after an editing command ...

after an editing command "the action" stays in the browser, (the "focus" )

you have to click in the Timeline or hit f2 to work on the project...

there is an option to place the bar after the edit ... but no way to really "go to Timeline after an edit " ?

If you use the toolbar buttons or if you drag/drop the timeline becomes active.

yes... so only with mouse ... bummer.

there should be an option ...something else "on the list"....

Tom Wolsky wrote: If you use the toolbar buttons or if you drag/drop the timeline becomes active.

There is a third way: shoving the mouse slightly downward so that either skimmer or clip skimmer are active. The viewer instantly changes preview from browser clip while he clip with the selection in the browser is still active. With very little physical effort you can navigate to the point you want the timeline playback to start. Then hit spacebar. Of course this also activates the timeline and deactivates the browser.

Stu Wart wrote: yes... so only with mouse ... bummer.

something else "on the list"....

What list?

If there was an option to automatically activate the timeline after a q,w,e,d edit, where should the playhead be then? On the last frame of the clip selection you just copied?

Why? What would that be good for?

On the first frame of the new clip?

So that you could check that it was indeed the selection you just made?

On the first frame of the clip before that? You want a play around?

Please explain why you want this feature on your list. I am really curious. Because right now, having just read your posting, I wondered why anybody would wish to jump windows all the time. It seems very reasonable to me that you first copy a bunch of clips to the timeline and later review and trim them. I'd consider it a PITA if the browser wasn't active anymore after an edit. But you may have your reasons. Share them.

On the last frame of the edited clip like Media Composer or Fcp 7 ! (maybe there is a reason why those softwares respond this way...)

You edit, you watch and feel what you juste done, I want to play it right away, maybe go back for preroll on the TL right away with my left arrows and play.. feel what I've just done. So basic for an editor.

Remain in browser is ok when assembling roughly, real editing is shot by shot

What list ?
the list of mandatory things to implement in oder to finish that software . (still some work to do)

Command-2
I know that's really a lot of effort to push those buttons, but it's what we have.

No software is ever "finished'. Even the ones you mention need a ton of improvement.

So I guessed right, you want an INSTANT PLAY AROUND. FCP7's F10 didn't give that. If the playhead is just on the last frame (which it is anyway), and only the timeline is active, you still have to navigate back and start playback manually. Stupid behaviour.

You could install one of those keyboard mapping apps that allow to assign shortcuts to sequences of actions. Like, when you hit "ee" or "qq" in quick succession, you trigger this:
1. go to timeline
2. jump back one clip
3. play around

I am happy with my mouse shoving procedure described above.

hmmm … by concept, FCPX has two working zones, Browser and Storyline. Both zones allow 'editing', playback, replay etc. So, you have to tell the app somehow, where you're busy.

cmd-1/2 to toggle between the two work-zones is meanwhile muscle-memory, …
incl. cursor-up + < for 'playback around edit point' ....

In my workflow, an 'auto switch' from pre-edit to project after each edit would be a real bummer …

Yes, Cupertino forces you, to some degree, to a specific workflow … but the concept of two 'work zones' is as it is …

true that ! but at least I am in the TL ... and it's just a matter of hitting the arrows to move, much more convenient.

when inserting a clip in a sequence, what I want to see right away is ... the cut. The cut is what matters. and the cut is in the Timeline.

There is a theory that good photographers are not-so-good-editors and vice versa. I found this to be true. I'm a lousy camera operator / photographer, and yet I have to do this anyway half of the time, that is, on my own projects. Maybe you are a great photographer, but you fight with editing.

The best way to approach a sequence is not to assemble perfect cuts from the start. The first cut should be a rough sketch that contains the useable clips in chronological order and with strict continuity (exceptions from "strict" prove the rule).

All this is pretty straightforward, choosing the best takes in the browser and recklessly throwing them into the timeline.

The next step is to review the sequence and see where it can be improved. This involves (of course) trimming, where FCP gives you a good feedback with the precision editor.. You want to cut on the right frame. It often means swapping the order of clips, retime them, look for alternatives in the rejected clips, asf. You do 90% of this solely in the timeline.

Stu Wart wrote: when inserting a clip in a sequence, what I want to see right away is ... the cut. The cut is what matters. and the cut is in the Timeline.

Try to toggle ctrl cmd 3 (FinalCutPro > Windows >Show In Workspace >Event Viewer). This makes FCPs versatile Viewer to a Canvas and the new Viewer to the left is just for Browser clips. That way you always see the last frame of your latest timeline edit. Good for matching the TL out to the next Browser edit's in. But then again, putting his care and precision to a second (third, fourth a.s.o.) stage is much more sophisticated anyway.

Karsten Schlüter wrote: Yes, Cupertino forces you, to some degree, to a specific workflow …

... and to a way of thinking. FCP X takes the NL in NLE literally. Editing nonlinearly basically means re-arraging moving images in time. The truth is, if you edit one take at a time and judge that cut instantly, you'll have a hard time finding the right pace for the sequence as a whole. Editing in many ways resembles Groundhog Day. If you get stuck because you are too stubborn, start over! You don't want a patchwork of perfect cuts that makes little sense.

Axel wrote: There is a theory that good photographers are not-so-good-editors and vice versa. I found this to be true. I'm a lousy camera operator / photographer, and yet I have to do this anyway half of the time, that is, on my own projects. Maybe you are a great photographer, but you fight with editing.

The best way to approach a sequence is not to assemble perfect cuts from the start. The first cut should be a rough sketch that contains the useable clips in chronological order and with strict continuity (exceptions from "strict" prove the rule).

All this is pretty straightforward, choosing the best takes in the browser and recklessly throwing them into the timeline.

