Apple push to win back pro editors

[Scott Crawley]

The example of an issue of "keeping track of bits and ensuring that everything is in fact moving together and staying in synch" is because someone else is doing it and the brain doesn't have the action/reaction feedback and own mental reference which it would have if the move was manual, so it needs to re-check what is going on to build awareness. That is just one example of the redundant mental processes mentioned. That is the price of an automation. Thinking about and checking the automation. It may help with few clips and with a simple edit and context, but when factors multiply, this turns into a little annoying dog running around one's feet seeking attention.

I liken your desk analogy to the way I work on the light table with stills, laying out a book. I never thought about video editing that way because, while we work with it in a non-linear fashion, the medium of cinema is still a predominantly linear experience. that is why, I think, the dynamic timeline exists, as opposed to your way; it is more linear thinking. Your thought process is intriguing to me. I will explore it a bit.

I would remind you that before the "magnetic" paradigm there was no way to move all of those bits together at all, much less do it with any with any efficiency.

To both your point above regarding the additional thought required, and to Mr. Glans' concerns of the same I simply submit that with familiarity and knowledge of how the software works the editor can effectively make use of the automation and no longer have to think about it. With control over the software you regain control over your material. This is not a flaw in the software, It is a lack of mastery of the software.

 

[David Battistella]

Can't we just let this sad thread die? It has already suffered long enough.

I agree Terry. This one has helped me decide to logoff reduser for a while. See you all in a few months or next year.

cheers

david

 

[Sergio Perez]

I think the discussion is good: I liked Hrvoje Simic's posts and I think he is writting them in a polite and orderly way. Scott is giving him good replies. Don't take it so personally David. You could reply Hvorje's post the same way by telling specific features and ways it could work based on his arguments and not go directly on the emotional level. The info part of this thread has been great and since apple is monitoring this why not come up with our suggestions?

I have an additional suggestion that I would like to see on the interface: more precise timecode rulers and indicators- more visible. Its just too hidden in the overall interface and its a very important guideline for people working on commercials and content with precise time limits and breaks.

Another thing I find annoying right now is the immediately tying of dissolves and transitions of an outside of storyline clip to the main storyline (shade group). I don't like the automatic "anchor" on this very often used effect. Please Make it optional.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I don't really agree with Hrvoje. He really talks as if with FCPX you cannot place your clips anywhere (not true, you can work with the Position Tool, with Connected Clips, etc. ... although you have some more clicks if you need to detach audio) and if Apple would follow his advice, I think it would make FCPX a lot like all the other NLE's out there, and would get rid of some of the best things FCPX has. That being said, I don't have a problem with his posts.

About your complaints, Sergio. I'll share you my wish list for Apple below, which I have updated a couple of times and sent to them trough the feedback form. I'm not a fanboy, I think a lot of things could be improved. That being said, I still prefer FCPX for most of my work, after unlearning other habbits, and I do think it has a big edge in some very important aspects over other NLE's. Personally, if they would change a lot of the things below, for me it would be almost perfect. And some of these things really seem like minor things in comparison with other complaints I had in other software. (Other are rather major, for instance, having an audio mixer)

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

PART 1:


- Being able to Scale or Stabilize Attributes on synchronized clips.

- Remove Attributes button

- If you scroll trough with JKL keys, and you do it very quick, you hear the audio pitch-perfect for the first seconds, and then it disappears. It would be great if it would stay like that.

- Being able to give color labels to projects in the Project Library

- Another behavior when putting multiple dissolves in a timeline. In FCP 7, it would add a dissolve everywhere it could, but if there wasn't enough media, it would not copy a dissolve there. This was very handy when you worked with a lot of clips that just follow each other coming from a recording device that splits long recordings in multiple files.
In FCP X now, you can only choose to create media for the transition, or just cancel and not have a a cross dissolve anywhere. If I'm not mistaken, the first releases of FCP X would give you more choices in this regard.
It's nice to have a combination of the old behavior and the potential new one (with creating extra media) and just have options of both in the dialog window you get. Because if now, you have a recording split in multiple files, and put a dissolve in between those clips with FCP X doing the 'creating extra media thing" you get a weird effect that's not wanted.

- A kind of batch export, and maybe support for kind of reference files?

