[David Lawrence]

[Craig Seeman] “Perhaps you can correct and/or expand on or better explain the above. A key though is how this might benefit the editorial process because I think people are missing that. I think understanding the relative nature of clip connections in time is key to unlocking some of the power of FCPX .”

You’re doing a thoughtful and articulate job explaining this Craig. I agree with your descriptions about how the clip relationship model works in X. I think where we might differ in opinion is on the question of what this brings to the process of editing. I’m open to the possibility that this might be better, but I’m highly skeptical. I want to see proof.

I think we may be seeing different sides of the same coin. Here I can only speak for myself. When I edit, any relationships I create between clips comes as a direct result of where I place them in time. My concern is always time first. This event happens now. The now part is very important. The relationships arise from this placement. I might not even understand them before I perform them! For me, this is the intuitive, creative part of editing. This is why I want my time foundation to be fixed. I want absolute control of what happens and when it happens.

This is not to say that I never ripple. I do all the time. But it’s never my default mode. It’s always intentional.

I’m not suggesting that the relative/relationship model can’t work. What I’m saying is that it’s not what you want all the time.

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

[David Lawrence]

Everyone, the discussion continues here:

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/11511

Looking forward to your thoughts.

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

[David Lawrence]

pure win, Aindreas!

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

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “For me, I find FCPx’s organization (keywords et al) to be what I always wanted it to be but I guess I’m weird.”

I don’t think you’re weird at all! All those new organizational features – keywords, metadata, etc. are awesome. I love what they offer and have also wanted them for a long time.

Same with smarter object behavior. One thing that’s always annoyed me about FCP is how dumb it is about object groups. For example, you can select a group of clips and unlink the audio, but if you make the same selection and want to relink the audio you’re out of luck. You have to relink each clip individually. Dumb!

FCPX has tons of awesome that I really like. What I’m skeptical of is the new interaction model. Apple threw away some very efficient, time-tested tools for their new timeline model. And since this is where I do all my work, it really concerns me. I think they could have given us all the awesome without reinventing the wheel. And I’m still waiting for demonstrated proof that the new wheel is more efficient!

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

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “I don’t see why you can’t make a new “project”, or even use a compound clip as a timeline as I just explained.”

Because doing this forces me out of the context of my main sequence if I want to refine my edits.

When you work in compound clips, it’s like working in nests in FCP7. You go into a new timeline outside the context of of your main sequence. For me, this isn’t useful most of the time in fact, to this day I rarely use nests except for very specific things. It’s similar when working with FCPX projects. There’s a context switch that takes you away from where you were working.

I constantly zoom in and out, jump back and forth between sections, etc. all on the same sequence. Copy paste, duplicate, move back and forth. It’s very fast and makes for flexible versioning. It’s organizing on the fly.

I agree that it’s possible to do most everything I normally do in X, but right now it doesn’t feel nearly as direct, flexible or efficient as before.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “I don’t get what you mean.”

Every editor I know has their own organizational style. Mine’s likely very different than yours yet both of us get our work done efficiently. Different projects have different organizational demands as well.

I currently find FCPX very strict with how I’m allowed to organize media. It’s optimized to do things it’s way but as soon as you want to do things in your own style, it tends to get in the way.

For example, I rely on the flexible space of the FCP7 timeline to let me set up all kinds of organizational groupings that I’m making up on the fly as I go through my source material. It’s a very fluid, organic process that I don’t even think about. Compound clips, metadata, etc. are not a substitute for having an open canvas to play on.

I’m not saying you can’t do these types of things in FCPX, you can. But you can’t make up your own way to do them. It has to fit FCPX’s structured model or you hit a wall. I think this is part of the reason why we see so much resistance to FCPX from many editors.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “If you are already an organized editor, then FCPx will do nothing but help you as it makes it so easy.”

As long as you organize the way Apple allows you to organize.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “I thought I might suggest that you post a kind of summary of the discussion from your perspective (in terms of your original intentions) before venturing to post the next topic.”

Will do, thanks Franz for suggesting.

Everyone — fantastic discussion above. You’re definitely getting into the deeper issues that I think we need to understand in order to evaluate what this tool is good for now, and what it might (or might not) be in the future.

Here are the big themes and questions that stood out to me:

1) What is the data model for FCPX?
     a) To what extent does the data model determine the FCPX UI?

2) Tracks vs. trackless interface —
     a) Spatial organization vs. metadata
     b) Benefits and drawbacks?

3) How does the FCPX UI affect how we work?
     a) Is the FCPX UI a design requirement or a design choice?
     b) Is the new UI better?
     c) What other UI models can we draw ideas from (DAWs)?
     d) How could the new UI paradigm mix with the old?

My next post will touch on many of these issues and more. Stay tuned…

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

[David Lawrence]

[Rob Tinworth] “How is a compound clip graphically displayed in FCP-X?”

Exactly the same as a regular clip. Good luck picking them out from all the rest in a complex project.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “This is the eye of the storm. The middle. More weather to come.”

Yes indeed! 🙂

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