[David Lawrence]

[Jim Giberti] “No, any fade you make to the clip (using the cross fade handles) stay with the clips inside the CC that is inside the Secondary if you “Break Apart” the clip elements.”

True if you use handles or keyframes, I’m talking about something different – using dissolve transitions between clips. I do this with audio for various reasons pretty regularly. You can get the same effect by using handles/keyframes and stacking clips but I find it’s often faster and more direct to just drop a crossfade between clips. In FCP7 it’s a single-click operation.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Jim Giberti] “Before I added the audio to be synched, music tracks etc. I inserted a one frame gap at the head of the Primary. Then I took a random slice of audio and Qed it to connect it to that 1st frame then I did the same at the end of the project.”

Jim, if I understand correctly, it sounds like you’re using the 1 frame gap at the head of the show as the connection/sync point, then connecting compounds to that?

That makes sense, although wouldn’t using secondarys give you a bit more flexibility as far as access without stepping in? I don’t know what the implications would be for audio FX.

Not sure what you mean about attaching to the end of the piece since I’d think this would constantly be slipping sync as you edit. But maybe you’re already locked at this point?

A picture sure would make it easier get what you’re doing, but if you have client restrictions, I totally understand.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Jim Giberti] “Not if you “Break Apart” rather than “Open in Timeline” Jeremy. The first moves you into it’s own unreferenced timeline (to the Primary) and you need to step back. Break Apart shows the individual elements in context and a quick Option/G closes them up. So you can tweak any edit, either way.”

Yes, but if you “Break Apart”, doesn’t that remove any transitions? What if you use crossfades between clip elements?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “it would be nice to “open the drawer” and manipulate what you need in context, then close the drawer back up with everything inside. Also, the detach function is great, but there’s no reattach. Basically, it would be nice to be able to edit what’s in the compound clip in greater context of the over arching timeline rather than having to “step in” and open the compound in it’s own timeline. You lose the relationship to your timeline (the elements outside the compound clip) a little bit the way it is currently setup.”

Exactly. Thanks Jeremy!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

Yes, very interesting Jim. I’d also love to see a screen grab of your setup. I’m skeptical of Compound Clips because I don’t like how they hide information, so I’m curious to see how you’re using them.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[David Cherniack] “The only thing I do know about NLE development is that almost any change to architecture is a BIG DEAL and can have invisible consequences throughout the system.”

This is exactly right.

There are workarounds for dealing with the magnetic timeline being ripple-mode only. Jeremy’s ideas about roles and zones are really interesting and I’d love to see them in action.

But these strategies only address half the problem. There’s a much deeper conceptual flaw I see with the magnetic timeline that so far I have not heard anyone fully address — the idea of a single primary storyline.

The problem is that everything must ultimately be in relationship to the primary. What happens if your piece doesn’t have anything primary? What if your piece is driven by multi-channel audio and the relationship driving the piece is fixed time, rather than relative time?

The single primary forces relationships that may have nothing to do with the editor’s intentions. For audio-centric workflows, even with the workarounds, usability and efficiency quickly evaporate.

Franz Bieberkopf said it perfectly in another thread:

[Franz Bieberkopf] “Deciding the spine is the process of editing.”

I think Apple’s engineers made a fundamental conceptual error when they assumed that editors work along a “primary” storyline and add “secondary” material. The biggest limitations of the magnetic timeline come from inherent design decisions that are drawn from this assumption. Unless they can be adequately addressed, I don’t see how FCPX will be viable for complex workflows that demand unlimited flexibility in the kinds of editorial relationships that an editor might imagine or need.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Simon Ubsdell] “I’d just like to know the truth of the matter as I think it has interesting ramifications for our understanding of where we are with FCPX and how it came into being in the form that it has – which seem to me to be pretty important questions.”

I think this is the key point of the comparison.

The industry was told for about two years that Apple’s Pro Apps team was developing a brand new, completely modern version of FCP. That’s a very different development path than building on a consumer-class application (iMovie) and extending it to have professional features. If that’s what really happened, it would explain a lot.

My hunch is that there was a fork in FCPX development that coincides with the FCP team layoffs. AppleInsider nailed it in May 2010..

We know at one point, FCPX had sequences and tracks. And then something changed. I’d love to know the story of what happened. My guess is that a management decision was made to merge Pro Apps with Consumer app development to create more unified product lines.

[Jeremy Garchow] “Perfect. Then again, as is becoming a trend, we will agree to disagree. Why would I play with iMovie when I can play with the exact same thing in FCPX? I cant even bring in P2 to iMovie. :)”

iMovie on the Mac is a bag of hurt I wouldn’t wish on anyone. But you should check out iMovie on the iPad because it’s actually very good for what it is. I wouldn’t do a commercial job on it but for just having fun, it’s great.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “I could say the same thing, but change few words:

I know the truth hurts but if Apple were honest, they would have not named their new NLE iMovie Pro, because that’s really, truly what it’s not. I mean, did they really think their most discerning, technically sophisticated users wouldn’t notice?”

Why do you think it’s not? Just curious. I mean look at all the empirical evidence.

Data structure – Events/projects, skimming, no source monitor, range selection, project = sequence, no tracks, ripple only, magnetic timeline behavior, collision avoidance, the precision editor, themes, the freaking Ken Burns effect! etc, etc, etc…

You’re saying all of that was developed independently in a complete vacuum by the same lead developer. All new code all from scratch?

I don’t think so.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Wouldn’t it be simpler to say iMovie is FCPX?

PPro and AE have similar visual attributes. Same code? Or same paint?”

I was starting to write but I see Walter already answered so see his post above.

I know the truth hurts but if Apple were honest, they would have named their new NLE iMovie Pro, because that’s really, truly what it is. I mean, did they really think their most discerning, technically sophisticated users wouldn’t notice?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “[Oliver Peters] “A big difference, too, is that Zoom, Canon and Nikon never promoted these as professional video products for film and TV.”

I love you man, but I call bullsh*t. (Or B*llocks)”

I love you man, but I call selective quoting 😛

[Oliver Peters] “A big difference, too, is that Zoom, Canon and Nikon never promoted these as professional video products for film and TV. Canon specifically developed the 5D video features in reponse to requests by the AP and other photojournalists to have one camera that could do both stills and video for the web. Inventive folks like Vincent Laforet, Philip Bloom, Stu Maschqitz and others took the concept much further.“

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl