Jok Daniel
Forum Replies Created
-
[David Lawrence] “BTW, Adobe could implement this and if you Avid folks still wanna do the Track Toggle Tango, you’d still be free to knock yourselves out. 😉 “
FWIW, patching and toggling tracks works much better in MC than it ever did in Legacy. It is super easy to select/deselect multiple tracks in one operation (shift-click/slide the mouse across the track buttons), and features like auto-patching and reset default patch means there’s little of the tedious “click-click-click-click” required in other NLE:s. The track arming behaviour makes perfect sense and is both consistent and useful, because it gives me maximum control without making any assumptions about my intentions.
In typical Avid fashion, some of these features are non-obvious to new or casual users, but totally indispensable once you learn them. Just sayin’…
-
[Chris Harlan] “I just want to have several different windows open and place them where I want to. I want color-coding and multiple, sizable icon views. I want to be able to compare two different timelines side by side, or one above the other. I want my editing space to resemble a workbench. It’s great–necessary–to have a box of index cards on my work bench, but I also want to be able to set them down where I want them to be, and not where I’m told they have to be. I want to spread them out, move them around, re-stack them, and hide them.”
That’s pretty much an exact description of the Lightworks UI, right down to the index cards.
-
[Chris Kenny] “MC6 does not appear to be a full rewrite, Avid has not said that it’s a full rewrite, and the technical feasibility of Avid having pulled off a full rewrite in the time between MC 5.5 and MC 6, or of having done a full rewrite that maintains the level of backwards compatibility that MC 6 maintains, is virtually zero.”
“With a complete rewrite of its code base, Avid freshens up the under-the-hood technology and puts the foundation in place for new features making more efficient use of 64-bit operating systems.” https://www.studiodaily.com/2011/11/top-five-media-composer-6-features/
“Avid has taken the opposite approach. In rewriting MC6 as a 64-bit application, a job that took two years to complete, Avid has kept the familiar way of working.” https://provideocoalition.com/ssimmons/story/avid_media_composer_6_is_announced_and_its_moving_into_the_future
“Avid also decided to rewrite all their code from scratch, but instead of one big hit, they have been progressively rewriting their code for the last three or four releases, if not longer.” https://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/11/64-bit/
-
[Chris Kenny] “I think they really need a clean start. As I mentioned in an earlier post, MC is the only major NLE that hasn’t had one.”
MC6 is a complete (64 bit) rewrite.
-
[Chris Kenny] “Add Core Data syncing to FCP X, and you’d hypothetically get seamless live syncing of projects and events. This means you could literally be watching the event viewer update as another user tagged clips, or watching clips move around in a timeline as another user edited — and you could also make changes yourself, which would be propagated the other way. “
Really cool stuff for sure, but no need to wait for the future. You can already do this with Lightworks.
-
[Chris Kenny] “Spacial organization — manual spacial organization, at least — largely falls apart as the number of items to be organized rises. “
True, and that’s why any half-decent NLE is built on top of a robust database. But these features hardly supersede or obsolete spatial organization, at least not in my workflow. Sure, I am dealing with much more material today than I did five years ago (approx three times as much, since the switch from film to digital formats), and these features are more useful than ever.
But when I am working on a specific scene, the clips I need at hand are rarely too many for a spatial approach. And to me, it’s a crucial part of the process. Diving in and getting to really know my material. Knowing where everything is, and where to look for that shot that could save a scene.
FCPX emphasizes tagging, “skimming” (i.e. browsing your footage without actually engaging with it) and “smart” collections at the expense of more spatial and tactile approaches. It seems to promote database queries instead of true familiarity with your working materials. Not sure that’s a good thing.
-
The database features do sound stellar and very very useful, but is there any way to organize clips spatially in fcpx? In other NLEs, I like to use the layout of the clips in the bin for organizational and creative purposes, can I do that in fcpx?
-
[Herb Sevush] ” At the moment I don’t have a powerful enough PC”
It does work with Boot Camp, in case you have access to a suitable Mac and space to spare on your boot disk.
-
Lightworks is excellent stuff, and a real contender IMO. I know it has a slightly “legacy” feel to it, but that’s really skin-deep and in many ways it’s one of the most modern NLEs of all.
It’s built on a solid database foundation which leverages metadata and search functions. It promotes a highly tactile and fluid approach to editing, with amazing trim tools as its crowning feature. It’s really strong in sharing scenarios (with multi-user timelines updating in real-time and other unique features). And its interface is open and free-form, and easily accommodates a wide range of creative approaches.
Where most NLEs can feel a bit rigid and boxed-in, the Lightworks interface is like an open canvas. You can put clips in transient or permanent bins, or just plop them on the desktop and arrange them storyboard-style. You can easily use a sequence as a source clip (or vice-versa!) You can open as many source viewers as you wish, and arrange them in multiple “rooms”. Set up separate rooms for all the different scenes you’re working on. Or one for you and one for your assistant, working on a separate machine. It has the most malleable interface of any NLE, and IMO it’s also the best-looking interface, if you care about such things (and many Mac users – myself included – certainly do!)
Sure, it has a somewhat eccentric UI, but so what? So do 99% of iPad apps, and no one seems too bothered about that. Doesn’t the rise of iOS and skeumorphism spell the end of standardized, one-size-fits-all UIs anyway? (Come to think of it, Lightworks would probably work really well on a tablet.) Besides, hardware controllers seem to be all the rage again, and Lightworks has one of the best.
The EditShare guys are really cool and as far as I can tell they are in it for the long haul (check out https://www.redharknews.com for an indication of their commitment and ambition!)
There’s already a strong community around Lightworks, and the Linux crowd have just come onboard. I expect we’ll soon see a rich eco-system of plug-ins and third-party software. Personally, I can’t wait.
-
[Carsten Orlt] Where the track based editor needs option like selecting edit point on diff tracks in a vertically diff time position trackless doesn’t need to. Simpler in my opinion.
“Selecting edit point on diff tracks” is part of the editorial process. It’s a creative choice, and it can never be successfully automated. The magnetic timeline may be able to keep things in sync, but it cannot make those editorial choices for me. So why do I need it? A properly set-up trim also keeps things in sync, and it lets me evaluate picture and sound together and perform the edit in real-time. To me that is much more useful.