-
Walter Murch won’t use FCX
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “The “open timeline” (as David has come to call it) just seems much more flexible. “
Perhaps to some. Yes. To others, maybe not. “Seems” is open to interpretation. One thing is clear, FCP7 lends itself to a certain method, no?
[Franz Bieberkopf] “The “auto-managed” timeline of FCPX strikes me as convoluted … unless you use it within very narrow parameters, in which case it’s probably optimal in many respects.”
Well, I guess auto-managed would be open to interpretation too (let me please reiterate, FCPX in it’s current state needs work in the audio organization dept). What I think happens is that people think FCPXs auto organizes things because it doesn’t work like FCP7 does. What I think is that with Roles, you have to think about your organization a bit up front, but also allows reorganization later. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Does that teach good habits or bad habits? I don’t know. For me, in practice, it’s a good thing. I don’t mind it. I think about my edit a bit more, no worries.
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Which leaves the question – are those narrow parameters constricting to me or not?”
Yes. This is the essence of the conversation. I am not saying which method is or isn’t. I do like what I see in X so I guess I like to talk mention it’s strengths rather than it’s weaknesses. It takes some getting used to as it differs from how FCP7 works. This is a conversation I like having and I like getting everyone’s perspective and try to stay rational. I like what I see, if I didn’t I’d tell you.
Jeremy
-
I’m not sure if all that visual clutter to express organization is the most efficient way going forward.
Ideally data management should make things easy to find and easy to see (if visual is needed and it’s not always the case) and be out of the way otherwise.I look at Murch’s timelines and it’s ungainly. It may be the best way to manage things in FCP7 but I wouldn’t point to that as an endgame ideal.
While FCPX certainly has a ways to got, it’s designed (being designed) as a data management system. Assume it succeeds in doing that, Murch’s plethora of tracks would be much more manageable both as data and for visual use.
The question to me is, does one want everything visible all at once all the time? I can’t speak for others but for me the answer is decidedly NO.
Jeremy has been pointing to some possible GUI directions. I have to believe Apple is thinking about the visual representation of data that can be exposed or hidden, to be called up as one needs it.
I don’t think FCPX should (or would) aspire to look like Murch’s tracks. I think this is the very thing Apple is trying to improve upon in FCPX. It’s certainly not there yet but this would be FCPX’s direction.
That FCP7 timeline is “open” in much the sense I’ve seen some people’s living rooms with shelves upon shelves of books and knickknacks. Lots of “open” but visually distracting. I’d much rather be able to pull the book or knicknack I’d like to toy with easily without having to see a shelf assault . . . to have a more efficient use of visual space than “open” shelves.
I’d much rather have some seamless closets with dispensers so I can say, “show me books on ancient Greek history” or “Let me display the porcelain Disney figurines today.” Maybe I’ll event want both or any number of variations but I certainly do not find it appealing to have the whole thing “in my face” all the time.
-
Hey Jeremy, this is good because it helps me to test things out and think through more scenarios.
[Jeremy Garchow] “but it still doesn’t allow the visual organization of tracks that some of us miss if the underlying clips don’t extend the entire length of the timeline. Also, the clips inside the compound will take on the Role of the compound, which could also cause problems for export.”
Two thoughts –
It’s definitely not a replacement for tracks but a way to use Secondaries w/ CCs to emulate them for visual reference. They can be any length but still provide visual “bins” to edit into that will not be bumped up or down by other clips edits, keeping them easy to see in a complex edit.
I’m not considering Roles in this scenario as they’re specifically about exporting stems and I’m looking at this as the way to do audio post within X.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Then there’s the problem of changes. In your example from the other thread, if a change came to the timing you’d have to move all those SFX back in the secondary by hand as there’s no relationship to those SFX and the rest of the timeline anymore. “
Isn’t that the point though, the ability to have those things unmagnetized like in fcp7?
