-
Tracks and Primaries: Question for FCPX Users
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “As an aside, multicam is coming.”
I actually don’t use the multicam function in FCP – I have always built my timelines this way.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Of course, you might have to “Open in Timeline” to see the different stacked takes”
Right now, however, the tracks allow me to see at a glance which angle covers which section of the timeline – I think this would hard (though possible?) to achieve in X.
V2 and V3 are my wides – you can see where I like them. If I know that V6 was the best intimate handheld take (for dancers and camera) I can see pretty clearly where I can rely on that and where not. It’s also apparent by glancing at the timeline, for instance, that I’ve only selected one take to cover a section just after the midway point. In other words – looking at the timeline (and remembering these are my selects) I have an overview of coverage (strengths and weaknesses) – the timeline is giving me information.
I think you’re proposing a compound clip (with range selections?) as a possible way to replicate this? Can the one track per camera take be replicated somehow? with multiple small selects from one long clip?
[Jeremy Garchow] “you will probably have one long audio/guide track”
Yes – here V1 / A1A2 are my playback guide.
Franz.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I actually don’t use the multicam function in FCP – I have always built my timelines this way.”
I hear you. I don’t use it much in 7 either. I might in FCPX depending on how it’s implemented.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Right now, however, the tracks allow me to see at a glance which angle covers which section of the timeline – I think this would hard (though possible?) to achieve in X.”
No, it can still stack multiple clips up and down the timeline, and then you could use Roles to assign different takes/angles. I wish we were in the same room, this would be fun to work out and see if X could fit the bill. You could also use secondary storylines.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “It’s also apparent by glancing at the timeline, for instance, that I’ve only selected one take to cover a section just after the midway point. In other words – looking at the timeline (and remembering these are my selects) I have an overview of coverage (strengths and weaknesses) – the timeline is giving me information.”
In X, you’d simply have the best takes on top as the horizontal tracks aren’t there. you could also throw everything you need in a secondary and resemble tracks if you’d like.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I think you’re proposing a compound clip (with range selections?) as a possible way to replicate this? Can the one track per camera take be replicated somehow? with multiple small selects from one long clip?”
The compound clip would look similar to your FCP7 timeline, it would just be in the Browser. You can skim if from the Browser, but if you’d need to take a look at another take, you’d “open in timeline” and it would reveal a timeline similar to what you have in 7. You would then have a Project with what you see as the “best” takes along with your audio.
[Franz Bieberkopf] ” Can the one track per camera take be replicated somehow?”
There’s a few ways that I mentioned earlier. If we are going to take an FCPX approach, it would be through the use of Roles. You could also combine what you have as tracks in FCP7 as their own compound clips in X and stack those in a Project.
Jeremy
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I could range select and keyword the lines and they would all fall in to place in the browser”
Well done! This is how I finished an assemble edit.
-
Thanks Jeremy. All slightly off topic but interesting.
Wasn’t there some issue with using compound clips in events? I’m probably getting that wrong but I do remember some warnings against using compound clips certain ways.
Franz.
-
I read the whole thread first.
Depends what I’m cutting. The primary storyline for a narrative film is dictated by the script. Each scene is its own compound clip. I’ll find the clip I want in the browser and set the I/O and then right click, add to compound clip. It is the primary. The next cut I find int he browser and cut it in, and so on.
Have you used the sync clip option?
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Wasn’t there some issue with using compound clips in events? I’m probably getting that wrong but I do remember some warnings against using compound clips certain ways.”
Event/Project size bloat. I alluded to it earlier. There’s some inefficiencies in FCPX at the moment, and it’s why I can’t use it on the paying gigs.
I can’t imagine this will go unnoticed or unfixed with multicam coming as I’m sure they will be compound clips in disguise.
Jeremy
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Here’s a timeline of the organization of one scene from my current project.”
Of course, your post actually illustrates one of the very best attributes of FCP legacy, and it also points out what remains as one of, if not the, primary gripe of many who remain resistant to FCPX.
My initial reaction, when I look at your technique for breaking down your interview material, is that your method essentially turns a non-linear editing system into a linear editor. However, as they say, different strokes for different folks. But, the fact that you, and I, and Franz, and others, can probably come up with innumerable ways to accomplish the same thing in FCP legacy, is its true beauty, which has always been its incredible flexibility, allowing editors to work in whatever way they choose, or in whatever way the material itself dictates.
