-
Tracks
-
[Jaimie Franklin]“This seems to be arguing for arguments sake. FCS has a ton more flexibility and that is the only point that remains”
You’re just being dismissive. And you’re ignoring my point. You see FCP as some completely open system that allows you to work however you want and FCPX as a completely closed system that forces you into a particular workflow.
I’m saying that BOTH programs force you to work within the rules they are designed around. You proved my point when you said,
[Jaimie Franklin]“One of the functions I enjoy is duping a sequence spend the 5 seconds deleting unwanted tracks, binning the sequence with the appropriate tag.”
because you’re describing a workflow you’ve been forced to adopt in FCP to cover the need of exporting individual stems. Of course you are forgetting to calculate all the cumulative time you spent placing SFX and music and other audio elements on dedicated tracks and rearranging them during your edit so that it only took “5 seconds” at the end of your edit to delete unwanted tracks.
I get that you prefer to work in FCP7. Personally, I like FCP7 a lot. I always have. And it’s certainly true that FCPX has shortcomings. But it’s not a closed system. I don’t see how it can even be considered that since Apple is promising multicam editing next year. I just don’t agree with venerating FCP for the sake of tearing down FCPX.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[David Lawrence] “I believe the reason for this is has to do with the nature of the rules in FCPX. Even if you ignore the current bugs and inconsistencies, it’s clear that the rules the designers chose for FCPX are primarily drawn from a data model. While this may be elegant from an engineering standpoint, from a usability standpoint it often falls flat.”
Well said.
The beauty and elegance of FCPX’s parent-child data model for the timeline make my inner geek weep in appreciation.
The consequences of implementing this data model in the UI just make me weep.
I think that clip connections are an absolutely brilliant idea, and represent a major innovation in editorial — but they could have been implemented in an open timeline, too.
[David Lawrence] “In FCP Legacy, there are many rules too, but at least you never had to consider an object container model when making a dissolve.”
Indeed. FCP Classic asks you to consider where a clip is when you use it; FCPX asks you to consider what it is.
For all those who complain that FCP Classic requires track management, how do you address this concern? Is actively managing a clip’s container really any different than actively managing its track position?
It’s hard to discuss “tracks” when talking about FCP7/FCPX because it conflates so many separate aspects of the implementations. Hard tracked (manually organized) versus trackless (self-collapsing), non-magnetic versus magnetic (connected clips), absolute time versus relative time…
I personally would have liked an open timeline with magnetism (connected clips) and grouped tracks or “zones” as discussed with Michael Gissing and Jeremy Garchow. I understand this is not everyone’s cup of tea.
Would a traditional open timeline with clip connections, the ability to hide or reduce audio tracks which come from video, metadata, and a “Collapse Tracks” hotkey have been a workable solution? Would it be preferred to either the classic or X timeline which require active track or container management?
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Bill Davis] “Chris,
X can do that. Since a gap clip is a “thing” rather than “nothing” the database recognizes the entity and can manage it.
Simple as that.
“And in FCP slug is a “thing” rather than “nothing” the program recognizes the entity and can assign filters to it, rename it, etc. Your weird argument about spitting out aggregate length is sophistry, and nothing more. Why, exactly, would someone want to do that?
-
[Andy Neil] “I’m saying that BOTH programs force you to work within the rules they are designed around”
Yeah, and both the old Soviet Union and Costa Rica forced you to work within the rules they are designed around, as well.
-
[Andy Neil] “You’re just being dismissive. And you’re ignoring my point. You see FCP as some completely open system that allows you to work however you want and FCPX as a completely closed system that forces you into a particular workflow.”
Am I? Your example is I can’t bring audio into a video track and that, in some X defenderese, is a logical defense or point…..? Which was completely dismissive of the examples I gave that FCX suffers from that I do not enjoy…do we honestly need to make Harry Carry out of it?
If I want to bring in a video clip or audio clip I have to make a relationship to other clips first. I almost want to pull my hair out having to explain this…all over again and again…this is not conducive >FOR ME< to be creative in a fluid, quick and enjoyable way. FCS doesn’t have flexibility issues, despite the “forcings” you are concocting or imagining throwing at it…which ironically, you were wrong on…
[Andy Neil] “I’m saying that BOTH programs force you to work within the rules they are designed around. You proved my point when you said,”
I didn’t prove your point, I gave you an example. I can mute the tracks, I can send them to STP, I can move them independently, I can slide them around while finding the right spot without annoyance. And I said, how I export is secondary to the control and flexibility to how I work…so who is being dismissive here?
[Andy Neil] “I get that you prefer to work in FCP7. Personally, I like FCP7 a lot. I always have. And it’s certainly true that FCPX has shortcomings. But it’s not a closed system. I don’t see how it can even be considered that since Apple is promising multicam editing next year. I just don’t agree with venerating FCP for the sake of tearing down FCPX.”
Again, now you are just inventing an argument I never made. Although having locked aspect ratios is exactly that. I never said it was “closed off” I said I do not like having to work in a timeline that is not flexible. And by that I have spelled out my reasons and don’t feel the need to defend this further especially when your arguments aren’t very well thought out nor account for 90% of what I have posted.
-
[Andy Neil] “Of course you are forgetting to calculate all the cumulative time you spent placing SFX and music and other audio elements on dedicated tracks and rearranging them”
You mean the part called “editing”? 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “You mean the part called “editing”?”
That’s so 1999
-
[David Lawrence] “You mean the part called “editing”?”
Please. If that were called ‘editing’, then I wouldn’t have to clean up 70 percent of the sequences I get handed on a weekly basis. 🙂
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Andy Neil] “[David Lawrence] “You mean the part called “editing”?”
Please. If that were called ‘editing’, then I wouldn’t have to clean up 70 percent of the sequences I get handed on a weekly basis. 🙂
Andy
“So, there are sloppy editors. You think they are going to be any better with Roles? At least with tracks, you can see what is in the wrong place.
-
[David Lawrence] “You mean the part called “editing”? ;)”
Ouch! Here we go again.
I know this is anecdotal, but after playing around in X for a long while and assembling an edit, and then going back to FCP7, it is amazing how much slower 7 feels. I’m not jut talking about effects/rendering/computing speed, I am talking about how many clicks it takes to get something done, and now I am sort of forced to pay attention to those clicks because I am constantly and naturally comparing it to how much faster certain processes would be in X.
I hear you about the dissolve in a container thing, but that has been reduced to one shortcut (just add the dissolve and the container appears) and it also allows the ripple behaviors that some people might want to be constrained just to the container. Yes, it’s a different method but it does make sense if you try and use it like it is intended and not how FCP7 works. I simply can’t use FCP7 like FCPX because there’s no way to tell FCP7 to do what I want it to do, and the more I play with FCPX, the more I cannot wait for broadcast monitoring in FCPX so I can really start to really bang on it for paid gigs.
An example is that I had ten or so selects on an FCP7 timeline, I put the parts that I wanted to keep on v2, and then wanted to delete the fat on v1. So I selected v1, deleted, then had to move all clips down to v1, then delete the gaps in between one by one. I then had to copy and paste those in to my main edit timeline.
In FCPX, I simply select the clips I don’t want and delete them, and everything follows along, and I wouldn’t have to do this in a sequence, I could do this work in a compound clip in the event. I find the event to be a remarkably great place to prep footage either with naming and such, or even pre-edit functions (like pre-edting VO selects instead of editing it on the timeline, slamming certain scenes together in a compound and putting them in a Project for fine tuning after braking apart if need be). This is something I “can’t” do on one clip in FCP7, or I simply have to do it differently. I personally find X to be more efficient in a lot of aspects of the mechanics of the edit. The Event is an organizational tool, and it’s not just about naming clips/collections, it also functions to prepare clips for the timeline. And the Project is for placing these things purposefully in time. It is way different than how FCP7 works, and I simply can’t do some of the things in 7 that I can do in X, so isn’t 7 forcing me to do things that I might not necessarily “want”?
It is little things like this that add up, and it really is only going from X to 7 that you really start to notice them. I know you will argue the reverse, but it has been my experience. I still miss the organizational function of tracks, but that’s about all I “miss” from tracks. A second viewer would be nice some of the time, but isn’t necessary all the time.
I had to conform a bunch of shots from low res proxies to high res finals by hand the other day in FCP7 and I will admit, it would have been a lot harder in X to perform that particular set of moves as there’s no playhead replace which I miss dearly in X , and the Viewer made it fall down easy and fast. It still wouldn’t stop me from working in X.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up