David Lawrence
2
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I forgot to answer this one. I think it’s silly to compare a daw to an nle, even though they might share some.
They are different tools for different jobs. “
Have to disagree, not silly at all.
Yes they’re different tools for different jobs, but only in the sense that each is optimized for its respective media type and I/O needs. They’re both share a common interaction language and a common visual model for representing time-based media in space.
The reason I keep bringing up audio and DAWs is because if Apple’s trackless paradigm is truly the revolutionary improvement that they claim, then it should work as a general solution for all time-based media. This has been my core argument from day one of the FCPX release.
By eliminating tracks, Apple changed something that wasn’t broken. The problem they solved wasn’t a problem for anyone skilled in the craft. The convenience their design affords is minor compared to the problems they’ve created for anyone who uses an NLE as a general purpose time-based editorial environment. Not to mention the interchange issues that are still getting worked out.
Nowhere do we see this more clearly than with audio. With muti-track audio, the idea of a single Primary track that all other tracks must relate to makes no sense whatsoever. Depending on your editing style and how you compose with multiple video channels in the context of posting a show, a single Primary may be just as meaningless.
[David Lawrence] “”What about multi-track audio situations where you really need each audio channel in an absolute temporal frame-of-reference, completely independent of everything else”
[Jeremy Garchow] “Put it in the primary storyline.”
So 24 audio tracks in the Primary storyline and everything else connected to that? Doesn’t that seem a bit forced? You still only have one true track in FCPX. I think that’s the root of the problems with audio.
If the Magnetic Timeline wouldn’t work for a DAW as well as tracks, then is it really as flexible and revolutionary Apple wants us to believe? Aside from complex routing as Michael Gissing points out, the other thing DAWs excel at is audio editing. I can’t imagine an audio editor would be happy with tracks affecting all other track timings by default or requiring elaborate workarounds to keep things locked to an absolute time reference.
I understand that many folks enjoy and are comfortable with FCPX’s trackless approach. I think that’s cool. But if we want to have a real understanding of the paradigm, I think we have to examine it in the context of the universal interface language that has been the standard for representing time-based digital media for decades. If Apple thinks they’ve invented something better, let’s see it how it works better for multitrack audio.
I’m with Mark Raudonis:
[Mark Raudonis] “Music video cutting against a single, unedited audio track…. OK. Nice trick. Now let’s see the tool used to cut a multicam scene with 12 iso trks of dialogue. That’s a demo that I’d like to see.”
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Michael Gissing] “I don’t think many picture editors have any idea of the complexity and power of how DAWs route, assign and control audio. A trackless roles based editor cannot come close to this complexity without being a nightmare to drive.”
Yep, all absolutely true. Wasn’t thinking routing which tracks do exceptionally well.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Chris Conlee] “I think tracks are inherent in DAW’s for a very good reason: track based effects and sends. I’m not sure how you would accomplish this in a ‘trackless’ paradigm.”
Agree, although I actually think that’s an example of something roles can probably handle well.
I’m thinking more along the lines of how tracks work in the context of music recording. Time is a fixed, external frame-of-reference for each track. The composer/producer creates their composition by placing beats/instruments/notes/sounds, etc. in this fixed frame. Many film/video editors work this way too.
When Walter Murch was interviewed a few months ago, one of the things he said about the FCPX timeline was “Well, I can’t make music with it…” This was before he had time to really play with it. I’m curious what he thinks of it today.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Jeremy Garchow] “If you could expand audio like you can now, except it showed all of the tracks instead of just one fake compound of the tracks, it’d be much better.
It’s like the capability is already there, it’s just not turned on.”
I thought tracks were so last century 😉
Agree fully exposing all channels would help, but it doesn’t solve the problem of everything having to be in relation to the single Primary. What about multi-track audio situations where you really need each audio channel in an absolute temporal frame-of-reference, completely independent of everything else? With track-based systems, this is a given. In FCPX, the current workaround is spiking Secondaries to frame 1 of the Primary. It works but I think it’s pretty weak.
I’d like to see a solution that doesn’t feel like an afterthought. Ideally, the model would be so good that it could be generalized for any type of time-based editorial system. It’s funny, I’ve asked several times in the forum if folks would like a DAW that had a timeline like in FCPX. I’ve never gotten an answer. I think that says something…
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Multitrack audio editing is the worst part of FCPX at the moment for me.”
Agreed. And I think it really demonstrates the limitations of the FCPX timeline paradigm. Very curious to see how they fix it.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Herb Sevush] “OK, I’m still waiting for the explanation of how he works without the sync indicators.”
Yeah, I was curious about that too for the same reasons. It great he’s having fun, it just wasn’t clear if he still misses them or not with his new workflow.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Herb Sevush] “But for X the problem still remains, how do you know what should be on the primary storyline when solving that mystery should be the aim of your work?”
That’s the question, isn’t it?
Another thing I find constantly amusing are statements like this one from Michael Friedman in the article:
[Michael Friedman] “It’s hard to think of ways to convey feelings about software. So, I am merely trying to express the small sense of elation that I felt when I realized the upside of losing my trusted track framework. I felt encouraged to experiment more. I felt slightly liberated in my timeline edits.”
Here’s a pro tip that works for all track-based NLEs – duplicate sequence. You’re welcome. Go crazy. Experiment to your heart’s content. Digital media solved the experimentation problem decades ago.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Bill Davis] “That “spine” thing you guys are so focused on…it now has a name.
The Primary Storyline.”
Actually, “That spine thing” has had an industry standard name and meaning for over 20 years:
The Sequence.
(couldn’t resist either)
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
Confirmed.
Just tried testing 7toX which uses compound clips to bring in FCP7 sequences. Tried adding and blading a couple sequence CCs in the primary. I kept a finder window open to the side and watched the project size additively increase with each blade cut. Very quickly things ground to a halt.
Bug report submitted. Agree it’s likely a very tough one. Also agree it’s essential they fix this ASAP, particularly in light of how 7toX works.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Craig Seeman] “And to some of us it’s waisted space and on bigger monitors it looks even more vacuous.”
If that’s your experience, I can’t argue with it. I personally never have a problem. Well-organized tracks usually have enough going on in them that I find any space is useful to understanding the whole, just as Herb posted earlier.
One thing that would be nice in Legacy would be the ability to completely collapse or hide tracks that don’t need to be always viewed. Adobe has been doing this for years in AE and PP and it’s nice. I think it’s a better approach than simply throwing out the organization benefits of vertical space. Again, choice would be great.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl