Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
Bill,
We were talking about your concern for “ragging” in this thread. For substantial support regarding comments on the article, read the other comments in this thread.
[Bill Davis] “So basically, Shane was being a bit hyperbolic”
Tim posted that he regretted when people “rag” on what someone else is doing – demean their efforts to support their own.
You claimed that the “genesis of this thread” was precisely that – “ragging”. The implication (“the first dozen posts”) was that Shane had demeaned the original article and its writer to support himself.
Now you’re saying it’s just hyperbole that you don’t like.
Do I have this correctly?
Tim’s original post – the one you based your comment on – was not concerned with people being hyperbolic.
Tim was concerned about misrepresenting others – how they work, what they think, talking for other people, about what they do, and how they do it in order to create a straw man that can be knocked down to support an argument. There are many examples (which have been given) of how the writer of the original article does this.
Tim then made an effort (once again) to encourage people to share how they work and why. Rather than making claims about others.
Presumably you posted the article here for comment. I see Shane’s comments as calling out errors and poor and writing. You said you felt it was “ragging” but now you feel it is just “hyperbole”. Or the “wrong tone”.
[Bill Davis] “… more on-point (to my mind at least, I could be wrong) is the tone of this in the very area YOU quote.”
Here’s the quote again:
[Shane Ross] “There is a lot right about the the timeline, like no collisions and keeping storylines connected, I’ll give him that. And I know that the magnetic timeline is AMAZING for many MANY people. I get that, I’m not knocking that. It’s useful, it’s great, I know that. But the article is full of wrong and misleading statements. And there are many valid arguments for tracks…but just because someone doesn’t like them or see the point to them doesn’t mean they are useless, or a hinderance.”
I read this as pretty measured. You’re saying this is out of line for the forum (the “wrong tone”) and this is the “ragging” that you objected to?
Franz.
P.S. Thank-you for the welcome back – it’s a pleasure to be welcomed – it was the promise of expanding on ideas with Walter (and possibly learning something) that I couldn’t resist. But the constant hostile environment and retreads of tired arguments and straw men is quite off-putting, and frankly it is no wonder to me why there are so few fresh voices and perspectives in this forum. -
[Bill Davis] “Go back and review just the first dozen posts in this thread. With an eye to where any “ragging” arose.”
Bill,
I have done so. The first dozen. I can only find the following that could possibly be construed as “ragging”:
[Shane Ross] “WRONG.”
[Shane Ross] “that’s a BS statement.”
[Shane Ross] ” those opening statements are just complete BS.”
[Shane Ross] ” I said his opening arguments were pure BS”
[Bill Davis] ” You might be astonished at just how many working editors have absolutely no clue about any of this stuff. … their thinking and education STOPPED.
[Shane Ross] ” the opening of the article is just poop.”
It’s probably important to note that in his first post, Shane also said this:
[Shane Ross] “There is a lot right about the the timeline, like no collisions and keeping storylines connected, I’ll give him that. And I know that the magnetic timeline is AMAZING for many MANY people. I get that, I’m not knocking that. It’s useful, it’s great, I know that. But the article is full of wrong and misleading statements. And there are many valid arguments for tracks…but just because someone doesn’t like them or see the point to them doesn’t mean they are useless, or a hinderance.”So: “right”, “AMAZING”, “I’m not knocking that”, “useful”, “great” in addition to qualifying his label of “BS” as “wrong and misleading statements”.
I suppose if we consider “BS” to be harsh language, we can construe this as “ragging”. Is this what you are objecting to? If not, then what?
I also found one instance of trollish behaviour:
[Bill Davis] “Shane, calm down.”
Franz.
-
[Bill Davis] ” That might be an example of X automating editorial functions without the need for user intervention, perhaps.”
Bill,
You can trim blind to audio using Premiere Pro. (The A/V track separator can be dragged to hide audio).
You may well be able to do this in Avid and others as well (not currently using them so I can’t check).
So on the face of it, the example you’ve given is another way of emphasizing how NLEs keep relationships in general.
Now it might be true that complex trimming selections can’t be done in PPro without seeing audio – you’d have to ask someone that uses the trimming tools in a more traditional way than I. But I think that this points more towards what Walter is talking about.
On that note, with further reflection, I think auditions and (maybe) secondaries are examples of the kinds of relationships that can be preserved in FCPX that would be difficult to do in other NLEs. I’m interested to see what Walter comes up with, and I’ll have more to say then.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “I think that groups are really stored/recalled selections.”
Walter,
… on further reflection (and perhaps as further fodder for you upcoming post) I am trying to understand this qualification and take it further: in what sense is a timeline – any timeline – not “stored/recalled selections”. I mean they’re selections in relation to one another, of course, so can we not call a timeline a collection of “stored/recalled selections” set in relation to one another?
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “Have you actually used FCPX, Franz?”
Yes, though not much.
[Walter Soyka] “Separate post to come.”
Looking forward to it.
Franz.
-
[Bill Davis] But I thought Shane’s original contention was that the timing relationship (as it relates to the tickmarks on a timeline) was functionally irrelevant.”
Bill,
If you’re unclear on what Shane articulated you could ask him. If you’re unclear on what I have said, you can ask.
If you’re trying to conflate what I said with what Shane said, then I’d suggest you ask yourself why you’re doing that.
It is entirely possible that I have a perspective that is not shared by Shane and vice versa. It is odd to me that you might find this surprising. But I don’t see any contradiction in what I have written and what Shane has written.
[Bill Davis] ” … what’s the point in artificially constraining time markers on any story assembly system to a linear array of NEVER-changing tick marks. What’s the point of THAT?”
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. What is an “artificial constraint”? What would be a natural constraint? What is being constrained? What do you want to do that feels limited? How has it been limited? Are we still talking about NLEs?
Franz.
Edit: “contraction” to “contradiction” -
Walter,
Thanks.
But I think the comparison of the two models is more nuanced than that.
[Walter Soyka] ” traditional NLEs encode time directly …, while FCPX encodes relationships directly (and derives time).”
Again, I am asking how this changes the user experience. I understand the two data models, I am asking about their impact on the user experience.
From a user perspective, both models (relative and absolute) can be used to give absolute information (where in the timeline does this clip play?) and relative information (what comes next).
Further both models are capable of encoding relationships.
[Walter Soyka] ”… the FCPX data model — the internal use of clip relationships as the structure of the timeline — is the thing that enables FCPX timeline mechanics.”
Can you be more specific here. You’ve used a vague notion of “timeline mechanics”.
I think you mean ripple-by-defaut, collision avoidance, and the nuances of clip connections (vs. grouped clips). Am I missing something else? If we’re talking about these things, then it’s clear that ripple editing is in any tracked / absolute model and there has been suggestion (by David Lawrence) that there’s nothing about tracked / absolute timelines that precludes collision avoidance. In other words – both models can have these features, and I don’t understand why one model “enaables” these features while another model precludes them.
[Walter Soyka] “With a traditional NLE, you read the timeline, and you can see and use and change the relationships. But it’s on you, the editor, to use and preserve the relationships of obviously-related clips during operation.”
I have outlined a number of clip relationships that are preserved in so-called “traditional” timelines. In other words, timelines are built to preserve relationships. I’ll give you these examples again:
“ … clips with video and audio, clips that have been linked, clips that are multicam, clips that have been grouped (we could call them scenes), clips that have sync relationships that can be indicated, clips that have duplicates that can be indicated, clips that have through edits that can be indicated, clips that have proxy media (two media files), clips that have “enhanced media” (ie. After Effects links).”
Those are example of relationships of obviously related clips that are preserved in a timeline. As an editor I do not have to work to preserve these relationships – the software does it for me. Grouped clips (scenes) and multi-cam seem to me to common counter-examples to your argument.
[Walter Soyka] “You have to make multi-selections, both vertically and horizontally. You have to toggle track locks to preserve some pieces you want to keep. You have to play Track Tetris to make clips fit after a move. You, the editor, have to do a lot of timeline work to keep related clips related during operation.”
There is work to do in the timeline regardless of which NLE you use. The original article tries to glide over the work of connection management for example. The argument is something along the lines of “some work is needed but it’s trivial” – so we’re back to subjective feelings of speed and efficiency.
Or, as I said, there is some slight difference in terms of how to manipulate relationships. As I understand it this essentially comes down to collision avoidance and (as I said above) some nuances of clip connections (vs. grouped clips).
