-
Walter Murch won’t use FCX
-
Actually the metaphor of video timelines does not mirror film. I worked in film. Oddly FCPX with its magnetic timeline and spacing mirrors film editing more closely than the video based paradigm used in legacy versions.
All the best,
Tom
Class on Demand DVDs “Complete Training for FCP7,” “Basic Training for FCS” and “Final Cut Express Made Easy”
Coming in 2011 “Complete Training for FCPX” from Class on Demand
“Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users” from Focal Press -
[Jeremy Garchow] “It was interesting to hear what Murch’s biggest gripes were after watching the video. The top two are already “fixed”, number three is announced for the next update, and then he went on to describe Roles, which he didn’t seem to like or dislike.”
It sounded like he hasn’t had time to actually work with it directly — that he was responding to the deal-breaking interchange issues that are slowing being addressed.
Naturally, I’m most curious to hear what he’ll have to say about the magnetic timeline after he actually gets his hands on it. That will be fascinating.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I did look at Murch’s timeline and as I mentioned, the first thing I saw was all the empty space. Some of those tracks are pretty sparse, and even Murch himself said he could probably get rid of about half of them.”
Keep in mind that all that empty space is actually information. When you’re using space as an organizing tool, the negative space is just as important as the where the clips are in showing patterns and flow. Even though he said he could consolidate, I find it interesting that he hadn’t.
BTW, I thought his use of skinny muted audio tracks as group separators was brilliant! I’m gonna start doing that now anytime I get over 5 or 6 tracks.
[Jeremy Garchow] “While I too am intrigued with Jim’s workflow, I think it breaks the magnetic timeline in dramatic fashion (no offense, Jim. I enjoyed your post). Visual organization is still needed for audio tracks. Compounds are a way, but I feel they aren’t “THE” way. Putting them all in a secondary is not the way, either, that’s where things get broken fast.”
Yep, it’s interesting but still another workaround. Ball’s in Apple’s court to show us a better way.
[Jeremy Garchow] “We talked about the clips being “a drawer” that we could open and adjust content in context, and then close it back up. That would be pretty ideal rather than breaking apart, adjusting, selecting, and compounding. It would also allow all the advantages of the magnetic and trackless timeline. That means that all of Murch’s sections could be combined in to about 7 “clips” or however many sections he had. He could work on what he wants, adjust it, then put it all away. “
This would be great, but I still think the biggest architectural constraint is the single primary storyline.
When you look at WM’s timeline, do you see anything that looks like “primary” and “secondary” content?
I don’t. What I see looks like a musical score. Everything look primary in terms of time, irregardless of narrative. I’m sure you could map his timeline into FCPX after the fact, but I have a hard time imagining FCPX’s single primary is robust enough to compete with the flexibility of multiple open tracks during the editorial process.WM’s timeline screenshot really shows how reductive Apple’s thinking is with their new timeline paradigm. I look forward to seeing how they will support his level of editorial complexity.
[Jeremy Garchow] “At any rate, I’d be curious to hear what he says after he actually uses it.”
Yes!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
“Hmm. I guess people hear what they want to hear as everyone else is reporting that Murch won’t use it.”
You noticed that too? Strangely enough, only the negative quotes have been getting play, but Murch is actually much more positive about FCPX than the “sky-is-falling” crowd.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “They are always thoughtful and based in a bit of reality through rhetoric.”
Well, I do like a bit of reality.
baby, there is nothing quite like the backhanded compliment.ahem.
i hold my opinions genuinely here. I think the goals of this software are intrinsically invalid.
there are some incredibly interesting tidbits to be had about the war in apple over what this software was meant to be.
the idea that the provision of persistent in out markers for clips being a current on the record “furious debate” in apple (Larry Jordan), I found truly show stopping in terms of their care and duty as editing software providers right?as an editor jeremy, do you think persistent in out markers for clip items to be an article of debate in your mind? what kind of people do we think are having that argument in apple? who are they? how well versed in editing practise do we think they are? No one in apple coded the FCP we use. It was bought strategically a decade ago. So this is their first bat right? How do we think their effort has gone? they had forced out and fired most of the proapps team a year previous, apparently most of this application was coded by the itunes software team – does that feel appropriate?
