Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
[Marcus Moore] “The idea of narrative story structure begin represented in the edit software for the purpose of segmentation and collaborative editing is very interesting.”
Marcus,
Having had time to read this properly now, I do think the underlying ideas are important, but they can essentially be reduced to “grouping” and “versioning”.
I think he over-dresses the concepts by calling them “Scenes” and “Acts” etc. and it makes them sound like they have more functions than they actually do, and further skews the importance of narrative vs. non-narrative structures – they’re just groups. It’s a bit like calling a timeline a storyline – if it’s just nomenclature, well sure if you like that flavour, but it doesn’t really address storytelling.
I suppose one aspect of “narrative structure” (and/or non-narrative structure) is being represented in the timeline via groups. (Premiere’s implementation seems alright on this but I do hope they develop it more.)
Versioning (aka “auditions”, “stacks”, “playlists”) is a great concept at both the clip and group level – I’ve yet to see a full implementation though FCP X goes further here than anything else I’ve seen.
Franz.
-
[Marcus Moore] “”Introduced” is a broad term. I’m sure many of these things had been experimented with in some form or another at some point in time. They were new to Final Cut, and many of them differentiating factors from the other major NLEs.”
Marcus,
If by “introduced” and “experimented with” you mean “implemented” and “featured” then we are recognizing that FCP X adopted these concepts from other software.
An incomplete history, thanks to Oliver Peters, Micheal Gissing:
Non-standard interfaces include the original Premiere (also a Ubilos product), Quantel Harry (which used a vertical filmstrip metaphor) and Jaleo (now SGO Mistika – which uses a type of trackless timeline). You could also count the original Lightworks interface in this as well.
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/12231Avid had a magnetic timeline function early on.
Mistika had trackless timelines.
Media 100 (and others) had A/B-roll timelines.
DS had a container function (not unlike compound clips).
DPS Velocity had clip linking/grouping functions.
Avid and Premiere Pro had Find and Custom Sift functions with show/hide capabilities.
Various NLEs had combined A/V tracks separate from V-only and A-only and Title-only tracks.
Various NLEs used a single viewer window.
ArtBox (then FC Server) had the database functions.
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/41434“The templates for sophisticated track based non collision editing like Fairlight were known to Apple.”
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/48567
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/48558
(note that “non-collision editing” is better than the recently fashionable ideological misnomer “non-destructive timeline”)
“Roles look like how a database engineer would add bussing.”
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/48567Franz.
-
[Marcus Moore] “… any corporate video series, or commercial series, or TV series has repetitious elements.”
Marcus,
Are you suggesting this is the core use case around which an NLE should be designed?
Franz.
-
[Marcus Moore] “Of all the new ideas FCP X introduced, like skimmable thumbnails, trackless editing, magnetic timeline, connected clips, metadata-based organization, roles…”
Marcus,
You haven’t been paying attention to the history segments here in the forum.
Franz.
-
[Marcus Moore] ” I’m just saying this particular implementation using these Library bundles specifically, wasn’t possible before Mavericks.”
Marcus,
Why not?
Franz
-
[Walter Soyka] “I’m not familiar with the term “destructive” in the context of editorial. What is an example of the correct use of the term “destructive editing?””
Walter,
I would have thought this basic lexicon was plainly uncontroversial.
https://classes.berklee.edu/mbierylo/mtec111_Pages/audio_edit.htm#destructive
https://www.audiorecording.me/editing-audio-files-non-destructive-vs-destructive-editing.htmlFranz.
-
Am I the only one that finds it odd that there is no official statement from Apple on this?
… nothing on their site, no update on the Aperture links.
Franz.
-
[Tim Wilson] “It neatly puts in context … while also continuing the movement that actually started in Year One toward other, ultimately more interesting topics. At least to me …”
Tim,
I, for one, would be interested in reading a longer reflection on your impressions of the shape of the forum, its themes, sub-themes, and their development.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “I’ve developed an Ae technique using invisible text layers and expressions which allows the editor to hijack text entry fields for more generalized rigging.”
Walter,
Brilliant. Of Course. Thanks for this.
Franz.
Edit: Walter, I understood the principal immediately, but could you give a quick example of how to convert text field to value for expressions.
-
[Charlie Austin] ” I mainly thought it was an interesting transition story. Particularly the fact that, as 7 was still working, they kept doing what they were doing and just waited for X to be ready for their needs. I think that’s probably pretty common. And, AFAIK, 7 still works in Yosemite, so there’s no deadline for 7 users yet…”
Charlie,
This is much more interesting than your framing in the first post.
My own perspective on the article – first is this bit on the transition to X, which is telling:
“FCPX’s integration with Motion templates was the most anticipated benefit of an upgrade for the station, …”
… secondly, again, we have the primary comparison of X to 7: 2014 and Apple still competing with EOL software from 2009 (as observed by both you and Michael). It’s a common refrain here and I don’t think it paints as flattering a picture of Apple’s capabilities as some think it does.
Franz.