Perhaps I can make it simpler (for myself to understand).
Can you give me an example of a relationship that one NLE relies on the editor to understand that FCPX does not rely on the editor to understand. Bear in mind the group clips function in most NLEs.
Franz.
(Edit: spelling and clarity) -
[Walter Soyka] “Let’s party like it’s 2012.”
Walter, indeed.
It’s difficult not to eye-roll at how this post (and thread) retreads common misconceptions about editing and NLEs that continue to prop up the evangelist posts.
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing.” Discuss.However, since you have dropped in (and in the interest of possibly contributing and learning something), I thought I would. But it’s to call you on this:
[Walter Soyka] “FCPX is fundamentally different. Clip relationships are incidental and only implied in traditional NLEs, but clip relationships actually form the very structure of the edit in FCPX. All the timeline mechanics in FCPX are based on clips’ relationships to each other.”
I know you’re enamored of the underlying structure of the information that FCPX uses. We have talked about this before. However, I’m going to argue that from a user perspective there are actually no differences. Or only slight difference in terms of how to manipulate relationships.
This is my argument:
When I place clips in a tracked timeline, I have indicated very specific relationships. They are not implied. They are there to be seen, to be used, to be changed. The proof is that when I play back, the clips play back as expected, in the relationships that I have indicated, and when I use the clips (change relationships, rely on relationships for technical or creative reasons) they behave as expected.
The timeline encapsulates and preserves the relationships.
These relationships are serial and parallel in nature. (Horizontal, Vertical, or in depth as with multicam).
These relationships can be transferred: for example, select all, copy and paste to a new timeline; same relationships; or through export formats to other software. Or through an export which “executes” the relationships to an independent media file.
These relationships have sub-relationships within them: for example: clips with video and audio, clips that have been linked, clips that are multicam, clips that have been grouped (we could call them scenes), clips that have sync relationships that can be indicated, clips that have duplicates that can be indicated, clips that have through edits that can be indicated, clips that have proxy media (two media files), clips that have “enhanced media” (ie. After Effects links).
All these relationships are – from a user perspective – not “implied”. They are explicit. They can be seen, used, relied on, and changed by any editor, and they are encapsulated by a timeline.
Now, from a programming perspective, it may be very different. But from a user perspective, whether clips are referenced to master time or to each other, there is no difference.
I think you are going to argue that clips in so-called “traditional” NLEs reference only master time and therefore “aren’t related”. My argument is that it is precisely through this “master time” that they gain their relationships to one another.
Franz.
-
ON LEARNING
[Bill Davis] “People are complex. … I suspect it nigh onto impossible to neatly say “learning took place exclusively due to this or that educational modality.”
Bill,
Agreed. This is why it’s important to call out stuff like this:
[Bill Davis] “”Without conditioning – we have to re-learn EVERYTHING anew each time we face it.””
[Bill Davis] “The question isn’t ARE we conditioned.””
[Bill Davis] “It’s how we learn to hit a baseball – OR type, for heaven’s sake.”
https://forums.creativecow.net/docs/forums/post.php?forumid=335&postid=96118I found this, an overview of Piaget’s constructivist theories about learning:
“Piaget’s hypothesis that learning is a transformative rather than a cumulative process is still central. Children do not learn a bit at a time about some issue until it finally comes together as understanding. Instead, they make sense of whatever they know from the very beginning. This understanding is progressively reformed as new knowledge is acquired, especially new knowledge that is incompatible with their previous understanding. This transformative view of learning has been greatly extended by neo-Piagetian research.”
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-reform/sociology-general-terms-and-concepts/learningWhat’s interesting about that is the idea of transformation rather than accumulation – learning isn’t a stockpile that gets bigger, it’s continuous chemistry between the environment and the individual. It’s a pretty stark contrast to behaviorism and conditioning.
[Bill Davis] “For any editor who’s … conditioned to equate “build your timeline” as where successful editing happens – I wonder if it’s … difficult to conceive editing [in other ways]”
When you’re saying things like this, I’m suggesting that you’re relying on a behaviorist understanding of how and why we do things. Why are you speculating that timeline-based methods are “conditioned” and not part of a more complex learning process? How are you contrasting the way these approaches are learned with the way other (browser-based) methods are learned?
ON SORTING AND OTHER APPROACHES
[Bill Davis] ”… the editor seeks to “pre-sort” and thereby narrow their focus. How they build the habit to seek “presortedness” is kinda irrelevant. Most editors seem to find the step valuable. Mostly.”
You seem pretty confident of you knowledge about the way “most” editors work.
But I think you’ve missed the subject of the discussion; “sorting” or “pre-sorting” are precisely what are in question. Some editors would define sorting or pre-sorting as the important foundation – the first step, the preliminary necessity. Others very much do not describe editing this way.
Simon is good on this – you should read his posts, he’s taken the time to try to explain a bit.
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/95831You are in fact using the very words he’s said don’t apply. He doesn’t “pre-sort” or have a “habit to seek presortedness”. Here he is on how sorting relates to what he does:
“If I were simply sorting through material in a Browser/Bin, this process would not be happening or at least not happening in anything like the same way.”
Here are a few aspects or qualities of his process that he points to that are important to him, and that are not sorting:
“I can see how one clip flows into another “
“I can already get a feel for the pacing.”
“The ability to reorder clips as the thought occurs to me”
“I have a continuous read-out of … length”
His focus isn’t on identifying clips or portions (though this could be said to be happening), it’s on working with things in context. What might seem a simple question of emphasis to you is an important distinction to him. He’s actually pretty insistent on this distinction:
“I have my editing hat on, not an organizing hat.”
“I am already thinking editorially (in the sense of creative timeline-based editing) and not wasting any time merely thinking organizationally.”So it strikes me that you’re trying to claim a certain universality (“mostly”) for a certain approach, and you might be missing the things he is pointing out as very important to him, in an attempt to shoehorn things into something that makes more sense to you.
Personally, I wouldn’t say that “sorting” is a thing I do as an important part of the edit. There is a basic organizing stage, but it doesn’t really address the meaning or function of material or even consider whether I will use it or not or why, so I don’t think it could be considered “sorting” in the way you’re using it. I’d call it basic organization and it is a task that can be done by others in preparation for the edit. I’d describe the early stage of the edit as understanding the material. “Understanding” is a pretty broad and nebulous thing – it might mean categorizing (“sorting”) to some, but it also means looking for relationships, looking for meaning maybe, or just finding a way to connect to the material.
I do that in a the timeline.
… AND ON A MORE COMEDIC NOTE
[Bill Davis] “… whenever you try to shoehorn something inherently complex into a set of simple descriptive shoeboxes – things get ugly fast.”
What’s your wife’s take on browser-based keywording and tagging?
Franz.
-
[Richard Herd] ” Acquisition is more like knowing by doing and errors are seen as developmental. Learning is more like knowing by being told and errors as seen as mistakes.”
Richard,
I’m still struggling to understand both how you pull these ideas from Bill’s post and where you’re trying to go with them.
Are you saying that Bill’s swimming instruction was “knowing by doing” or “knowing by being told”?
Here’s my charitable run at it:
[Bill Davis] “… [he’d] drill us with a particular stroke cadence … loudly enough for us to hear underwater”
… so I’m going to guess that even though Bill talks about both instruction and doing (assuming they were underwater because they were swimming), the swimming lesson falls into the “knowing by being told” category because he was being instructed (and that is condition enough to include it there) and it is not learning by doing (even though he was also “doing” and the drill could be supportive to that action).
Bill doesn’t mention errors or how they were handled at all. I can imagine the instruction allowing errors and falling back on the supportive chant of the swimming cadence, but I suppose “bellowing” evokes a bombastic character and thus errors were mistakes.
So in your interpretation Bill’s knowledge of swimming was learned knowledge not acquired?
I’m also guessing simply by process of elimination (since there is nothing in his post to tell us how Bill learned browser-based editing) that you’re implying Bill’s browser-based editing skill was acquired knowledge?
Is “the point” simply to contrast the two ways of gaining knowledge? How does Bill’s concern for habits fit into that? Is acquired knowledge more or less susceptible to become unquestioned habit?
As a final aside, is non-behaviorist “classical conditioning” enough of a thing that it doesn’t even need to be remarked on?
Franz.
(Edits: for clarity)