[Charlie Austin]

[Jeremy Garchow] “As mentioned in your original post, it needs to be easier than that.”

Totally agree. What it does illustrate though, is that this functionality is totally possible. Compounds that could be expanded in the project or something like that. Logic X-ish track (clip) stacks…

————————————————————-

~ 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] ” as well as allowing layered secondary storylines (meaning clip stacks within a secondary).”

We can already do that, in spades… 🙂 It could work better, but I know the X team are aware that we’d like it to be…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9imGAJYw2bc

————————————————————-

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

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Charlie Austin]

See ya at the buffet! I’ll be the guy filling his pockets with muffins…

————————————————————-

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

[Charlie Austin]

[Andrew Kimery] “Charlie Austin, NLE slave driver. ;)”

phhtt… hardly, these damn things drive me. lol

————————————————————-

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

[Charlie Austin]

[Mike Jackson] “in Premiere, holding down shift lets you slide the audio up and down between different tracks, without changing what track your video is on.”

Similr in FCP 7. All due respect, it doesn’t solve the clip collision thing at all. In fact I’m in Pr now, swearing at it. I swear at FCP 7 as well. To be fair, I swear at FCP X too, but not nearly as much, and for different reasons. 🙂

————————————————————-

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

[Charlie Austin]

[Walter Soyka] “t doesn’t suck, it’s just different!”

lol.. true 🙂

[Walter Soyka] “Choosing a data model has consequences. It makes some things easier to do and other things harder to do.
Surely you would argue that the FCPX model makes things easier more often than it makes them harder.”

Correct. I guess my point all along has been that, contrary to Davids position, the X timeline isn’t built on flawed assumptions, any more than tracked NLE’s are. Different? Yes.

Also, I don’t think the X timeline is anywhere near done being refined/improved. It may be tomorrow or a year from now, but I’d bet that, like Libraries, multi-cam etc etc, we’ll be looking at a much different, and better, beast.

————————————————————-

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

[Charlie Austin]

[Walter Soyka] “Not a workaround? You’re disabling a significant portion of FCPX’s functionality! How the heck would you get anything done this way?”

You wouldn’t, but if you absolutely needed to position a clip permanently without anything affecting it that’s what you’d do right? Or use another NLE. But saying it’s a workaround implies that the “data model” is less suitable, which it’s not. Just different.

Here’s why I feel like I do… right now, I am constructing a ridiculous dialog cheat. I’m working in Pr. the audio is on A1, 2 and 3. The tracks below these are crammed full. I just tried to set aside a word, in favor of an alternate read, by tossing it up above A1. But I can’t, nor can I just toss it below without moving something, so I need to lasso and drag the whole mess to a point in the TL where I have space to work, then put it back in the exact same spot. Not to mention switching in and out of sub-frame mode. It kinda sucks.

The track based model is flawed for precise cutting of audio. 😉

————————————————————-

~ 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] “A lot of these discussion we had back the day were before the tilde key, when connected clips couldn’t be left alone.”

Oh, hey you’re right! So… back to Walter’s “fixed position” experiment (you here Walter?) the solution is:

Press and hold tilde, then shift, release both keys. Place a connected clip at an exact point in time in the Project, and never turn connections back on. It would stay right where it is, no matter what you did to any clips anywhere in the timeline. Temporally anyway, spatially it might well fly all over the place. 🙂

It would also, you know… defeat the whole point of having connections at all, but you can do it. No workaround required, just a keystroke.

See? X is more flexible. 😉

————————————————————-

~ 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] “Jeff – I get where you’re coming from, but again, I think this is an overgeneralization of how many editors work. Do you do much dialogue cutting?”

Not to hijack the reply but… well, I’m gonna. lol First let me reiterate, I’m not some blind fanboy who thinks the X timeline is perfect, it’s not. (I don’t think Apple believes it is either, but that’s speculation) And I’m with you and others on the need for signal processing, mixing, better ability to group/organize Roles etcetera. I’d even like it if there was a way to temporarily “decrease” the magnetism of the Primary, especially when cutting dialog. Clips would still have primary parents, but roles would stick to each other rather than madly flying up or down to the Primary. Using dummy clips to constrain that movement is a workaround i’d prefer not to do. So, there’s definitely room for improvement. On that we agree.

I disagree that the implementation is flawed. And things you feel are workarounds, (pinning something to FFOP to “lock” it to an absolute time) is just how it works. It’s trivial to do if you need to. If anything I’d argue that it’s a more flexible setup, It’s only less flexible if your workflow or style/preference requires you to always have clips fixed in sequence time. And if you “fix” it so it suits that workflow, it breaks it for other workflows. That’s like trying to “fix Pr to make it work like X. They are different apps, even though they do the same thing ultimately.

Clearly we’re on different sides here, but all your examples, cutting music, cutting dialog, cutting fixed-to-the-exact-frame length programs, are things I do all day every day with no problem at all. I’m not some genius who’s good at making some messy system work, I just work with the system, if that makes sense. Nor am I cutting simple little things that are easy to wrangle, i cut things with with 10’s of layers of audio, music chopped up within an inch of it’s life, assemble FrankenDialog out of disparate words, phrases and phonemes, etc etc. And I do this in X, 7, and Pr often jumping between them for the same gig.

Cutting audio in X is fine, and if I could do everything in it alone I would. There’s room for improvement, in some cases a lot of it, but there’s nothing wrong with the model, implementation, whatever you want to call it.

IMO of course. 😉

————————————————————-

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

[Charlie Austin]

[Walter Soyka] “In the meantime, here’s an experiment to show the difference between absolute time placement and relative time placement. Create an edit with a clip that starts at 15:00 absolute time and never moves, no matter what you do its parent or antecedent clips/gaps. How do you accomplish this?”

You put it in a storyline. You’re correct in that the storyline, primary or secondary, would have Gap preceding it. So your Data Model idea seems correct too. But, you’re experiment is absolutely do-able in X. Put it in a secondary pinned to FFOP. Or in the primary and cut your program in secondaries or connected (which is silly, but people do it) In a “normal” NLE the time reference is the sequence. That’s it.

In X, you can sort of have multiple time references. Every storyline is it’s own “time container”. The Primary time reference is the sequence/project time, what you see in the TC display, and yes, things do move around based on actions to preceding clips, gap or otherwise. Secondary storylines have an “internal reference, which can match the sequence time if you want by connecting at the start frame, or can “float” to wherever you want it to be. To me, this offers way more flexibility, clips in a storyline can be locked to an absolute time if you want, or locked to an absolute time relative to a parent clip, while maintaining “internal” timing. Storylines “are” tracks with absolute time values in X if you want them to be. But they give you the option to, uh… disconnect them from time? lol

I’m not as articulate as you Walter, but does that make sense?

————————————————————-

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