[David Lawrence]

[Jim Giberti] “I’m waiting for D Lawrence to weigh in on this discussion.”

Hi Jim and fellow COWs,

Hope everyone’s 2013 is off to a great start!

Haven’t had much to add lately but I’m still reading and enjoying these threads. The fact that even Aindreas has nice things to say about FCPX shows how far we’ve come in past 18 months, right? 😉

Re: the project library:

[Oliver Peters] “I think I remember that in the beginning there were differences between sequences in a Project and in an Event; but since 10.0.6, that doesn’t seem to be the case any longer.”

Yep. The changes in 10.0.6 were a big deal. I think moving compound clips from the project database into events was an engineering necessity made to fix the project bloat problem. The consequence of this engineering change also changed the nature of projects. It now raises questions of what are CCs really? Why were CCs in projects to begin with?

[Oliver Peters] “So this begs the question. Why is there a Project Library at all? What useful function does it serve? You can have edits in an Event without any Project, but you cannot have a Project without a corresponding Event. So other than a place to park Shared intermediate exports and timeline render files, it doesn’t seem to serve much of a useful purpose.”

Agreed. Outside of sharing, what is the real value of the project library? I don’t see it.

Moving edited sequences from the project database into the event database was a game changer. The event browser is a much more dynamic, flexible place for organization. Way better than the project library. All the event browser needs now is more flexible, granular sharing options, and the project database and library can go away.

Here’s a thought – add more flexibility to the event browser, get rid of the project library, and call edited timelines… sequences! Something to look forward to in FCPX 10.3 😉

Happy New Year, All!

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

[David Lawrence]

[Kevin Monahan] “1) You can add clip markers to merged clips in the Timeline after creating the shortcut as I mentioned earlier.

2) You can add clip markers to either audio or video of a merged clip by pressing Option and then double clicking on the audio or video portion of a clip. Once loaded into the Source Monitor you can add clip markers to audio or video.

3) You cannot add clip markers to a merged clip in the Source Monitor.

Hope that helps.”

It does. Thanks, Kevin.

What I was trying to do was load the linked clip into the source monitor by double clicking, like I would with a normal clip.

So if I understand correctly, with linked clips, video and audio can be marked together in the timeline using the keyboard shortcut, but in the source monitor, they cannot. In the source monitor, linked video and audio must be loaded separately in order to create or edit markers.

Correct? Thanks!

–dhl

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

[David Lawrence]

[Kevin Monahan] “You can create them in the Timeline. You need to create a keyboard shortcut for Clip Markers first, though.”

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for the fast reply. Yes, I have been able to create clip markers directly on the timeline after mapping the keyboard shortcut as you describe. But again, it simply doesn’t work on clips where the A/V content is linked together (like dual-source audio linked to synced video, for example).

Please try it on a clip with linked content. If you can make markers work, I’d love to know what I’m doing wrong.

Thanks!

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

[David Lawrence]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “the visual desktop metaphor space, and the classical finder sitting within it, dies with 10.9.”

The Finder? Maybe. But multiple open windows from different applications are also part of the desktop metaphor. I’m not ready to give that up. Are you?

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

[David Lawrence]

[Craig Seeman] “Not that I foresee them making another radical change there but imagine if the approach to some of the eye candy changes.”

It can only get better.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Walter Soyka] “Of course, I still didn’t foresee the current problem with PIOPs until they were already in the app…”

This is a completely typical experience in all software development. No matter how good a feature looks on paper, until it’s actually implemented and live tested, there’s no way to truly how it works. That’s why constant user testing and formative evaluation is an essential part of successful software design. Most software companies go thru this process before releasing their products.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Charlie Austin] “I guess, on reflection, I wouldn’t need “tracks’ per se, but as a mixer i’d want to be able to keep similar roles together in the timeline. Again I think some sort of z-order setting would do the trick. Assign whatever roles/subroles I want, and in the role index window use a drop down menu to order them. VO would be 1, Dia 2, FX 3 etc… So not really tracks, but visual groups. Add in the ability to assign roles to faders/busses and I’d be happy.”

Visual grouping thru roles would be great but in a DAW I would still want an external, absolute temporal frame-of-reference. Spiking everything to a big gap in the primary seems like a force fit.

Last year, we got into a pretty deep and productive discussion on this topic. As a sound guy who likes FCPX, you might find it interesting. If you have time, take a deep breath and start here:

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/16693

Then go here:

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/16886

I’d certainly be curious to hear more of your thoughts.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Steve Connor] “Don’t get me wrong, I hope they don’t change it for Editors like you. PPro and Avid are out there and for most people moving from FCP7 one of these will work, what I’m saying is they seem to be open to change and that tilde key could be a precursor to a mode where everything doesn’t refer back to the primary.”

I actually agree with you. I’m pretty happy with my other options — FCPX doesn’t need to become like them. I’m more interested in seeing how far it can evolve beyond the limitations of the current model on its own terms.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Steve Connor] “Doesn’t the tilde key modifier show that Apple CAN change the core model? the tilde key effectively locks any connected clips in time and breaks the connection, albeit temporarily. If Apple were to change this from a modifier key to a mode and the tilde key modifier shows that this would be easy for them, then that would enable fixed secondaries that aren’t connected. That seems like it would be a change to the core model?”

Maybe I’m thinking a bit too meta or we’re getting into semantics but I see that as a new feature, rather than a fundamental change in the core model. It’s a step in the right direction but still doesn’t go far enough.

I was excited when the tilde key modifier was announced, but disappointed that it only affects connections on the primary clip you’re moving. They need an additional tilde modifier that turns off all connections if so desired. For example, this would be useful if you wanted to swap two clips on the primary without affecting anything in the secondary. In FCP7, swap edits take a single modifier key. I’d like it to be just as easy in FCPX. Is there an easy way to do this now? Am I missing something? If so, please let me know.

To me, the core editorial model is the hierarchal, A/B clip relationship paradigm that’s defined the timeline since 10.0.0. Each new release has built on that model, but I don’t think they’ve changed it. Everything still must spike to V1. Maybe new features will eventually add enough flexibility that it won’t matter and the timeline will work for editors like me. I don’t know. I’m open to being surprised, but I’m not counting on it and I’m not holding my breath.

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

[David Lawrence]

[Charlie Austin] “And honestly, if FCP X was supposed to be a DAW I would miss tracks.”

Interesting. Why would you be missing tracks if it were a DAW?

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