[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I didn’t know Logic X has undos even after closing the program. Sounds great! Didn’t Soundtrack Pro had this too? So you had a full history of your project? Seems great potential…

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Just to try again:

“I very much think this is a bug: remember: I have 2 connected clips, which I just put a transition between. I have no choice but this to become a connected storyline (I get the ‘logic’ behind it, but I do wish Apple would make this optional). I select ONE clip in a CONNECTED Storyline, lift that clip from that same connected storyline, and suddenly FCPX decides to remove cuts in gap clips (and thus removing markers) in the primary storyline, which is a DIFFERENT storyline.
If it would have been a clip that I lifted from the primary storyline, I could see this logic happening (maybe not agreeing with it, but you could know something like this happen). This is just one shortcut, completely having an effect on a different storyline.
I don’t think how anyone can not see this as a bug.
Ps, by just dragging the clip out of that secondary storyline, you do not get the bug.

That being said, I do appreciate the time, and efforts for everyone’s reaction, and Ronny and Charlie, thank you for the alternative methods, I will make sure to check them out!

About our decision to leave the primary storyline out and just work with connected clips:

It’s not aversion for the magnetism of the primary storyline. We like the advantages it gives, and we use it. But not when we do *these* edits. These are specific edits where we do things with a reason 😉

So what are *these* edits?
We record medical procedures, sometimes up to 9 hours long (but ALWAYS continuous recordings of at least a couple of hours). We end up with about 6 Prores streams, timecode-locked. Not always do they all have sound. These often exist out of 2 camera-images, and the other 4 being medical monitors that are tapped. These can be pressures, an echo view of a heart, a fluroscopy, an any case: an image that is only logical for doctors, and not for editors. The only way we have to make sure that these images are in sync, is timecode, because we do not have a visual reference.

FCPX, as you know, does not have timecode overlays in the canvas or viewer, like FCP7 had.
If we put clips in the timeline in FCP7, and one would get out of sync, by accident, with the other streams, we would see it by the timecode overlays. Because we do not have a visual reference, we can NOT see on 6 hours of a black-and white medical image if something is a couple of seconds or minutes out of sync, but doctors can.

The way we work around this, is by making our source clips into compound clips with a timecode generator on them. We make sure the compound clips have the same timecode as the original. So then we have 6 big compound clips, each with a timecode generator on it. If we now drop them on the FCPX timeline, and we make them all small so we have one image with 6 picture-in-pictures, all of these images have a timecode generator so if something would get out of sync, we immediately see it just by the timecode in the frame.

We do not do multicam for these edits. It’s not that the doctors want to see this OR that, they often want to see multiple images at the same time.

So we put this compound clips as connected clips on a sequence timeline, that again, has the same timecode as the originals. Why? What we do then is, we send the doctors a copy of this hour-long case (or they come and do it with us at the studio) so they see everything. They need to cut this hours-long video down to a 20 minute video to show on a congress. They need to see everything to make a selection of what is important.

So, they send us back often a timecode copy. It’s a word-document that says:
10:45:98:10 – 10:45:98:10 I want to see Cam 1 and Echo (for example).
I will have a list that has hundreds of these selections. If I make sure that my timecode of my sequence matches up with those of my compound clips, and IF I only put them on the timeline as connected clips (so why do we have gaps? We just do Q, Q, Q to get them all above each other on the timeline), then we do not LOOSE the time relationship between the connected clips and the sequence timecode. Why is this important?
If I have to go trough hundred clips, I cannot skim always to the right frame and cut. It would take days to cut it. No, I look at the timecode in the document, type in the dashboard, and make the cuts. (pity we still cannot copy and paste timecode in the canvas or dashboard, but oh well…)
If I now blade all, I have this selection where a cut on 10:00:00:00 in the dashboard, I also makes a cut on 10:00:00:00 in the originals. I have to keep all the streams, because it happens often that we afterwards get the remark: oh in that selection I also want to see that. It doesn’t take a lot of time to just leave an extra stream and put the visibility off, then to add it afterwards back in.

That’s why we work with connected clips. We cannot loose the relationship with the source timecode. And because these are medical monitors, it is very dangerous to loose sync without visual reference because chances exist you won’t notice. And then we work with connected clips in a way of being able to cut very fast trough time codes that we type in the dashboard.

We then do blade all, make the selection, and if it’s a selection the doctor doesn’t want to use, we put the visibility of all layers of (including the primary). Because I bladed all, including the primary, if I change the visibility on these 6 streams, it’s only on the selection of for example 2 minutes I made, and not on the 5 hours of material after that selection.
I then also make a small marker on the primary storyline (gap) of that piece with markers. For instance, if I put 3 of the 6 layers visible, I have a marker saying: ‘this one should be big, the other 2 should be small’.
Once you use the primary storyline with a video image you use to also cut, there is a lot of chance, because of the magnetism, that you loose the relationship between timecode of your source, and timecode of your sequence. And because in a way, you *only* have your sequence timecode in the dashboard of X it’s pretty dangerous.

This method which included a couple of work-arounds in comparison with our workflow in FCP7, but it also included a couple of extra benefits. (we can drag a piece of primary storyline with gap to another place, and immediately have all those layers going with it, this is when we can use the magnetic timeline to our benefit.) We can also, if there is a patients name that needs to be covered from a medical monitor for privacy reasons, we adjust it in the compound clip, it ripples trough to our edit. Just before export, we just open the compound clips, put out the visibility of the timecode generators, it ripples trough to all our edits, and we can export. Do they need changes? We just put the visibility on again, and we can start editing again.
In FCP7, using only one timecode generator would have a lot of impact on performance and export times. In FCPX, we use 6 of them, unrendered, and play it all back at the same time. It’s great.

Now it is easy to afterwards say: just use a title or something to put your markers on. It is a good idea, and I will do so in the future (thanks again). But we never had issues with this complete workflow or way of editing, on the contrary, it was the only way we could do this kind of edits in FCPX (and enjoy X’s many other benefits) without getting into a mess or loosing too much time 6x 9 hours of material and making sure everything stays in sync. It works.
The only reason why would now change gaps to titles, or do them on a separate adjustment layer, is because X decides, if you lift a clip from a connected storyline, it immediately deletes cuts on the primary storyline, although I cannot fantom any reason to do so or any logic behind it. So yes, I still think this is a bug. And I am not a fan of connected story lines (they serve their purpose, but I’m just talking about – again – these specific edits) but there is no way to avoid them if you want to make a transition between 2 connected clips.”

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I had a complete post here with my explenation about the how and why of our workflow. I got a message that the post is under moderation, but I don’t know why.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Haha, you and me both 😉 it IS another world.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I very much think this is a bug: remember: I have 2 connected clips, which I just put a transition between. I have no choice but this to become a connected storyline (I get the ‘logic’ behind it, but I do wish Apple would make this optional). I select ONE clip in a CONNECTED Storyline, lift that clip from that same connected storyline, and suddenly FCPX decides to remove cuts in gap clips (and thus removing markers) in the primary storyline, which is a DIFFERENT storyline.
If it would have been a clip that I lifted from the primary storyline, I could see this logic happening (maybe not agreeing with it, but you could know something like this happen). This is just one shortcut, completely having an effect on a different storyline.
I don’t think how anyone can not see this as a bug.
Ps, by just dragging the clip out of that secondary storyline, you do not get the bug.

That being said, I do appreciate the time, and efforts for everyone’s reaction, and Ronny and Charlie, thank you for the alternative methods, I will make sure to check them out!

About our decision to leave the primary storyline out and just work with connected clips:

It’s not aversion for the magnetism of the primary storyline. We like the advantages it gives, and we use it. But not when we do *these* edits. These are specific edits where we do things with a reason 😉

So what are *these* edits?
We record medical procedures, sometimes up to 9 hours long (but ALWAYS continuous recordings of at least a couple of hours). We end up with about 6 Prores streams, timecode-locked. Not always do they all have sound. These often exist out of 2 camera-images, and the other 4 being medical monitors that are tapped. These can be pressures, an echo view of a heart, a fluroscopy, an any case: an image that is only logical for doctors, and not for editors. The only way we have to make sure that these images are in sync, is timecode, because we do not have a visual reference.

FCPX, as you know, does not have timecode overlays in the canvas or viewer, like FCP7 had.
If we put clips in the timeline in FCP7, and one would get out of sync, by accident, with the other streams, we would see it by the timecode overlays. Because we do not have a visual reference, we can NOT see on 6 hours of a black-and white medical image if something is a couple of seconds or minutes out of sync, but doctors can.

The way we work around this, is by making our source clips into compound clips with a timecode generator on them. We make sure the compound clips have the same timecode as the original. So then we have 6 big compound clips, each with a timecode generator on it. If we now drop them on the FCPX timeline, and we make them all small so we have one image with 6 picture-in-pictures, all of these images have a timecode generator so if something would get out of sync, we immediately see it just by the timecode in the frame.

We do not do multicam for these edits. It’s not that the doctors want to see this OR that, they often want to see multiple images at the same time.

So we put this compound clips as connected clips on a sequence timeline, that again, has the same timecode as the originals. Why? What we do then is, we send the doctors a copy of this hour-long case (or they come and do it with us at the studio) so they see everything. They need to cut this hours-long video down to a 20 minute video to show on a congress. They need to see everything to make a selection of what is important.

So, they send us back often a timecode copy. It’s a word-document that says:
10:45:98:10 – 10:45:98:10 I want to see Cam 1 and Echo (for example).
I will have a list that has hundreds of these selections. If I make sure that my timecode of my sequence matches up with those of my compound clips, and IF I only put them on the timeline as connected clips (so why do we have gaps? We just do Q, Q, Q to get them all above each other on the timeline), then we do not LOOSE the time relationship between the connected clips and the sequence timecode. Why is this important?
If I have to go trough hundred clips, I cannot skim always to the right frame and cut. It would take days to cut it. No, I look at the timecode in the document, type in the dashboard, and make the cuts. (pity we still cannot copy and paste timecode in the canvas or dashboard, but oh well…)
If I now blade all, I have this selection where a cut on 10:00:00:00 in the dashboard, I also makes a cut on 10:00:00:00 in the originals. I have to keep all the streams, because it happens often that we afterwards get the remark: oh in that selection I also want to see that. It doesn’t take a lot of time to just leave an extra stream and put the visibility off, then to add it afterwards back in.

