Simon Ubsdell
6
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
[Herb Sevush] ” I was just wondering how the program decided which of the 2 clips gets to go on top. You are stating that the editor determines as he’s moving the event?”
It’s as basic as where you choose to drag it in vertical space – drag it above another clip and it will take viewing precedence drag it below and it will be obscured by the clip above. It’s exactly the same as FCP7 …
… the only difference is that you don’t have to “make room” on a spare track for the clip you are moving, and of course you are creating non-destructive overlaps. Does that make sense?
(Probably not!)
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Walter Soyka] “How’d I do?”
You see, I knew you could do express much better than I could!
The only thing I think needs clarifying is this:
[Walter Soyka] “With FCPX, you explicitly define the relationships between clips when you edit them into the sequence”
You might appear to be implying (to someone who didn’t have first hand experience of this) that there is some additional process involved in “defining the relationships” but of course it’s just a question of editing using the new “Connect to Primary Storyline” (Q) function as against the more familiar editing modes of Insert and Overwrite.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[David Cherniack] “So when you add an audio effect that you want in relationship with a video point you don’t have to add a connection? If so this software is smarter than me.”
Yes, that’s exactly what happens – and that connection will stay there unless you choose to break it. Which means that the sound effect will move with the clip – or even, as in my typical scenario, those “15 sound effects and 4 tracks of dialogue” will move with the clip, without my having to make a conscious decision about them during the moving process.
Hence when opening up a gap in the timeline, all the clips forward of the insert point (on the Primary Storyline) will shuffle down, keeping their connections, whereas anything connected before the insert point will stay where they were – even if both sets of such clips overlap the insert point, which I find is the typical scenario.
In fact, I will typically have many, many clips that overlap and probably not a single one that actual cuts where I wan the picture cut to happen. I’m sure you must be very familiar with this situation.
I should clarify that “adding a connection” is a matter of editing using the Q key (or Edit>Connect to Primary Storyline; or dragging a clip to a connected position if you prefer that way of working). It’s not an extra process that you have to take account of.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[David Cherniack] “I’ll take your word for it that FCP performs effortlessly over 24 tracks of overlapping audio because of clip connections…assuming you’re insering the gap between connected groups.”
I think this is one of those things that’s obvious when you see it but hard to verbalize – as I said, I’m clearly hopeless at getting the point across 🙁
I’d have said that FCPX would be great at opening gaps however many overlapping clips you asked it to handle – the more overlapping clips the more it’s going to score over other methods.
The clips stay where they are meant to stay because of the clip connections – but the clip connections are not something you’d have to think about activating because they would have arisen by default as a result of the editing process.
[David Cherniack] “Otherwise how will it know where to spilt the connected group except down the middle?”
What we are talking about here is a process that specifically doesn’t involve splitting anything – it’s about keeping the relationships that you have defined without you having to worry about gathering them all up and/or healing broken clips.
Maybe someone else can explain this better than I can as I feel I’m repeating myself and not making anything clearer!
[David Cherniack] “I’d also point out that I can connect the clips in more ancient NLEs like PPro with the group function so deselecting the clips that are not to move is not matter of multiple actions, only one.”
The point here surely is that you’d have had to go through and group them which is an action – or more likely several – in itself, and then you’d probably want to undo the group which is another action or set of actions. So it doesn’t quite compare for simplicity.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Jeremy Garchow] “Fcpx allows overlapping events, in fact, it’s really good at overlapping.”
I’d say it’s better at handling overlapping events than anything else I’ve come across – the greater the complexity the more powerful the FCPX solution becomes …
… in this instance 😉
I do think perhaps the “complexity” David is referencing is of a different kind and I’d agree that there are types of complexity that it doesn’t (yet?) handle well – in particular the issue you are valiantly trying to address which is the “visual clutter” of the audio department of the timeline. I think there is probably a solution to this (and yours have been very interesting) but currently it does represent one of the bigger interface hurdles – for larger and more complex projects.
So there are some kinds of complexity that FCPX is good at and others where it’s still significantly weak.
