Turning off the magnetic timeline?

how do i unlnk clips... i cant find a way to unlink clips? why do they make layers so hard to understand? V1, V2, V3 had logic... the new way *****... i know i'm in the majority here that is not a raving fan of the new workflow of FCPX... when considering the trade-off's with new features, nothing to me beats efficency for a workflow to get things done...

If it doesn't work for you don't use it. If you try to make it work like other applications you will never be either comfortable or quick with it. Load legacy FCP or Premiere or Avid on your new machine and work the way you're used to.

This is clearly a ridiculously old post but I am really shocked by all the b*tching about the magnetic timeline. As someone that has edited on everything from Avid to Premiere, I am absolutely in love with the magnetic timeline.

I think at the end of the day, I am a student and most of you are not. For me, as soon as I got the software, I read ALL the manuals that came with it, learned about compound clips, secondary storylines, gaps, moving chunks, etc...this app works like a darn dream.

The film FOCUS with Will Smith was cut using this and the editor of that film said he works 3x faster in FCPX than anything else out there, and I have to agree with him.

I'm curious if you've given up on it or if you've finally taken the time to actually learn it.

In answer to your somewhat aggressive post:

1. I was a student - I learned on the previous version of FCP

2. Yes, like you, I read all the manuals - I was an IT guy for years.

3. Yes, some editors say they are much more efficient in FCP X.

4. FCP X doesn't suit the kind of work I do.

a) I do mostly interviews

b) I use at least one camera, with a tape, for the master track - one clip, usually 1hr in duration

c) I use another cameras with a hard drive, for close-ups. Sometimes one single 1hr clip, sometimes 3 or 4 shorter ones

d) I use a handheld blackmagic pocket camera for other shots - these are short clips

e) I sync via audio

f) I use various clips from my library for b-roll

5. To assemble a 1hr documentary I like to drop the standard components on to the timeline where they need to be: doco series intro, last week's summary, next week's program intro. Then I can slot the footage into the time available. There are usually various segments given equal time - usually they are assembled out of order, depending on what has been shot.

6. I use FCP to process the footage from my older Sony cameras so that they can be read by DaVinci Resolve.

7. I assemble the footage in DVResolve which uses a traditional timeline and makes it easy to put things where I want them.

8. Footage from each camera goes on its own track

9. B-roll goes on its own track

10. Titles go on their own track

11. Separately recorded audio goes on its own track

12. When everything is organised this way it is easy to edit the various cameras to assemble the doco.

13. DVResolve uses conventional bins which make it easy for me to find the material I want in the Mac file system and to check that I have not left anything out.

14. FCPX clip selection works well for short clips if you like to edit clips first and assemble later. That workflow doesn't work for me - in an interview I must have the complete interview so I make the selection when I have everything in front of me from each of the cameras.

15. I like to move things around so I use extra tracks for ideas - slotting clips into an approximate place in the doco.

16. I also use titles for editing commentary "X goes here", "Switch to XY here", "Need to record XX for insertion here".

I find DVResolve much more intuitive to use. Even the terminology in FCPX confuses me - what is an event in the context of a doco series? This stuff comes from iMovie and makes more sense if you filming "events" like your granny's 90th birthday and a trip to the beach.

DVResolve uses a magnetic feature to snap clips together when close - like the old FCP - but doesn't force it. Its very tricky in FCPX to put things where you want them and ensure they don't move sideways or into another track.

Selecting multiple clips from a single long clip is very tricky in FCPX - if you miskey once you lose the lot. I don't do that any more.

Keywords are not helpful to me and the lack of organisation means it can be tricky to find the original footage in the file system.

FCPX uses a library concept - which is unwieldy for a doco series and uses a lot of resources. I keep all the objects in a single library because I use them in various episodes. But this requires a huge amount of resources. Its complicated to move stuff from one library to another.

Sometimes my master clip is the separately recorded audio. In DVResolve I can drop that in first - I can't in FCPX.

Manually syncing audio in FCPX is quite tricky - especially if the edit runs over a cliip end. Adding spacer clips and moving things around is very fiddly and its very tricky to actually see the waveforms at sufficient detail in the camera and separate audio at the same time. This is very easy in DVResolve.

I am not editing every day and the first half hour of using FCPX is always frustrating until I remember how it works.

