Jeff Markgraf
Forum Replies Created
-
But I forgot to put “le” in front (to make it sound French, you know). ???? ???? ????
-
Alas, I fear that as long as verbosity and tortured allegory are made to stand in for wit and rhetorical rigor, the sigh, the eye roll, and their several unwashed and vulgar cousins will continue to plague us.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “[Jeff Markgraf] “le sigh… Here we go again.”
As for this …”
Simon –
So sorry you took a bit of humor referring to the often overwrought tone of this board as being condescending toward you. Wasn’t meant to be condescending, and certainly not directed toward you personally.
Sorrier still that you chose to double down on that perceived condescension with a moderately well wrought, but ultimately kinda’ ham handed, condescension-wrapped-in-a-literary-reference of your own. Garnished with a side helping for Robin. I had hoped for better.
(On the other hand, if you really were in on the joke, and were actually trolling at a very high level, then I salute you. Well played!)
At any rate, I think my original reply stands: dropping clips in to a Premiere timeline via the method described, while achieving superficially similar results in terms of avoiding overwriting or clip collisions, is not conceptually or practically equivalent to connecting clips in FCPX. At all.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “Conceptually there is no difference between this and hitting the Q key in FCP X. The only practical difference thereafter is that the clips are not “connected” to the timeline in the FCP X sense, but otherwise it is the same function.”
le sigh… Here we go again.
Nope. Not the same function at all.
Putting new clips into the timeline and having other clips “move out of the way” (unless overwriting is the specific intent) is a basic attribute of the so-called “magnetic timeline,” and it works whether you are connecting or inserting a clip.**
The Premiere process of putting a clip into the timeline without regard for track patching that you are describing is similar to FCPX in its end result, although rather different in how it accomplishes that result.
The Q, or “connect” command, however, has the specific purpose of connecting the clip to the primary storyline (strictly speaking, to another clip in the primary storyline). The “move out of the way” behavior is incidental to that main connecting function. Just as “W-Insert” specifically inserts the clip into the primary storyline, with the “move out of the way” behavior being incidental to the specific intent. Only “Overwrite” short-circuits the magnetic behavior, by design.
So the Premiere function you’re describing, while superficially similar to FCPX’s “magnetic” timeline behavior, is not at all the same – conceptually or practically – as the “connect clip” function.
**Side note, but relevant to this conversation:
I find that most people get hung up on thinking about the “magnetic timeline” as just another way of describing insert editing with ripple. Magnetic in the sense of clips being attracted to one another. But magnets repel one another when they are near the same poles. And that, to me, is the real point of the magnetic timeline: clips are repelled. They move away from each other and make room, rather than overwrite or simply bump and yell “clip collision!” ala FCP7 or Premiere. -
[Walter Soyka] “a paragon of design, a triumph of simplicity, clarity and consistency. “
Sigh. Et tu, Walter? ????
Seriously, though, not a paragon or a triumph, and certainly not without its flaws and foibles. Just so much better than Premiere.
FWIW, I agree with much of the criticism of the new look. Some really good choices, and some real head smackers. The guy in charge of key framing must have been doing some really dank drugs.
-
Oliver –
I used to have a similar problem with an earlier version of FCP. Couldn’t ever trace it to specific kinds of source clips.
It was always a clip audio configuration issue. For example, set as dual mono, I’d get meters but no audio playback until I put it in a timeline. Then OK. Weird stuff like that. Then it seemed to go away with an update.
This was with AJA T-Tap on a MacPro, Yosemite, system audio set to play through the T-Tap (and disembedded through the monitor).
Not sure if this is helpful.
-
Not at all, Shane. No harm, no foul, no insult taken at all. I totally understood the spirit in which your post was intended.
I’m glad to see you’re dipping your toe into the FCPX water, however reluctantly. You may actually like it, especially now that most of the initial growing pains have been dealt with. Though I know the famous Hollywood Hostility ™ toward anything new or different, so prevalent in your world (and, to a lesser extent, in mine) will never really go away.
OT: are you still on the Oak Island show? How is that to work on? I assume it’s Avid? And are they ever gonna find that dang money pit?
-
Maybe we can acknowledge that the underlying point here is “for an application that is supposedly so forward thinking…”
OK. We all get it. The hyperbole from fans and defenders is tired and unnecessary.
Most of us who use X and prefer it over the other choices don’t spend time trying to sell it to others. I, for one, couldn’t care less what someone thinks of my preferred editing platform. Yes, I find the level of misinformation and hostility, even after over five years, silly and sad, but merely a minor annoyance at this point. If someone really wants to know why I like it, I’m happy to explain. If someone just wants to argue or belittle — meh, not so much.
Sorry you had to be dragged kicking and screaming, Shane. It usually takes a few weeks of real use to get over the hump, but you may discover who it is that many us like so much about X. If not, that’s fine, too.
-
Shane,
It is kind of funny that pretty much all modern NLEs have a strange collection of film editing references mixed in with modern, digital concepts. FCPX still uses the visual artifice of sprocket holes on the edges of the frame in certain cases. I think there are still many vestiges of the old “skeumorphism vs not” battle that raged at Apple for a number of years.
On the other hand, remember the fire that rained down from the heavens when Avid replaced the weightlifter icon on the “lift” edit button? And to this day, Avid can’t decide whether it’s emulating a flatbed film editor or a two machine videotape editor. Not that it really matters.
-
[Walter Soyka] “Panels are part of Adobe’s Common Extensibility Platform (CEP).”
Walter,
I think the panel thing Adobe has going on is a great tool. Very nice integration with other Adobe products, and a great way to interface with other products (media managers, etc.). I wish FCPX had similar hooks available to third party products. I thinks it’s a key shortcoming.
The difficulty with this extensibility, from a usability standpoint, goes back to one of the fundamental differences (IMHO) between Adobe and Apple philosophies. The “everything to all people” approach of Adobe (of which panels is a valuable element) has very real drawbacks in terms of user experience. As you said in an earlier post, it’s a tradeoff. I find that what I may lose in extensibility/flexibility/customizability in FCPX (and many Apple products in general), I more than make up for in simplicity, ease of use, and the ability to focus on the work without other stuff in the way.
UI/UX is hard, it’s squishy, and it’s the very definition of a moving target. CF, Windows vs. Mac OS. Both can get the job done. Both can inspire near stroke-inducing fits of rage in some users. Years of using Adobe products hasn’t changed my opinion of their fundamentally unfriendly UI and UX. Neither has years of Windows use. But they both have come up with some great features over the years.