[Robin S. kurz]

[Herb Sevush] “That plus the ability to easily edit with audio disconnected to video”

Huh? Since when can you not do that in X?? What are you talking about? (I’ll spare myself asking why anyone would even want to do that or how it could be super essential…)

But either way, with that, plus…

[Herb Sevush] “it means that while looking at my timeline at all times, without having to hit any special buttons, I can know the nature of every clip – is it sync, is it sync being used as efx, is it music, is it canned efx. […] I can’t get that, presently, with FCPX.”

… you clearly show you truly know nothing about X, not so much as the mere basics, and therefore can’t logically know what you’re even arguing for and/or against, but insist on doing it anyway. It’s amazingly cringeworthy.

Oh well. I’ll leave it up to others to figure out…

[Robin S. kurz]

[Alan Okey] “It also ignores the very real constraints that are imposed by editing for television, for example, in which the importance of timecode is central to workflow.”

Feel free to elaborate. What does that mean exactly? How and where are you NOT working with timecode in FCP X where it is “central to workflow”? And how do you suppose these guys (as one of the more prominent of many many examples) are working around this supposed shortcoming? https://apple.co/1hrM6zb

I’m very curious, seeing that you must obviously know your way around broadcast and FCP X so well.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Robin S. kurz]

[Herb Sevush] “for me that pick-up in speed is not worth the lack of a visually coherent track layout.”

Right.

Okay. So… just to be clear… therefore, if X had “a visually coherent track layout”, that would change everything? I mean then you would, by your own admission, have both, right? Speed and your “coherent track layout” (whatever that even means and you postulate as a key feature for supposedly superior editing), no?

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Robin S. kurz]

Yeah, THIS is what deleted looks like, or can look like… memorize it.

[Robin S. kurz]

[Herb Sevush] “I’m sure it must be amazing that anyone would think you ever said something like that just because you deleted it after you posted it.”

Wow. What’s amazing is that nasty unexpected setback for you there, Herby!! There you go with your usual, pointless, inflammatory bs and adscititious personal attacks to feel all tough-guy-in-the-know, with otherwise nothing of value to add in addition to being the only one here that doesn’t even use FCP therefore can only be considered a bonified troll, and bam… you run straight, full force into a wall with it. Ouchy. Because I hate to break it to ya bud, but neither did I delete the post, nor is it deleted. Oooh. Bummers. And you tried so so hard!

But I’m sure that isn’t about to stop you from your usual and continued banter. Certainly not someone afraid of embarrassing himself, so it should continue to stay “interesting”.

– RK

[Robin S. kurz]

To then do what? Example? What’s e.g. happening or going to happen with the gaps that you’re obviously creating with your move and/or trim? (I don’t know what “change” means in that context)

And I think you’re interpreting the question as my somehow suggesting no one EVER needs the position tool, which is obviously nonsense. In which case I think you need to go back and understand the context better.

– RK

[Robin S. kurz]

[Steve Connor] “Seriously? Not everything’s a ripple edit!”

Er… then feel free to answer the question and not just quote it? Seriously.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Robin S. kurz]

[Oliver Peters] “I don’t get how this is “hiding”.”

It’s what’s called “intuitiveness” and “usability”. Is the (by far most likely) needed functionality I need right there? No it is not. It is “hiding” under shortcuts etc. In X, no shortcuts no switching no fiddling with prefs yadda yadda yadda… it’s there. Done.

Saying “learn the app!” also doesn’t cut it, since the underlying point is exactly that: you don’t have to learn any modifier keys or other (unmarked, unexplained) extra tools to make things work most efficiently i.e. to do what it in fact is you want to do and they way it should be done. Never mind that Jesús shows in the video quite wonderfully, that even if you DO know of whatever modifier or tool, you more often than not can’t even DO the ripple! “Clip collision!” is the key here, and exactly what sets the functionality apart by a million miles and what I think shows brilliantly the definition of the difference between his linear and non-linear he talks about. In fact the exact point where your supposed “patching = connected clip” claim backfires big time as well. It shows how connected clips have exactly nothing to do with the whole nonsensical, outdated, yesteryear concept of patching.

[Oliver Peters] “One could equally say that using the Position mode in FCPX is “hidden”.”

Tell me, Oliver, when and how often do you need the position tool and for what? Especially when compared to needing to RIPPLE, which this is about? Can I guess? And how could the position tool even be misconstrued to be anywhere near as essential in one’s everyday workflow, any more than the ZOOM tool?

Oh wait. „It’s a simple matter of actually learning the application”, after which even the noobiest noob would never miss the functionality. But then I guess that only applies to Premiere? ? Tell me how and why it is somehow apparently essential that noobs of all people just have to know about the position tool? Because you obviously have something specific in mind, no? Just please don’t tell me it’s because they need to be able to use X the way it’s not meant to be used, because they don’t “actually learn the application” as you so correctly recommend. Because I for one have maybe used the position tool TWICE and one of those times was for mere demonstration purposes. So much for essential or “need to know”.

[Oliver Peters] “the actions of the Smart Tool…”

Are the most convoluted, unyielding and unintuitive I have seen to date. But I guess I simply haven’t actually learned the app? Which I guess goes for nearly every long time Avid editor I know, since almost none of them seem to even know it exists when I ask, seeing that it was just plunked down in a random update a while back, with little to no explanation (or so they say). They ignore it because they are fine just going on as usual, or just plain don’t get it with the whole red/yellow(?) mode or whatever that is. Nor have I gotten it, but then I don’t edit on Avid so it doesn’t matter. Either way it’s certainly far from sit-down-and-work functionality which this is about.

Oddly, after about two clicks and no explanations, setting of prefs, fiddling elsewhere in the app, I completely got how matters work in the magnetic timeline. As do 99% of my students. Go figure.

[Oliver Peters] “You have similar steps to follow if you want video-only, audio-only or audio/video edits. Seems like a pretty analogous operation to me.”

Oh come on, Oliver. It most definitely is not. Not by any stretch of the imagination! That’s ridiculous! I don’t care if you want to do a video-only, audio-only or audio/video edit, at NO point whatsoever do you run the risk of inadvertently overwriting ANYTHING unless you do it on purpose! You edit what you want when you want to wherever you want, WITHOUT doing some ridiculous mouse-clicking dance (after two or three command-z’s of course, because you forgot the first time!) patching, locking or what not else before doing your edit. Or of course you DRAG your clip, hovering over the timeline waiting (hoping) for the right tracks to highlight before you drop so things don’t eff up… again.

[Oliver Peters] “For example, you cannot add a transition to a connected clip without it becoming a secondary storyline, even if just for one clip. To transition between two connected clips, they both have to be in the same secondary storyline.”

I’m sorry… what’s your point? Seriously. I don’t get it. To be able to transition between two clips in the primary they have to be in the primary. To do it in Premiere they have to be in the same V-track… what does any of that have to do with “attributes”? How is any of that different in principle from any other NLE or is somehow (apparently) a negative in such a stand-out way as you’re trying to suggest??! Just because connected clips get a “shelf” when transitioning?? Again… I have no idea what game changing “attribute” you’re getting at.

[Oliver Peters] “However, he does position other NLEs as “classic”, which can easily be interpreted as code for “old”.”

Well, yeah. Everyone wants to read whatever connotation into it that they want to I guess. Others just interpret it to mean “usual” or “most common” or “best known” or… but then there’d be nothing ominous to take offense to I guess. ?

[Oliver Peters] “However, in actual practice I rarely find that clip-swapping is done once the timeline is built to a complex level.”

Then I guess you work completely differently than me and everyone I know. Has been know to happen.

[Oliver Peters] “It also doesn’t become very useful, when you move a clip 10 minutes down on the timeline to a place within the first minute. Far easier to paste-insert than drag clips around. The FCPX timeline is far too cumbersome (sluggish) and finicky to do this on a large project.”

