[David Lawrence]

Mark,

[Mark Morache] “(forgive that some of this is repeated from another post… it was buried in a non-related topic and in the wrong forum.)”

Glad to see you posting these comments in this forum. I think you’ve done a great job explaining the key problems with the FCPX UI.

I linked to your posts from the Techniques thread in response to a conversation with @Bill Davis here, please jump in if you have anything to add:

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/15955

Today’s update is interesting and hopefully an indicator of good things to come, but it won’t matter unless Apple eventually addresses the fundamental conceptual flaws with the current magnetic timeline UI.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Craig Seeman] “Very interesting

One-step Transitions on Connected Clips
Add a transition to a connected clip or between multiple connected clips without manually creating a secondary storyline.”

Indeed. Hopefully more arbitrary restrictions like this one go away soon.

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

[David Lawrence]

Bill,

I was replying specifically to this quote from the poster:

[shawn Bockoven] “Did most only give the software a few minutes/hours before passing judgement?”

This is the same tired argument we’ve been hearing for months on this forum. I find it not only wrong, but also naive and presumptuous. I don’t think it helps move the dialogue forward.

That’s why I responded with links to Mark Morache’s article, as well as his conclusions that were posted in the FCPX Techniques thread.

I find Mark’s observations especially valuable because he’s put FCPX to work in a typical situation it seems optimized for (short form A/B cutting with simple FX) — and he’s actually delivering for broadcast with it. He’s outspoken about what he likes and he likes a lot. And he’s upfront about what doesn’t work. The bottom line is that he’s frustrated with the UI, like so many of us.

Please read what he has to say here. He nails it. And remember, this is someone who likes what FCPX offers. Mark’s given the software a chance, but I think many others don’t have the time or the patience, and that’s why you’ll find some of them wholly dismissing the software.

BTW, I completely agree with you about how the industry is changing. I’m a case study in that change.

I do all my work on on a laptop. I use a suped-up late 2008 unibody 15″ macbook pro. I usually have it in clamshell mode under my desk hooked up to a 24″ Cinema Display and many TB of storage. When a client needs me to work on site, I pop it in my bag and it’s a portable edit suite, with all the tools I need at my fingertips. I work exclusively in 1080p HD in various formats. Over 50% of the time, my source is DSLR. I rarely have budget to work with my favorite sound guys so 90% of the time I’m a one-man-band providing all post-production services. I never need to deliver for broadcast, my clients exclusively want video for web, PowerPoint embeds and projected presentations. In short, I should be the ideal candidate for FCPX.

But like Mark and so many others, the UI is a deal killer.

I think the underlying backend architecture of FCPX has amazing potential. H264 without transcoding? Awesome. Once I got the hang of metadata-based organizing, I really liked it. But none of the great backend and organizing tools matter if the editing paradigm is broken.

I’ve written a couple articles exploring why I think this is and I have a third I’m sitting on until after the first update. The problems have nothing to do traditional editors not groking a radical new tool designed for the needs of a mobile, decentralized work style. I think it’s much simpler. I think Apple blew it. And now they’re scrambling to figure out how to fix the damage. Read Mark’s post. He describes a UI paradigm that is conceptually flawed and deeply broken. The big question is whether it’s broken beyond repair.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Simon Ubsdell] “if you can think of scenarios where you need one secondary storyline to act like a primary one, then I’m sure there will be other editors who can conceive of the need for an unlimited number of storylines that act the same way. In a sense it’s odd that this isn’t already implemented – what’s so special about two as against ten or twenty or a hundred?”

Exactly.

The notion of a single “primary” storyline is IMO, the biggest conceptual flaw with the magnetic timeline. In a multi-track open timeline, there’s no sense of “primary”. Any track can be used of by the editor as primary to the the edit. Why not have that in FCPX?

What if we discard the the notion of “primary” and “secondary” storylines and instead call them “storylines” (allowing as many as the editor wants) and “connected storylines”? To me, this is conceptually cleaner and would allow for much greater flexibility.

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

[David Lawrence]

Seems to me the root of these problems comes from there only being one primary storyline. I find this to be a huge and problematic constraint.

What if you could create as many primaries as you like? They would behave like tracks except more flexible, i.e. could contain any type of media — audio, video, graphic, etc. and would be fixed in the window space like a typical open timeline. There would still be connected clips and secondary storylines which could be grouped and connected with any of your designated “primaries”.

I think this would solve a lot of problems.

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

[David Lawrence]

[shawn Bockoven] “Did most only give the software a few minutes/hours before passing judgement?”

Not exactly. Some of us have been trying to use it since it was released.

You might want to read Mark Morache’s excellent article describing how he cut a piece for broadcast on FCPX.

Then read some of his conclusions about the workaround issues in this thread.

The problems are very real.

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

[David Lawrence]

Mark,

I think you totally nailed it in this post.

Bizarre timeline workarounds like the ones discussed in this thread are my biggest problem with FCPX. Why should we be jumping thru hoops to perform the simplest editorial functions? Where’s the benefit? How is this new way better than tracks? All this amazing power under the hood and a timeline UI that looks, feels, and acts like a toy. I don’t get Apple’s thinking.

[Mark Morache] “I believe Apple could come up with a track based interface and still find a way to give us a virtually magnetic timeline. I think the ability to select a group of clips and “group” them together with a keystroke could give us the same advantage of the connected clips without forcing us into the stacks of storylines.”

Agreed. Apple could keep tracks but add smarter grouping behaviors and even collision avoidance as you suggest. It would be the best of both worlds.

I get the impression that the trackless UI is driven primarily by two things – marketing and engineering. Marketing likes to make ads that tout new and revolutionary paradigms. Engineering likes to express their data models in the UI. It’s engineering’s idea of “elegance”. What seems to be missing is an understanding of how editors actually do their work. Editors don’t care about data models — they want tools that that are powerful, flexible, and intuitive. This thread is yet one more example of how much work Apple has cut out for itself.

Looking forward to the first update. Not as optimistic as @Craig Seeman, but I’d love to be surprised.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on both the good and the bad.

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

[David Lawrence]

John Gruber linked to this article today. While its focus is mainly on mobile platforms and pre-announcements, what the author says about the “just wait” mentality seems relevant to the situation with FCPX.

https://mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2011/08/two-most-dangerous-words-in-technology.html

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

[David Lawrence]

Bill,

My pleasure, and thank you for the acknowledgment. I think the recent name change for this forum was a smart way to re-frame and provide a platform for healthy debate. It would be pretty boring if we agreed on everything all the time! I enjoy the push back from the smart people here because even when I disagree, it forces me to research, reexamine, and sharpen my own arguments. And hopefully we all learn in the process. I certainly am. Like this morning with @Tim Wilson’s post on Prime Focus – interesting stuff, Tim!

Re: x264 compatibility – Like Herb said, not a problem, it’s simply an open-source variant of h264 with all tuning parameters fully exposed. 100% compatible as long as you don’t tweak the wrong things if you don’t know what you’re doing. There’s a large community of enthusiasts that get deep into the innards and share results. I keep it simple and don’t go there. Just a couple internal settings to be aware of and the right general settings will seriously up your encoding game.

I actually use a multi-step process that includes a mastering stage with another tool before I encode. It’ll take a bit longer, but I’ll write up my entire delivery workflow with some screen grabs so everyone can check it out.

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

[David Lawrence]

Herb –

Happy to share. Will post all settings and workflow when I get a minute later this afternoon.

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