The next step is to review the sequence and see where it can be improved. This involves (of course) trimming, where FCP gives you a good feedback with the precision editor.. You want to cut on the right frame. It often means swapping the order of clips, retime them, look for alternatives in the rejected clips, asf. You do 90% of this solely in the timeline.

Stu Wart wrote: when inserting a clip in a sequence, what I want to see right away is ... the cut. The cut is what matters. and the cut is in the Timeline.

Try to toggle ctrl cmd 3 (FinalCutPro > Windows >Show In Workspace >Event Viewer). This makes FCPs versatile Viewer to a Canvas and the new Viewer to the left is just for Browser clips. That way you always see the last frame of your latest timeline edit. Good for matching the TL out to the next Browser edit's in. But then again, putting his care and precision to a second (third, fourth a.s.o.) stage is much more sophisticated anyway.

Karsten Schlüter wrote: Yes, Cupertino forces you, to some degree, to a specific workflow …

... and to a way of thinking. FCP X takes the NL in NLE literally. Editing nonlinearly basically means re-arraging moving images in time. The truth is, if you edit one take at a time and judge that cut instantly, you'll have a hard time finding the right pace for the sequence as a whole. Editing in many ways resembles Groundhog Day. If you get stuck because you are too stubborn, start over! You don't want a patchwork of perfect cuts that makes little sense.

I have been an editor since 30 years hahaha (and certainly not a photographer )

and no patronizing " forum thread " editor" like you will tell me how to do this.

plain funny .... you don't even understand the meaning of inserting ? well for your knowledge it can be very far than " from the start"

and the best editors are able to tell a story pretty much from the start ,don't you know that ?, you look more as a patronizing (censored) than a true editor. a true editor is modest , and I learned that from Walter Murch


#bumptious
#cocky
#pretentious

edit : the funniest thing : Google tells me your not even an real editor all that pretentious lecture from a fony ?

Stu Wart wrote: … you look more as a patronizing **corrected** than a true editor. …
**corrected**

// MOD SPEAKING HERE //

maybe I'm lost in translation, but can we please avoid getting personal? Avoid 'language'? Tone?

This community is very open and had/has enthusiastic debates - but within mature standards, please.

Thank you of listening.

corrected , sorry

but you know people coming to patronize can be the real scourges

narcissistic s don't use nasty words , they are more insidious

Stu Wart wrote: corrected , sorry
…

Thanks.
8/10 points … 'censored' has a (dramatic, for a German) different meaning than 'corrected'

Stu Wart wrote: … people coming to patronize can be the real scourges …

But sharing a diff. p.o.v. doesn't automatically mean patronising or offensive to wotever … The first NLEs, I've worked with (Quantel Harry, Avid) mimicked Moviolas with two vertical stripes of film - FCPX in many parts shakes off history … and asks for a fresh view on old technique.

back2topic …

Calm down. I didn't mean to hurt your professional pride. Everything you wrote about me may be true, who cares? As I see it, you couldn't explain why activating the timeline with the playhead on the last frame of the new clip - insert or not - is an advantage in any given circumstance. I don't insist. As I wrote some postings above (please check) everyone might have a good reason why he does sth the way he does it. No point in continuing this.

I've been editing since 1973, I've been teaching editing for about 20 years.

It is common practice to lay down a rough cut first, then go back and do your surgical trims. Since the timing of every edit depends on the edits before and after, one would wait on trimming until after the rough cut, logically.

A couple of frames here and there can change the whole feel and emotion of a scene.

This is simply what professional film editors have been doing for decades and decades.

But some folks have their own technique, and that's perfectly fine.

Personally, I've seen dozens and dozens of new and old editors alike at work, and there are consistent trends in what techniques seem to lend to a faster more efficient workflow with more accurate results for the intended story.

To each his own, just my two cents, carry on...

that's totally true dear "guru" !

but besides a personal technique matter it depends also at witch stage you are of the work. Beginning ? fine tuning ? I do edit some cuts in a row as well as the next editor, (that's what the "e" command is for.) But sometimes it's a matter of inserting/adding , changing some cuts ...

Present time I am working with long multicam clips... once in place : it's switching-angle time ! and I have NO place to be but in the TL right away. (that's why I asked in the first place)

Ok, I shouldn't have flamed but seeing from the outside that's not the first time I notice a bit of condescending here ... great ! some room for improvement ...

guys, you don't know who you are talking to after all

---

I don't use my real name because I don't like to see forum babbling showing up in Google , maybe I am a bit of a narcissist myself, I just want to see the awards ....

Well, Stu, I guess we don't know who we're talking to. Does it matter? Simple advice, no condescending here. Sorry you took it that way, wasn't meant that way. So, who are you really?

Stu Wart wrote: guys, you don't know who you are talking to after all

---

I don't use my real name because I don't like to see forum babbling showing up in Google , maybe I am a bit of a narcissist myself, I just want to see the awards ....

Ha !
I googled to try to understand what you're talking about.

Stu Wart wrote: ... matter it depends also at witch stage you are of the work...

Google result for "witch" -> tinyurl.com/y7nmo3r5

So it's fun reading your replies based upon something magical written by a wizard.

My 2 Euro cents - a bit better than just 2 cents :lol:

Stu Wart wrote: … . guys, you don't know who you are talking to after all
...

Now that is condescending, isn't it? :silly: scnr!!!

As long as the 'guys' know WHAT they are talking about.-
And Axel and Ben do. Andreas anyhow… 

I remember, 'checking the cut' was a time-consuming habitual in 'beta tape' days, when precision was +/- 2 frames…
Compare to nowadays '10-flying-fingers-editing' … edit done, before I end the sentence what I like to see…

sorry for getting nostalgic…