[Charlie Austin]

It was good wasn’t it? Great turnout too. Nice to see some X skeptics there, and interested, as well. 🙂

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[David Lawrence] “I think this debate is good and I’m truly interested in your and Charlie’s point of view. Apologies if my remark came off wrong.”

No problem here. Jerk! <—- kidding! 🙂 I really think this all comes down to differences in opinion. You think using a secondary to lock a clip to sequence time is a workaround. I don’t think it is at all, it’s how it works. I mean, I could make a similar argument about fixed tracks. I think having to drag or use the KB to move clips around to keep them from colliding is a workaround. You likely think that it’s not, it’s just how it works right? (We could go back and forth like this for hours… lol)

But I’m pretty sure if you ask anyone who uses X for real, and — at the risk of sounding condescending, by that I mean every day, all day, with multiple gigs and deadlines and clients over your shoulder etc, — they would have a laundry list of things that could be better. But I’d bet that most of them wouldn’t say they have a problem with getting a clip to stick to a fixed point in a project.

I also think they’d all say “sure, that would be nice” to possible features like being able to pin to sequence time, or have expandable-in-project comps so you could “connect” connected clip/secondaries to each other and keep them editable etc. But as Jeremy points out, there are many other things on which they’d think Apple should be spending their time.

You want the timeline “fixed” because you don’t like the way it works or it doesn’t suit your workflow. We want it to be better because we do like the way it works. Or something like that.

And having said all that… I’m enjoying this topic, some cool ideas popping up. Maybe Apple is lurking….

EDIT: Just thought of this… How about everything stays the same, but you could right click a clip or clips and choose “disconnect” or something. Like the tilde key function, but for individual clips, not all or none like it is now. I’m gonna submit that one….

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[David Lawrence] “That’s the whole point. If you want stuff to move with primary1, put it in primary1. You don’t need to use primary2. Only use primary2 is for the stuff you don’t want to move with primary1. I don’t see the difficulty.”

The difficulty is “primary 1, primary 2”. The idea of being able to pin to sequence time would solve this without adding any random secondary primaries or whatever you’d call them right? Of course, a secondary pinned to FFOP does this now anyway, but I guess that’s not “tracky” enough.

[David Lawrence] “I manage multiple time functions every time I work. It’s called “editing”. 😉
“

Wow, me too! I never knew that’s what it was called… 😉

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

One of my favorite bumper stickers of all time: “Eschew Obfuscation” 🙂

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Eschew.”

bless you

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Jeremy Garchow] “The big downside with multiple primaries is that you constantly have to manage multiple time functions, meaning if I move stuff in primary 1, primary 2 isn’t coming along for the ride.

I know that this is exactly what you’re arguing for in FCPX, but I think the developers could spend their time on other things to gain even more efficiencies in the current model.”

I eschew one word replies but, uh… yep. 🙂 There, that’s eight words. I mean twelve… fiftee… uh, crap!

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[David Lawrence] “You mean like when they completely reinvented the way libraries work? Yeah that really sucked. Libraries were perfect when FCPX was released. Why’d they have to go and screw them up? ;)”

lol. well, there were no libraries when it was released, but I see your point. But, since everything in a project is placed relative to a Spine (which is the primary I think… I like to snoop around in app package files using BBEdit…) what happens? 2 spines? I think there are probably less “invasive” ways to accomplish the same ends…

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[David Lawrence] “Don’t need it? Don’t use it. Stick with one primary and everything stays the same as now. I don’t see any problem here. ;)”

Well, sure,but wouldn’t the ability to connect to a point in time in the sequence accomplish the same thing? And in your scenario, I bet it wouldn’t stay the same as now, at least “under the hood”. They’d kinda need to re-invent how the timeline works. IMO that’s unnecessary.

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Steve Connor] “I don’t see any downside. Do you?”

Nope!”

Yep! 🙂 You’re just adding “tracks” and targeting. You could add the ability to connect clips to secondaries as well which would accomplish the same thing more or less, but it creates the same issue. Adding complexity to the UI where many (most?) people don’t need it. Down that road lies the MC/Pr UI. Lot’s of functions for every possible use case, and a huge, confusing mess. (IMO of course)

However, I do like Jeff’s idea of optionally pinning to timeline time. One extra KB command, no UI changes needed. Add the ability to create timeline markers while we’re at it. Then the ability to visually group (connected clip) Roles, Mix/bus/add effects to Roles. Anything else?

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Charlie Austin]

[Shane Ross] “Wait, there are going to be dogs and ponies? Pony rides?! I might have to go for that. I like pony rides. And dogs…”

I think so. That’s why I registered…

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~