- If you export for instance, 3 timelines in the background, you only see the first file by name.
The one below, awaiting, just say: 'Master File'. Why can't you say the name of the project or timeline? So you can get a quick idea of what you are already exporting and if you forgot anything.
If it's the same timeline you are exporting multiple times, with changes, let's have it say the name of the sequence with the date and exact time of the export?

- I don't know if this is by design or a bug: if I put multiple in-and out points, ranges as you say, in a clip, and I make them chronologically and push E to append to the primary storyline, it puts them in the wrong order in the timeline. If I make a range 1 and a range 2 in the same clip, in chronological order, FCP X puts it in the timeline as range 2 first, and range 1 second. It's completely opposite of normal thinking? If you have an interview that you want to go trough, it's more intuitive to have it in the same order as the interview. Now it ruins the multiple ranges-option. I can't remember this being so in FCP 10.0.6, but I could be wrong, so I don't know if this was introduced in 10.0.7?

- Synchronize clips seems to only use audio. According to the manual, it also used timecode, but we tried multiple times doing it with clips with the same timecode, and FCP X would never place them correct. In multicam this works correctly. It would be nice to get some more options there and let FCPX use timecode correctly to synchronize multiple audio/video clips.

- If you click Expand All in the menu for expanding video and audio, that it expands every clip in the timeline, INCLUDING the ones you put in the timeline AFTER you pushed the Expand All option. It reduces the amound of clicking. If you want to edit with an expanded view of audio seperately, you click expand all, and edit the way you want. If you put new clips in the timeline, you don't have to press again and again in the menu.

- If you have a synchronized clip with R3D material, making sure the spatial conform works like it does with a normal rough R3D clip.

- More RAW controls from REDCINE in the R3D Hud, including (big one) the eyedropper tool to very quickly and automatically set white balance.

- Have a simple white balance tool in your standard color tools, like the one from RED. Let it be a tool you can switch on or off. The Match-Color behaviour doesn't work very well, and the older 3-way color corrector in FCP7 was miles ahead on some of this manual control.

- A timecode HUD with much more timecode options. Seeing in one view the timecodes of everything in the timeline (like the old timecode overlay in FCP7), optional of course. Being able to COPY and PASTE a timecode from a clip instead of manually having to feed it always, like you could in FCP 7. You could just copy the timecode from the viewer of canvas.

- A well made timecode reader/generator effect, not only a generator. (have both). Like the old one: read timecode, generate one, custom, ... Now, we have to work trough compound clips with timecode generators above, which seems unnecessary.

- More options from Color, including but not limited to color wheels. Tracker. Custom shapes, that can be keyframed, including in their shape points. Sharpening, denoising,... Maybe have a seperate Color Room? (same with Audio?)

- If you click to have Proxy Media Playback, put a warning side if media hasn't been converted to Proxy yet, but don't have it be offline completely. It sometimes doesn't make sense to transcode EVERYTHING in your timeline to Proxy Media. Only being able to transcode a portion of it, and just see a small subtle warning sign in the rest without hindering your ability to work with it, would be much better!

- Fade Handles on seperate Audio Components.

- Fade Handles on video?

- Prores LT as a codec option to optimize!

- In the preferences, have playback for Optimized Media or Original Media be 2 seperate options? Or just some more flexibility.

- Better support for working with networked storage! I'm not talking about users working on the same project on the same timeline (although the patents I saw online about guardians etc. were interesting) but just having the program work easily with networked storage over ethernet!

- If you open the HUD of a Smart Collection, it seems I cannot make the HUD bigger or smaller. Sometimes if I have long names of Keyword Collections of which the first 3 words are the same, I cannot see which to click on or off if I put a Keyword on one of the parameters of a Smart Collections. I don't know if this is a bug or not.

- At the retiming menu, if you click it, have a custom option to manually give in a percentage.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

PART 2:

- Custom resolutions when making a project! With a way of making it a preset! It's possible now trough a compound clip and work-around, so it must be possible technically, but just the option needs to be 'activated' in the dialog window when making a new project.

- 'Break Apart Compound Clip' back in the contextual right-mouse click menu.

- This is more of a general Mac OSX complaint since Lion, but the way the system works with programs in full screen is really really one of the most emberassing things ever if you have 2 monitors... FCP X is no different. Suddenly seeing the second screen dissapear is really... ugh.

- At Audio Enchancements, at the background Noise Removal option, have a small button to set the noise print, as you could with Soundtrack Pro. I don't know if the technology now in FCP X is the same as in Soundtrack Pro, but I'm getting much worse results (frankly, I never get good ones, and thus never use it) when using the remove background noise option in FCP X. Maybe having the option to manually set the noise print, will get better results back?

- An audio mixer! Maybe have some seperate Audio Mixing 'room', like you could have with Color Correction. FCP X seems to have great technologies under the hood (some of Color, some of Logic, some of Soundtrack Pro, some of Cinema Tools), but just have the tools deeper would really make it a super-NLE. Not needing to round-trip, but still being able to do so much in an NLE that can seem so simple, but yet can get very deep, is VERY appealing, and would get many people to switch to Macs and FCP X. Look at Color... Yes, you could say Resolve is better, but not needing to round trip, and being able to do very good corrections in the same program where you do the finishing, compositing, editing, ... is really tempting. If you don't want to use it, you don't need to. But I miss Color, and in the same way I think much more of Soundtrack Pro needs to return to FCP X.
Maybe audio mix trough color coded roles or so?

- Being able in the Copy Paste Dialogue box, to paste seperate color corrections, and have them being applied ABOVE whatever you have done to that clip earlier. And not only replace it. Maybe have a small button in the dialogue box where you can choose to ADD your attributes to the clip you are pasting it too.

- Being able to give Color Corrections names, instead of just the automated numbers. And also being able to move a color correction up or down in the effects stacking order, like you can do with other effects.

- Being able in a way to very easily put a video-only dissolve on a clip, without messing too much with detaching audio, secondary timelines, ... Just have a cross dissolve video-only transition in the transition browser or something. Same thing with making an audio-only cross dissolve with a dedicated short cut (it used to be ALT+CMD+T in FCP7)! These little things suddenly can make FCPX a much more slow tool to use.

- Have a quick way of putting audio back to a clip after detaching it. (and if they are out of sync, maybe have a dialogue box or something to choose if you want to keep it out of sync, or put it back to it's default?)

- Have out of sync-markers when detaching audio... Or have better solutions for working with a recording where all the audio is for instance 4 frames off.

- Have a smart Render function, as FCP 7 had where it simply copies original media if you are doing simple cut-cut operations. Now this only seems to be with Prores LT, but not with XDCAM material for instance…

- Have the Background Render option be REALLY background. So for instance, when you are working, it keeps rendering, but like with one core or something. So it's low taxing on the system, but you can really keep working. Now it stops if you do something in the program, and you really let it do a lot, it kind of makes your computer super super slow.
Like the generating waveform that seems to pause whenever you work in the program. It's not logical.

- Being able to also put Events in Folders, like you can with Projects.

- Also having Skimmer info in the timeline, showing for instance timecode of the original clip.

- If you have a (raw) clip in the Event Browser, and click Open in Timeline, and for instance, put a timecode generator on it, and you put it in your timeline, it shows the timecode generator on the clip in the timeline. So far, so good. But if you then, in your Event Browser, after the edit, use the same process to remove the timecode generator or make it invisible, it doesn't update in the timeline. The work-around is to first put your clip in a compound clip, but I think it's a unnecessary work-around which can cause potential errors. You suddenly have every clip you need to use like that twice in the project, and you have to make sure the starting timecode of your compound clip is the same as the one of the clip itself. (UPDATE, I can imagine this works the way it does, because you like having that a normal clip in the timeline is completely independent… I get the logic, but then you should just get a better option for having timecode on a clip that you want to remove instead of compounding every clip first).

- Better support for using FCPX with 3 displays. On a rMBP connected with 2 other displays, it will always use your laptop as a standard second display. The only work-around is closing the lid, let FCPX put your content on the other display, and opening the lid again. Very silly work-around, especially if you have to do it in front of clients.

