[Franz Bieberkopf]

Tom

I’m not sure of your “editing intention” with this comment – I find it vaguely dismissive but not much more.

You’re description of my work as “jumble” and “chaos” seems to willfully ignore the kind of organization that I’ve spent some effort outlining.

I have no doubt in the capacity of my working method to make eyes roll, but your dismissal of my working method ignores the most important point that I made (in summary) so I’ll state it here again for you – it isn’t so much about how I work specifically, but how flexible the tool is in allowing different approaches to workflow.

[Tom Wolsky] “Have you had a chance to see them at work?”

Alas, only on film.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

David,

Thanks for this.

To me this illustrates the limiting paradigm that FCPX is built on.

It seems to assume that a timeline is something similar to a videotape (or film strip) – ie something that is intended to be watched from beginning to end, and therefore all frames must be “accounted for” in terms of black or silence, etc.

An “open timeline” paradigm is looser. It allows that while the above (videotape or filmstrip) will be the desired result (at the end of an edit), timelines can also operate as scratchpads or work areas – ie not all frames have to be “accounted for”. (The software even helpfully just plays black and silence if you happen to press play over one of these areas bereft of media or instruction – it’s a helpful interpretation).

Interesting. Not sure why FCPX would limit timelines in such a way. (Further exemplified by the one timeline per project thinking).

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Walter Soyka] “Clip connections strike me as useful…I would have loved to have seen clip connections on an open timeline, without containers.”

Pro Tools calls it grouping. You can highlight clips and group them (and conversely ungroup them) at will. They then function as a single block of media.

… and in tracks!

I assume there are other examples out there too.

[Walter Soyka] “My main issues with the trackless, self-collapsing timeline are much more visual, but I think that will would be better in a separate thread.”

… my vote for you to start this thread.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Andrew Richards] “I base that statement on my observations of regular people consistently truly enjoying content despite relatively abysmal reproduction.”

While I am a bit alarmed by your dismissal of “irregular people” and their reactions, more to the point – I think you’ve missed my point. I wasn’t discussing reproduction quality but your focus on character and story as essential and fundamental to editing. (And therefor fundamentally important to the “paradigm”).

A pointed and illustrative example would be the work of Paul Sharits – it’s amusing to think of him assembling a “storyline” on his editing machine of choice …

[Andrew Richards] “Are these formulas? Or conventions?”

Though I think one can make a distinction between formulas and conventions, you could use the words interchangeably in what I have stated and my point still stands.

I might be better to summarize by saying that the degree to which my editing tools assume what I want is the degree to which they start to limit my endeavors.

You’re right in terms of ends, but I am interested in how FCPX shapes the process.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Thanks David.

Wow. I have lots to say. I’ll try to be as brief as I can an focus on the main issue that has been with me since the introduction of the new software. Keep in mind that I haven’t used FCPX (and please correct if my understandings of the software are wrong).

Lots of bells ringing but I’ll start by picking up on this:

[Andrew Richards]
“Story and characters are what the audience connects with.”

Maybe it is for the type of material you work with. This might even be true for most editing in general (though I doubt it). But the question at hand is – should tools be designed around that model?

The main issue is precisely those words floating in this thread (and I think in previous ones too): “Editorial intent”.

In order for a designer to start designing around my “editorial intent”, they have to start making a lot of assumptions about what editing is – or more specifically what kind of editing I want to do. In other words, they have to start designing around more formulaic models of what editing is. I think the long term implications of this are clear – taken to its conclusion, this will mean more formulaic editing and less creative approaches. (The irony here is interesting to me).

In short, FCPX seems to assume:
– that I have a “primary through-line” against which I am judging and adding other things
– that this is, mostly, a “storyline” of some sort

This seems to be developed for and work best with the most formulaic of work (using as three of the best examples of this):
– music video type productions, where music dictates the edit
– interview with b-roll type formulations
– dialog with cut-away type formulations

(A more thorough bit would examine the assumptions of an “open timeline” … anyone else want to jump on that?)

Strictly speaking, I think the only intent that can be assumed is that an editor will wish to put sound and image together in time. All else beyond that starts to get … a bit messed up.

I think that’s all I have time for right now …

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

David,

… a great theme for discussion.

Is there a short summary – that thread you link to is very long and meandering with lots of cross-topics. I couldn’t find what might be the start of this.

But I wanted to chime in first to suggest that musical composition is more an analog of editing (rather than metaphor).

It has been my long sad lament that editing software is primarily viewed as a visual realm (by both designers and users). (Already in this thread it’s been shunted in that direction.)

I see no reason not to expect most of the functionality of a DAW in an NLE.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

“They posted an FAQ stating what they were working on, when they would release it, and they have adhered to those statements. They have reiterated they will be bringing two more critical features (broadcast monitoring and multi-cam) in the next rev. This is tight-lipped? Apple might not have an emissary on these forums, but they have been uncharacteristically candid (for them) about their plans for FCPX.”

You have just listed – almost in its entirety – all communications Apple have made about their plans. It may take another sentence or two to complete the picture.

You think this is good communication? You accept this as being forthcoming?

One assumes they’ve taken down the FAQ because that communication is no longer relevant to their plans.

It is ridiculous that you have to qualify “candid” (“for them”) and you don’t see the irony …

Apple is a company that doesn’t communicate – it uses marketing.

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

Richard,

I’ll leave aside the obvious ad hominem aspect of your post, but you’ve pretty much done what you claim to denounce. (More political analogy? – Do as I say, not as I do?)

It probably doesn’t help your case (critical of all the drama) to start a farcical diatribe with all caps and three exclamations points.

That said, I am a sure your root sentiment is shared by many (too much bashing, too many rants).

However I will take you to task on one point – you state that those in the forum “… oftentimes state … claims with a ‘definitive’ standpoint … in a definitive broad enveloping … kind of way” (edited for bombast).

I will direct you to the Apple FCP page where these claims are made:
“Everything just changed in post.”
“Final Cut Pro X redefines post-production for professionals.”
… along with the sentence fragments:
“A major breakthrough in video editing.”
“Revolutionary editing tools.”
etc. (and this is only the front page of the site …)

I think if you are going to be critical of the hyperbole in the air, you might start here.

Further, as has been pointed out already – this is the debate thread.

– Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Andrew Richards] “Do you think it is somehow intellectually dishonest or dissonant for me to defend the magnetic timeline, agree the Dvorak keyboard is a useful analogy, but type on a Qwerty?”

Andrew,

Let’s be clear then – why do you use QWERTY?

Franz.

[Franz Bieberkopf]

[Andrew Richards] “And I’d be much more willing to accept these statements if these advanced users supported them, which would help convince me their frustration was with a structural problem in FCPX’s timeline model …”

Andrew,

Actually, it is the software designers of FCP X that are making extra-ordinary claims – that the prevailing paradigms are old and in need of revision. And further, that this new software answers as of yet unasked questions.

Tracks and the prevailing conventional paradigms have proven their worth and flexibility. It is the designers and marketers of FCP X that are beholden to users to support their claims.

Or, to summarize …

[Chris Harlan] ” …the claim is constantly being made that X represents a revolution in editing, and is much, much faster. I think it is fair for people to ask for that to be substantiated.”

Franz.