David Lawrence
2
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Aindreas Gallagher] “IT’S a timeline people. Its a scenario in which my thoughts about all of the elements are liable to change.
Its my. bloody. timeline. mine.”
I wish I could hit the “like” button on this post a thousand times. Aindreas, next time I visit the UK
I’m buying you a drink!_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
Great post Walter, thanks!
[Walter Soyka] “I think that many here would argue that magnetic reflow is one of the primary benefits of the magnetic timeline, and consistent and predictable reflow depends on having every single relationship in the timeline defined (in other words, having every clip connected to something). “
Agreed, however I’d argue that in it’s current implementation, timeline reflow is neither consistent, nor predictable.
[Walter Soyka] “Sidebar: I think that FCPX’s “ripple” is different enough compared to our traditional understanding of “ripple” that it’s confusing to use the same term — that’s why I’m calling what FCPX does “reflowing” instead of “rippling.””
Excellent. I agree and really like your terminology. I’m using it from now on.
[Walter Soyka] “With FCPX’s clip connections, one clip is connected to another in terms of the latter; one clip is a parent, and the other clip is a child of that parent (anchored at a specific point on each side of the relationship). Moving the parent affects both the parent and the child because the child inherits from the parent. Moving the child affects only the child and not the parent because inheritance is one-way.”
Yes, because the relationship is defined by the hierarchical data model.
[Walter Soyka] “With Pr’s grouped clips, the clips are peers. Their anchoring is based on a common externality (absolute time); there is no single pivot point for that linkage. Once the clip is grouped, they are fundamentally treated as a single object, not as two objects with a hierarchical relationship.”
True, but in this case the relationship as you point out is flat and peer-based. The fact that they’re selected as a single object can easily be addressed in the UI. For example, in Adobe Illustrator (and After Effects) There are two selection arrows. The black arrow always selects groups, but the white arrow lets you select individual points or objects. A similar dual selection UI for Premiere’s object groups would give you the benefits of both peer object flexibility and one-way hierarchical inheritance.
[Walter Soyka] “What do you gain by parenting clips so that a specific point in time in of the child is related to a specific point in time of the parent? Context! It’s not important what timecode of a child links to what timecode of a parent; it’s important what’s happening in each clip at those timecodes. Correctly defining the linkage point of a clip connection is an editorial decision based on the content or meaning of both clips and the editor’s rational for defining one clip in relation to the other. This action encodes a little piece of meaning, a little piece of the editor’s motivation for making for that edit, that FCPX is designed to preserve through subsequent maneuvers.
There is no construct in a traditional timeline that’s anything like this. There is no way to connect a happening in one clip with a happening in another (thanks to FCPX, I can’t call them “events” like I wanted to). Context can be implied in a traditional timeline through an editor’s track organization, but it cannot be codified in the edit like this.”
Here I disagree. In FCP7, this is essentially a synchronized replace edit. You are matching specific frames between the source and footage being cut in. The FCP7 manual describes how do do this (scroll about midway thru the document and look at “To replace an entire clip in the Timeline with a clip synchronized to a point in the sequence.”
By default, FCPX makes the connection (sync) point the first frame of the cut and codifies it as the the relationship between the primary and the connected clip. It also allows the connection point to be moved as necessary.
From the standpoint of editor intention, I see no difference between this and grouping a sync edit between clips in a traditional timeline.
[Walter Soyka] “The benefit to the editor would be that the editor can concentrate on the story in terms of the story, without engaging in the editorial bookkeeping necessary to keep a traditional tracked timeline following a story. The challenge to a traditional editor is to stop thinking in terms of clip placement and start thinking in terms of structural relationship. “
Again, agreed. This is why I think FCPX is an ideal tool for assembly and for producers who don’t want to worry about the specialized mechanics of editing.
[Walter Soyka] “My variation on this question is this: what does this abstraction change? What drawbacks does it have? What control (if any) is lost to the editor with a magnetic timeline versus a fully manual tracked traditional timeline? What are the real ramifications (if any) of assuming a story-driven, A/B hierarchical edit?”
All great questions. Let’s explore!
[Walter Soyka] “Interestingly, there’s a place where this relationship model falls apart — the implied relationships between formally unrelated clips. Just as clips may have implied relationships in a traditional timeline by virtue of their placement, so can you end up with implied relationships in FCPX that you cannot codify with a single connection point.”
Exactly! And I think for many of us, this is the root of the problem with the magnetic timeline.
Franz did an amazing job codifying the many possible relationships on a traditional open timeline. When I edit, I’m constantly managing and changing *all* of these inter-related relationships in real-time, in my head with every edit decision I make. That ability is the art of being an editor.
FCPX only codifies a single specific type of relationship — a relationship drive by an engineering data model, rather than specific editor intention. When editor intentions and the data model happen to line up, the magnetic timeline works.
What about all those relationships that are implied? What happens when the forced relationships of the data hierarchy conflict with implied relationships that are more important to the editor and the edit itself?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Herb Sevush] “Agreed, although I will just note that the convention is universal – I can’t think of any NLE that doesn’t work this way”
Yes, and I’d also note that these conventions usually become universal for good reasons. For example, there may be others but I can only think of one NLE where the default edit mode for the timeline is ripple.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Herb Sevush] “The difference is that in video the top layer covers anything below it, while with audio multiple layers merge but do not cover. This seems like a significant difference, operationally, to me.”
True, but that’s more an agreed upon convention than a technical and representational requirement. When we stack audio tracks, the convention is to mix rather than cover. When we stack video tracks, the convention is to cover (or composite) rather than mix.
In both cases, time-based media is represented by 2D objects with duration corresponding to object length. We edit by manipulating these objects in space. Even though the media types are different, I believe the objects that represent them can share many tools and behaviors.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[alban egger] “But the abiltiy to have different layers in different modes (ripple or not) on different tracks and the benefits of the magnetic timeline where every clip is dragged towards the center and beginning of your primary storyline cannot be reproduced easily.”
I think many of us who dislike the magnetic timeline would say this moving to the center behavior is a problem, not a benefit.
The reason I don’t like it is because it completely ruins spatial context for understanding how the ripple edit is affecting clips downstream. Ripple itself isn’t the problem – I use it all the time. Rippling in a traditional timeline is easy to understand because the spatial cues are consistent. Time is absolute and external so rippling on either the right or left side of a clip always pushes or pulls program up or down from the left.
With the magnetic timeline, spatial cues are relative and inconsistent. Rippling from the clip right pushes or pulls program on the left, but rippling from the clip left pulls time zero into the program. This might make sense in a design for small screen devices like tablets or phones, but on a large monitor I think it’s unnecessary and disorienting. I think it’s a design mistake.
[alban egger] “it comes down to one’s preferences. A timeline is constructed of both, clips in relation to each other and cips that have to have a relation to a certain time in the timeline. So IMO none of the two paradigms are perfect, therefore it depends on your preferences and projects as to what works.”
I agree. I truly believe there’s a UI middle ground we haven’t seen yet. Done right, it would take from the best of both the traditional and magnetic worlds.
[alban egger] “In the magnetic timeline you can try more without risking to mess with your overall project, because the cliprelations, which basically are your story, stay, even when you break the timerelation.”
In FCP7, I select sequence, hit command-d, and easily experiment on my duplicate sequence without risk to my overall project. I just don’t see what the big deal is.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Bret Williams] “4 or 5 very different project in and I have yet to detach audio. I’m sure there would be a reason, but I can’t find it yet.”
I unlink and relink audio and video so frequently, I have a dedicated button on my mouse for just that function.
For me, sound drives everything, especially when working with interviews. When I’m making a “radio cut”, I’m pulling sound bites from all over the the place. Often I just need the sound and don’t want video, but having sync markers makes it easy to bring it back if needed. When making detail audio edits, I might need to add room tone, breaths, or even frankenclip whole new phrases or words. Being able to quickly switch between linked and unlinked audio makes this fast and easy for me.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Sandeep Sajeev] “My question would be how does this affect sound? Video is not a problem, but how do these layers function when the source clips being edited in have sound attached, and record area has sound attached as well?”
Sandeep,
I believe a good general UI solution for layering will work equally well for audio as it does for video. Even though we perceive audio and video through different senses, they are both time-based media, and are represented and manipulated and very similar ways in a 2D graphical environment. While they each have unique properties and possibilities, in general, I don’t believe they need to be treated as differently as many people think.
Glad you’re enjoying these conversations!
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Herb Sevush] “The EMC editor, the first PC NLE and arguably the first modern NLE, had this as a feature, at least in it’s last few years when I worked with it back in the 90’s. Whenever you did an overwrite edit the underlying clips still existed underneath the top layer. At any point you could reveal what was under any clip. This was 15 years ago and while it wasn’t elegant, there was no list of what was on top and what was underneath, it did work.”
Herb,
Same question I had for Michael. Did the EMC let you move clips horizontally?
BTW, I found this on YouTube. Nostalgia!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxpQ0vnOVNE_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhlSome contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[Michael Gissing] “I have blathered extensively about clip layering on tracks as a method to avoid accidental overwrite as this has been my world for 15 years using dSP and Fairlight DAWS. “
[Franz Bieberkopf] “I think you are specifically talking about Fairlight, but I am wondering if you can elaborate to more general terms per David’s post.”
Michael, I’d also enjoy learning more about the UI mechanics of the DAWs you’ve worked with.
I did a little research and found this white paper from 2004 on the Fairlight Dream System. It has this description of multi-layer editing:
Multi-layer Editing
When recording multiple takes at the same time-code, the system will create a stack of clips with the most recently recorded clip on the top.The Takes display at the top of the display screen shows the names of all of the clip layers that are under the cursor at the present location. The Takes Menu permits scrolling down the list to lift any clip to the top of the stack, allowing its playback.
In the same way, multiple takes can be edited together. Clips that contain useful phrases are placed on top of the stack successively, then the non-useful pieces are cut away. The remaining clips may be slipped into place and crossfaded where necessary. The “All Layers” modifier allows edits to affect all layers simultaneously.
I’m familiar with the concept of layered audio “takes” from working in Logic Pro. Logic allows you to record any number of takes for any enabled track. If there’s already something recorded at a particular time code location, specifying a new take essentially creates a new audio layer on top of the track at that point. Takes can be switched for playback by selecting from a drop down menu.The Fairlight sounds like it does this and more. I’m curious what tools it provides and how you use them to move a particular layer horizontally. For example, if you decide you want to take one of the clips in the layer stack and move it not to the top of the stack but rather, in front of the stack, what kinds of tools and UI feedback do the Fairlight (and other DAWs) provide?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
Outstanding post, Franz. Thank you! This is an excellent breakdown of types of relationships that occur in the course of an edit.
One of my goals in starting this topic is to get us all to think about what we specifically mean by the term “relationship”. I think this post is very helpful in giving us a shared language.
More importantly, as you’ve so clearly pointed out, relationships are wholly dependent on editorial context and the editor’s intentions. I think this is a “primary” 😉 reason why many of us have difficulty with the magnetic timeline editorial model.
Lots to think about here.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl