[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi John

No doubt easy and effective. Also expensive.

I really dig the idea that the 3D text stuff in X is free. Being able to bend it to my will and do on-the-cheap 3D logos is just a fun thing. If I need real work like that done, I hire graphics people. (A graphics designer I most certainly am not!)

[Jeff Markgraf]

Ha! Might have known. I can’t handle all this simplicity. Shouldn’t all this be more difficult?

[Jeff Markgraf]

Troll has successfully trolled.

Move along. Nothing to see here. Mind the gap.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Warning – kinda long and contains some well-known trigger words 😉

I often feel that Bill and some of the “opposition” (just a word to describe the not-Bill group…don’t anyone get their jimmies all rustled…) are talking past each other. Here’s what I see as the crux of Bill’s argument:

[Andrew Kimery] “how someone else likes to work”

is not the same as

[Andrew Kimery] “what’s best for a given user on a given project.
“

Many find that the hardest part of really, deeply learning X is to realize that the correct answer to “how do I do ____ (which I do now in Legacy/PPro/Avid) in X” is “you don’t – X does this instead to achieve the desired result.”

So I think the frustration that often comes through in Bill’s posts is a reflection of this disconnect. It’s not that there’s anything inherently wrong with a vertically stacked series of longitudinal tracks. The visual arrangement does look tailor made to roll past a head stack on old analog 24 track deck. It’s how it’s been done for decades. Even though the old film mag recorders ran vertically, if you flip them on their sides it would fit the visual metaphor perfectly.

Hollywood (aka profesional film and television production) has a method of working that goes back almost a hundred years. So much of what we do, especially with sound, is rooted in and based on that very old workflow. And it works, so why change it?

I think Bill’s point is that “I like working this way/I’ve always worked this way” is absolutely NOT equivalent to “I MUST work this way.” If we stay focused on the result, rather than the process, we can evaluate and perhaps adopt new and different ways of working.

At some point, most of us (I hope) have said, “I wish I could do this, but it’s hard/not practical with the available tools and process.” Frankly, after many years of doing what we do, it’s all too easy to stop wishing and just get on with it. And when something different, and potentially better, comes along, we may have to push ourselves out of our comfort zone in order to “wish” again and see if the new tool might help achieve that goal.

“Focus” showed that X could play in a professional environment by taking in and spitting out audio and video in a way that conformed to long-established industry workflows. Yay. Good job. But listen to Mike Matzdorff (who has sufficient industry experience to be taken seriously) talk about what could be and what should be. Just because a sound editor wants an EDL doesn’t mean that’s still the best way to accomplish his ultimate goal. By all means, give the man his EDL — but don’t insist it isn’t a relic of an earlier time that could, and should, be done away with, if only the sound editor decided to (or felt empowered to) do it differently.

Please note that no individual COW is being called out or having his professional integrity questioned.
Bill, please correct me If I’ve misunderstood or misrepresented you here.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi Andrew.

Preaching to the choir on ISIS. I think it’s Avid’s single biggest deal maker for any operation with more than 2 seats. Add in Interplay, and it’s really hard to beat. But expensive! No way around that. I think I’d go with a fancy MAM setup like Cantemo Portal or some such product if I needed ISIS-style multiuser workflow for X.

[Andrew Kimery] “Avid’s great trim tool (which apparently is it’s own debate). ;)”

Uhh…no. Been down that rabbit hole. I appreciate the efforts of all involved, but Avid’s trim mode is probably never going to be duplicated. I assume it’s got patents attached to it. Now, I have no problems trimming in X (or in FCP Legacy before). And I really do appreciate not having to switch modes to trim. (That may be the one thing I don’t like about Avid’s trim.) I’ve done movies, docs, short form and tons of promo in X. I don’t find myself yearning for Avid whenever I trim in X. But let’s not pretend that X does dynamic trimming like Avid does. It doesn’t. What it does do is close enough for my needs. It’s just different.

[Andrew Kimery] “know more than a few Avid editors that will probably always think FCP (any version) is second rate.”

Yep. We may know some of the same people! They’ll never be convinced. That’s OK. I have work to do, and life’s too short to get that horse to drink the damn water.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi Herb.

I think we’re pretty much on the same page vis a vis choosing an NLE that fits one’s workflow.

Here’s where I’m a little unclear:

On the one hand, [Herb Sevush] “I don’t think there’s anything that X can’t do.”
On the other hand, [Herb Sevush] “the difference is that the structure of a tracked NLE allows for this possibility.”
The logical inverse of this statement, to me, is that “the structure of a non-tracked NLE does not allow for this possibility.”

I’ve frequently seen on this board some variation of “X’s trackless interface makes it impossible to do _______” Usually related to the kind of bussing and mixing process we’re talking about. What I’m getting at is the ease with which this idea is taken as orthodoxy.

Yes, in its current development state, X doesn’t do some of the track-based techniques that are important to some workflows (like yours). But I don’t see any evidence that X’s “trackless” mode prohibits the implementation of these techniques. Apple’s philosophy may prohibit such functions, but that’s a whole different thing.

So – does the “trackless” structure of X preclude the implementation of the mixing and bussing techniques commonly associated with “tracked” NLEs? (Not that I expect you to have the final answer, Herb!) I think this is a much more useful extension of the seemingly endless tracks vs. trackless merry go round.