That’s why we work with connected clips. We cannot loose the relationship with the source timecode. And because these are medical monitors, it is very dangerous to loose sync without visual reference because chances exist you won’t notice. And then we work with connected clips in a way of being able to cut very fast trough time codes that we type in the dashboard.

We then do blade all, make the selection, and if it’s a selection the doctor doesn’t want to use, we put the visibility of all layers of (including the primary). Because I bladed all, including the primary, if I change the visibility on these 6 streams, it’s only on the selection of for example 2 minutes I made, and not on the 5 hours of material after that selection.
I then also make a small marker on the primary storyline (gap) of that piece with markers. For instance, if I put 3 of the 6 layers visible, I have a marker saying: ‘this one should be big, the other 2 should be small’.
Once you use the primary storyline with a video image you use to also cut, there is a lot of chance, because of the magnetism, that you loose the relationship between timecode of your source, and timecode of your sequence. And because in a way, you *only* have your sequence timecode in the dashboard of X it’s pretty dangerous.

This method which included a couple of work-arounds in comparison with our workflow in FCP7, but it also included a couple of extra benefits. (we can drag a piece of primary storyline with gap to another place, and immediately have all those layers going with it, this is when we can use the magnetic timeline to our benefit.) We can also, if there is a patients name that needs to be covered from a medical monitor for privacy reasons, we adjust it in the compound clip, it ripples trough to our edit. Just before export, we just open the compound clips, put out the visibility of the timecode generators, it ripples trough to all our edits, and we can export. Do they need changes? We just put the visibility on again, and we can start editing again.
In FCP7, using only one timecode generator would have a lot of impact on performance and export times. In FCPX, we use 6 of them, unrendered, and play it all back at the same time. It’s great.

Now it is easy to afterwards say: just use a title or something to put your markers on. It is a good idea, and I will do so in the future (thanks again). But we never had issues with this complete workflow or way of editing, on the contrary, it was the only way we could do this kind of edits in FCPX (and enjoy X’s many other benefits) without getting into a mess or loosing too much time 6x 9 hours of material and making sure everything stays in sync. It works.
The only reason why would now change gaps to titles, or do them on a separate adjustment layer, is because X decides, if you lift a clip from a connected storyline, it immediately deletes cuts on the primary storyline, although I cannot fantom any reason to do so or any logic behind it. So yes, I still think this is a bug. And I am not a fan of connected story lines (they serve their purpose, but I’m just talking about – again – these specific edits) but there is no way to avoid them if you want to make a transition between 2 connected clips.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

*double post

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

If you are viewing in Quicktime X: I’ve seen that interlacing looks pretty bad in Quicktime X.
Quicktime 7 shows it much better.

After what, 4 years of Quicktime X, Apple should REALLY bring that application more up to speed with the features of Quicktime 7. (no multiple monitor support with automatic controls for instance, it doesn’t show timecode, …)

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

One thing that I have to notice is that we get good performance because we use a flavor of Prores for most of what we edit.

I have noticed that the performance of XDCAM material in FCPX is less then stellar, resulting in longer import times etc. (no it’s not converting, it just takes a lot longer to ‘validate’, draw waveforms, etc. …)
It’s one of the reasons we switched to a 90percent Prores recording workflow, coming from XDCAM and FCP7.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

In the FCPX preferences we always put it on Better Performance, except when we edit in 3D, and have the stream going to a 3D plasma with an Aja T-Tap, then we put it on Higher Quality.

Often we just use computer monitors to work with, except for the 3D work. We use Apple Cinema Displays, at this point still the older matte ones. We produce a lot of medical videos, and stuff for medical congresses.

No, I haven’t noticed overheating issues. Yes, sometimes they can run very hot, but this is always the case with any kind of laptop that’s doing heavy duty work. They run long hours here, and if we don’t use them, we let them cool down, but we’ve never really had stability or overheating issues.

Again, FCPX can sometimes act a bit weird, but it very rarely happens at our facility, and sometimes it’s expected (going trough 4 streams of Prores with a couple of image effects on all of them). But I think the Retina Macbook Pro’s and the new iMacs are at this point (before the new Mac Pro comes out) the best computers to handle FCPX. And from what I’ve read, there isn’t that much of a difference between the iMac and the Retina except maybe for certain specific tasks.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

That’s strange Paul, we are running FCPX on maxed out Retina’s since january 2013, together with Pegasus Promise Raids connected to a Mac Mini Server, going trough a Ethernet Switch, and we have been very pleased with performance. Sometimes FCPX’s performance lags, but this does not happen often, and from what I read, it’s the software’s fault, not really the hardware.