- If you have a bunch of clips and you all change their scale properties trough the transform tools in the viewer, the slider in the inspector will still say it's 100 procent while the clip clearly isn't on 100 pro cent. Maybe I got this because of working with compound clips, I don't know if it's the same with raw clips, but anyhow, if I use the inspector to change all the clips their scale, they all update correctly in the inspector if I click them afterwards. Strangely enough also, when I use the transform tools of the Viewer to change the Position of clips, they all update fine in the inspector. Unless this was a bug on my end, I don't think this is logical. Maybe the issue is only with compound clips, but it's a big issue nonetheless.

- Please make it possible to have your transform, crop and color correction tools in the inspector change in stacking order together with effects. Being able for instance, to put a crop ABOVE a 3rd party effect for instance. Now there are many work-around necessary (compounding) to do this.

- When doing a split edit on a connected clip and the audio starts a lot earlier then the video (J-cut), and you then you collapse the clip again, and then put a dissolve on the video, which causes it to become a secondary storyline, it cuts the early audio off. That doesn't make sense (if it's not a bug). A way to solve this, would being able to just put a transition on a clip (dissolve) without it becoming a secondary storyline. I get the logic behind this, but in practice it causes me a LOT of unnecessary clicks in a timeline, while the other way around, if I want to have secondary clips become a storyline, I can always have the option trough the menu command or contextual menu. Please change this behaviour. Maybe it's not a good idea to have a connected clip become a connected storyline automatically after putting a transition on it. In my experience, in 99 procent of the cases, I really have to do a lot of extra clicking around, and it almost never saves me time.

- The background Dashboard hud dissapears when going into another application. Not that handy.

- This feature could maybe be a work-around for the dashboard dissapearing, although it would be nice to have both: In the Share Monitor program, have a look at what you are exporting in every program (FCPX, Motion 5, Compressor 4). They all share the same engine. Having the Share Monitor open and being able to see what you are exporting in FCP X next to your regular Compressor Batch would be great. Having a seperate tab or something like that.

- In a Smart Collection, also being able to use Clip Type: Synchronized Clip. Now you have to do it trough Text, and then add Sync somewhere. A bit of a work-around.

- When making a new compound clip, being able to immediately say which keyword it needs to have. Now, if you need to make a lot of them, and you are making compound clips from clips in a keyword-collection (which we do, to have a timecode generator on them, because we miss having a timecode hud), you always get thrown back into your Event, instead of staying within that keyword collection, and then you have to manually search the compound clip and assign a keyword to the compound clip again.

 

[Sergio Perez]

Mathieu, these are excelent and constructive suggestions and are great. I see you went further with the dissolves suggestion, wich I agree completely, and your cross fade option a very big ditto!

Another suggestion I would like to add is to go for more precise controls for certain not very complex effects- not make them only 0-100 percent. There are some effects that are doing various things at the same time. Allowing precise controls and/or separate sliders for specific things the effect is doing would be fantastic for certain effects that are offered.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Hi Sergio,

just FYI, you know about the whole Motion/Effects structure within FCPX? Being able to open most of the built-in effects (and some 3rd party ones) in Motion, tweaking them, and saving your own version? It goes further, because, for instance, for built-in effects you can choose which sliders to 'publish' in FCPX, and you can also make your own rigs (sliders, parameter controls, etc.) with the maximum/minimum values you want, and the control you want. It's actually a very well thought-out system.

Some videos, if you didn't know, and interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4k7pzNnpdM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM7n1VPlIfY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97XwYFh0jd8

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I don't really agree with Hrvoje. He really talks as if with FCPX you cannot place your clips anywhere (not true, you can work with the Position Tool, with Connected Clips, etc. ... although you have some more clicks if you need to detach audio) and if Apple would follow his advice, I think it would make FCPX a lot like all the other NLE's out there, and would get rid of some of the best things FCPX has. That being said, I don't have a problem with his posts.

Comments regarding clip manipulation and freedom on the timeline were based on the fact that the process is more restricted and conditioned in FCPx, without any major benefit, sufficient to justify the workflow limitations.

Current approach is dismissive, attempting to over-simplify something which suffers in many cases by over-simplification, and this approach cannot replace the variety of editing approaches without serious compromises.
FCPx can still offer a lot of advantages by using the inclusive approach, and unique solutions without attempting to re-define the editing process.

It is not debatable whether a portion of users find FCPx useful, it is highly debatable whether this approach presents a benefit to a portion of FCP7 users with different priorities.
Which things do you perceive being the best in FCPx, which would be lost if the timeline wasn't constricted ?

 

[Sergio Perez]

Hi Sergio,

just FYI, you know about the whole Motion/Effects structure within FCPX? Being able to open most of the built-in effects (and some 3rd party ones) in Motion, tweaking them, and saving your own version? It goes further, because, for instance, for built-in effects you can choose which sliders to 'publish' in FCPX, and you can also make your own rigs (sliders, parameter controls, etc.) with the maximum/minimum values you want, and the control you want. It's actually a very well thought-out system.

Some videos, if you didn't know, and interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4k7pzNnpdM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM7n1VPlIfY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97XwYFh0jd8

I was familiar with the motion integration. In fact, i used the "widescreen" some users had done to fill the gap of that missing effect until recently. What I meant was that I don't see why these parameters cannot be done inside fcpx. Are you familiar with, say, Magic Bullet Looks? Its something I use often to give the "feel" I want to my client before going for serious online grading. Its no Davinci Resolve, but it has an intuitive interface to fine tweak specific looks, using a visual language that a person like me, who is primarily the director and not the pro editor, can understand. Inside FCPX i can get a preset look or effect with a simple 100% to 0 percent of the whole. I don't see why having specific parameters controls is not possible.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Hi Sergio,

yes, I have Looks. It's nice software, Red Giant does a good job. I get what you mean though.

There are, btw, some places where X, in comparison with 7, has some controls where it - FINALLY - works with pixels instead of percentages (crop, transform, ...)

Hrove, the magneticism sometimes works fantastic in re-ordering shots which have specific music of b-roll clips attached to them. If you have to, for instance, have to do some re-work on an excisting edit, I often find this easier in FCPX with its magnetic timeline, then in FCP7.

That's one of the examples. You can always shift-Delete if you want something replaced with a gap, and just press a different shortcut (Q) for a connected clip instead of working in the primary storyline, which is magnetic. Some people just fill the primary storyline with gaps, and to all the rest with conncted clips. This works more or less the same way as in 7.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I liken your desk analogy to the way I work on the light table with stills, laying out a book.

This example can be used to an extent. Light table provides free working space and lighted background. You can arrange stills in any way you currently want or stumble upon while working.

For illustrative purposes you can imagine someone taking that light table away and forcing you to use another, smaller yet conditionally adaptable light table (while your room does not require space saving whatsoever, and table can be any size you want with available reach to any part of the table), and on this new smaller yet conditionally adaptable light table you do not have the same freedom you previously had, to put stills where, when and how you want.
In addition, if you want to compare the stills, someone else decided that you have to use another table, you cannot do it all in the same table freely and in the same way you could before.

Now you might imagine hundreds and hundreds of stills and thousands and thousands of actions. Then you might imagine thousands of stills and many thousands of actions.
It is a nice and contemporary light table.

I never thought about video editing that way because, while we work with it in a non-linear fashion, the medium of cinema is still a predominantly linear experience. that is why, I think, the dynamic timeline exists, as opposed to your way; it is more linear thinking. Your thought process is intriguing to me. I will explore it a bit.

Motion imaging sequence is linear by the order of imagery and progression of activity within the clip.
Perception of multiple elements within the frame is parallel, varying with viewer's focus.

The starting point (raw material) and the end result (final cut) are linear. A lot of elements in between are not.
Forcing linear logic in the production process reduces many advantages of non-linear approach, which limits many options in both perception and manipulation.

One clip is linear based. Watching a clip is as being inside the clip.
Timeline is a virtual space in a temporal dimension, in which the clips are located. The observer's standpoint is outside the clip.
This offers parallel perception of clip relations within the timeline shape and contents of a temporal structure.

Stepping out of the linear logic and its limitations enables more options. One doesn't have to watch the clip to the end to see when and how it ends. One doesn't have to play the clip to cut it at a certain point. That is the advantage of non-linear approach. Timeline is a developing image, a map enabling parallel access to visual information about the temporal structure being built. Multiple independent and customizable tracks enable more attributes than no tracks. They also provide more virtual space to arrange the clips or groups of clips without having to step out of the main window. Stepping out of the main window moves focus from the main structure and adds another action in repetitive chain of actions.