[Jeff Markgraf]

Hi Herb.

I understood your response as being primarily about the blanket statements. Wasn’t intending to correct anyone so much as to redirect to what seemed like a more specific and useful discussion.

I don’t know if PPro is unique in having bussing. I’d certainly like to see it in X and in Avid. It would make it much easier for the increasing amount of “finish it in the NLE” I and others do.

While X can’t do this in its current state, I’m not so sure I’d call it impossible to do because of the trackless mode. Exporting roles as individual tracks is, in essence, assigning clips to specific busses. Right now it’s limited to exporting. I wonder why this function couldn’t be accessed inside the edit process, perhaps through a popup “mixer” or some kind of HUD. Maybe a plugin?

Obviously, moving a clip into or out of a track with a particular effect assigned to it is easy. But is it really so much harder to change a role on a clip? I know it’s a couple more keystrokes or mouse clicks, but what if it could be assigned to a hot key? Wouldn’t it then be pretty much the same as select and drag or shift up arrow, or whatever the PPro keystrokes are?

[Jeff Markgraf]

Oliver –

In regard to adjustment tracks and vertical cha cha:

Yes, editing via connected clips, using the keyboard command, puts the new clip at the highest level in the hierarchy. This can be problematic when an adjustment layer has already been added. However, if a clip is connected by dragging it from the browser onto the timeline, you can place it underneath the adjustment layer. Granted, I prefer the keyboard command for speed, but the vertical cha cha is not insurmountable. And, of course, editing into the primary makes the point moot, as the adjustment is always a connected clip.

Backing up a bit, though, I don’t usually need to add the adjustment layer first, while I’m still making basic edit decisions. I’ll usually add it later, after I’ve got the structure down. Particularly on Avid, if it’s not a beefy modern CPU, I find an adjustment layer often makes editing sluggish because of having to process everything through that adjustment. And if the adjustment is an effect that must be rendered, forget it! Put it on at the end.

One of my feature requests has been the ability to “pin” a clip to an absolute time on the timeline. Seems adding the ability to pin a clip to the top level might also be useful.

Regarding audio:

As I suggested in response to Herb, the kind of audio bussing you’re talking about is currently available only in PPro. Avid doesn’t have it either, unless you can do it with RTAS (which I’ve never used). I would love to see the ability to expand a compound clip in place, either audio or video, just like an Avid collapsed video clip. (Not to mention, I wish Avid could collapse audio clips!) This would effectively solve the problem of having to step into the compound to make adjustments (and thus losing the context of the timeline).

[Jeff Markgraf]

[Andrew Kimery] “To be fair, no NLE does this as well as Avid does.”

As far as I know, only Avid has this kind of shared project workflow. Maybe Lightworks? I don’t see X as any better or worse than another non-Avid system in implementing a multi-user workflow.

I’ve worked with Unity/ISIS systems for many years. It’s a great setup. But while the Avid shared workflow is rightly touted as a standard, I rarely hear any discussion of the precise daily must-have features. Perhaps the COW member best able to address this is Mark Raudonis, as he has direct experience with Avid and non-Avid large scale workflow.

Here’s an example of what I mean:

On an Avid ISIS system, I can work on any sequence in the project, as long as someone hasn’t opened it first. If I want to work simultaneously on “my” version of the sequence, I need to make a copy of it from the locked bin into a different bin. In most cases, I’m not likely to directly modify someone else’s cut, unless specifically asked to. So in practical, daily use, I’m usually going to work from a copy of the original sequence. At some point, one version of the cut will become the preferred “current” version, or they’ll be merged by one person into another, newer version.

Compare this to shared workflow in a non-Avid setup. To work on someone else’s sequence, I need to copy it into my own project/library. The big difference is really the requirement to have another library open (MY library, if you will) to do the work. In practical use, it’s one more step compared to the Avid workflow. Much has been written describing how to set up such a system of a common “master” library that gets updated as work progresses.

Certainly, Avid’s system is more elegant. And there may be more chance for error (like forgetting to transfer the updated sequence from my library to the master library) by relying on transfer bins/events. But it’s hardly unworkable or so cumbersome as to be impractical.

Given the many benefits I find with X, the lack of a Unity/ISIS shared project is far from a deal breaker. Much as with Herb’s need to buss his audio for efx requires PPro, the shared workflow situation is a specific strength of Avid, rather than a fatal weakness of X that is, in fact, shared by all non-Avid systems. And even shared by Avid, if used without the very expensive ISIS add-on.

[Andrew Kimery] “having an NLE that’s cross platform”

Of course, a failing also of FCP Legacy, which, as I recall, never got the level of abuse X has, except perhaps by Avid users in the first few years. 😉

[Jeff Markgraf]

Herb –

Based on what you’ve described, I think PPro may be the only NLE that can currently accomplish the kind of audio bussing that you require. Can’t do it on Avid, couldn’t do it in FCP 7, nor can you do it in Resolve or Lightworks (AFAIK).

So one can look at this situation as a specific positive feature of PPro, or as a failing of all other current NLEs. And unrelated to the tracks vs. trackless discussion.