In cases where you want things “affiliated” with the Primary, then you’d either use Q directly or keep those clips as CCs in which case you Command/Shift/G, and all the clips inside return to their clip associations, make your timing shift and hit Option /G.
It’s definitely about creatively using CCs and CCs within Secondaries.
[Jeremy Garchow] “Also, I think this workflow assumes there’s going to be a music or any other track that is the entire length of the timeline (or most of the length). That might not be the case for all of us. To be specific, if you look at your screen grab and the timing of “gshairlights” changes, that means the SFX “f16″ is now going to be out of sync, as will the rest of the clips in that secondary.”
I definitely didn’t intend for the music bed or any full length clip to be mandatory. It was just the example I showed there. I don’t see why any other arrangement wouldn’t work. Regarding the SFX, I just dropped those in to show how you can use the Secondary without CCs as a virtual track. If I’m doing any FX in this regard I’m going to want them on an individual “track” connected/locked to their clip AND I want to EQ and add FX to them individually, they don’t have any sonic similarity the way that a series of voice clips would obviously.
They can still be gathered and organized into CCs though and then broken up as needed to move anything individually.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I think your example is really awesome if everything is locked, but that means you can’t really give a rough mix until the very very end. I wish my clients understood this, but changes come heavy and fast where I’m from so having everything working cohesively is essential”
So, I’m not seeing it that way at all…everything locked that is. Just the opposite.
Lock the things you want locked, float the things you don’t in moveable Secondaries with or without CCs inside and use CCs to organize connected clips that may need to be quickly opened adjusted. -
[David Roth Weiss] “Jeremy,
I’m not putting you down when I say this, but it’s quite clear to me from many of your posts about audio in general, and more specifically about Walter Murch and his techniques, that high-end audio post is not really your forte. And so, you do not give Walter Murch sufficient credit for the incredible sophistication of the techniques he has developed over the years for achieving his sound design. “
I am not trying to take anything away from Murch. Not at all, I never will and it is not my intention. As I have mentioned (twice now), I was talking about the video tracks, not necessarily the audio tracks. I have mentioned that audio organization needs help in FCPX. Wouldn’t you think Murch would agree?
Let’s take Murch out of it for a second. I am simply trying to have a conversation about the greater complexities of editing and how they vary from FCP7 to FCPX. I am not a sound designer, I export to OMF to someone who specializes in audio. But my job as an editor is to layout some of those elements, it’s part of the gig. And no, I don’t edit features, but the very nature of my edits don’t stray too far from that timeline, they are just smaller, and dare I say, sometimes they are more complex as we get in to composting and layering. Tom Wolsky and Oliver Peters had a few good posts about what a “power user” is, not that I am one of them. I don’t really care, I use the tool to build my timelines, power user or not. I don’t work in Hollywood, I live in a fly over state. My importance to the greater movie making society is minimal to non-existent.
[David Roth Weiss] “And, I would venture to say that, for you to suggest he should have spent more time with X before arriving at his conclusions, constitutes a lack of understanding and appreciation on your part, not his.”
I will ask you nicely, please don’t vilify me. I think I have a decent understanding of this application that I use everyday in order to sustain a living, feature-power-peon-user, or not. FCPX might not ready for Murch, but how do we know? The only evidence I have is from the man himself, from a video of him speaking about it on the world wide web. He said he hasn’t used it, and three of the top four things on his list are fixed or are going to be, and yet he remains cautiously optimistic. What else am I supposed to infer from that?
I appreciate Murch and his work, I appreciate all of these conversations, but it is OK for me to criticize and question the motivations behind certain things like “Murch won’t use it”. It should say “Murch hasn’t used it”. Big difference, right? Words do matter or am I misunderstanding something here? I have changed the subject of this post, it reads a bit different doesn’t it? I am simply speculating using his timeline that he made available as a guide for how FCPX might fit, or perhaps improve, that workflow. That’s it. I am not adding or taking away anything from Murch. He hasn’t used it so I must give him the benefit of the doubt. It is obvious from the little I saw of that presentation, and knowing what I know from his other publications, he’s a smart guy. I think people see FCPX as “dumb”, I don’t. I wonder what he would think about it if someone gave him a decent tour of it. That’s all I’m asking. My inclination as that he would at least be interested in the banter. FCPX is not entirely easy to grasp as it works differently; a little too different for some.
Hopefully, his whole presentation gets posted as it sounded like it was really good.
Jeremy
-
[Steve Connor] “David, I know you like to mention it a lot but the FCPX timeline is NOT ripple only!”
[Tom Wolsky] “No more than the FCP7 timeline is lift only.”
Steve and Tom —
Here again is my video that proves it is. The position tool does not turn off ripple. In fact, there’s currently a very destructive design flaw that verifies this when the position tool is used on gaps. Watch the behavior carefully:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Pc56peq98
I started a long topic explaining my reasoning here:https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/17555
Bottom line – the position tool does not turn off ripple. Storylines are ripple only. Connected clips must be attached to the ripple-only primary.
I welcome you to demonstrate why I’m wrong with your own video examples.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhlSome contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[Craig Seeman] ”
The question to me is, does one want everything visible all at once all the time? I can’t speak for others but for me the answer is decidedly NO.”I know everybody is different but my vote FWIW is that I absolutely insist on having “everything visible all at once all the time”.
I used to work quite a bit with AVID DS and the notion of having things hidden away in “containers” was a very serious drawback – for me. There is no question that this way or working significantly slows me down – and contributes an almost intolerable level of frustration, in terms of the way I like to work at least.
Murch’s timeline makes complete sense to me precisely because nothing is hidden.
I notice incidentally that he keeps alternative takes/mixes all neatly stacked in place but muted as necessary. This will clearly be a very important aspect of his workflow. Not sure how FCPX would accommodate this as it currently stands – although I suppose a potential future development of Roles could conceivably take care of it at some level but at the expense of some key visual feedback I would have thought.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “I know everybody is different but my vote FWIW is that I absolutely insist on having “everything visible all at once all the time”.”
I think many people may feel that way but there are many others, like myself, who’d like something different. FCPX has the potential to be that option. Ultimately it’s probably impossible for any one NLE to be all things to all people, which is why each has their “following.”
I’m not sure if FCPX will ever everything visible at once as tracks. It certainly might be there as an index so one can call up an examine targeted relationships visually as one works on those components.
I’d contend there’s a serious “diminishing return” on visually usability with everything visible at once in an interface. I know I focus on specific relationships as I work. I can’t imagine really being able to process 50 tracks of video and 50 tracks of audio simultaneously although I can imagine someone’s brain tuned to pattern recognition might be thrown if the pattern keeps changing through hiding and exposing information.
I think that comes down to how certain people process visual data. Some really depend on pattern recognition whereas others like to see only the information being focused on for the immediate task at hand. In fact, for many, that may be the crux of the track vs trackless issue. The pattern recognition is completely gone in a trackless timeline. It takes a different way of thinking . . . probably a different part of the brain, and that’s why the reactions for/against the timeline are so strong. People have been trying to articulate why the do/don’t like it as a form/function issue but for many it may well be how their creative brains are wired.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “I know everybody is different but my vote FWIW is that I absolutely insist on having “everything visible all at once all the time”.”
I think many people may feel that way but there are many others, like myself, who’d like something different. FCPX has the potential to be that option. Ultimately it’s probably impossible for any one NLE to be all things to all people, which is why each has their “following.”
I’m not sure if FCPX will ever everything visible at once as tracks. It certainly might be there as an index so one can call up an examine targeted relationships visually as one works on those components.
I’d contend there’s a serious “diminishing return” on visually usability with everything visible at once in an interface. I know I focus on specific relationships as I work. I can’t imagine really being able to process 50 tracks of video and 50 tracks of audio simultaneously although I can imagine someone’s brain tuned to pattern recognition might be thrown if the pattern keeps changing through hiding and exposing information.
