[Carsten Orlt]

[Bret Williams] “For me, transitions in and out of the compound get broken and then don’t go back correctly.”

Don’t see how this applies to the specific steps I described to solve your problem. And it’s not a workaround because the specific mechanics of the ‘magnetic’ timeline don’t allow for what you are trying to do directly. If it would it would be a track based timeline…

[Bret Williams] “FCP 7 was pretty good at warning you things might be thrown out of sync,”

Not for things that weren’t video-audio sync clips in the first place. Music wouldn’t tell you that you shifted it out from the original point it was to total time, if you know what I mean. Maybe X could have the old style out-of-sync markers for audio-video sync clips too, but frankly I don’t need them because the only time I break original audio-video sync clips apart is when I actually don’t want to have things in sync. Otherwise I just expand the display for the clip or clips and collapse after I’m done (don’t work with multitrack audio beyond 2 track so I don’t know how I would deal with these?) Again it’s a different way of working with clips when dealing with the mechanics of this timeline model. The discussion always falls short because it just tries to look at former ways to solve a specific problem, but the new timeline doesn’t allow for the same operation(s). Because of how the new timeline is build internally you have to do it differently. Sometimes this means less steps, in other cases maybe more steps. Better or worse is up to the user to decide, but I think it needs to be looked at in more detail to really make the call. At least that’s how I approach it.

[Bret Williams] “Back on compounding and nesting: even Avid of 1996-2000 (years I used it daily) was better in that you could open the nest right there witthin the track so that all all the audio was still available and the nest could be edited in relation to the full edit. FCPs methods have always been more akin to an After Effects precomp or opening an avid nest in its own timeline. “

The one point I agree, this would be handy sometimes.

Cheers
Carsten

[Carsten Orlt]

Very good example Brett!

But there is a simple solution to this problem. Quickly create a temporary compound (if there are multiple clips) or a secondary (if none of your connected clips are overlapping) that you want to lock in place.

Think of it like locking clips without needing to lock the whole track like you would need to do in the ‘old’ days (and all the related sync issues if you affected clips 5 min down the timeline which by chance where on the track you needed to lock to make your changes).

So select the clips you need to lock in place plus one clip that is connected to a clip on the primary before the one you want to slide, or trim, or replace. Make a compound or a secondary, adjust your clip, and then break apart your compound or secondary again. Done.

One does need to learn new methods with a completely new method timeline, as I still do almost everyday day with X. But for me the benefits of this new timeline method far outway the difficulty and time needed to learn the new methods needed to make it sing. If you don’t like the new method, life is too short and alternatives are plentiful 🙂

And to answer David’s question. I think compound clips in X do all the things you are trying to address and are far more flexible to deal with all sorts of scenarios. Maybe the only thing that would be cool is if I can open them in place (without the need to break them) if I want to adjust one clip within the compound to something outside of it.

Cheers
Carsten

[Carsten Orlt]

2 options:

Select all clips you want to move and press option-command-up arrow. Reverse works if you want to drop clips from connected to the primary option-command-down arrow.

Add your interview as connected clip and than drag it underneath the primary. Video can also be placed as connected clips underneath the primary. If you want to edit your interview convert it to a secondary storyline and it’ll behave as one clip and you can edit in context. If you want to see your talking head at any time while it is underneath the primary just add a gab clip (option-w) and for this period in the primary and the video underneath will be visible.

Hope this helps.

Cheers
Carsten

[Carsten Orlt]

Many thanks Juan!

That’s what I meant with ‘no definite’, and this is not meant as an offence to you Juan!

I agree that $900 isn’t much, but we’re a small production company and my MacPro early 2008 is getting old 🙂 I do not want to to spent $900 on something that will not be usable in one year when all goes thunderbolt and I can replace my main CPU.

Just trying to figure out if there is an easy solution to fill the gab.

Cheers
Carsten

[Carsten Orlt]

OOps, forgot to say I’m on a MacPro 🙂

[Carsten Orlt]

‘The way I feel about it is that they do know design.’

Yes they do but the timeline is actually the way it is for a reason. And the reason is not because it looks better.

If you start with the premise (and that’s the only thing you can argue about) that the common timeline with tracks, track panels, audio and video separation and division causes all kind of problems that you want to get rid of, than you end up with the timeline of FCPx.
Apple engineers didn’t say: let’s make it more pretty. They actually solved a lot of problems the ‘old’ timeline has. And when you analyse it it it actually is not that different at all. And it doesn’t need tools anymore that we needed before, e.g. the track(s) forward/backward selector. If you can’t throw clips out of sync by deleting or inserting clips you do not need to select everything forward and move it out of the way. The timeline does it for you now. Just one of the many examples.

Best

[Carsten Orlt]

[Michael Gissing] “Hi Carsten. So the progress score is 99-1 . However the last job you did that came to me a few weeks ago was cut on FCP7”

Not my choice 🙂

[Michael Gissing] “However, it remains that after a year not one single job from FCPX has come my way. That some editors love the FCPX way is not in doubt. However I think the majority of editors have the right to protest loudly at not only what Apple did with their favourite NLE but also how they did it. “

Absolutely. Just use the right arguments. And for the record ‘I don’t like it’ is a total valid argument. Just to say that the people behind FCPx don’t know what they’re doing is not.

[Michael Gissing] “I have also observed the Apple ‘my way or the highway’ approach and fail to be impressed by the direction of FCPX. “

Can’t follow here. Nobody forces you to buy it? If you’re favourite car maker brings out a model that you just hate and don’t want to use, you change. Even if you might have a decade old relationship with the dealer that you would have to give up. And I never heart that people take it personal when they do not like the new model anymore. Why do they do with software? Anyhow, looking at the traffic here lately the discussion is over.

[Michael Gissing] “I do retain an open mind to the possibilities and frankly I don’t care what tool the editor chooses as long as there is an open pathway and some basic standards that allow interchange”

I understand that you have the problem that you have to be able to work with what is delivered to you and you can’t just say: sorry can’t do anything with it. But I doubt that it would be the case even now with FCPx. I could be wrong though not knowing your exact requirements.

Best

[Carsten Orlt]

[Michael Gissing] “Every editor that I know that has looked at X has felt the software writers simply do no understand editing and that they are required to work around a methodology not with it.”

You know or worked with? Because you know me and I love it 🙂

I always have to laugh at ‘the software writers’ don’t understand editing’ assuming you are of the same opinion, at least that is what I read between the lines. What do you expect? Most editors don’t :-))

And before you start blasting: Do the research about who is behind FCP and it all becomes clear.
From the wikipidia about FCP:
Randy Ubillos created the first three versions of Adobe Premiere, the first popular digital video editing application.[3] Before version 5 was released, Ubillos’ group was hired by Macromedia to create KeyGrip, built from the ground up as a more professional video-editing program based on Apple QuickTime. Macromedia could not release the product without causing its partner Truevision some issues with Microsoft, as KeyGrip was, in part, based on technology from Microsoft licensed to Truevision and then in turn to Macromedia. The terms of the IP licensing deal stated that it was not to be used in conjunction with QuickTime. Thus, Macromedia was forced to keep the product off the market until a solution could be found. At the same time, the company decided to focus more on applications that would support the web, so they sought to find a buyer for their non-web applications, including KeyGrip; which, by 1998, was renamed Final Cut.

He is still working for Apple 🙂

[Carsten Orlt]

You are absolutely right David, Apple has dropped THAT ball yesterday.

If you need to support workflows like you are describing (5K Raw) it looks like Apple is not up to it and will not be for quite a while.

But I think (pure speculation of course) they are focusing on the other section of the professional market which doesn’t need a Formula 1 machine (by the way how much is one of those monsters from Promax?).

For example a fellow editor just build a complete edit suite including everything (video and audio monitors, 12TB thunderbolt storage, software etc.) for a C300 workflow on an independent feature for $5000 based on an iMac and FCP7. Raw is great but needs serious money to make it work. Thinks might go 4K for cinema but I doubt for online or TV any time soon. Yes long term usage might not be guaranteed with 1080 but I haven’t seen any clear indication that online or TV is really going 4K for more than a niche market.

Maybe Apple thinks that the much bigger group of young aspiring content producers of the future are the market they want to cater for. And when you look at what Windows 8 looks like one can clearly see that the old way of PC’s is dying fast. This is not to say that companies like Promax will always have a market for the top end of the biggest and fastest.

The decision with buying or not buying Apple is always easy. Do they have what you need today? If not go somewhere else. If yes buy it. If you wait for what might be coming you will wait forever because there is always something else ‘might be coming’.

Carsten

[Carsten Orlt]

Brilliant idea! Even better to take a bunch of foreign editors on the road trip through America with the final goal to make it big in LA.
But not sure it will end up as a comedy :-))

Best Carsten