Much of that wonderful flexibility that editors always loved in legacy FCP has been lost in FCPX. And, while it can be, and often is, argued that X adds various new flexibilities that were never possible before, I continue to believe the major problem with X will always be that the software designers, rather than choosing to build upon the best of FCP, instead chose to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Of course this has all been said before, and I’m certainly not the first nor the last to say it, but it’s the rigid rules of the magnetic timeline and the inherent inflexibility of X that remain the lingering issues that continue to drive the vast majority of disgruntled legacy FCP users away from X and toward other NLEs. And, whether X will ever regain the flexibility of its predecessor, or even surpass it, continues to remain one of the biggest question marks about its future.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor/Colorist
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los Angeles
https://www.drwfilms.comDon’t miss my new Creative Cow Podcast: Bringing “The Whale” to the Big Screen:
https://library.creativecow.net/weiss_roth_david/Podcast-Series-2-MikeParfitandSuzanneChisholm/1POST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
Creative COW contributing editor and a forum host of the Business & Marketing and Apple Final Cut Pro forums.
-
Well how do you use the first Track in FCP7?
It is the main track ,Main story, the Music track for Music Videos, Main Dialog track.
I use it for my foundation.I never seen anybody to use Track 18 to start there project. I do hope see the option to color code/label the Media Stems in FCPX for a better overview in the Timeline.
-
Thomas,
See first post link for a discussion of how I use tracks.
I don’t use the first track the way you do – that is why I am asking.
Franz.
-
[David Roth Weiss] “My initial reaction, when I look at your technique for breaking down your interview material, is that your method essentially turns a non-linear editing system into a linear editor.”
OK. For maybe the third time now, this isn’t an interview. It is a scripted piece, with a beginning, a middle, and an end. So in that regard, it’s linear. At some point, I have to tie all the dialogue together in a line. That’s why I don’t need transcripts, or Soundbite, or Get.
The markers up top represent the lines of script in the dialogue. What follows in between the two markers is all the takes, then there’s the two cameras which are the two tracks.
[David Roth Weiss] “Much of that wonderful flexibility that editors always loved in legacy FCP has been lost in FCPX. “
I don’t buy it. You can use FCPX very similarly, or not. It also allows a different way of organizing that simply isn’t possible in 7. As I mentioned, the way I had to layout these clips in order to see them all in one place is on a timeline in FCP7. I don’t have to do that in X, (although I could), and I can also use the timelines (i.e. compund clips) differently than I can in 7.
[David Roth Weiss] “I continue to believe the major problem with X will always be that the software designers, rather than choosing to build upon the best of FCP, instead chose to throw the baby out with the bath water. “
Some people might say that they didn’t.
[David Roth Weiss] “Of course this has all been said before, and I’m certainly not the first nor the last to say it, but it’s the rigid rules of the magnetic timeline and the inherent inflexibility of X that remain the lingering issues that continue to drive the vast majority of disgruntled legacy FCP users away from X and toward other NLEs. “
I think people fear the unknown. There are things to keep in mind in the magnetic timeline, as there are in other programs, it’s just that the rules of the FCP7 timeline so ingrained that you don’t even notice them anymore. I’ve explained this before, and it’s hard to put a finger on it. It is only truly apparent after using FCPX for a while (and you have to embrace it for what it is), and then going back to another track type system. As mentioned earlier in this thread, FCPX is redefining the relationships of clips. Some people like it, some people don’t. If you don’t, that’s cool, there’s other NLE’s that follow similar rules, and some do it better than even fcp7.
Again, FCP7 gets a ton of overhyped credit. It was cheap enough to work, and that’s essentially why it became so popular. People were willing to deal with it as the price was right.
I am not saying X’s timeline is perfect. It’s not, and I think I’ve been pretty balanced about that. But after using it for a while, it is clear that there are certain efficiencies that it does create and with some tweaking, it will be better than FCP7. But that’s just the way I see it, other’s may not and that’s fine.
[David Roth Weiss] “And, whether X will ever regain the flexibility of its predecessor, or even surpass it, continues to remain one of the biggest question marks about its future.”
Again, I’ve said this before as well. It’s 6.5 months old. People seriously discount this fact, but it’s true.
If Avid came out with “New Product v1” and Adobe came out with “We’re going to rethink this v1” it would have bugs too. I know that X carries that Final Cut Pro moniker. It is not Final Cut Pro as we know it and arguably should have been called something other than Final Cut Pro, but here we are right where we stand. Final Cut Pro X is still an NLE, call it what you may. It is a redesigned and completely new model year.
Jeremy
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up