I have no problem learning new software - I am a computer programmer by trade. But I like to use apps which support the way I work, not force me into a different workflow. After 2 years of battling with FCPX I switched to DV Resolve, which has infinitely better colour matching and a traditional approach to editing which suits the way I like to work. And its free.

DVResolve has issues: It is not the most stable piece of software; it doesn't recognise older camera formats; it can't sync long clips by audio if a secondary clip doesn't start for a long time after the first clip. But FCPX has issues with audio sync especially of you have multiple framespeeds and are using multicam. I tried to assemble a wedding in FCP last year but gave up after being unable to resolve the audio issues with 25fpm and 24fpm clips. I will revisit that project in DVResolve later this year.

But it is much easier for editing audio where you have separately recorded audio and want to manually sync it - this is very easy in DVResolve, much like it was in the old FCP.

Its good that you like FCPX. With any luck you won't find the sort of problems I did - which I realise are specific to the kind of work I do. But my point remains valid: Apple could have provided an on/off switch for the magnetic timeline which would still provide magnetic positioning for adjacent clips but let you put things where you want without messing around with spacers. They could have retained bins and added keywords as an option. They chose not to do so - I feel that was just arrogance.

I never got my head around the organisation in FCPX - I never remember whether I am looking for an event or something else, and it always takes me a while to figure out what FCPX is actually showing me in the media section. Its very cluttered anyway with the whole library of stuff and if I don't remember to always ensure that an import from the tape or disc camera is sent to the file system rather than the library I end up with stuff everywhere.

For me, working with FCPX means working backwards to fit in with their idea of how a workflow should be. I resent it. I loved the old FCP and I wish I had kept it. But DVResolve is truly amazing - and, of course, you can't beat the price.

As you will be aware, FCPX has had a chequered career. Apple lost a lot of users at the start and their imposed workflow and compulsory magnetic timeline has driven others, like me, to other platforms. Unnecessarily, in my opinion - but Apple's FCPX development team seems determined to stick to their guns.

LOLOLOL

I apologize for coming off aggressive I just get so tired of hearing people complain about the magnetic timeline. I grew up on Final Cut. I started my high schools production facility back in the 90's when I was a kid, leveraging my being a basketball player and threatening to go to our rival school if they didn't allot a budget for me to build out a tv station for our school lol.

Trust me, I understand the frustration, and to be quite frank, I think Apple should rebuild the old FCP workflow INTO FCPX as an option. People can hit a switch and suddenly there are bins and tracks, etc...that would probably bring a lot of people back to FCPX. Premiere, Avid, and Resolve are having a field day right now because of FCPX so I totally understand you.

I guess I just naturally took to FCPX.

For the record I ABSOLUTELY HATE iMOVIE. I STILL HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO USE IT! lol, I'm not kidding, I have no clue how to use iMovie and think it's ridiculous. But FCPX is amazing to me. Ironically Resolve's editor reminds me almost uncannily of FCPX in terms of how it looks, with the difference being tracks. But when I first saw it back in 11 I could've swore at first glance it was FCPX lol.

Well, you know, when people complain they usually have a point. If Apple had listened more earlier on they would not have lost so many users to competitive platforms. I had had posts deleted on here and a lot of abuse from people - usually telling me I had to change the way I worked.

I used to design software. My approach was to learn how to do the task first and then write software which was intuitive and efficient and mirrored the actual workflow. When I was happy with it I would turn it over to the users. Its not hard to build good software but you need to be able to put yourself in the driver's seat. Most software is built by software engineers who don't actually use the product.

Its too late for Apple to bring people back into the fold - and I doubt that they care that much: its an iphone company these days and anything Mac is very much a secondary consideration. They bought FCP from somewhere else. Eventually they decided to rewrite from scratch and i suppose it was logical to give this job to the iMovie team sine they knew the development environment, whereas the FCP team worked in a different environment - at least thats what I read somewhere. It was a mistake, anyway, from which they have never recovered.

I thought colour matching was hard - i found it very tricky in FCPX. But DVResolve makes it easy - especially if you have a colour-matching card thingo (with all the coloured squares). Then it is so easy its ridiculous. Even without that I can match my Sony footage from the two cameras with the Blackmagic stuff shot in film-mode just with a few tweaks using the basic tools in Resolve.

I found resolve because I bought a blackmagic pocket camera which shoots in film-mode (and raw). The film quality is astonishing but you need to colourgrade it. But now that I have seem what Resolve can do, and now that they have beefed up the editor, I want to use it for everything... I find it really quick and very intuitive. It suits the way I work and I am not going to turn my work patterns upside down to fit in with FCPX, even if I could.

