Carsten Orlt
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jok Daniel] “”Selecting edit point on diff tracks” is part of the editorial process.”
Only if they change the content and that is desired. If I have to select them because otherwise I can’t trim e.g. the video to the point I want, than no there are not artistic but merely a mechanical necessity.
Happy editing
-
[David Lawrence] “NLE tracks have nothing to do with the linearity of tape. The reason for tracks is they’re the most natural way to represent multiple, parallel streams of media with a common, external frame-of-reference for time, in a 2D graphic interface.”
It’s just me but big statements like ‘most natural’ I do not like. FCPx timeline shows there is a different way. It still has parallel streams just not confined by multiple tracks but one. And I was talking about the linear nature of tape. I was talking about that content on a tape needs a physical boundary that is set once recorded. It can’t move out of the way 🙂
[David Lawrence] “An open timeline is a completely non-linear composition space. In many ways it’s more non-linear than the magnetic timeline because hierarchy is completely fluid and up to the editor. With the magnetic timeline, everything must connect to the single primary no matter what. I see this as an arbitrary limitation.”
It’s only arbitrary from the outside. It’s simply a solution to get rid of track panels and patching and clip collision. If you start with the premise that you don’t want any of the three in your timeline than you have to kill tracks. Not arbitrary but a given outcome for a defined goal. FCP software engineers didn’t just put something to annoy you. They actually had a goal. If the goal is not something you can subscribe too than obviously you don’t like it because for you there was nothing wrong in the first place.
[David Lawrence] “would you want a DAW with a FCPX-like magnetic timeline? Would having only one main track in default ripple mode – that all other channels must connect to – be a better, more natural UI for working with multi-channel sound?
“Don’t know, don’t do sound 🙂
Happy editing
-
I see your point Jim.
But let me ask you why you don’t use a dedicated audio mixing tool that has all this functionality that you righly would like for your type of work? Why does it have to be in the same editor?
This is not ment to talk down on you but merely trying to understand why you want it all in one software? For me FCP x is a really good video editor that lets me organize my audio enough to get to fine cut stage and after that I pass on things to audio and SFX departments for the final master. I like that it doesn’t try to be all things at once.
Happy editing
-
– Is that a serious question or are we talking about different things, lol? –
Maybe we are 🙂 Maybe the general term ‘trim tools’ is not the right wording and causes the misunderstanding.
I never understood why there was a discussion that FCP legacy compared to Avid or now FCP x compared to Premiere is inferior in the regards to trimming? For me it is a simple operation that they all performe(d). I adjust the outgoing in regard to the incoming. I either do this in sync, meaning what I add or take away will be the same on both sides (roll) or I do it different on each side. Only complication when using a track based editor is that clips on other tracks might collide when the NLE tries to keep them in sync vertically. No tracks and that problem disappears. Where the track based editor needs option like selecting edit point on diff tracks in a vertically diff time position trackless doesn’t need to. Simpler in my opinion.
The only advantage I see for tracks is a visual organization of content.
I sometimes wonder how the discussion would change if the trackless timeline would have been the first to appear in computer based editing systems? What would people thing if Apple now would have introduced tracks as a novel approach? Think about it. All linear tape based machines, audio or video, didn’t have the possibility of being trackless. You can’t record multiple different sources in a random fashion on a tape. They had to be on diff tracks (physical space) if they were to occupy the same time on the tape. When computers where introduced they merely recreated the same thing, and people could follow that thinking because that’s how it has always been. It work well. Everybody understood it. Trackless is now actually something that only can be done on a computer. And I think FCP x is using this new possibility very well.
Happy editing
-
[Charlie Austin] “For me, patching tracks and playing track tetris completely stops the creative process in it’s “tracks” “
Exactly. I think many oversee the fact that X doesn’t have a patch panel. That is in my opinion the whole reason the timeline is the way it is. To get rid of it. No more thinking every time I add a clip to where the audio should go. And more often you forget and have to undo to patch correctly (I know you never do 🙂
Plus again as Charlie said extensive trim tools are only there because of the problems tracks bring in regard to collisions and sync.
Every new concept needs fine tuning and maybe can be improved (see connection overwrite), but the basic underlying concept is fundamentally different and tracks require much more than a few visual lines in the UI.
After the clip is added it may be neater to have tracks to move audio up and down and around. But as Charlie says Roles could solve that problem. Apple only has to put some functionality in to make it work. Apart from grouping by role to a mixer you could also easily rearrange clips vertically by roles after the fact to clean up the timeline visually. If Apple will do this nobody knows or can’t tell 🙂I would be more than surprised if they put tracks back in and all the hassle of patch panels etc. It would totally defeat what they tried to achieve.
Time will tell 🙂
Happy editing
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “Who, in their right living mind, would trust the lunatic software mad house that is Apple.Inc again?”
I am 🙂
[Aindreas Gallagher] “that said, there are no FCPX jobs.”
If there are no jobs for FCPx than that’s good for you because you don’t have to learn it.[Aindreas Gallagher] “I honestly wonder why no one gets the fact that we are paid craft and Apple barely check anything. “
Because there is not only one reality, but many..[Aindreas Gallagher] “Anyone who bet on aperture as a professional – is dead in the water.
Works fine hereAnyone who bet on Color – dead in the water
Blackmagic gives Davinci away for free, why pay for Color? Davinci is much better too.Anyone who bet on Shake – dead in the water.
Never used it, so don’t miss it 🙂Anyone who bet on FCP studio – dead in the water.”
What was the bet?[Aindreas Gallagher] “Welcome to the Circus.”
Thank God you and Bill are the main attractions who make us come back for a good show 🙂Happy editing!
-
It doesn’t and most likely never will.
Happy editing.
-
I only work 2-4 at a time so I never noticed them disappearing again.
Wouldn’t know how to maintain a larger number. I guess X kicks out the oldest to free up memory?
Sorry not solution here Oliver.
Happy editing.
-
The getting used to part is that you will constantly adjust what keywords to use how to use them and how to combine that with fav and markers.
There is no one way to approach this so you have to find the system that works for.
And do not be afraid to try. The beauty is that you can at any stage change keywords selections, rename the keyword etc. So if in the beginning you make some changes because you adjust your system it is done very easily.
The biggest change in approach is really that you spent more time organizing and tagging your footage before you start putting it together in projects. I for instance have one empty ‘test project’ which I use to cut a few things in while organizing to see if a certain combination might work, or I need to see if I can CC the clip to make it usable, like a scratch pad, constantly deleting after the test and than adjusting my organization in the event depending on the outcome.
There is not one way to skin this cat, but you definitely using a different knife and technique 🙂
Happy editing
-
The downside of the Project Library is that there is no true “list view“.
But a quasi one. Click and hold the ‘back’ arrow top left in your project window and you see a list of the projects that were loaded before.
Also to quickly access projects without going back to the project library, load them once and than switch between them by using command [ and ]. this command goes through them in the order they are listed by the back or forward arrow I mentioned before.
And of course as mentioned before you can play projects in the project listing without loading them.
Happy editing