David Lawrence
2
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Craig Seeman] “In FCP7 if you had a bunch of tracks with video at one point in time and many minutes later you were just had video in track 1 and track 10 you had a lot of empty space. That would be compounded if Track 10’s Video clip was tied to audio on their complimentary tracks although way down. It was a vertically inefficient. FCPX shows me what I need above/below at that moment in time. I can have 10 layers at one point and two at another and not have a lot of dead space.”
To some of us, empty vertical space is information. Not everyone cuts on a laptop screen.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Steve Connor] “But what are we going to argue about now?”
LOL! I’m sure we’ll think of something! 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[alban egger] “I don´t think the editor decides, but the software should understand which tool needs more than 1 viewer.”
[Craig Seeman] “I agree. That’s why I suspect Multicam is just the first example of what will eventually be contextual implementation. I’m going to guess the ability to Gang will be coming later this year as a result since it’s a similar function.”
Sorry guys, it’s simply impossible for software to read a user’s mind and be right 100% of the time. Even if it’s contextually right 90% of the time, that’s not good enough for power users. It’s better design and far easier to offer choice and let the user decide. Everyone is happier – the user gets what they want and the developer doesn’t have to try to be a mind reader. Win-win.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Michael Gissing] “Not surprisingly audio seems to demand a good old fashioned timeline over the magnetic timeline and Roles. Why not cut through all the dancing around motherhood statements about paradigm shifts and just demand that Apple give us an option to work and switch between a conventional track based view, magnetic timeline whilst editing if you want and roles as a way of dynamically patching.”
Well said.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
B
And they wouldn’t even have to be audio tracks.
Just allow for more than one Primary. Let me have as many as I want. Folks who are happy with only one track can keep working as they currently do. Nothing changes. Folks like myself who need more can add them as needed. Use them for audio or video just like now. Connect things to them and create truly meaningful clip relationships rather than being forced into the half-baked notion that everything relates to a single “Primary”.
Something like this would be truly powerful and flexible. Multiple Primaries would rock! I doubt we’ll ever see it.
A source viewer would be nice too. Even though I hear we’re now in a brave new world of “21st century” media, I still like to match eye-lines and spot motion continuity when cutting.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Walter Soyka] “I see where you’re going here with nodes versus tracks, but I’ve made the argument before that nodal compositing is a great example of how allowing the operator to use spatial arrangement is important.”
We’re in complete agreement here. Spatial position is essential in mapping a nodal pipeline. The last thing you’d want is for it to constantly reflow. Where I was coming from is that in nodal compositing, the focus is generally on individual shots, not the timeline or time per se. The spatial position and connections between nodes have nothing to do with that node’s relationship to time. It’s all about the composite.
[Walter Soyka] “Imagine if the node graph continuously automatically reflowed as you worked — you’d get lost.
People are naturally very good at spatial thinking, but FCPX doesn’t take advantage of this.”
Agreed. I think this is one of the reasons I dislike the magnetic timeline. By default it reflows both horizontally and vertically in time. For my work style and project needs, more often than not, this gets in the way.
[Walter Soyka] “Metadata is one thing, but a self-collapsing timeline is another. Craig makes a great point — and I think Jeremy has suggested this, too — it’d be great if FCPX could actually use metadata to drive the view of the timeline instead of always showing the native parent/child view.”
Yes! This would be great. I think the forced parent/child UI is the core problem with the current FCPX timeline for editor’s like myself. It’s an artificial constraint when you’re used to working in an open, non-hierarchical timeline.
I hope we eventually see something like this but I’m not holding my breath 😉
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Craig Seeman] “The number of people and organizations who used spreadsheets instead of databases because they had no idea how to use a database was pervasive IMHO.”
Certainly. I’ve seen this many times as well. That doesn’t change the fact that even though they have some functional overlap, they’re really different tools for different jobs.
[Craig Seeman] “Being able to use Roles to line up content in rows (tracks) as needed would be good. I don’t want my NLE to limited by that mode, as most are. “
Fair enough. I’m curious – do you do a lot of work in nodal compositors? If so I can imagine why you you’d find this liberating. For me, tracks are a foundation. They provide inherent structure and organization, both temporally and visually. I’ve never felt limited by them. Just the opposite, in fact.
[Craig Seeman] “One thing that FCPX hasn’t broached, and may not for some time, is that a powerful database not only allows for complex relationships but allows for flexible display. FCPX has a ways to go in that area but my own guess is that Apple is going to move the database further along for a bit before it can really get into more flexible interface control.”
This is something Walter Murch alludes to in that interview from a couple months ago. The idea being that if you have a robust database backend, you can build whatever UI you want on top of it to visualize the data. Great idea and hope it’s possible.
My hunch though is that the timeline UI itself is designed around a data model that is considerably less flexible than people think. My gut is the UI design decisions are deeply baked in. I’d love to be wrong about this though! The possibility of a malleable database backend that could be poured into any type of frontend UI is what keeps me paying attention to FCPX’s progress.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Craig Seeman] “It depends on the duration. I can see time with connected clips and secondary storylines. If different parts of disparate time distance need to be “relative” I can make them a secondary storyline. I have choice. Clips apart in time may or may not be relative. I can make that “connection” as I see fit.”
Duration is irrelevant. The problem is everything must either be in or connected to the Primary — whether it makes sense or not. Fine for some things but a huge limitation for any editorial workflow requiring multiple, independent channels.
This is why we see workarounds like spiking clips to frame 1 to try to simulate independent track-like behavior. That fact that you have to do this is a clue that the timeline paradigm still needs major work.
Roles may help visually, but I don’t see how they address the constraint of everything having to connect to or be in a single Primary track.
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Craig Seeman] “Databases are far more powerful. Over time, regardless of NLE, the power editor or their assistances, will be database proficient. I suspect other NLEs will catch up but FCPX is taking the lead in that department. It really needs a facility level management tool though.”
More powerful for what? The analogy really doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying because we have mySQL, there’s no longer a need for Microsoft Excel. Really?
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl -
[Craig Seeman] “Tracks have been used that way because there was no alternative. Now there is. It used to look like a spreadsheet with rows of clips. Now it looks like a database. “
It’s about frame-of-reference. Tracks are the most natural and efficient way to represent multiple concurrent channels of media relative to absolute time. The database functionality doesn’t help with this. Labels (roles) exist outside time and space — they solve a different kind of problem.
There are many workflows and project types that demand multiple, parallel, media channels in absolute time — multi-track audio recording or multi-channel video to name a couple.
I’ve said for while and I still believe that FCPX’s single Primary Storyline is its biggest conceptual weakness. It’s efficient for certain kinds of editing and will hopefully improve; but at its core, it’s currently still an embellished single-track system. Sure, you can edit with it, but many editors like myself will find it limiting until it gets much more flexible.
Today’s updates are great and I’m curious to see how the timeline evolves. Now if they ever give the ability to create multiple Primaries as needed, things could get really interesting…
_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl