FCPX, on set post, and studio level workflows

[M Most]

In the meantime, Apple will continue to innovate and gain market share in exactly those Corporate Accounts that Avid is so desperately trying to hold onto ...

Maybe. That's currently an unproven prediction.

but there again, Apple has a management team that knows what it's doing ... oh, and a very well thought out Strategic Vision thingumabob.

Well, as little as 6 months ago, just about everybody here and elsewhere was saying exactly the opposite. And frankly, although I like FCPX as an editing program (although not as something that fits into a larger ecosystem where other tools are also part of the picture, however) and have said so numerous times, it still took me quite some time to understand exactly what an "event" is, not to mention what a "project" is - and I'm still not sure whether my feeble understanding of either is correct because Apple chose to invent their own terminology and concepts when the existing ones were already known, understood, and working. Final Cut might have a lot of good ideas, but Apple sees fit to operate as a lone wolf whenever they feel like it, inventing nonsensical terminology along the way in products that are purportedly aimed at a professional clientele that already has terminology that fits the concepts perfectly well. That is not inspiring, that is maddening.

You know, for someone who has long been somewhat PC centric (remember Scratch??), you seem to have now bought into the "Apple is Perfect" rhetoric to a rather frightening extent... :glare:

 

[Scott Crawley]

... Apple sees fit to operate as a lone wolf whenever they feel like it, inventing nonsensical terminology along the way in products that are purportedly aimed at a professional clientele that already has terminology that fits the concepts perfectly well. That is not inspiring, that is maddening.

It is maddening, but not always frivolous. It is sometimes a necessary way to convey new ideas that are very different. I don't know about Events and Projects so much, but the "Primary Storyline" is a good example. That is not just a new term created on a whim do drive us batshit crazy. It defines the item very succinctly. When you give it's name due consideration it's use becomes more apparent, and that is a key to unlocking an understanding of how the magnetic timeline functions.

I have found that many people (myself included) just glossed over the term as a screwed up new name for a track in their hurry to get to the task of cutting. I quickly found that to be a big mistake... A Primary Mistake... If you will. ;-)

 

[M Most]

They could have called it a primary track and had it be just as descriptive but a lot more familiar. That's actually a good illustration of the point I was trying to make.

 

[Corey_O]

I would love to hear from a feature editor who makes a living as a feature editor push for this workflow....I still have yet to find ONE.

The ONLY people who I find pushing this are vendors who have a financial horse in the race and producers who believe that this is going to save them money. Once you set up that infrastructure good luck getting an editor and a director to sit in Bulgaria for 10 weeks using FCPX for directors cut.

The Coen brothers were sort of the underdogs in the post world when they decided to edit on Final Cut instead of Avid.

 

[D Fuller]

The Coen brothers were sort of the underdogs in the post world when they decided to edit on Final Cut instead of Avid.

And your point is?

That was the "other" FCP and many years ago. Not sure now it's relevant to this discussion.

 

[Scott Crawley]

They could have called it a primary track and had it be just as descriptive but a lot more familiar. That's actually a good illustration of the point I was trying to make.

The point is to differentiate it from a track. It is not a track as we know it. It has it's own behavior entirely. The difference is fundamental. Calling it by a new name not only reinforces the fact that it is different, but gets us thinking about it in a new way from the very start... Just by calling it by name.

 

[MichaelP]

The Coen brothers were sort of the underdogs in the post world when they decided to edit on Final Cut instead of Avid.

Underdogs? What does that mean? They chose the tool that felt worked for them. And now they are on Adobe Premiere Pro. What does that mean? It means the Coen brothers can cut a film on Premiere Pro. I will go see a Coen brothers film regardless of what it was shot on, edited on, colored on, mixed on, title designed with, etc.

Michael

 

[Corey_O]

And your point is?

That was the "other" FCP and many years ago. Not sure now it's relevant to this discussion.

The coen brothers have since changed to Premiere from Final cut Pro. ABA.........Anything but Avid!

 

[M Most]

The point is to differentiate it from a track. It is not a track as we know it. It has it's own behavior entirely. The difference is fundamental. Calling it by a new name not only reinforces the fact that it is different, but gets us thinking about it in a new way from the very start... Just by calling it by name.

Uhhhhhhh.............OK. I really don't see the "entirely different behavior" of which you speak, other than forcing you to split apart audio and video every time you want to edit those "tracks" (is that the right terminology here?) separately. I just don't see where the term "storyline" means anything to someone with editing skills and experience other than something Apple made up. Quite frankly, out of all the new terminology Apple came up with for this program, the only one I really think makes sense and is aptly descriptive is "Audition," a feature I happen to appreciate, use, and like. Everything else almost always has to be explained to new users in terms of what it means, usually using the "traditional" terminology that almost always still applies. So for most users, an "event" is a bin. A "project" is a sequence. And so on. I think it's rather silly, though, when you have to explain things in terms of what people already know rather than just call them what they already know and explain the slightly different behavior.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

(snip) ...it still took me quite some time to understand exactly what an "event" is, not to mention what a "project" is - and I'm still not sure whether my feeble understanding of either is correct because Apple chose to invent their own terminology and concepts when the existing ones were already known, understood, and working. Final Cut might have a lot of good ideas, but Apple sees fit to operate as a lone wolf whenever they feel like it, inventing nonsensical terminology along the way in products that are purportedly aimed at a professional clientele that already has terminology that fits the concepts perfectly well. That is not inspiring, that is maddening.

Thanks for posting this Mike, I was beginning to think I was the only one for whom the change of a just a handful of terminology was so vexing. At the end of the day I'm just chalking it up to "no pain, no gain" and working my way along the learning curve.

As I have noted previously, Apple, despite their missteps, is poised to turn FCP-X into a metadata fed beast that chews editorial tasks. IMO they have until NAB 2014 to achieve a level of integration with other key parts of the modern post ecosystem to make FCP-X a highly functional hub. Yes, I realize that because they are walking point on some fundamental changes in process there are going to be some disconnects - that comes with the territory.

IMO, Neil's scathing critique of AVID's "vision" is spot on - it feels like they're late to the party they started. Despite that, Mike's pragmatic take on why AVID continues to hold ground due to a combination of useful features and well understood workflows should be taken to heart by whomever is designing the next versions of FCP-X.

BTW, Apple passed perfect long ago ;-)

Cheers - #19

 

[Scott Crawley]

I will assume for the moment that your contempt at this point is for FCPX and not for me, because it can be infuriating. I could be wrong but none the less I will try to engage you further.

Why is cutting on FCPX infuriating? The Magnetic Timeline is why, and IT is THE entirely different behavior I was referring to and to which understanding the Primary Storyline is in my opinion the key.

For illustrative purposes, sit down at FCPX and begin to cut in your familiar manner. Don't cut just anything, cut a music video. In ten minutes (20 if you are the patient type) you will want to blow it up. Nothing will stay where you want it. The audio keeps slipping around. Video tracks will not remain stacked up in place. What is the solution? Reconsider the Primary Storyline.

Do something you would never consider if you were working in any other editing program (one that uses "tracks") and put the song down first, in what you undoubtedly call Track one or V1. Think of the song as the primary source of The Story and put the audio in the Primary Storyline. All of the problems I described in the previous paragraph will go away; video will remain where it belongs, audio will not slide around and on and on.

The primary storyline (both upper and lower case) is the spine that everything else hooks in to. It is the anchor of the Magnetic Timeline. Stop thinking of V1 as a container for video and start thinking of it as the spine of the story and FCPX begins to make sense. We are crafting stories here after all, not cutting tracks. This is why nomenclature is important in this case. This is the best illustration I can think of. Maybe it will help you to understand.

Uhhhhhhh.............OK. I really don't see the "entirely different behavior" of which you speak, other than forcing you to split apart audio and video every time you want to edit those "tracks" (is that the right terminology here?) separately. I just don't see where the term "storyline" means anything to someone with editing skills and experience other than something Apple made up. Quite frankly, out of all the new terminology Apple came up with for this program, the only one I really think makes sense and is aptly descriptive is "Audition," a feature I happen to appreciate, use, and like. Everything else almost always has to be explained to new users in terms of what it means, usually using the "traditional" terminology that almost always still applies. So for most users, an "event" is a bin. A "project" is a sequence. And so on. I think it's rather silly, though, when you have to explain things in terms of what people already know rather than just call them what they already know and explain the slightly different behavior.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Blair, to your point

Thinking of the primary storyline, metadata and Phillip Hodgetts' Lumberjack app consider this possibility:

Create a utility that converts a Final Draft script into a kind of XML that you import into the Primary Storyline. Using that spine, one could conceivably create a partner utility that will automatically conform all of your footage, complete with auditions of every take and multi clips of every applicable angle, directly to the script. This sounds like something you and MichaelP were previously eluding to, no?

 

[M Most]

BTW, Apple passed perfect long ago ;-)

But their credibility regarding that tag died with their co-founder. :closedeyes:

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Mike - in my opinion - you are attributing too much to the Jobs legacy and giving too little credit to the team and the processes he left in his place. Apple is at least several years away from from running out of good ideas and probably more years than that from running out of good management. :smiley:

 

[M Most]

I will assume for the moment that your contempt at this point is for FCPX and not for me, because it can be infuriating. I could be wrong but none the less I will try to engage you further.

I don't have any "contempt," I'm not infuriated with anyone, and I thought I had explained my affection for FCPX as a cutting tool better than I obviously have.

For illustrative purposes, sit down at FCPX and begin to cut in your familiar manner. Don't cut just anything, cut a music video. In ten minutes (20 if you are the patient type) you will want to blow it up. Nothing will stay where you want it. The audio keeps slipping around. Video tracks will not remain stacked up in place. What is the solution? Reconsider the Primary Storyline.

Do something you would never consider if you were working in any other editing program (one that uses "tracks") and put the song down first, in what you undoubtedly call Track one or V1. Think of the song as the primary source of The Story and put the audio in the Primary Storyline. All of the problems I described in the previous paragraph will go away; video will remain where it belongs, audio will not slide around and on and on.

