Jim Giberti
Forum Replies Created
-
[Oliver Peters] “As I said, the timeline structure isn’t the concern. It’s the nature of client changes and how they affect the timeline. In other words, how best to position clips in the X timeline in order to make changes easily.
“I’m telling you Oliver, if this is the conundrum, then simply starting with the template I created would enable you to work with a client exactly as you would in FCP7 replacing to your hearts content as fast as you need. It would act and respond precisely how you want it to.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “ave to find the picture again, but I remember an audio track that looked like it might be connected to clip above it, but it was stuck in a secondary. If anything moved, you’d have to drag that clip all by itself with the position tool and reline it all up. If it was simply connected to the clip above it, it would be connected.”
But that’s the whole point. You would use that audio track exactly as you would a fixed audio track in 7 – say, for instance a music cue for 1:30 that was exactly where it should be as you experiment with different cuts.
The point is you don’t use pseudo tracks if you want them connected.
You have both options – the 7 way and the X way at the same time, in the same timeline.
How is that a problem?
-
[Walter Soyka] “However, it’s clear that although this is possible, it wasn’t the design intent of FCPX. If it were, the data model and toolset might be very, very different.”
But Walter, I was responding to your assertion that changing the timeline to be more traditional in organization would be very, very difficult because of the underlying foundation of the program.
My example simply shows that it’s incredibly simple.
Whether it was part of Apple’s original intent is irrelevant to whether:
A.) it would be easy to implement now as an option – clearly not.
B.) Does it in any way impede or compromise the program as it’s envisioned – clearly not.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “I think it breaks X’s strengths, and breaks them good. No offense, Jim. Keep fighting the good fight.
“No offense to take Jeremy.
I just finished a dozen projects the last month and used FCPX exactly as you do.
But I get the sense that you don’t understand the concept because it doesn’t do anything to X’s strengths.
It doesn’t change magnetism or defeat anything you like about it.
It just gives the horizontal organization that X denies many editors if they want it.
It breaks absolutely nothing.
It works exactly within the paradigm as it was designed. It’s just an organizational tool that gives more flexibility than Apple delivered initially.Win win, if you want or need it.
-
[Walter Soyka] “In other words, I think the timeline model in FCPX is foundational to the program, making the scope of change very, very big.”
Not to oversimplify this too much Walter, but I think I’ve already proven that it’s not.
With a very little bit of thinking and manipulating the existing timeline rules, I got FCPX to behave like an EDL that respects horizontal relationships as well as vertical ones – within the parent/child paradigm.
It’s as simple as “fooling” the program at the first frame and then fooling it again with a forced clip at the end of a secondary. These two simple things create an environment that does everything that FCPX was meant to do while allowing for a more disciplined timeline in the traditional editing sense.
You can edit into fixed unconnected tracks.
You can move clips free of any primary or secondary connections on any track.
You can drop main audio/synced audio into a fixed audio track without selecting it each time.
You can bring everything together at final edit exactly as in a FCP7 timeline in a matter of seconds.So it’s clear that FCPX can have a traditionally organized timeline exactly as it existed in version 1.0.
I imagine it would take no time at all for Apple to do what I did and add the feature to the program tomorrow.
It has nothing to do with shutting of magnetism either.
It works with magnetism, uses the strengths of magnetism and the parent/child concept. -
[Michael Benton] “What about creating from scratch your own ‘multi-cam-type’ traks from the music provided based on the multiple ‘story ideas’ the client provides then editing into and from there? You would then have multiple ‘pseudo-trak based’ options that can be manipulated as needed (while having multiple ‘options’ for the client) yet stay somewhat organized (as I am assuming the music would have the least amount of location adjustments within the timeline).”
Have you seen my posts about the “Tracked” concept I made for this Michael?
-
[Andy Field] “The bottom line is – this problem (and many others) didn’t exist before FCPX. And in fact doesn’t exist in any other NLE (well maybe IMOVIE)”
Amen Andy, especially coming from someone who knows the app and has written insightful stuff about it.
FWIW it echoes about everything I’ve written about X as someone who’s shop is producing with it 7 days a week.
It could really be something if Apple got over their vision thing and understood both the opportunity and the obligation regarding the other half of what the app needs to do in order to work as a true professional app.
I’m defining “professional” as an NLE developed for the spectrum of professional use not a demographic niche. If ever there was an instance and a time when a company could have it’s cake and eat it to, this would be it.
I mean this with all due humility.
One day in Cupertino with their team and I could give them all the consulting and direct input they would need to satisfy most every dissenter on this board – without spoiling their party.I say this because I’ve listened to virtually every intelligent argument, frustrated 7 user and creative suggestion and because I’ve worked through FCPX’s shortcomings on project after project.
-
I’ve got to say Oliver, it sounds like the FCPX Trax template I created would do exactly what you’re trying to do.
The secondaries can be used because they’re not anchored to the Primary – they act exactly as tracks to edit into, move clips and make substitutions independent of the Primary.
It gives you a clean visual of all your horizontal elements too.
It’s a simple two step process to get everything lined up to zero at final output.
-
[Rich Joyce] “Before the release of FCPX it was mainly a Avid/FCP world when it came to production houses. The release of, and let down of FCPX made a lot of other people explore other options. When they did they found Premiere and the production suite of awesome tools, AE, PS, Ai a choice.”
I don’t know any professional houses that haven’t had Production Suites or Master Collections on their systems forever. We all use AI, PS AE, no mater what NLEs we’re running. A lot of shops , like ours have them running on every system.
I’m just saying there’s been no big revelation.
This debate is not conclusive as you stated in your opening sentence which I commented on.We don’t have to face up to anything was and is my point.
We’re all doing fine which ever way we go, the industry hasn’t made any group dictates, the situation is flexible and changing.
It’s all good.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Its odd to see such polar opposite first/early impressions.
“I didn’t spend a lot of time with PP but I didn’t have to, I could move into it tomorrow and put out a project. It’s that intuitive for a FCP user.
I see both X and 6 as being in a similar and interesting spots, both in a good light, no need for invective.
Now it’s time for Adobe to push the envelope with PP and Apple with FCP.
For a while last year it looked pretty stupid and unnecessarily unsettling to me and so many other producers and editors.
Now, nearly a year later, it looks pretty interesting.
We’ve been putting out a steady stream of nice creative for broadcast and web out of FCPX for months. Aside from our brush with corruption, It’s become a better and better environment as I’ve invested more time – big surprise.Again, I think David’s article is spot on.
Right now I could edit enjoyably in either FCPX or PP6.
But honestly, FCPX is a better overall experience than any NLE we’ve produced with going back to PP 1.0, Media 100 and Avid suites.
It needs to evolve, as does PP6, but it’s there at a very serious level now.