-
What does FCPX teach new editors?
-
“Think in the order you like, not dictated by the NLE.”
Or not at all.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
[Herb Sevush] “Or not at all.”
Not possible with editing or driving a car. Most people don’t care how one got there but that the results are good. Thinking is unavoidable for the talented.
-
[Craig Seeman] ”
Great proof that FCPX is more flexible. Think in the order you like, not dictated by the NLE.”I think Herb’s point is that the program encourages you not to think, and thinking is an integral part of the process of editing. Especially before you start an edit.
-mattyc
-
[Matt Callac] “I think Herb’s point is that the program encourages you not to think, and thinking is an integral part of the process of editing. Especially before you start an edit.”
But I don’t see how it encourages you not to think. It just changes the sequence in which one thinks.
For example, even without clip collision you are still confronted with an overlap that you have to deal with. It’s just that you get to move into that position and deal with it rather than having to take that into account before moving the clips. For some, being able to see the result helps one deal with the results more creatively.
-
What’s most hilarious about this exchange is that the “magnetic timeline” is one of the features Apple is touting as a major break-through. It was featured at the NAB sneak, it’s in all their marketing brochures, and the best thing that Craig can come up with is that it allows you to think later.
First of all, for audio it’s totally useless because you can’t hear anything but cacophony.
For video it’s sometimes handy to have 2 choices stacked on top of each other to play around with – oh, let’s see, hold down the option key, drag to an unused upper track (you remember what those are don’t you Craig) and then either drag where you want or cut and paste. Yes, it’s nice that you can do this in one keystroke instead of two, but really is this the best you’ve got for all we lost? If not, then why is Apple pushing it so hard? Ask any 100 editors whether this is worth losing the source viewer over, or the lack of source timecode in the timeline, and let’s bet on how many say yes.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
[Craig Seeman] “But I don’t see how it encourages you not to think. It just changes the sequence in which one thinks.
For example, even without clip collision you are still confronted with an overlap that you have to deal with. It’s just that you get to move into that position and deal with it rather than having to take that into account before moving the clips. For some, being able to see the result helps one deal with the results more creatively.”
Lets go back to the stick shift example example for driving a car. In an automatic you don’t have to think about shifting gears. The car handles that for you. For a lot of people that’s fine. For me it’s a problem. Not having think about shifting makes me not really have to think about driving. So when I drive an automatic, I tend to sort of miss stop signs, or accidentally go faster than I have intended. I only drive stick shifts because it makes me more aware of what I’m doing. It’s sort of the same for editing. Having things automate, means I don’t have to think about them, which means I might end up with a tendency to miss certain things because I’m no longer use to having to pay attention to certain aspects of an edit.
-mattyc
-
I look at it as less of an option and more of a mandate.
bigpine
-
If you had enough cash to throw at them I bet they’d make you one.
bigpine
-
I have tried very hard to resist using the automatic/manual shift metaphor, because I believe I’m on the record somewhere claiming that car analogies always fail.
That said, I think this time it’s really apt and I’m glad you brought it up!
An automatic transmission abstracts the mechanics of the car from the driver — it hides the relationship between the engine, the gearing, and the car’s movement. It makes the car easier to drive on a basic level, but harder to drive for performance.
A manual transmission exposes the mechanics to the driver — it gives the driver direct control over the relationships between the engine, the gearing, and the car’s movement. It makes the car harder to drive on a basic level, but easier to drive for performance.
There are many non-driving reasons why professional racecar drivers use manual transmissions, but this degree of control and understanding may well be among them.
Does this also apply to the professional editor?
I learned to drive on an automatic, but now I drive a standard. Re-learning to drive with a standard changed driving for me — it added an extra dimension of precise control over the car and totally changed my perception of engine output and motion. I am now able to think more like the way my car actually drives, instead of asking both car and driver to buy into a simplified model that only superficially relates to how the car works.
Is that progress or regression?
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 -
[Herb Sevush] “For video it’s sometimes handy to have 2 choices stacked on top of each other to play around with – oh, let’s see, hold down the option key, drag to an unused upper track”
Oh you mean Auditions and you can have a whole bunch of them to try and you don’t need any tracks for them at all.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up