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[David Cherniack] “Simon, the most common insert gap operation I do will have audio clips, music and effects, overlapping. I want some of the clips to move with the gap and some to stay stationary. How is the magnetic timeline going to handle that without additional steps? I’m sincerely asking.”
Do check out the thread I mentioned earlier for a more complete explanation. It’s precisely in this case of having lots of overlapping clips where the insert gap function is far preferable (in my view) to any other way of going about it. The clip connections (which will be where you want them to be almost by definition will take care of what moves ahead and what stays put.
I’m clearly useless at explaining this point as I have tried several times without success! Unfortunately the best thing is probably to try and see if you can “break it” 😉 I couldn’t …
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Herb Sevush] “What are the rules of precedence then – which clip is viewed when you move two clips into the same temporal space?”
The one you choose to put on top? Or were you looking for a more profound answer?
😉
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[Simon Ubsdell] “So, I think it is fair to say that the Position tool is absolutely not the only overwrite behaviour.”
I forgot to add that everything that takes place outside the primary storyline is a non-rippling behaviour only – all connected clips operate in “overwrite mode” rather than rippling (although of course they slide out of each other’s way rather than destructively eat into each other).
And an additional point to make is that nudging a clip up and down the primary storyline (using either the arrow keys or the number pad) is also an overwrite behaviour.
So all in all quite a lot of overwrite behaviour to be getting on with 😉
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[David Cherniack] “The way I understand it the position tool is the only ‘overwrite’ function available and it works as an override to the standard rippling mode. If that’s correct that’s not the same thing as working in overwrite. If it’s not, please do correct me.”
So much has been made of the Position tool in these discussion that it seems as though it’s been forgotten that the D key (or Edit>Overwrite) is your standard Overwrite mode, no different from FCP or any other NLE. In fact, it’s exactly the same and completely unchanged.
Note also that you can Lift from Primary Storyline (Opt/Cmd/Up arrow) as well as go the other way, which is again a non-rippling behaviour.
So, I think it is fair to say that the Position tool is absolutely not the only overwrite behaviour.
On the subject of gaps, I did discuss this at length in another thread which hopefully explains what I mean when I say that the insert gap function enables a very high order editing capability.
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/17739#18364
In fact, this:
[David Cherniack] “Doing insert gap with complex timelines is always going to require some adjustments”
… is now actually not the case with FCPX. I’d say that in 99% of cases there will be no need for repairs or adjustments of any kind (beyond possibly trimming the gap), as everything stays connected exactly where you’d hope it would. (I know it doesn’t seem possible or likely but try it and you’ll see that it’s true.) Accordingly, what used to be a multi-step process in almost every case (some times very many steps indeed), is now a single-step process.
Please don’t think this is a blanket apology for the more heinous excesses of FCPX – I just do believe that in this case they’ve got something very complex really rather impressively right. Though I know it’s going to be an uphill battle arguing this position, because looking at everything they’ve messed up on it’s hard to believe they got anything right at all 😉
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com -
[David Cherniack] “it seems to me the real issue here is … whether editing in ripple mode can ever be efficient with complex timelines.”
I know there are lots of issues with the FCPX timeline generally (not least the “visual clutter” aspect, for which Jeremy’s ideas are an interesting approach to a possible solution) but I’m not sure I can agree with the notion that the rippling timeline specificallyt is an insurmountable hurdle.
For start it is just as possible to edit in Overwrite Mode as it ever was so why exactly is rippling such an issue?
It’s not as if it’s a new concept that we haven’t had to address before – rippling behaviour is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not, overwrite behaviour is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not.
Just as there are strategies for enabling rippling in a non-rippling timeline, so there are strategies for disabling rippling in FCPX.
Apologies if I’m missing a key complexity, but I really don’t think this is one of the major issues.
Personally I think that, despite all the dumbing-down comments, the rippling timeline actually successfully addresses some very high level and complex editing situations (as for instance with the insert gap capability) that are significantly less well catered for by traditional means.
Lack of native OMF/EDL export on the other hand – don’t get me started! And please don’t anyone mention Foolcut/X27/Resolve or any other Heath Robinson multiple third party fix or I’ll blow a gasket!!!!
Simon Ubsdell
Director/Editor/Writer
http://www.tokyo-uk.com