Michael Hancock
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “but that does not account for connected clips, which simply get out of the way. Still better than not letting me do it at all).”
I agree it’s still better than preventing you from doing it. At least you can make the moves you want then adjust everything else, but I still prefer that the default is that it overwrites with a modifier key to move stuff out of the way when you want it to do that. Basically, I want everything to be an option and a modifier key away!
[Jeremy Garchow] “It’s what most people are complaining about I think. It all boils down to that simple notion.”
That and lack of tracks. And if that’s what ultimately keeps people away, is it possible for Apple to change it or are they too far down the rabbit hole?
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
C’mon Jeremy – that’s a blatant jab at FCPX.
This event was less than a month after the release of FCPX and people were pissed about the magnetic timeline, the loss of tracks, the loss of a source monitor, and Apple telling them they’ve reinvented editing.
Avid is telling their customers they aren’t going to pull an Apple. That’s what people wanted to hear, and in this case I don’t think they’re wrong. Only time will ultimately tell if Apple’s new editing paradigm is a winner or not, but consider Avid’s dominant market – feature films. They’re reassuring their customers that they aren’t going to change everything they know overnight and try to force them into a new way of working.
Besides, with sync lock you kind of get a magnetic timeline. In many ways FCPX and Media Composer are very similar. In other ways, they’re night and day different. I wish I could mash them together and pick the best parts of both.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
Yes and no. There are no clip collisions, but it’s just moving stuff up and down to get it out of the way. I don’t want stuff to move out of the way. When I have a collision, I want the clip I’m moving to overwrite the clip it’s colliding with. If I don’t want it to I’ll move stuff myself to keep it from happening.
Is there a modifier that keeps things in place and overwrites them when you shuffle stuff around?
Also, I don’t like the rippling timeline. I really, really like things static and only moving when I’m making very conscious decisions to move them. Like I said, I may be weird when it comes to this stuff.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
Never tried it (I prefer Mark Clip/Extract). If it doesn’t work then Avid needs to fix that too, then. That is illogical.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Andy Neil] “cool it with all the damn buttons. You’re starting to look like Premiere.
Andy
PS: Love the Smart Tool.”
LOL! I hate the smart tool! I like the way FCP moves clips around and Avid’s smart tool just isn’t as fluid.
Regarding buttons, you can turn off most of those buttons – they’re interface options. I never had double rows of buttons on my source/record and leave most of them in my timeline blank. Having the option to map Cmd and Alt would be kind of nice though.
Premiere’s buttons are out of control.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Jeremy Garchow] “That is fine, just look at how clip collisions work in FCP7, they are just protecting people from perhaps screwing up. But in this case with X, it make sense as the position tool is a gap tool, but I am a total weirdo around here.”
Actually, I might be the weirdo – I despise and detest and loathe the clip collision stuff in FCP7. I abhor it. I don’t need to be protected from myself – I am an editor, I make my money doing this. I know clips will collide and I’m ok with it – it is my intent and the software prevents me from doing what I want without locking a bazillion tracks.
It’s my #1 complaint about FCP, and I was really, really hoping to see it fixed with FCPX. Oh well.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
I believe they said they would not remove features. There’s a huge difference between not removing features and not updating the interface.
They showed a still of what might be the updated interface – very similar to the current one but with a new, more modern skin and what looks like improvements. https://www.advancehdtv.com/index.php/item/avid-media-composer-6.html
I’d need to see a video or hear an audio clip or press release to believe they specifically stated they would never change the interface.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Yeah, but this is with the position tool, which is a tool of intent. I”
Right. Compare that to Media Composer, which has a similar setup (minus the rippling timeline). Segment mode are your tools of intent. You can overwrite mode, which means the clips you move around overwrite what you place them on, or insert mode – the clips ripple when you drop them. But the difference is that filler and clips are treated consistently with either mode, or tool of intent.
[Jeremy Garchow] “It says, “I want to move this video clip here, and leave a gap, and not ripple the timeline. If I have a gap, I assume that you want to ripple the timeline as why would you leave a gap with a gap when you can clearly just create another gap, or hit a for the selection tool”. “
The way I see it, the position tool does not have consistent behavior – it’s behavior tied to the asset you’re moving, and that’s illogical. You already have a way to remove a gap – select and delete. The position tool should treat the gap the same as a clip – you want to move video, replace with gap. You move a gap, replace with gap. It’s the same for everything and simplifies the tool. If you want to remove the gap, the position tool would be the wrong tool – you would select and delete it. The way it stands now, the interface is not predictable.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Jeremy Garchow] “My point was, Avid used to be hated on, and now they are forgiven.”
Because they had become an arrogant company, not because they made a poor product. Media Composer was and still is an incredibly efficient and capable program, and it’s improved by leaps and bounds over the last few years. It’s not the program you used in the 90s, even if the interface is 90% the same.
[Jeremy Garchow] ” they’ve even gone so far as to say they will never change the interface ever. “
Where did they say this? And if the interface works and the users of Avid products like it, why should they change it? Update it, maybe, but change for the sake of change isn’t always a good thing.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
I guess that’s a fix, but the program is still treating gaps differently than clips in this instance, but the same in other instances. It’s inconsistent and is still making an assumption about your intent. If the default was to replace a gap with another gap but a modifier modified that behavior it would be more logical, wouldn’t it?
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor