[David Lawrence]

[Carsten Orlt] “I sometimes wonder how the discussion would change if the trackless timeline would have been the first to appear in computer based editing systems?”

IIRC, there was another trackless NLE at some point (Liquid?), but it failed to gain traction in the marketplace.

[Carsten Orlt] “Think about it. All linear tape based machines, audio or video, didn’t have the possibility of being trackless. You can’t record multiple different sources in a random fashion on a tape. They had to be on diff tracks (physical space) if they were to occupy the same time on the tape. When computers where introduced they merely recreated the same thing, and people could follow that thinking because that’s how it has always been.”

NLE tracks have nothing to do with the linearity of tape. The reason for tracks is they’re the most natural way to represent multiple, parallel streams of media with a common, external frame-of-reference for time, in a 2D graphic interface.

An open timeline is a completely non-linear composition space. In many ways it’s more non-linear than the magnetic timeline because hierarchy is completely fluid and up to the editor. With the magnetic timeline, everything must connect to the single primary no matter what. I see this as an arbitrary limitation.

Let me ask the same question I asked Charlie (Charlie, I’m still interested in your thoughts as well) — would you want a DAW with a FCPX-like magnetic timeline? Would having only one main track in default ripple mode – that all other channels must connect to – be a better, more natural UI for working with multi-channel sound?

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

[David Lawrence]

[Charlie Austin] “Yes. Some kind of user selectable “virtual” track-like behavior. I do understand the utility of fixed tracks, and I’m just trying envision how that behavior could be implemented in a trackless timeline. X does keep track of where clips exist in vertical space, the “lane” position is in the fcpx xml for projects, so it’s certainly possible. Or not. 😉 fun to talk about though…”

All interesting ideas — would love to see roles do the kinds of things you and others have described. And definitely fun to to talk about! 🙂

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

[David Lawrence]

[Charlie Austin] “It seems silly, but honestly, why do trim tools exist? I’m not talking about cuts, but trim tools.”

Is that a serious question or are we talking about different things, lol?

Trim tools exist to enable an editor to find the perfect frame.

They’re the tools that turn craft into art.

They have absolutely nothing to do with clip collisions.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Charlie Austin] “What do you think the parent should be?”

Absolute time with the sequence window as a fixed frame-of-reference.

[Charlie Austin] “Collisions aren’t a problem I don’t think, at least not to the extent they are in a video editing scenario. Once you’re mixing, in theory anyway, your “tracks” – the generic term, channels, whatever – should be fairly well locked.”

What about sound editing or complex multi-channel layering? Or recording and composing? Mixing is just one part of the sound design process.

[Charlie Austin] “And in the case of a DAW, what would the parent be? Time?”

Exactly!

[Charlie Austin] “It’s a different thing to me.”

That’s where we differ — to me, sound and picture are equals on the timeline. Sure video and sound have different characteristics, but they’re both time-based media and they’re both represented the same way in a 2D graphic interface. When I’m editing, I treat them pretty much the same way.

[Charlie Austin] “But, if roles could handle grouping and… Z-ordering, for lack of better term, and as long as you can assign roles in the same way you assign tracks, then why not go trackless?”

I suppose something like you describe would be great if it existed. But to flip that around, what if you had a track-based system with intelligent clip grouping and collision avoidance behaviors? You’d have the ability to create and rearrange “pods” like in your example, but with the benefits of tracks for those who need them. Wouldn’t that be the best of both worlds?

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

[David Lawrence]

[Carsten Orlt] “Plus again as Charlie said extensive trim tools are only there because of the problems tracks bring in regard to collisions and sync.”

lol, yep, that’s the only reason trim tools exist.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Charlie Austin] “Maybe I shouldn’t have said “a lot”… but there are those who decry the clip based parent/child paradigm of FCP as somehow wrong. “

I wouldn’t say the paradigm itself is wrong, but I do think they chose the wrong parent.

[Charlie Austin] ” think that’s what “dedicated DAW’s” are, really. In a perfect world, you’d just hit “send to Logic” and there you are. Just like MC->ProTools or Premiere->Audition.”

I’m curious — are clip collisions and track Tetris a problem when you’re working with a DAW? Do you think a trackless, parent/child magnetic timeline would make DAWs work better?

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

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “We were talking about cutting by feel and how dynamic trimming may play a role in that.

In 7, there’s a clip already in the timeline. I want to adjust the out point by more than a few frames.

I load the clip from the timeline, watch the clip, hit out. That clip in the timeline is now longer.

I don’t do this for frames, I do this for larger adjustments.”

I understand but I’m still not following. It seems like more work and less context. What does this buy you that’s better than trimming directly in the timeline or in trim mode?

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

[David Lawrence]

[Jeremy Garchow] “Did you understand what I was saying in that post? Maybe I didn’t explain clearly enough.”

Maybe not.

[Jeremy Garchow] “In FCP7, I’d double click the clip to load it in the viewer from the timeline (so that the clip has the little sprocket marks), play, and then hit out and the clip in the timeline would have the adjusted out (or in).”

To me this reads like you normally trim in the viewer. Am I missing something?

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

[David Lawrence]

[Charlie Austin] “Speaking of potential, I found this interesting… “

Funny how it still seems to use fixed tracks, even though they suck. :p

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

[David Lawrence]

[Bill Davis] “There’s this established phenomenon called “projection” where our personal prejudices color how we think about and describe things. In this case, it’s arguable that when David used the term “fix” in his original post, it was nothing more than this factor at work.”

I was simply riffing on the title of Andy Field’s thread immediately below this one. So who’s the one projecting?

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