I love this. You’re talking about functionality that is factually not even possible elsewhere in the same way, in particular PPro, but still manage to construct some exception along the lines of “Yeah, it’s nice… but actually useless”. :-)))) Especially after I’ve been lead to believe “that clip-swapping is[n’t] done once the timeline is built to a complex level”. So is it or isn’t it?? I’m confused. But then even your paste-insert wouldn’t work as needed or expected in PPro either more often than not, so even if I were reduced to that (which I never have been)… erm, so? At least it works!

Has it occurred to you, that everyone wants to avoid swapping clips if at all possible, since that is (“classically”) an inordinate PITA, as the video illustrates beautifully? It has to me. I’ve been there, done that. Five years ago. Never again.

[Oliver Peters] “In addition, much of the time, connected clips are not connected to the clip you are trying to move. Rather, they are connected to the last part of the preceding clip. This means you spend extra time changing the connection points before ever moving a clip around together with its corresponding connected clips.”

So now you’re trying to sell us that ONE SIMPLE ALT-COMMAND CLICK on a clip to move the connection to where I need it before the move is some sort of laborious, time intensive task?? ? Seriously… now you’re trying way too hard. Because that is just plain absurd.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!

[Robin S. kurz]

[Oliver Peters] “it used a filmstrip metaphor instead of a track-based timeline”

:-)))
Right. And that has what to do with anything? Substituting one point with an inane “Apple didn’t invent the phone!”-style ‘issue’ gets us where exactly? I’m actually surprised to see you of all people bring something like that up. By that logic I guess every motorcycle today isn’t a REAL motorcycle or “original”, since it’s not a Mercedes motorcycle? Hmmm… what about the wheel? Tough one.

Why not go straight back to Xerox Parc while we’re on the subject and diss Apple for any and everything they’ve ever done for GUI design or the Mac? Because, you know, they only stole everything, as they did the entire FCP paradigm, right? But then let’s at least be consistent and take PPro into the equation! Look at those shameless plagiarists! Wow. ?

Completely irrelevant to the discussion and quite the logical fallacy imho. The only thing that’s relevant in any of the above examples in the end is how they are done, which is what sets them apart. Otherwise do tell us what actually deserves the “never seen before and never done before” moniker nowadays. Oh right… nothing. Pointless, circular argument du jour I’d say. One that doesn’t lend anything of substance to the discussion that at least I can recognize.

– RK

[Robin S. kurz]

[Bill Davis] “It’s clear traditional NLEs did things in a somewhat simplistic fashion based on what was possible in the early days of NLE design”

I think you may have missed the part in the very beginning (around 1:38) where he actually explained WHY he thinks NLEs were designed to work the way they did. They were simply trying to mirror the way ANALOG editing was done as closely as possible to appeal to film and most of all TAPE editors, with complete disregard for what was or could have been possible or even better for that matter if they didn’t. Essentially they didn’t want to scare people away from giving it a try and not have to rack their brains too much about the logic behind it, since the paradigm was so familiar, lest intuitive and as efficient as possible by embracing ALL the advantages of working digitally. Because it’s not like what FCP X e.g. does with the magnetic timeline wouldn’t have been just as well possible back in the 80’s and 90’s.

Basically the same as if the inventors of the automobile hadn’t gone with gas and brake pedals, but rather had people yell “Hiiiyaaaa!” to get it moving and “Brrrrr!” to slow or stop it. ?

So, for me, that’s essentially the exact opposite of what Apple (fortunately) did with X. They were the first and only to NOT have the established approaches of yester-decades dictate how to do things, but had the courage (yeah, courage) to rethink matters. They, so far, are imho the only ones to recognize that those workflows are far less productive and efficient in today’s and future market of 100% digital workflows. The “how would we do it and like it to work” as opposed to the above “how can we blindly appease our audience sans any improvements, to avoid an avalanche of whining”.

[Herb Sevush] “the issue is that you can’t have it only when you want it, it’s all or nothing”

Ouch. That’s just… oh never mind.

– RK

____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!