The Question – An Update On My Choices In NLEs

[James Ewart]

Hi thanks fort that interesting to read.

I’ve been in the habit of chucking stuff that I know I want but don’t know quite where I want it down the end of the timeline since I started eating (editing even!) my own stuff (can’t believe it’s over ten years now) but it never occurred to me to use a separate timeline for the first assembly so to speak. The more I think about it the more I think one timeline is enough for me. I would get muddled but it’s an interesting workflow/solution.

Best regards

[Richard Herd]

I don’t imply that. My question is not rhetorical.

[Richard Herd]

Thank you! That makes a lot of sense, vis a vis “a shared language.”

[Richard Herd]

Thanks for the taking a moment to respond. I am/was genuinely curious!

[Richard Herd]

Thanks for taking the time to answer an off topic question 🙂

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Richard Herd] “I don’t imply that.”

Richard,

I am not following then.

“not faster” than what?

Franz.

[Bill Davis]

[Michael Aranyshev] “Did they put Replace on Playhead into one of the updates? If they did I might consider spending time learning it.
“

I hear this all the time. The idea that “there’s this thing that I do all the time that is so important to me that it prevents me from making a change.” And I understand the concept. But I also challenge it’s effectiveness as a decision point.

Traditions are often about holding onto the way we solved problems in the past. The big deal is that they’ve proved to be effective solutions. The problem is that so long as we stick with them – we’re not exploring whether or not there may be more effective solutions out there. Or whether or not the problems we’re solving now are always going to be the most critical problems.

If you reduce any NLE to “does it do THIS process the way I’m used to?” then what you’re saying is that you are only willing to change only on YOUR terms.

I get that, but in an environment of rapid change, I think it’s potentially dangerous.

Serious change – that can provide serious benefits – often come by way of BIG transformations that require you to re-think what’s actually important.

Replace on Playhead. Frame Matchback. Dynamic Trimming. – I hear editors all the time who just will not give up on these and other items they love and depend on, and never consider that while these things have been crucial to effectiveness in traditional timeline editing, they might NOT be as critical in a new editing environment unless the editor is bound and determined to edit in the new system in precisely the same way they edited in their old system.

And please, I’m NOT saying these things aren’t important or that X shouldn’t add these to it’s mix. Of course it should if it can without breaking other things.

All I’m suggesting is for some traditional editors to open their thinking to the question of if the new era might make some of these things less important in some editing contexts? What if in 10 years you’re editing differently, and these things that are “mission critical” to you are less important to how you will be working then? If, for example, you’re editing less dialog driven scenes, and more information exposition? That stuff happens. And X might be a better tool for that. Maybe.

The best example I can think of is how my attitude to audio changed between the era when I worked in Radio compared to the era when I started working in Audio for Video.

In my audio era, a precise signal to noise ratio and purity of sound was job ONE. I’d accept nothing less than the best I could achieve and I’d work hard to make every track PERFECT.

Then when I started working with audio married to video – I started understanding that if the viewer could not just hear but SEE a person talking, the viewer could easily extract perfect meaning out of less than perfectly recorded audio. Background sounds, or room reverb that would have been totally unacceptable in my audio work, suddenly wasn’t the holy grail it was before. Because I was playing a different game.

All I’m saying is that the problems you fix with any of the above techniques are real and important. But they might not be the MOST important problems you’ll be solving in the future.

Or maybe they still will be. It’s hard to say.

Just food for thought.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Misha Aranyshev]

[Bill Davis] “All I’m saying is that the problems you fix with any of the above techniques are real and important. But they might not be the MOST important problems you’ll be solving in the future. “

If you reduce editing to which shot comes after which the tools you listed are irrelevant. If editing is still about what happens exactly when those tools are indispensable. That’s why editors keep asking for them. Ranges vs In-Out is in the same spirit. There are dozens of uses for In and Out points in everyday editing work ranges simply can’t be used for. As for Replace on Playhead it is different. There are two or three “Replaces” in FCP X and none is remotely useful in real editing situation. That’s not “this app is designed for different style of editing”. This is “this app is designed by someone who never edited even his vacation video”.

[Charlie Austin]

[Bill Davis] “Replace on Playhead. Frame Matchback. Dynamic Trimming. – I hear editors all the time who just will not give up on these and other items they love and depend on, and never consider that while these things have been crucial to effectiveness in traditional timeline editing, they might NOT be as critical in a new editing environment unless the editor is bound and determined to edit in the new system in precisely the same way they edited in their old system. “

Bill, as you know, I’m a big FCP X fan, and while I sometimes feel you are a little um… let’s say strident, 😉 I do agree with a lot of what you post here and elsewhere.

But a match frame replace function really is something that FCP X needs desperately. It has nothing to do with “a new editing environment” at all. It’s a feature that is missing. Yes, you can work around it, but it sucks to have to. I find replacing clips in X to be really easy and fast. Unless I need to do a match frame replace, which I quite often do, then everything comes to a screeching halt.

It’s pretty basic function in any NLE, and there’s stuff in the guts of X that indicate it was/is a planned feature. A lot of stuff people “miss” does fall into the “stop trying to do it like (insert other NLE here). Not this. 🙂

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Simon Ubsdell]

[Charlie Austin] “It’s pretty basic function in any NLE, and there’s stuff in the guts of X that indicate it was/is a planned feature. A lot of stuff people “miss” does fall into the “stop trying to do it like (insert other NLE here). Not this. :-)”

Seconded.

Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com