In one sense it may be like trying to tell a right handed person that being left handed is better creatively,
I think that comes down to how certain people process visual data. Some really depend on pattern recognition whereas others like to see only the information being focused on for the immediate task at hand. In fact, for many, that may be the crux of the track vs trackless issue. The pattern recognition is completely gone in a trackless timeline. It takes a different way of thinking . . . probably a different part of the brain, and that’s why the reactions for/against the timeline are so strong. People have been trying to articulate why the do/don’t like it as a form/function issue but for many it may well be how their creative brains are wired.
-
[Craig Seeman] “I think that comes down to how certain people process visual data. Some really depend on pattern recognition whereas others like to see only the information being focused on for the immediate task at hand.”
I think that’s a really interesting way of describing it that really strikes a chord with me – I’m definitely a pattern recognition kind of person in this as in many other regards (I’m addicted to Sudoku, for instance!). As you suggest, a pattern that is subject to relatively unpredictable change can really throw me off.
Allied to this, I think, is whether or not you like a modal workflow that invloves switching to a different view for a different task – and overall again I think I’m against that way of working. I know that one of the things that bugged me the most about Media Composer was the notion of having to enter Segment Mode for an action as basic as moving a clip interactively. To a large extent, I find what you are describing to be a much more “modal” way of working and it doesn’t appeal to me personally. I’d sooner have what you refer to as Walter Murch’s “visual clutter” – which of course strikes me as the exact opposite!
That said, I don’t personally find any of this an unsuperable obstacle – but I can fully understand why it might be for many.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Jim Giberti] “Hey Jeremy, this is good because it helps me to test things out and think through more scenarios.”
Beautiful. Glad you are up for it!
[Jim Giberti] “Two thoughts –
It’s definitely not a replacement for tracks but a way to use Secondaries w/ CCs to emulate them for visual reference. They can be any length but still provide visual “bins” to edit into that will not be bumped up or down by other clips edits, keeping them easy to see in a complex edit.”
Yes, that I understand.
[Jim Giberti] “‘m not considering Roles in this scenario as they’re specifically about exporting stems and I’m looking at this as the way to do audio post within X.”
OK. From this perspective, I can see it. In my opinion Roles are more than stems, rather they are a way of grouping things without a track. Yes, I think your method with a locked edit is totally doable and great.
[Jim Giberti] “Isn’t that the point though, the ability to have those things unmagnetized like in fcp7?”
Well, I really think it’s timeline specific. For example, in FCP7, even though it wasn’t magnetized, I could still do an insert edit in the middle of the timeline and I would ensure that everything to the right of would stay in sync, similarly, I could trim a few things here and there, and with careful consideration, most everything else would move along if that what I needed, or I’d select everything, move it, make the edit, and move it back. This is harder to do in X, actually as the magnetized timeline takes care of all fo that. So, with things in a secondary in X, that relationship is broken except for the clip it’s connected to. It’s not just demagnetized, it’s breaking any relationship at all. FCP7 still maintains a modicum of time relationship if handled properly. Hope that makes sense.
[Jim Giberti] “In cases where you want things “affiliated” with the Primary, then you’d either use Q directly or keep those clips as CCs in which case you Command/Shift/G, and all the clips inside return to their clip associations, make your timing shift and hit Option /G.”
Yep, I hear you, but again it assumes you are going to have to have a clip or clips that span the whole timeline. Look here: I can’t get the level of organization you are talking about unless I stick the music arbitrarily in the middle of the layers:
[Jim Giberti] “So, I’m not seeing it that way at all…everything locked that is. Just the opposite.
Lock the things you want locked, float the things you don’t in moveable Secondaries with or without CCs inside and use CCs to organize connected clips that may need to be quickly opened adjusted.”I hear you, but if everything needs to com put of a secondary in order to keep editing, I lost all the visual info. That’s all I’m saying. Thanks for discussing this, it’s a good thing.
Jeremy
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up