the amount of chrome on the editing items themselves – does that feel on the ball? I can’t speak fairly until I have my own new system in january, as opposed to my crappy lappie, but I’ve done thirty item lifts on spanking new software elsewhere and the responsiveness feels very dodgy to me? It feels incredibly gluey to me? How important is that do we think? also the zoom slow down? and why is there an animation there? how did that happen? who thought that animation was appropriate repeatedly in repeated operation in high stress, time intensive editing situations?
apple are on a very high, near messianic horse lately. and the decisions they made about this application they made a very long time ago.
the guy who worked on FCP from 2002- 2008 told us this **months** ago bud.
https://sachin.posterous.com/why-apple-built-final-cut-pro-x
“Apple doesn’t care about the pro space “
he goes on with some guff about expanding the editing world, but the point stands that we are not talking about some amorphous software construct, some alteration to the UVW mapping in 3DSmax – we’re talking about a hatchet being taken to the basic tentents of editing by software teams who know barely anything about it. Software teams who are on the record from Larry Jordan and others as having totally ignored all feedback.
Jeremy – in MS word terms, as outlined by walter murch, they produced a version of microsoft word that cannot open any previous versions of written documents created in Microsoft word, not a single written word.
and, continuing the thought experiment, given that editing is close to the written word of the moving image, they also killed the only standing version of microsoft word that could support those written words – nevermind the hacks out now – that is what they presented to the world.let that sink in for a bit.
think about who apple say they are to the creative community, and think about what they did there.
they left any continuance of those written/edited documents entirely up to chance.
Jeremy: in truth, I simply find all this somewhat utterly enraging from a company that so, so so loves to wrap itself in the flag of the band creative.
I just don’t know these guys.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
As we’ve seen before in this thread you have a predilection for assumptions. Your assumptions are based on that legacy applications mirror film editing, whereas in fact they do not. They mirror video editing. Your basis of reference is video, FCP’s is actually film.
Nobody said anything like your opening sentence, and to somehow infer it from Bill’s message is simply crap. Complete and utter bullshit. Copy that 5X5?
No, we’re not talking about the craft the of editing. We’re talking about tools. This tools works. It may not work for Murch, but it works for a lot of other people. Murch needs to actually try it. I don’t believe he has. But even if he does it’s not going to work for him because of the way he works. It’s going to work for a lot of other people, and it does.
Everything else in your message is crap. The same shit we heard when FCP1 came out.
“they have forcefully bifurcated the very operation of editing itself, creating a totally different nomenclature for casual purpose which then, in effect, locks their new adherents from the ladder of skills attainment to all that old boring highest definition of the craft, a place FCPX is blatantly uninterested in travelling to.”
Did you actually read that after you wrote it, or were you too far gone? Yes, that’s exactly what FCP1.0 wanted to do and exactly what FCP 10.0 wants to do. The same people who said FCP1 was a piece of shit ended up as its defenders, now spewing shit on FCPX. They are tools. If you can use them to tell your story they are no more or less effective than a guillotine splicer. Complexity does not make it better, which BTW is something Adobe needs to learn.
-
It’s funny how people read things differently, from what I read, he’s not using it now but is cautiously optimistic about it. Never in the article does it say however that he “won’t use it” as the post replies.
-
[Tom Wolsky] “No, we’re not talking about the craft the of editing. We’re talking about tools. “
of course tom, because they must be entirely different issues . I’ll leave it at that anyway.
http://www.ogallchoir.net
promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics -
And you’re focused on YOUR tools. You can’t get past them to reach the story.
All the best,
Tom
Class on Demand DVDs “Complete Training for FCP7,” “Basic Training for FCS” and “Final Cut Express Made Easy”
Coming in 2011 “Complete Training for FCPX” from Class on Demand
“Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users” from Focal Press -
Actually the metaphor of video timelines does not mirror film. I worked in film. Oddly FCPX with its magnetic timeline and spacing mirrors film editing more closely than the video based paradigm used in legacy versions.
All the best,
Tom
Class on Demand DVDs “Complete Training for FCP7,” “Basic Training for FCS” and “Final Cut Express Made Easy”
Coming in 2011 “Complete Training for FCPX” from Class on Demand
“Final Cut Pro X for iMovie and Final Cut Express Users” from Focal Press -
[Tom Wolsky] “And you’re focused on YOUR tools. You can’t get past them to reach the story.”
Actually Tom, I think Andy is talking about the tools, conventions, and language of an entire industry.
When a single company (currently the largest on Earth) tries to summarily dictate change in all those things at a massive scale, I think it’s well worth viewing those changes with a critical eye.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up