What Apple currently seems to perceive as "clutter" is information. Very useful information in many cases.
In many situations that information requires less conscious processing during editing than processing obscure information on a simplified working desk.

In one perceives "information" or "insight" instead of "clutter", logic suggests greater benefit coming from optimization instead of reduction of that information.

I would remind you that before the "magnetic" paradigm there was no way to move all of those bits together at all, much less do it with any with any efficiency.

The issue lies in the perception of "efficiency".
Editing efficiency is not simply based on one simplified or sped up action or thought process, but the general effect on all of them throughout the project.

There was and still is a way of accomplishing this, just requires adequate timeline organization and visual navigation.
Both of which naturally evolve within an editor and are part of fundamentals of editing any multimedia content.

To both your point above regarding the additional thought required, and to Mr. Glans' concerns of the same I simply submit that with familiarity and knowledge of how the software works the editor can effectively make use of the automation and no longer have to think about it. With control over the software you regain control over your material. This is not a flaw in the software, It is a lack of mastery of the software.

Generally speaking - yes. In specific cases - no.

Automation is based on pre-determined parameters. A lot of editing actions are not pre-determined and are decided on the fly.
Dependance on automation requires accepting the automation limitations and thinking along the automation.

This shouldn't present a huge issue if automations can be switched off completely.

 

[Scott Crawley]

What you are describing is not foreign to me Hrvoje. Due in part to processing limitations, what I refer to as clutter (Not necessarily an Apple POV) and many other reasons, I am very accustomed to breaking bigger projects into smaller sequences and working on them separately, only assembling them later in the process. That is how I facilitated keeping things together while moving whole segments around in the past and I essentially continue to do the same thing. Perhaps that is why I do not feel as constrained by the elastic nature of the timeline as you do.

It is necessary to maintin both a macro view and a micro view of the project at the same time. The difference between us seems to be that you finish in the same timeline that you started in, and I do not. Larger structure for me only exists on a cork board, dry erase board, three ring binder or worse, in my head until the edit is fleshed out to a large degree. The cork board is my light table. It may seem a little backward or ironic for someone who is pushing forward to still be using a cork board, but such is the duality of my existence.

Your viewpoint is a useful reminder for me to keep a closer eye on the bigger picture at all times. I may not be doing that as well as I could.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Due in part to processing limitations, what I refer to as clutter (Not necessarily an Apple POV) and many other reasons, I am very accustomed to breaking bigger projects into smaller sequences and working on them separately, only assembling them later in the process. That is how I facilitated keeping things together while moving whole segments around in the past and I essentially continue to do the same thing. Perhaps that is why I do not feel as constrained by the elastic nature of the timeline as you do.

Not speaking about breaking projects into smaller segments, we do that as well when it is most practical.

Speaking in the context of having a greater insight and manipulation ability when specifically required within one timeline. A certain type of music video and a short movie are examples. Both short in form, and no major benefit in breaking them down into smaller segments, but both can be complex in requirements, whether workflow, content or client preference related, requiring access and overview for complete structure in the same window.

Regarding the elastic thingy, it seems to dictate temporal access to a project. If for any reason we first choose to select and position shots for a particular time location, and approach the project in any other non-linear way regarding the timeline, this solution doesn't work as productively.
No new temporal or spacial constraints other than subjectively defined ones. Defeats the purpose of digital realm.

It is necessary to maintin both a macro view and a micro view of the project at the same time.

Agreed. In addition - and ability to customize them.


Soundtrack Pro has a useful third option in between.

The difference between us seems to be that you finish in the same timeline that you started in, and I do not.

Not necessarily. Depends on the type of project and what works best. Sometimes in the same timeline, sometimes in many sequences.

That is why the suggestion of going with inclusive instead of dismissive route in a tool design.

The cork board is my light table. It may seem a little backward or ironic for someone who is pushing forward to still be using a cork board, but such is the duality of my existence.

It seems as optimal subjective approach...with different options being available and none forced.

That is the whole point. Allowing more individual approaches to a creative process. That is the major benefit of digital realm. Its programmability and adaptability.
No point in reducing options and substituting one option with the other. Combining the best of the former with the best of the current carries more potential.