora Williams
Creative COW -
[Jeremy Garchow] “[Rafael Amador] “That’s not any workaround. Is a solid method, although it needs a bit of brain.
Is not for everybody.”I think Andy means it’s a workaround for FCP Legacy’s shotty clip browser. It’s a method of working, not necessarily a work around. I know it takes some thinking, but I think FCPX’s browser is in fact or can be, a timeline based method of working. You can add efficiencies and more data that is searchable by text, or by sound and sight very easily, very fast, and very well done. Yes, it looks different from FCP7’s way, but the overall idea is the same. Have a sequence, make selects. FCPX allows you to do this from the browser, and transfer that to your working sequence (Project), that’s all. Yes, you don’t have a tab, but you can do it.”
Jeremy, Statements like this:
[Andy Neil] “[Franz Bieberkopf] “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.”..makes sense when you have started editing on a computer, but not much when you started editing video before the ANALOG NLEs started to spread out.
What people don’t understand here is that some methods and workflows for many of us comes from when Bill Gates and Steve Job were in school.
My method of using Sequences is based in what I’ve we’ve been doing for years with Betacam Tapes.
One of first (boring) jobs was prepare the ads to be aired every 15 minutes or so.
We had all the ads COMPOUNDED in 90 minutes Betacam tapes. Would have been impossible to work with the original stuff (hundreds of 5 minutes 1″C or Betacam tapes containing just 1 add).Sequences, Compounds clips, all are the same story with different under-laying technologies.
Compounds clips are basically QT REFERENCES FILES created inside the application.
Nothing new.[Jeremy Garchow] “[Rafael Amador] “If Apple would have interviewed some high level editors, they probably wouldn’t have released FCPX.”
Why? I’m not a high level editor I guess (although I bang on our systems pretty hard) and I think FCPXs approach is a good one. I’m not foolin’. Some day, it might even be great. If I had been interviewed, I would have said “carry on, let’s see where this goes, but you should probably release it with a bit more interchange to start it off”. They wouldn’t have cared what I said.
“
Jeremy, if you develop a NLE for everybody, you can’t focus on high levels workflows.
I know that Media Managing has always been a concern for you, but i doubt very much that you would have been very happy with an application that simply won’t allows you to take certain jobs, and I don’t mean that you can make the same product. I’m talking that you are tied to a computer and an storage system.– I’m not a colorist (there are not here), but I was getting some jobs from others FCP users, just because I have the only broadcast monitor in the country.
– I’ve been shooting and editing for people from abroad, and they left the country with a HD with the media and an FCP project almost done; just to set proper VO and finish in their countries.
– I’ve posted few times FCP project here in the COW to help people with their issues (easier than posting few screen captures).
Nothing of that is possible now with FCPX.When you went to Kenya (https://magazine.creativecow.net/article/avcintra-and-the-panasonic-ajhpx2000), I guess you brought a lap-top with FCP. If you’d go again would be pointless to bring one with FCPX.
Why do I want more efficiency if I’ve o stay at home?My critics has never focussed in technical shortcomings (ie monitoring; all that they’ll be solved), but in imposing rules that makes some workflows/jobs impossible.
Mobility is a fundamental for many of us.[Jeremy Garchow] “[Rafael Amador] “in fact Apple haven’t invented NOTHING in video editing.”
Mmm ProRes. An XML method that was commonly adopted. A timeline method that seems to be lamented over. The idea of lightweight native codec editing over firewire and laptop, in Ok (dv), better(dv50), and pretty good qualities (DVCPro HD). For a while there, everyone was playing catch-up. So, they didn’t really “invent” these things, but they sure did leverage it. i understand being mad about the present offerings and the new direction, but I don’t think you can deny what an effect Final Cut Studio had on an entire industry.”
I’ve been working with DVCpro25, 8 years before FC release (Barcelona’92 Olympics was the big public presentation of the format).
nothing to do with apple.At the time Apple was introducing QT that , yes years later, has been one of the pillars of the Digital revolution. That has been really the big Apple contribution to video (huge contribution), FireWire, yes has been another great contribution shared with SONY (FW = iLink), but Prores is just the logical evolution of DV’s (DCT).
rafael -
[Rafael Amador] “My method of using Sequences is based in what I’ve we’ve been doing for years with Betacam Tapes.
One of first (boring) jobs was prepare the ads to be aired every 15 minutes or so.
We had all the ads COMPOUNDED in 90 minutes Betacam tapes. Would have been impossible to work with the original stuff (hundreds of 5 minutes 1″C or Betacam tapes containing just 1 add).Sequences, Compounds clips, all are the same story with different under-laying technologies.
Compounds clips are basically QT REFERENCES FILES created inside the application.”So FCPX works for you in this regard then?
Compounds are not reference movies. Far different.
[Rafael Amador] “but i doubt very much that you would have been very happy with an application that simply won’t allows you to take certain jobs, and I don’t mean that you can make the same product. I’m talking that you are tied to a computer and an storage system.”
What do you mean?
[Rafael Amador] “Why do I want more efficiency if I’ve o stay at home?”
Why can’t you work on a laptop on FCPX? I don’t get it.
[Rafael Amador] “I’ve been working with DVCpro25, 8 years before FC release (Barcelona’92 Olympics was the big public presentation of the format).”
That was on a laptop over FireWire?
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up