I must be really thick headed, because what you just described is exactly how I or almost anyone I've ever seen cut a music sequence goes about it, whether they're cutting in Avid, Final Cut 7, Premiere Pro or anything else. You put in the track and cut to that, usually by matching picture using the playback track or time code - and as far as I can tell, you have the same options with FCPX - oh, wait, you don't have time code, at least not visible or quickly accessible time code......

The primary storyline (both upper and lower case) is the spine that everything else hooks in to. It is the anchor of the Magnetic Timeline. Stop thinking of V1 as a container for video and start thinking of it as the spine of the story and FCPX begins to make sense..

FCPX already makes sense. I'm not confused by it in the least, except regarding the bizarre terminology. I really don't understand why you think I'm criticizing its methods or its architecture, because I don't think i've said one thing in this thread that would indicate that. The only thing I've really said is that it would be more approachable and less unfamiliar for experienced editors if they would just call things what they are and explain the differences in approach. You seem to want to either educate or argue with me when neither is really required or called for.

 

[Scott Crawley]

You seem to want to either educate or argue with me when neither is really required or called for.

If I read contempt, condescension or sarcasm into your previous post and it wasn't there, then I apologize. I was apparently mistaken. It is an easy error to make, holding you in high regard as I do.

what you just described is exactly how I or almost anyone I've ever seen cut a music sequence goes about it, whether they're cutting in Avid, Final Cut 7, Premiere Pro or anything else. You put in the track and cut to that

Do you really put audio into V1 on Avid?

 

[M Most]

Thinking of the primary storyline, metadata and Phillip Hodgetts' Lumberjack app consider this possibility:

Create a utility that converts a Final Draft script into a kind of XML that you import into the Primary Storyline. Using that spine, one could conceivably create a partner utility that will automatically conform all of your footage, complete with auditions of every take and multi clips of every applicable angle, directly to the script. This sounds like something you and MichaelP were previously eluding to, no?

That is a very good idea, but frankly, it sounds to me like an only slightly more evolved version of the script based editing that's been in Avid for a long, long time. And in Avid, when you look at the image of the script that's used for that, it looks like, well, a script. Something familiar to every experienced editor, as opposed to something called a "visual storyline" or "story based metadata" presented in some form that nobody's ever used before.

 

[Scott Crawley]

That, and the audition feature are two of many things I have admired Avid for. I am happy to now have one of them.

I would also be happy to have an evolution of the script conforming feature, however slight it may be. Why couldn't mine look like a script too? It does in my imagination. MichaelP, are you already making that for me?

That is a very good idea, but frankly, it sounds to me like an only slightly more evolved version of the script based editing that's been in Avid for a long, long time. And in Avid, when you look at the image of the script that's used for that, it looks like, well, a script. Something familiar to every experienced editor, as opposed to something called a "visual storyline" or "story based metadata" presented in some form that nobody's ever used before.

 

[M Most]

Do you really put audio into V1 on Avid?

No. You put it into A1, or however many audio tracks it takes. And then you either lock or turn off patching on that track. I still don't see any difference. Personally, I happen to LIKE the magnetic timeline and consider it one of FCPX's best features, along with auditions and live scrubbing. If anything, what I like the least on FCPX - aside from its lack of rapport with some other programs - is its handling of audio. A mixing board - maybe the one from Logic - would go a long way, as it's awfully difficult to mix things when you can't see and adjust the levels as you play them. And I really am not fond of the need to go into the Audio inspector panel and turn off tracks because it's a lot more interface manipulation that it should be (although it does remember your track configuration once set, and allows you to set it on multiple sources, both of which are nice features). I do feel that audio editing needs some work in FCPX and I'm hoping that they address that in future versions. Perhaps a version of Logic that has much more evolved dialog and effects editing capabilities is also in order, but that's another story and product.....

 

[Scott Crawley]

In FCPX it should go into the Primary Storyline. It and the nomenclature may seem to be subtle distinctions, but I think those are the things that are eluding people and preventing many from really getting into it. Again, the difference is in whether the magnetic timeline works for you, or against you and that is no minor distinction.

I agree about the audio editing. It was there before and improving, so I have to believe it is coming back.

BTW, use the "v" key to disable a track, or right click-> disable. There is no need to go into the Audio Inspector. Edit: unless the track is nested.

No. You put it into A1, or however many audio tracks it takes. And then you either lock or turn off patching on that track. I still don't see any difference. Personally, I happen to LIKE the magnetic timeline and consider it one of FCPX's best features, along with auditions and live scrubbing. If anything, what I like the least on FCPX - aside from its lack of rapport with some other programs - is its handling of audio. A mixing board - maybe the one from Logic - would go a long way, as it's awfully difficult to mix things when you can't see and adjust the levels as you play them. And I really am not fond of the need to go into the Audio inspector panel and turn off tracks because it's a lot more interface manipulation that it should be (although it does remember your track configuration once set, and allows you to set it on multiple sources, both of which are nice features). I do feel that audio editing needs some work in FCPX and I'm hoping that they address that in future versions. Perhaps a version of Logic that has much more evolved dialog and effects editing capabilities is also in order, but that's another story and product.....