Tracks

[Rafael Amador]

How many layers (picture) were you using in FC7 for a normal job?
How many languages do you use in a normal job?
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Tony West] “I had to ask myself if I really needed all those extra tracks in the timeline. The answer was I really didn’t.”

Tony,

Something about your post and the recent tutorials by Andy Neil seemed to crystallize an impression I’ve had. What you are talking about is class A-roll, B-roll editing – Andy’s tutorial is base on it – and this comes from broadcast (and if I’m not mistaken, it comes from broadcast news practice).

It seems like this is the paradigm that FCPX is designed around: The primary storyline is the A roll against which the various B roll elements are cut.

(This isn’t to say you’re restricted to using FCPX that way and that way only, but it does seem to be the idea which informs the design).

Far from a new idea, FCPX actually derives its model from time-tested broadcast practice.

Many people edit this way and FCPX seems well suited to this kind of editing.

Franz.

[Craig Seeman]

Since I started editing with Computer NLEs in 1990 on Avid Media Composer, I’d felt that tracks were not quite representative of the way I edit.

Sometimes my relationships are horizontal (compositing or individual b-roll) and sometimes vertical (where b-roll are clips that must relate to each other as well as the main track). Tracks had also been a contrived (for me) method of categorizes (title tracks, classes of b-roll, alternate sections, audio functions).

While they were capable of all the above functions, they were far from my ideal. FCPX comes closer (still needs work) to what I’ve been looking for since 1990. Vertical and horizontal relationships are controlled by the editor. Clip functions (roles) are controlled through metadata tagging and not confined to a row where relationship to function was more important than relationship along time.

Certainly others may not want that and some may not understand it, but it’s the way my brain is wired. It’s why I find data bases far more flexible than spreadsheets. I want control over the data. I don’t want it forced into horizontal rows when that is decidedly not my intent.

I would love to see FCPX move to a more nodal relationship in which the connection may be to clips or secondary storylines rather than limited to the primary storyline. I’d like to have more control over the visual relationship when needed (and it is sometimes).

But generally I like the direction FCPX is headed. I find tracks constrained/limited. I don’t want them to be an enforced (nor even a preferred) workflow.

[Bill Davis]

[Rafael Amador] “How many languages do you use in a normal job?
rafael
“

Just for fun, here’s my answer after a moment of thought…

According to my wife, many.

I use rational language, emotional language, visual language, auditory language, high-level language, low-level language, even (I bet if you asked her on a day of conflict) stupid language.

So lots and lots and lots of different languages are arguably in use by every person in any particular day.

Is that germane?

“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

[Andy Neil]

A-Roll/B-Roll editing has its origins in film actually where master shots were collected on one reel (A) and cutaways and other angles were collected on a second reel (B).

However, you are correct in pointing out it’s continued use in broadcast TV (scripted and reality) as well as broadcast news. I cut my teeth in news so its certainly in my DNA, but I find it’s used in any facility where multiple editors are working on the same story.

Andy

https://www.timesavertutorials.com

[Bill Davis]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “Something about your post and the recent tutorials by Andy Neil seemed to crystallize an impression I’ve had. What you are talking about is class A-roll, B-roll editing – Andy’s tutorial is base on it – and this comes from broadcast (and if I’m not mistaken, it comes from broadcast news practice).

It seems like this is the paradigm that FCPX is designed around: The primary storyline is the A roll against which the various B roll elements are cut.”

Franz,

I couldn’t disagree more. I guess you can make that point if you narrow the question to the timeline ONLY. But in point of fact, a tremendous amount of the old A/B roll paradigm is precisely what X has stripped away.

It was based almost totally on hardware. (yippie, I used an italic rather than just CAPS – I’m learning!) The editor had one or more physical source decks – that fed a switcher with a Source Monitor (the Viewer in Legacy)- which in turn fed one record deck (the Canvas.)

That arrangement was driven by the tapes and decks hardware world. Only as “sources” morphed into digital streams that were disconnected from hardware was a change in the editing tradition possible.

Every NLE I’ve ever used or seen (not all, but many) were based on this tradition because thats what “editors” expected.

FCP-X still has a “timeline” metaphor in the form of the Primary Storyline – (tho it’s characteristics have clearly been changed) but upstream and downstream of that it’s very different in how it handles the editorial process.

My view, anyway.

“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

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Bill,

I agree the source / record analogy in FCP and other NLEs comes from broadcast. I am looking at the timeline.

I am talking specifically about the approach to editing – the idea that you cut an A-roll and “cut away” to B-roll. This approach seems built-in to the Primary Storyline model (with attached clips).

Franz.

[Jeremy Garchow]

Tony-

I know this post will catch some grief, but whatever. I’m over it. If I’m not a professional anymore because I see some advantages to FCPx, that’s cool too. It doesn’t matter as my clients are the ones who need to judge my level of professionalism.

I agree with you for the most part.

I really think that the simplified interface isn’t as simple as some people make it out to be. I find the timeline to be very powerful, yet not really “simple” when you start really using it for its advantages. Sure, some processes have been simplified.

It is certainly different, which some people don’t like.

I think Roles and Auditions are really awesome. What I do need is more control.

I’d like to see some more power and control come to Roles as well as a more visually organized area below the primary storyline. I don’t miss tracks as a tool, but I do miss the organization provided by them, especially when you start getting to multiple audio tracks. I think secondary storylines should have a bit more control and power as well to help with visual organization. All in all, though, I like what’s there. There are times when a second viewer is needed, or at least would make my life a bit easier. I don’t need it all the time, that’s for sure, but for match framing/match cuts, I do miss it. And of course, in order for me to use FCPX on paying gigs, I need capture card support.

And Rafa, for multiple languages, I think Roles and connected clips are really very nice for this. Yes, it’s different and yes, it takes getting used to.

It might not be for everyone, and some people are very offended by what Apple has done, and that’s fine. I do think FCPx has a tremendous amount of power and potential, it’s just not quite fully realized yet, and thats ok with me or now. FCS3 is still working. I think the next major release will inform us as to how serious Apple is taking this (or not).

[Steve Connor]

[Jeremy Garchow] “I really think that the simplified interface isn’t as simple as some people make it out to be. I find the timeline to be very powerful, yet not really “simple” when you start really using it for its advantages. Sure, some processes have been simplified.
“

Agreed, if you actually use FCPX for any length of time you soon realise this.

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

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Andy Neil] A-Roll/B-Roll editing has its origins in film actually where master shots were collected on one reel (A) and cutaways and other angles were collected on a second reel (B).

Andy,

My experience with film editing is very limited, but this against everything I know about it, where reels are compiled by Scene or Slate (for scripted material) or Scene and Location (for unscripted material).

I’d be interested in more history and detail if anyone can point the way.

So far as I know, where the A/B model has been used in film, it was imported from broadcast.

For instance, while I might imagine Griffith working with A/B collections (though I have no reason to) I can’t imagine the Soviets, Godard, Wiseman, or Murch doing so.

But I’d love to know more about the history …

Franz.