-
Why is there a project library?
-
[Jim Giberti] “I’m waiting for D Lawrence to weigh in on this discussion.”
Hi Jim and fellow COWs,
Hope everyone’s 2013 is off to a great start!
Haven’t had much to add lately but I’m still reading and enjoying these threads. The fact that even Aindreas has nice things to say about FCPX shows how far we’ve come in past 18 months, right? 😉
Re: the project library:
[Oliver Peters] “I think I remember that in the beginning there were differences between sequences in a Project and in an Event; but since 10.0.6, that doesn’t seem to be the case any longer.”
Yep. The changes in 10.0.6 were a big deal. I think moving compound clips from the project database into events was an engineering necessity made to fix the project bloat problem. The consequence of this engineering change also changed the nature of projects. It now raises questions of what are CCs really? Why were CCs in projects to begin with?
[Oliver Peters] “So this begs the question. Why is there a Project Library at all? What useful function does it serve? You can have edits in an Event without any Project, but you cannot have a Project without a corresponding Event. So other than a place to park Shared intermediate exports and timeline render files, it doesn’t seem to serve much of a useful purpose.”
Agreed. Outside of sharing, what is the real value of the project library? I don’t see it.
Moving edited sequences from the project database into the event database was a game changer. The event browser is a much more dynamic, flexible place for organization. Way better than the project library. All the event browser needs now is more flexible, granular sharing options, and the project database and library can go away.
Here’s a thought – add more flexibility to the event browser, get rid of the project library, and call edited timelines… sequences! Something to look forward to in FCPX 10.3 😉
Happy New Year, All!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
I won’t read all the threads. So ignore if already mentioned…
A big problem with Avid and Legacy was the whole project concept to begin with. Sure, it made sense to a single project single output concept like a movie or possibly even television episodes. Where scenes were shot to a script and edited to a final project. The footage, bins, logging, etc. went pretty much unused for the rest of time except for the occasional “best of” episode where clips could most likely be pulled from the masters anyway.
But take for example, sports. My first job in video was shooting all the sports, all year, at GA Tech Athletic Association. We also shot interviews with players for uploading to weekly satellite feeds. At the end of the year, we would make a comprehensive highlight film. During the season we pulled together reels of athletes or interviews for ESPN to use or for athletes demo reels to get into the pros. We also edited weekly pump up videos for the football team to view the previous week’s highlights. We might also pull together spots highlighting all the sports together as a college recruiting film. There was no single project. There was literally EVENTS (games) and PROJECTS that utilized footage from many or all the events. We didn’t use Avid or Media 10 or FCP. We were using the video cube. It essentially had no media management or even event/project interface. It simply had two types of files. Sequences and bins. I forget what they called them exactly. But all the organizing was our job. We simply had a folder for each sport. A bin for each game or interview session, etc. And in another folder, we had our sequences, which were projects. This was what we came up with after shooting and editing just a few games and reels. It was completely obvious that you didn’t want to put the october football bins in a folder with the october highlight reel project. Made much more sense to have the media database (all our bins chronological by game/date) and all the projects separate. They all intertwined. We even made other bins for star athletes, or great plays, etc.
When I moved on to Media100, Avid, FCP 7, most of the time it was freelance, and projects did exist as more self contained items. But there were always those times when I was asked to pull footage from … hmmm.. … what was that project…. it’s in a bin with a shot of… uh… and the search for a shot that could be in any number of poorly labeled projects began. Then in Avid we’d duplicate the bin and put it in our project, or even worse, open it in our project possibly screwing up any sequences they may have stashed in there. But now there was a project referring to another project that someone else had control over with no knowledge that you needed their footage. Or you made a duplicate of a bin, and possibly edited it or added to it. Now there were two bins out there with the same footage plus or minus some shots or sequences. FCP legacy was twice the mess because bins weren’t even separate from sequences. You had to open a whole project to get at the other bins. Once two projects were open, rendering to the wrong project or importing to the wrong capture scratch created another possible nightmare if someone consolidated a project that unknowingly was twisted together with some important footage of yours that you hadn’t backed up.
So – projects and events separate. No problem here. It seems to me that we have a perfect beast if they add just a few more media management options. You can work in an ENG situation like I described with the sports where projects often have no relation to any single event at all. Or you can work in a closed project mode. You can put your compound clips in the event and treat them as sequences a la FCP legacy. Or even a combination of the two. With the sports, I probably would have put the weekly videos in the events with the footage as they were kinda of bound to a time period. But other projects would be better served in a separate project library like more encompassing end of the year highlight films. With episodic features and tv, I could see the editied scenes residing with their respective events, and the actual episodes living as projects with nested comps, as well as a nested comp of the ever changing intro to the show. Change one intro sequence and they all change. So it’s all much more versatile this way.
-
[David Lawrence] “Here’s a thought – add more flexibility to the event browser, get rid of the project library, and call edited timelines… sequences! Something to look forward to in FCPX 10.3 😉
Happy New Year, All!
“I have to push back a bit on this.
In the metadata flow inside X, assets flow from import to the Event Browser – then to the Storyline – and then to the Project library – and from there via Share out to any destination.
If you take out the Project library – where do you organize, select and manage your sharing? Do you do it UPSTREAM from the Event Browser? And if so, how can you manage versions? DO you clog up your event library with an endless array of compounds sharing visual space with completed projects?
Maybe I’m dense, but it seems to me that “circling upstream” to try to do everything in the EB is, once again, trying to make X work more like legacy editors where there was NO “dedicated finished project storage and export space.”f and we conceived of finished projects as dead end documents that were plopped on our desktops and cut off from revision.
Which no seems a VERY old-fashioned view to me.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
Yeah, there’s no reason to eliminate the project library. It’s a great place to use as a canvas for ideation and putting together final projects. There’s no reason, just like all NLE’s to give editors a choice. For versioning, donut making etc, the project library isn’t a great place for finals. Take the idea of Compound Clips and go further with it for those people who need that kind of functionality and leave Projects alone for who that works for.
If Projects could reference outside render files and there was a simpler way to switch more quickly between projects that might help the cause, but I don’t see apple doing that as the whole reason they invented separate projects I susposect was to keep media management rock solid and under the hood.
But more options are never a bad thing for Pros.
Director, Editor, Colorist
http://www.trsociety.com -
[Bill Davis] “metadata flow inside X, assets flow from import to the Event Browser – then to the Storyline – and then to the Project library – and from there via Share out to any destination.”
Would you clarify how metadata gets from ingest to the Shared destination? Examples? I don’t understand what you mean by this.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Hi Bill, Happy 2013!
[Bill Davis] “If you take out the Project library – where do you organize, select and manage your sharing? Do you do it UPSTREAM from the Event Browser? And if so, how can you manage versions? DO you clog up your event library with an endless array of compounds sharing visual space with completed projects?”
Make a folder, call it Projects, put your projects and versions there. Done. Now you’re organized, plus you get all the event browser goodness like keywords and smart collections. I’ll take that.
[Bill Davis] “Maybe I’m dense, but it seems to me that “circling upstream” to try to do everything in the EB is, once again, trying to make X work more like legacy editors where there was NO “dedicated finished project storage and export space.”f and we conceived of finished projects as dead end documents that were plopped on our desktops and cut off from revision.”
I don’t feel a need for a “dedicated finished project storage and export space.” If the tools were available in the event browser, I’d roll my own. Of course, my output and mastering process is pretty specific and doesn’t benefit from the project library’s sharing features. But for other workflows (like Bret’s sports example), I can see why the project library is still useful.
Perhaps it’s different for you, but I think of my finished projects as very much alive. 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Lawrence] “I don’t feel a need for a “dedicated finished project storage and export space.” If the tools were available in the event browser, I’d roll my own. Of course, my output and mastering process is pretty specific and doesn’t benefit from the project library’s sharing features. But for other workflows (like Bret’s sports example), I can see why the project library is still useful.
“Hi David, nice to see you back!
Steve Connor
‘It’s just my opinion, with an occasional fact thrown in for good measure” -
Thanks Steve! Hope the new year is treating you well!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Bill Davis] “In the metadata flow inside X, assets flow from import to the Event Browser – then to the Storyline – and then to the Project library – and from there via Share out to any destination.
If you take out the Project library – where do you organize, select and manage your sharing? Do you do it UPSTREAM from the Event Browser? And if so, how can you manage versions? DO you clog up your event library with an endless array of compounds sharing visual space with completed projects?”
But this is true of any export from an opened Compound or Project.
You have all the same options.
Versions are handled by duping a compound clip in the Event, and then double clicking the dupe, versioning with Projects requires duping not only the project file, but also optional render files, as well as any previously shared files.
I like the way it is now. Use compounds for most of the edit, then add to a Project at the very end for Masters. I just wish we had a batch export functionality.
I like the fact that I can have timelines separate from Events and that I can use FCPX to make a Project archive of just the used (untrimmed) media.
Also, compounds can be keyworded, or setup for a Smart Collection so they don’t have to clutter anything if you don’t want to.
This is all hinged upon the new compound behavior, though. It is now much better and simply adds another option/tool to the criticized and perhaps mislabeled “inflexibilty” of FCPX.
-
[Bret Williams] “During the season we pulled together reels of athletes or interviews for ESPN to use or for athletes demo reels to get into the pros. We also edited weekly pump up videos for the football team to view the previous week’s highlights. We might also pull together spots highlighting all the sports together as a college recruiting film. There was no single project. There was literally EVENTS (games) and PROJECTS that utilized footage from many or all the events.”
Please, those who keep wanting to make X a tool for the kind of work YOU do – read this carefully.
It’s a superb example of a professional editing workflow that is NOT targeted at the movie maker or a TV show maker – but it beautifully defines a type of REAL world of broad video production function that X has to address right along with the needs of the classic filmmaker.
Nice post Bret. Excellent example of how wide a target “professional editing” should be.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up