David Lawrence
2
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Craig Seeman] “The rigidity of the harpsichord eventually led to the much more flexible piano but that eventually was part of the development of the keyboard synthesizer which creates timbres that don’t really exist in “nature” when various physical objects are percussively hit or bowed. Yet this variety of “unnatural” sound is now pervasive. Some musicians were even afraid (and many rightfully so depending on one’s values and goals) of such development. FCPX may yet become the new keyboard synth”
Very interesting analogy and line of thought. There are ton’s of examples of interesting new UI approaches that allow for whole new kinds of music to be made. For example, Reactable which Bjork used on tour a couple years ago. I love this stuff!
But keep in mind that most exotic new keyboard synths all still use a keyboard as their primary UI. In the case of FCP, I think the timeline is the keyboard. It’s a UI optimized for a very specific task. To take your analogy a bit further, it seems like some people are confusing the synthesizer (the sound engine) for the keyboard (the UI that drives it).
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Craig Seeman] “It looks like marketing had no clue how to promote this whether as a foundation for a new system or anything else for that mater.”
Agreed. As much as, if not more than anything else, this fiasco is an epic marketing blunder, one I think they’ll be studying in business classes years from now.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Craig Seeman] “Well, now that the Pros won’t buy it they’re moving to plan B. “
This doesn’t look like a plan B to me.
[Chris Harlan] “To me, it looked more like the result of internal debate, and not a reach out to Pros.”
Yes. I’m willing to bet there’s much debate going on inside Apple these days.
[Craig Seeman] “They’re trying to solve a problem and right now, until they resolve it one way or another, they’re holding off on marketing it.”
I agree, this sounds right exactly right. Where they land nobody knows.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Craig Seeman] “FCPX hasn’t been marketed to prosumers. This is not how Apple markets to that market. There was no Apple front page splash screen when it was released. There was no media event targeted prosumer media. It is simply an incomplete PROFESSIONAL app which, due to its current incomplete nature, did not warrant a marketing campaign.”
https://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/imovie-to-finalcutpro/
Ya think? 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Carsten Orlt] “All makes perfect sense 🙂
FCPx just does something that no other NLE does and that is shifting the timeline on the left as well when needed to keep the clip you’re working on in focus.”
Yes, I agree it makes logical sense, but I’m not sure the last part — shifting the timeline on the left — makes intuitive sense with how we expect objects to behave in space.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Carsten Orlt] “What I’m seeing is simply that FCPx keeps the clip being trimmed (head or tail) static and shifts the rest. Yes that causes the time(line) to move differently from FCP7 BUT this is actually a good thing because it keeps the clip I want to change focused.”
Yes, this is what it does. But this behavior is inconsistent. If you trim from the clip tail, the object changes but the timeline does not (of course, objects to the right will ripple down, but that’s another story). My point is that frame-of-reference is relative and changes depending on how you interact object on the timeline. Depending on your zoom level, it can be disorienting. Is this a good thing? How does this make the actual task of editing easier?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Paul Dickin] “I can’t remember a single instance – not one – since I started editing professionally for the BBC in 1965 where I’ve made a story-telling edit (or an edit decision) based on absolute time. “
Agreed. It’s not necessarily the absolute time value that matters (although sometimes it does). It’s that the spatial foundation for time is fixed and I’m laying out my edit decisions within that fixed frame-of-reference.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Craig Seeman] “But in FCPX things relative to that master and its clips are only relative to the clips. They are not fixed to the master time. They are fixed (connected) to a point in time of the object. If that point in time in the object moves, so moves those related to it. Alternately one can change that point so it links to the object at a different point. That too can move though. You can connect to frame 1 or frame 100 of a clip. You can connect to clip 1 or clip 2 as long as the media object in the primary storyline is crossing the time path of the connected object (you can only connect to points that overlap rather than any frame in the object).
So the master storyline may be fixed but its internal components are mutable and so are the relationships to them.”
Yes, all correct. The question is, is this more efficient? Is it a better way to work? What happens if this behavior is not what you want or need for a particular situation?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[David Cherniack] “Some observations that may fall out of your post:
FCP-X’s timeline is a creation from the minds of object oriented software engineers.
As you point out we experience the playback of a timeline in absolute time, not the relative time the objects and their containers exist in.
So in a sense the creators of the absolute time playback are creating in a relative time container. This leads to a significant question:
Is it appropriate for editing with a sense of timing and rhythm?”
Outstanding observations and a key question, David. Great stuff!
Yes — what does this interaction model mean for rhythmic modes of cutting? Cutting is always about rhythm and pacing. What does it mean to be cutting to a relative frame-of-reference?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Matt Callac] “So some editing models just can’t fit in the new timing paradigm apple has created.”
Yes, that’s what I’m getting at.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl