Franz Bieberkopf
Forum Replies Created
-
[Craig Seeman] “I don’t want an NLE to force me into pop tunes and classical orchestration.”
Craig,
This is precisely why I find the ideological choice of “primary storyline” and A/B editing a questionable foundation for an NLE.
Why start with such conventions?
Franz.
-
[David Lawrence] “The visual feedback’s correct when you think about what the timeline is doing. But the premise of the timeline itself is debatable.”
David,
I’ll have to remember this line as a delicate way of expressing myself when I don’t like a cut.
[David Lawrence] “Franz, here’s how I think if it …”
[Walter Soyka] “Let’s drop the words relative and absolute for a moment.”
So,
I think the thing is that I’ve always had some sort of timecode-based “primary storyline” (yeesh – that term) in my head when I work with timelines. So the concept has always been there and now Apple have taken it, emptied it of any sort of preloaded (useful) template, and asked editors to fill it as they begin. If that really is all there is to it, then I’ve got it. In fact, I’ve always had it.
Relative Time is Absolute Time without the Time.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “This is why I keep blabbering on with Franz about clip relationships …”
Also, thanks for that.
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “… you can get absolute time behavior in FCPX by cutting a gap into the primary and then connecting everything to it. You could consider a traditional timeline to be much like this, except that the primary gap clip is invisible to the user.”
Walter,
That’s pretty much my understanding of it. So I guess I understand it. I just have a nagging suspicion that creeps up when people start talking about relative time and absolute time. Maybe I can’t conceptualize the distinction and Einstein was right.
Franz.
-
[Oliver Peters] ” Here, FCP 7 and Media Composer clearly excel. And definitely excel over Premiere Pro, EDIUS, Vegas, etc.”
Oliver,
What sorts of issues have you encountered with PPro and this approach?
Franz.
-
Steve,
Have they actually announced a mixer, or just the promise of more sophisticated audio features? In any case I am interested to see what develops.
With 7 and a control surface, I can adjust levels and twiddle knobs real-time while listening, reacting – with a mouse I can do so as well on the mixer (though I am limited to 1 track, or 1 interaction at any given time). My understanding of X is that you’re limited to clip adjustments, and keyframing is not done in real time.
I guess by “real-time” I mean a multi-track mixer model, unrestricted to one interaction, with integrated automation reading/writing.
Franz.
-
[Oliver Peters] “Admittedly that’s something I’m conceptually struggling with in X, because its Project (timeline, sequence) structure is extremely weak if you are trying this type of approach.”
Oliver,
It’s actually these sorts of ideological underpinnings that make X the least attractive option for consideration.
– A/B roll editing model
– clip-based editing model
– non-mixer, non-realtime based audio modelIt seems clear that people are using it in a variety of ways (not restricted to the above), but the design philosophy has always been a bit suspect to me.
Franz.
-
[Oliver Peters] ” Part of that is making use of the Keyword/Smart Collection clip organization – not just the Magnetic Timeline.”
Oliver,
You’re presuming that one should use a clip-based editing approach as opposed to sequence based editing approach.
related thread de-rail here:
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/40193#40342Franz.
-
Walter,
Thanks, I think we’ve had this exact exchange before.
I’m still conceptually fuzzy on it. I somehow imagine that the “absolute time” of most NLEs is somehow equivalent to the primary storyline in FCPX – ie. I’m not really sure practically how it really makes a difference if a shot’s placement relates to absolute time or the primary storyline.
… “grouping behaviour” and “clip connections” quite aside.
Also, I think pretty broadly in terms of the kinds of relationships that exist in a timeline, and I think you’re speaking in specific terms when you use that word. (“placement” maybe?)
Franz.
-
[Walter Soyka] “… making the relationships between clips explicit. Without these explicit, stored relationships, the editor must remember (or deduce from arrangement on the open timeline) how clips relate in order to make the correct selections before performing any timeline maneuver.”
[Walter Soyka] “… there are certainly many examples of clips which relate not just to another clip, but to a specific point on that clip — like illustrative cutaways, graphics, and sound effects — meaning that a single stored selection will not be most accurate for all editorial maneuvers”
Walter,
You’ve used this language before, and I’d like to know what you mean by it in more detail.
I think of a timeline as an explicit map of relationships – not that it doesn’t need to be interpreted, but that those relationships are there (the result of the edit). It seems to me that clip connections are only good for making certain kinds of relationships explicit (less interpretation needed) – and these would be those examples you list (illustrative cutaways, graphics, and sound effects) though in fact I’m not sure that 1 frame connections really do them justice either (each, after all, has a duration).
To restate – there are all kinds of relationships going on in a timeline; relationships are the basis of editing. Clip connections seem to focus and make explicit one kind of relationship.
But I’m not sure I’m quite understanding you on this …
Franz.