I think, with FCPX, Apple aimed at making it easy. They take this approach to a lot of products and, for the most part, it works. But when it doesn't, then it is a nightmare - bundled libraries are easy until something goes wrong and, with Apple, when time machine, itunes or photos go wrong it is often impossible to fix things because of the way they store information.

I prefer the KISS approach - Keep It Simple, Stupid. After many many years in IT I learned that, in a crisis, you don't want complexity or any barriers to the raw data. Apple gave in and added the ability to keep stuff in the file structure, but the default is still the library and I always forget and then can't find my files.

Anyway, FCPX has many fine features, If it works for you, well and good. At least you are aware of the options.

What's the point of all these posts? You don't like the way the application works, don't use. Nobody here cares. There are millions of users around the world using this software successfully and find it fits their needs and the way the work and have used it professionally for a number of years. No idea why you've posted all this, just to troll?

And hello, color correcting in FCP is tricky? ***, it's as simple as it can get. Resolve makes it complicated.

Oh for God's sake Tom. Get over it. I responded to a post earlier today - we then engaged in a discussion. It is a healthy debate - it would be healthier if Apple listened of course. Yep, some people love FCP - but others hate it with a passion. I think Apple could have achieved the former without causing the latter, but thats just my opinion. And you're welcome to yours. I found FCP colour grading very tricky - the sliders were hard to move accurately and FCP is missing the extra slider in resolve. I don't think there is any comparison and I have done quite a bit of work in both now. The bottom line is that I was never able to achieve the colour grade in FCPX for the wedding which I did last year - and I was motivated to do it because I could not successfully import the FCPX multicam stuff into DVResolve - so I had great colour in DVR but could not assemble the timeline, and a well assembled timeline in FCP but crap colour. Colour grading is Resolve's raison d'être and they do it brilliantly.

YYou move the sliders with the keyboard. Click a puck and use the arrow keys I think it's ridiculous to compare the simplicity of the FCP color board to the complexity of Resolve. Of course Resolve is a better grading tool, but to call FCP's color tools tricky is just silly.

Everything you dismiss in FCP I find the most helpful. Keywords and data driven organization. Unbekiveable tools. The magnetic timeline makes editing fluid and easy.

IVe taught FCP to hundreds and hundreds of people since 1999 and X since 2011. The hardest people to teach were those who cane to the application with pre-conceived ideas of how editing software should work. That's what I see in reading your messages. This is an incredibly stupid thread that should have died years ago. Reviving it is just pointless trolling.

Hi Tom

Good that you agree that "of course, resolve is a better grading tool".

And, yes, you will note in my post that some people love FCP. I disagree that FCP is "data driven" - data, or at at least the structure of data, is concealed by FCPX.

I am not a person with has preconceived ideas - this is a dishonest argument. I bought your books, I did another course, I still hate FCPX.

The points I make are valid. FCPX has earned its detractors - even you must acknowledge this. You would be better served trying to understand why people move away from FCPX instead of bleating about its advantages.

After our last interchange many months ago, I bought your book, enrolled in a course and tried to like FCPX. As I said, it has some great features, but i just doesn't accommodate the way I work.

I have received a HUGE amount of flak from you, and others, about the views I have expressed about FCPX. Really, this is very oppressive. I have taken your views on-board and persevered with FCPX but, in the end, it just doesn't work for me - for all the reasons I have stated.

I am an Apple fanboy since 2002. I was predisposed to love FCPX. But the reality is that FCPX works for a specific group of editors who like the workflow that FCPX imposes. If you are not in that select group, you will hate it, And REALLY hate it.

I am in the latter group. Get over it.

You should not take this so personally. My material is not the same as yours. My workflow is not the same as yours. DV Resolve suits me better and, as you admit, has vastly better colour grading tools.

There will be others who find FCP-X awkward. For those people my posts will be helpful.

You should consider that before you criticise what I have to say.

Stephen

the structure of data, is concealed by FCPX.

I have no idea what that means. It makes no sense.

Actually I don't understand why people move away from FCPX. I understand why people want to stay with something they're familiar with and comfortable with and suits the way they're used to working. That I understand.

GRading is important, and clearly a central component of your workflow. For me assembling the story and organizing a sensible structure with a flow that leads the viewer to climax is what's most important. FCP gives me the tools to do that. Other applications simply don't.

