David Lawrence
2
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “As mentioned in your original post, it needs to be easier than that.”
Way easier, lol! 😉
Seriously, that video is a perfect demo of why the magnetic timeline in it’s current design is a nightmare for spatial workflows. 😉
My example: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/16979
Franz’s example: https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/17728
I wish Franz was still around to chime in!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Walter Soyka] “Multiple primaries basically means tracks-plus, so that means a primary patching system, maybe a differnent model for driving compositing, maybe primary audio bussing, maybe a cross-primary ripple mode… a lot of development work.”
I think it’s simpler than that. To me it’s just adding a container level above the primary. Nothing else really needs to change. If you want to ripple, connect the clips to the primary you want to ripple from. Only use additional primaries for things you don’t want to ripple. That’s the whole point. Compositing still goes top down just as you would expect. Maybe with some new added features. There are opportunity costs to developing anything, but I don’t think this idea is that radical.
[Walter Soyka] “That same development time could be spent instead extending the model to allow connections to connected clips, or alternate metadata-driven timeline views, or send to Motion, or a scrolling timeline.”
This would all be great too!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Why is this a problem? Do you mean because then, time is in constant flux?”
Yes. The frame-of-reference for time is in constant flux. Sure, you can connect a secondary to a gap at frame one of the primary, but it’s a kludge.
Imagine this scenario instead –
What if you could press a button and add a second primary? It would sit above or below the first. It would have the exact same affordances as the first primary, but all of its clips and clip relationships would stay attached to it instead. Primary #2 would be temporally independent of and unaffected by any changes in primary #1.
This would enable the benefits of absolute time while at the same time keeping the magnetic timeline’s other benefits as well.
I don’t see any downside. Do you?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Jeff Markgraf] “By default we mix, or add, audio to other audio. Process it, etc., but not so much hard cutting except for specific effect.
By default, we cut video serially, with some blending (hard or soft) for some specific effect. Yes, video tracks, or layers, often run in parallel, but unless we’re keying or some such thing, it’s usually cuts and dissolves.”
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?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Jeremy Garchow] “The primary storyline is time. It is the first thing I try to tell people about fcpx. I think it is hard to grasp for some people, as it is different (to yours and David L’s point). But it’s not wrong And once that concept is understood, editing with X becomes exponentially faster to people.”
[Jeremy Garchow] “So, why is this ‘bad’ instead of simply a different way to look at it?”
I wouldn’t say it’s “bad”, but I think it’s less flexible.
As you correctly point out, primary storyline is time. The problem is that the primary storyline is also your program, and is therefore in constant flux over the course of an edit.
For some editing styles, this is perfectly fine and I agree enables greater efficiency and speed.
But for spatial edit workflows such as we discussed here, a constantly reflowing, temporal frame-of-reference is a huge drawback:
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/16979
I understand Charlie’s point that you can accomplish this in FCPX by spiking a secondary to a gap on frame one, but I consider that a workaround.
The efficiencies of the magnetic timeline come at the expense of important benefits inherent to tracks that I think FCPX designers overlooked. The very notion of “Primary” and “Secondary” reveals a set of assumptions about editorial decision-making that is not simply true for everyone.
I should add that data models don’t make for good user interface models. I think the magnetic timeline design reflects an innovative data model, but it doesn’t fully consider the way many editors actually work.
I wouldn’t say the magnetic timeline is “bad”. I would argue it’s optimized for specific workflows. Yes, faster for some people, but not for others.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Walter Soyka] “The magnetic timeline is not a trick or gimmick for re-arranging absolutely-placed clips in time. It’s a fundamentally different model for building a timeline: one based on relationships instead of temporal position. You get the FCPX rearranging behavior “for free” as it flows naturally from the data model.”
Exactly!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Jeff Markgraf] “I think audio is fundamentally different from video in terms of how we have to work with it. It’s perfectly natural to hear and process multiple audio sources simultaneously, in parallel. One audio track does not by design “cover” or cut out another track. In video, except as a specific key or compositing effect, it does. So audio MUST have discrete tracks, even if they are ultimately collapsed into 2 or 5.1 tracks for presentation.”
It seems to me that’s a narrow way to think about time-based media.
Both audio and video happen in time. Both audio and video can be mixed and processed in various ways. Whether audio or video cuts, covers or mixes is entirely dependent on the type of content being authored. It has nothing to do with the inherent properties of the media itself.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Michael Gissing] ”
Fairlight is utterly track based but it solved the overwrite problem by allowing clips to stack non destructively on a track. You always hear the top which means you can do crossfades to layers or hide alternates in place on the right track.It is in fact a great model for how NLEs could have solved the overwrite issue. A trackless DAW would be an organisational nightmare. After all this is the point where we reorganise the dogs breakfast that comes from the edit. Tracks are so much more than just a way of displaying in the DAW world that no-one is thinking a trackless paradigm is worth toying with.”
Exactly right, Michael.
Most NLEs work in one of two edit modes – overwrite and insert. Generally speaking, overwrite covers the underlying media, insert ripples it in or out.
There’s no reason why there couldn’t be a third edit mode – layer. In layer edit mode, media might stack ala Fairlight, or there could be other UI possibilities.
The only NLE that I’ve seen attempt this is Sony Vegas which I guess makes sense given its roots as a DAW. But it doesn’t go very far with the concept. There’s so much opportunity for innovation in the NLE UI space. We’ve only scratched the surface.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Charlie Austin] “And the whole “no tracks no temporal anchor” argument is sort of fallacious. I get it, but the timecode at the top of the project window is the temporal reference, just like any other NLE/DAW on the planet. And you don’t need “workarounds” to keep stuff locked to specific time, you just use the app the way it works. “
You mean like filling the primary with a big long gap and then doing all your edits with connected clips? 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums -
[Andrew Kimery] “With X Apple has come up with a different philosophy of how NLE’s should flow and I wonder if trying to add too many track-like functions will just result in something muddled. “
I’m not suggesting that they need to add “track-like” functions per se. They just need to go further with what they’re already doing and create a more flexible, more consistent object hierarchy.
An advanced mode with multiple primaries and absolute time reference would make the program much more flexible. I’m sure it could be implemented in a way that would make everyone happy. There’s a ton of room for improvement inside the existing model.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
https://lnkd.in/Cfz92F
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums