Simon Ubsdell
6
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “This really is just like we were talking about 2 years ago.
“in-line” Compound clip expansion, or multi-layered secondaries.”
Are we any nearer it happening?
Just because we can imagine really cool ways of improving this, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Apple are going to implement them. Or that they are even possible to implement given the fundamental architecture.
Would be great if they actually listened to us about the design of this thing but I’m not entirely convinced that that’s the way they do things.
Still, I’m on the hoping team too,
Although if in-line compound clip expansion if the solution I’m not sure I’m that keen. Way too cumbersome for me, I’m afraid.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Charlie Austin] “Music in a secondary with the ability to connect things to that rather than the primary would be very nice. “
You see, I’m not crazy – there is someone who understands what I’m talking about 😉
Yes, something like that would be very nice indeed.
What would be even nicer is the ability to layer in the secondary storyline which would make some music editing a lot neater. Secondaries are perfect for music – but oftentimes a crossfade just won’t cut it.
[Charlie Austin] “if iMovie is the stalking horse…”
iMovie has always been the stalking horse – it’s just it’s taken all this time for people to come around to the notion.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Charlie Austin] “And with the magical tilde-shift-release chord, you can turn off connections without the need to hold the key down, and edit away just like the olden days. 😉 Until you press tilde again to “re-connect”.”
I’m absolutely not saying that there aren’t lots of exciting ways to edit with connected clips. I love connected clips as much the next guy.
What I’m saying is that you can’t establish a connection between a cluster of connected clips other than how they relate to a singular clip on the primary.
Often one creates a really nice cluster of audio that doesn’t necessarily tie to a single point in the timeline – this is especially true if you are sound designing something around a music track.
Yes, you could put the music track or some other defining element in the primary and have it lock to that, but that’s not necessarily as flexible as you might like.
I’m not talking hypotheticals – this is stuff that I find that it would be nice to be able to do when I’m editing since so much of what I do is driven by sound design. Perhaps rather more than is typical, which is why it probably sounds as though I’m talking nonsense.
Of course, I can make it work in any number of different ways and none of it really makes a huge difference. But it is a form of limitation.
Rather than an unalloyed magnificence.
No NLE is perfect, even this one. All of life is a compromise of some sort – it would be so dull if it weren’t.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Walter Soyka] “Multiple primaries and arbitrary clip connections would both be powerful features. Magnetism, more magnetism, and tracks, all together.”
Indeed they would and we’ve been talking about such things for two years!
Whether it’s actually feasible is another matter.
And whether Apple have any intention of giving us that kind of box of delights I’m not at all sure.
I’d love to see that though – that would be fun.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Steve Connor] “I use compound clips if I need to do that.
Indeed – and I’m really overstating how much of an obstacle it is. It’s not really an obstacle at all.
I was really just responding to Walter’s point about how X “encodes the editor’s intentions” in its implementation of connected clips. I just wanted to observe that it’s only some of your intentions some of the time.
At other times it “encodes” things that are not your intention at all.
And then again it doesn’t have a way of encoding explicit intentions such as lining up connected clips with each other but not with the primary storyline.
But mostly it’s pretty darn handy.
[Simon Ubsdell] “As always just an observation not a criticism.”
and your observations add considerably to the quality of this forum :)”
Not at all sure they do, but thank you 😉
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Steve Connor] “simply use a slug in the primary and connect everything to that. I often use this method to edit.”
Indeed. but it doesn’t really answer my observation.
Which was that you can’t connect two connected clips to each other and not to the primary.
And often it would be handier if you could – or even connect multiple connected clips to each other and not the primary.
As always just an observation not a criticism.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Walter Soyka] “It’s a nuance, but the traditional timeline doesn’t relate the two clips to each other.”
I would argue that it does – in a sense. It relates them to each other by virtue of them coinciding in time and the timeline being non-magnetic they will stay where they are all things being equal.
The FCP X timeline removes that “connection” by insisting on a singular point of connection with the primary – which over-rides all other implicit “connections” such as the one I am describing.
Time is a very powerful “connection device” in the context of a traditional NLE that isn’t there in X.
I would also suggest that the fact that X’s connections are always singular (only to the primary) imposes significant limits on its ability to encode my intentions. That was the point I was trying to make.
(As always just arguing cos it’s interesting, not to be critical of X. It’s all snakes and ladders – I don’t think X or any other NLE offers you only ladders with no snakes.)
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
“[Walter Soyka] “The software does exactly what you tell it. Primary, secondary, connection — to whatever extent you consider the role of the clip when you cut it in, and choose how you cut it in accordingly, some intent is captured in a way that cannot be true with traditional timelines.””
Thinking about this some more – and this is going to start to sound like one of those conversations we used to have two years ago with David L. – I can encode intentions in a conventional NLE that FCP X is unable to encode.
My example of syncing up a sound effect with music at a particular point in time is an example of an intentional “connection” that can only be encoded in FCP X in the context of connecting to the primary storyline.
It absolutely refuses to encode my actual intention if the two clips are both connected.
Conversely in a traditional timeline those kinds of “connections” are being encoded for the simple reason that the “connection point” is time – and not another clip.
It’s a shame to have lost that ability in return for a much more limited tracking of my intentions.
Not that I’m complaining – it’s just a trade-off that you either embrace or you don’t.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Walter Soyka] “As usual, I doubt we disagree much.
The software does exactly what you tell it. Primary, secondary, connection — to whatever extent you consider the role of the clip when you cut it in, and choose how you cut it in accordingly, some intent is captured in a way that cannot be true with traditional timelines.”
Indeed, I wasn’t really disagreeing – just riffing a bit on your theme.
My point was actually that the software doesn’t necessarily do exactly what you tell it.
If I add a connected clip at a certain point in time I don’t necessarily want to establish a relationship with the primary storyline, but rather I might well want to be creating a relationship with other connected clips that are congregating in that region.
For example, if I’ve got a connected music track and I want to add a connected sound effect to coincide with a particular musical moment, I’m not choosing to create a relationship with the primary storyline, but rather with the music.
I only mention it because I often run into that sort of situation …
The ability to connect to something other than the primary storyline at will would of course change that completely. But it’s not there at the moment.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Charlie Austin] “Agreed. Particularly when copy/pasting clips, or dragging out heads/tails. The original connection point is kept, and not necessarily where you want it to be. Never a dull moment! lol”
Actually, much as I like clip connections and all the benefits they bring, they can often work out creating similar orders of complication as you had when you didn’t have the magnetic timeline.
Every NLE is going to have something that slows you down – it’s just in X’s case those things are completely different, indeed frequently opposite, to the things that slowed you down in Media Composer or wherever.
Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com