Hi Tom

"The structure of data is concealed by FCPX"

I am a computer programmer by trade. Data, in its natural form, is the raw files and whatever you add to that as a film-maker.

I shoot on a camera, which produces files. I record on digital audio device which produces files. These files are "real" and reside in the file system. For me this means a file from the main tape camera, one or more files from the disk-based close-up camera, various files from the blackmagic handheld camera and various files from the Sony audio recorder. These are the files I create and know and want to see in my editor.

FCP conceals this, by default, by hiding all these data files in a conglomerate library. You can avoid this by specifying that imported file are to be stored in the file system, but it is an option - the default is to conceal. Now I like to group my files in a way that makes sense to me. Thats easy with subfolders, or bins.

It is not possible to store clips in a structured arrangement in FCPX. You cannot create bins or subfolders. You must use keywords. But keywords are flexible, like an amorous gentleman at a cocktail party, You can put things where he suggests but you will lose all structure: some things can be in more than one place and some things can be nowhere at all.

Assembling a Story

I like to assemble a story within the confines imposed by the broadcaster. This means that the timeline has to be a specific length. There must be credits at the end; there must be highlights of the next episode before the credits; there must be a review of the previous episode at the start. When all this is mapped out you have the space (time) for the episode on which you are working.

In the work that I do I do not have the luxury of starting at the beginning and ending up where the material takes me. I must work within the confines of the broadcaster. To do this I need to map out the episode. It is critical, for this process, that clips stay where I put them. I might start by placing the credits at the end. How would you do this in FCPX without using spacers?

"I don't understand why people move away from FCPX"

Well, to be honest, I am not the first or the last to criticise FCPX. Perhaps you have an empathy problem? Not everyone will work the way you do - a great piece of software accommodates all its users.

FCPX just doesn't and that is why people, like me, but not only me, move away.

If you have any influence with Apple then please try to persuade them not to be so arrogant. Remind them that they are just software developers, not film makers, and they should not try to impose their idea of workflow on real world film makers. Remind them that we have choices!

If you still can't figure it out then try and get together with those who hate FCP - and try to understand why this is so. If you assume that these people are just defective in some respect you will never understand.

I have been involved in the IT industry since 1977. I know everything there is to know about software development. Right now I am learning to write strategies for auto stock trading in a new language and completely new environment. If you have an IT background you are always open to new things. But they have to stack up.

FCPX just doesn't stack up. It works for some but it is SO hopeless outside its narrow objective that it is hated by others. Thats why people move away from FCPX.

To understand why you need to sit down with its detractors and understand why.

Stephen

ByronBound wrote:

… For those people my posts will be helpful.…

… haven't read all 66pgs of this … weird thread, but I missed the 'help' in your posts, all I read are complains, wrong assumptions (due to wrong uninformed usage of app), and endless repition of "I hate…".

btw:

do you hate hammers or brushes too?? 😉

Every software forces to a designated workflow - I can accept that. Or use a different software.

That simple.

To 'teach' others, your workflow is the one-and-only, therefor FCPX is humbug, is immature.

imho.

And this board is less for sharing opinions, but helping technical issues

-bye-

the default is to conceal.

ACtually the default is to use the previously assigned behavior. The default for the first library created when you first launch the application is to use the llibrary container. To say that's concealed is absurd.

I have no influence on Apple. Sorry I don't see why the software should be made to work like conventional track based editing systems. Dont see the point of building another piece of track based bloatware. Editors have enough choices to work that way if they wish. I'm thankful Apple chose to rethink the process, move away from that model, and build a new paradigm that really works quickly and efficiently and is proving itself every day in multiple forms.

I don't assume others who use different software are defective; I would hope that those who hate FCP would have the same courtesy. The vitriol unleashed on FCPX users from the first days and since has been disgusting.

I have sat done with many detractors, and had many in most every class I have taught. Some never took to at and stayed with Avid or went with Premiere. That's fine, and I understand why they made those choices. One thing is certain, that when they were finished they didn't HATE FCP, they just preferred not to use It.

I dont know what you mean by hopeless outside its narrow objectives. I know dozens of event and wedding prodicers who love using this software. I know people in narrative fiction, documentary, sports, news, corporate production, and practically any form you can imagine who use this software every day, and are glad to have a different choice for their workflow.

www.avid.com is the perfect solution for you