Hi Everyone,

Thanks for all the feedback, it has allowed me to consider hurdles regarding the implementation of the Centre-out approach. I don't like to call it "Bottom-up" because I believe it gives the wrong impression in that editing is initiated from the bottom track. This is not the case.

Using MMS2023 as a template (since I have yet to purchase VPX16) I created a typical video for my scuba dive club using the prescribed Top-down approach. I labeled the tracks for clarity. The main track is at the top followed by the audio track associated with it. Track 3 is the music track. Track 4 is a couple of overlays featuring sharks and track 5 is an overlay with a diver's reaction to the sharks. Finally track 6 consists of the intro and ending of the video. Again, this is purely for illustrative purposes; in reality I probably wouldn't have used this many tracks for this simple video.

Now, using MMS2023 and pretending I could use the Centre-out approach, This is how the project timeline would look. It is exactly what it would look like. There is no change to the user interface itself; just the internal logic pertaining to the video/photo overlay. Note that the video player is on the right side rather than the left. Again, that is just my personal preference and nothing else. With this visual representation of the Centre-out approach, one can appreciate the clean structure - video above / audio below.

Hi @browj2,

Thank you for your comments regarding my proposal. I believe they are valid and I will try and address your concerns;

The only problem that I could foresee would be using the templates. As far as I can tell, they don't come with track number per se, but relative track numbers. The user can determine the starting track. So long as the coding of the template detects the starting track, uses that and increments the track numbers for any other objects associated with it, then it could work.

John CB

Being a new user I have yet to play with the templates offered in MMS/VPX. But based on previous experience I assume template are just projects with Placeholders for video/photos. Granted, to-date all MMS/VPX templates are oriented top-down. But if the program setting is set to "Centre-out" then the software will open the template reorienting the timeline based on this setting. Therefore I don't see this as an issue.

I think that you are trying to complicate it by making it look like other software. Remember, MMS/VPX just gives you a bunch of tracks, minimum of 4. So long as the user using a bottom up interface understands which track protocol being used, then just start with the background on track 1, the one at the bottom of the screen.

John CB

I disagree, I'm not trying to complicate anything. Nor am I trying to make VPX look like other software. The user interface remains exactly the same. Only the internal logic for video/photo overlays is changed.

I can't say I like the idea as it would add a complication for many users, including instructing new users as the how it works and the 2 options. If someone inadvertently reversed the track interface, Magix and the forum would be hearing about it no end.

John CB

This is a valid point although I believe only those interested in the Center-out approach would turn this feature on and would understand that training videos would be oriented Top-down. As a compromise, and to keep it simple, maybe MMS does not have this feature while VPX offers it because it is targeted at a more experienced user base.

If you were a new user and faced with the following screen, where would you start, the top or the bottom?

For those used to another nle, you would ask why there were so many tracks. That is the way it works and if you actually worked with it for a while, you would understand why this works well.

John CB

Without sounding facetious, using the Center out approach, I would not start at the top or bottom. As indicated in a previous post I would probably start on track 3 as my main track. This gives me two tracks for overlays and titles. Track 4 would be for my audio associated with my main track and track 5 would be for my music track (as a simple example). If there is a whole bunch of tracks listed above in your screenshot, its inconsequential. I'm not suggesting VPX look like Vegas. My proposal does not change the interface at all. Keep all the tracks.

Next, we use the Mixer. The mixer shows track numbers, obviously linked to the timeline track number. The mixer works left to right. The audio for the background, which anyone who used a DAW, like Samplitude, would expect to be on the first strip - track 1 or 2. Because one can put anything on any track, all track numbers show up, even if nothing is on the track.

John CB

I'm not familiar with what you are referring to. Would you please explain?

@ericlnz

Hi

The same question is being asked in another topic and i see he is gone from the Vegas forum too.

At this moment we have no idea on why Gids account has changed to former user.

John EB

I'm sure I saw him mention recently that he was unwell again. From memory he spent time in hospital with Covid.

Next, we use the Mixer. The mixer shows track numbers, obviously linked to the timeline track number. The mixer works left to right. The audio for the background, which anyone who used a DAW, like Samplitude, would expect to be on the first strip - track 1 or 2. Because one can put anything on any track, all track numbers show up, even if nothing is on the track.

Look at how Vegas handles tracks in the Mixer. Left to right.

So, any inverted representation of the UI would have to accommodate the Mixer and probably some other aspects. But please, do not try to complicate the way the tracks work.

John CB

Hi @browj2

I found @johnebaker's excellent tutorial on the mixer;

https://www.magix.info/us/tutorials/the-fx-channels-of-the-mixer-and-how-to-use-them--1209655/

As far as I can determine there is no issue with the mixer. The mixer doesn't have to be changed. It will just represent the appropriate audio tracks as it currently does. The UI isn't inverted or changed in any way. Number 1 starts at the top and counts down as per normal. There is no complication as to how the tracks work. The only change is the video/photo overlay logic. In terms of relative track numbers, mathematically its just a sign change from Greater Than (>) to Less Than (<).

@Can-Dive

I think the point that @browj2 was trying to make was that the highest track number would now be on the left hand side of the channel strips which would be a first for me at least to have seen on any audio mixer, virtual or real.

I'm not sure I go along with John EB's logic of what gets laid on which track of a DAW as often in professional studios when recording groups a vocal track with either piano or guitar are laid down first alongside the click track and orchestral arrangements tend to follow the layout of the orchestra left to right but normally orchestral sessions are not multi-take/overlay sessions that a pop music session would be. As professional studios have their DAWs (if in fact they use a DAW at all) connected to physical hardware the normal practice is to just mark the base of each channel strip with what it contains on a bit of masking tape.

Ray.

I think the point that @browj2 was trying to make was that the highest track number would now be on the left hand side of the channel strips which would be a first for me at least to have seen on any audio mixer, virtual or real.

Ray.

@CubeAce

My interpretation of @browj2's reference to the Mixer is that with the Top-down approach, the main track background audio is on Track 1 or 2 (combined with the main video on track1 or split to track 2). Therefore, the active Mixer sliders or channel strips would be 1 or 2. If you reference my MMS2023 Top-down project screenshot above, the Mixer, in this example, would reference Tracks 2 and 3. If you reference the Centre-out screenshot, the Mixer in that example would reference Tracks 5 and 6. You can have your audio on any track (eg. track 32) and you will be able to adjust the Mixer sliders for that particular track. I fail to see any issue but lets give @browj2 the benefit of the doubt and allow him to clarify his concern.

@Can-Dive

Sorry I misunderstood the idea of working from bottom to top. The bottom track would still be track 1so the mixer would not have to be backwards. I still don't quite get the work outwards bit unless it is a workflow preference. Compositing still has to be laid down in a strict order.

Regarding this whole business. I did find the survey talked about earlier and users were asked if they would like that. The answers must have been a majority no. I know I answered no to that one.

You may have to wait for the next survey to have your say.

Ray.

@CubeAce

Hi Ray

. . . . I'm not sure I go along with John EB's logic of what gets laid on which track of a DAW . . . .

T'was not me who mentioned DAWS, do you mean John CB?

John EB

@johnebaker

Sorry John.

Wrong @avatar used as you had not answered on this page yet 😳. No longer able to edit comment.

Ray.

@Can-Dive

Sorry I misunderstood the idea of working from bottom to top. The bottom track would still be track 1so the mixer would not have to be backwards. I still don't quite get the work outwards bit unless it is a workflow preference. Compositing still has to be laid down in a strict order.

Regarding this whole business. I did find the survey talked about earlier and users were asked if they would like that. The answers must have been a majority no. I know I answered no to that one.

You may have to wait for the next survey to have your say.

Ray.

 

@CubeAce

Thanks for pointing out the survey. Based on the question's wording, I'm not surprised that the idea was rejected. It should never have been presented as a replacement to the current process but as an option. Also, the survey is directed to current users. Long term users who would respond to this survey are obviously happy with the current editing orientation. But this is not going to gain new users from other editors to take the company out of the red. Other than VideoStudio (which is now a dead product), I don't know of any other video editor that edits in this fashion. You guys have a great product. Don't limit yourselves.

VPX16
Is it just me? Something is wrong with Magix Hub. I can not log in.

@HJWolters it's not just you. It's everyone. This happens sometimes. Usually resolved in a few hours. But then, it's the weekend....

Hi All,

Sorry about not getting back sooner, but right after I posted last (ok, as I was posting my wife was telling me to get going) I had to run off to a funeral (not mine) and then we had another series of house guests for the weekend. Didn't get much sleep for 3 nights.

Ok, there is too much to unravel and we got all over the place in trying to compare various issues and methods. @Reyfox, you took several things that I said out of context and I'm not going to go through them point by point.

The proposal by @Can-Dive was to have a switch to invert the track layout interface so that it would be bottom up. This would give users the choice of which way to work.

Keep in mind that Magix would have limited resources for this. The idea is to keep it is as simple as possible, minimize programming changes thus cost, and not affect the way that the program works for current users.

Remember, the program exists and it uses tracks with numbers (as does Vegas, at least by the programmers) - just like a spread sheet - rows (tracks) and columns (time in frames). In order to not have any change to the storage of what is on the rows and columns, track numbers and their associated objects have to remain the same. In the saved project file (if you could read an MVP file) you would see the track number along with the objects along with the location on that track, duration, effects, etc. Thus Track 1, Object 1 (path/filename, start point within the file, display duration, start point (on track 1) or something like that.

To get a bottom up interface, nothing would change for the rows and columns details in the MVP file. If I used the current interface, Top down, and put Object 1 on Track 1, and then flipped the switch to get bottom up, Track 1 would be at the bottom of the screen and Object 1 would be on that track. Thus, nothing changes in the MVP file except a switch indicating which mode was last saved. As far as I can tell, no programming needs to be done to make this work, other than an interface flip. The user would now work bottom up.

Here is the current interface - top down:

Here is the way I see the user interface for bottom up:

@Can-Dive Is the above what you mean?

As for the Mixer, nothing changes. Track 1 is still track 1 at the left of the Mixer.

@Reyfox My comment about the Mixer in Vegas was that the track number is used in the Mixer . If there was no track number, then one would not be able tell which strip corresponded to which track. Naming is optional, programming cannot depend on users naming tracks. The other point was that the audio for the bottom track, usually corresponding to the background, ends up at the right of the mixer. I think that most users would expect it to be at the left. If Vegas had numbered the tracks from bottom to top, then the first track in the Mixer would be 1. That is all. No big deal.

Look at the image above. This is the default layout. Seven tracks are showing. But, I have 32 available. If I adjust my windows downwards, then less tracks would be showing, but I still have 32 tracks available and I can quickly access them using the vertical scroll bar. Having 32 tracks is not using up screen space unless I want it to.

@Can-Dive has shown an alternative layout of the windows. I don't use the default layout for VPX. Window placements can be saved and quickly accessed - F9 to F12. For VPX, I, and probably most users who have 2 screens available, use 2 screens.

Here is one of my alternate single screen layouts with no Project Temp Folder, and the Media Pool full height:

Here is what I actually use with 2 screens:

@Can-Dive - just a note about track 5 - Magix uses it for audio from effects, audio from the Soundtrack Maker and Slideshow Maker and by default from the Audio tab in the Media Pool. Thus, you may want to reserve track 5 for this as I show in screen above.

Last point:

@Reyfox You mentioned:

I'd love to see how an Adjustment Clip (Davinci Resolve) or Adjustment event (Vegas Pro) would work in the Magix editing environment..

I watched a tutorial on this and was wondering why I would need an Adjustment event when I could do the same thing on a clip and then just copy one or more of the effects to other clips. I presume that a copied Adjustment Event is actually the original event and changing the effects in one of the Adjustment events changes the effects of the copies and that copies could be different durations. Now that would be a really good feature!

John CB

If you want to know where I've been, I was having problems uploading etc.. I'd post something & it would disappear, from reading the other posts it seems to have been a server issue or something, either way I pressed a few buttons with no joy & then I just f*it deleted everything. logged out of other online stuff & cleaned the PC,. It was time for a complete clean up online & inhouse .. 🤷‍♂️

@browj2

@Reyfox You mentioned:

I'd love to see how an Adjustment Clip (Davinci Resolve) or Adjustment event (Vegas Pro) would work in the Magix editing environment..

@Reyfox Sorry think I missed this bit, It wouldn't simply because MS doesn't 'see' the other tracks, add an fx & it only affects that one event, same with chromakey that only affects the event that it's applied to giving it transparency, Boris Alan or Peter explained this better & is why a lot of their fxs don't work fully or properly.

I watched a tutorial on this and was wondering why I would need an Adjustment event when I could do the same thing on a clip and then just copy one or more of the effects to other clips. I presume that a copied Adjustment Event is actually the original event and changing the effects in one of the Adjustment events changes the effects of the copies and that copies could be different durations. Now that would be a really good feature!

No basically,

An Adjustment Track is an added track that when an fx is added to it it affects the whole track & everything below it unless that Adjustment track is in a Parent/Child group, then only the events in that Parent/Child group get affected by the fx,

An Adjustment Event is similar but when an fx is added to it it only affects tracks below it within the length of that Adjustment Event, it can be transitioned in & as with an an Adjustment Track it affects all tracks below or just those that in a Parent/Child group.

As many fxs can be added to both an Adjustment Track & Adjustment Event in any order just like reg event (Event FF or whole track (Track FX)

As many Parent/Child groups can be added to the timeline & those Parent/Child groups can be within another Parent group & then those can be within another Parent etc. , there can be as many Adjustment Tracks &/or an Adjustment Events in whatever configuration you want & again the fx on the Adjustment Track/Event only affects the tracks below in that Parent/Child group. . .. A Parent track moves all the tracks within it's group,

The combination is endless so this vid maybe a bit obscure, long winded & vague but the combinations are hard to put in one simple vid, I didn't edit it for clarity but you know the basics of Vegas so if you don't understand pls ask👍

For some reason, I can't edit my last post, only delete it. Strange.

EDIT:

Just realized that my bottom up image has an error - I left the audio for the first video on track 1 when it should be on track 2.

John CB

@Gid

Good to see you back.

About the Adjustment Event (AE). In the video that I watched, the Adjustment Event could be copied and thus applied to other events on the timeline. What I was wondering was if the AE was copied and if a change was made to the first one, would this also change the copies? My understanding is yes, in which case it is a great tool.

In other words, in your video, if you copy and paste one of the AEs somewhere along the timeline and then change the parameters, are both the original and copy changed?

In MMS/VPX, without a tool like this, one can copy paste effects onto multiple objects. No problem there. But if one then needs to change something in one of more of the effects, they would have to be copied onto each and every object that had the copy of the effects and this could be complicated. With AE, it would be copied and grouped to various objects along the timeline. Then, instead of having to figure out which objects need to be changed, just change the base AE and all affected ones are changed.

Another thing that you show in your video is moving two or three objects around the screen at the same time. We could do this (almost the same but one moves and the others follow after releasing the mouse button) at one time in MEP/VPX. This capability disappeared, probably when Magix introduced the new SPR feature. It would be nice to have a way to do this again. However, there were not many complaints.

John CB

@browj2

Hi John.

Once anyone else posts a comment after your own post you can no longer edit your own comment. The forum has been like this for some weeks now.

Ray.

@browj2 👍

No, you can copy & paste an AE & all the fxs will go with it but similar to MS if you want to put all the same fxs (after a change to one) on another copied AE you'd have to copy & paste. (Copy & Paste or Copy & Selectively paste),

If you wanted the same fx on numerous different events & have full adjustment of all you can add an AT (Adjustment Track), that has a composite level or mute envelope, double click the gap between (or an event), that'll highlight that gap/event & drag the envelope all the way down (either composite level or mute work, I just used the default Composite level in this vid but it adds a tiny fade, mute is an instant stop/start & is better for an instant stop of the fx between events). You can Parent/Child that AT to stop it affecting other tracks.

& just to add as in my previous comment multiple Child tracks can be added to that one AT & the fx will only affect all those Child tracks, so your numerous events don't have to be all on the same track & every track or event can have it's own fx.. so some could have the fx that the Parent AT applies but then also another fx affecting those on a single Child track or you can have another Parent/Child within that AT Parent/Child group with it's own AT or you can still just add an fx to a single event ... Hard to write 😵

Yep I remember that track grouping & moving going missing in MS 🤷‍♂️

@browj2 If you Ctrl+Drag a Text event to copy it you get this msg, If you choose 'Create a reference to the orig media' when you change the text of one all copies change also, It'd be nice to have this option when Ctrl+Drag an AE. But that's a Vegas forum request thing.

I might be missing something reg the copying etc of an AE but I don't think so & on here the only ones I know who can confirm are @Reyfox & @ericlnz (@ericinz might still be on VMS?),

Not being able to edit comments is a pain,

If you wanted the same fx on numerous different events & have full adjustment of all you can add an AT (Adjustment Track), that has a composite level or mute envelope, double click the gap between (or an event), that'll highlight that gap/event & drag the envelope all the way down (either composite level or mute work, I just used the default Composite level in this vid but it adds a tiny fade, mute is an instant stop/start & is better for an instant stop of the fx between events). 

I forgot to add 'Mute' mutes everything so changing the Composite level points to Hold when the AT is 1st applied rather than Smooth fade is a better option if there's other child tracks below it, that way it does do an instant stop/start but that's a Vegas track envelope option that's been around a while I'm sure so anyone using t would figure that out...

@browj2  Just one last thing, (this is a Vegas thing so I should stop now)

AE can be used to make custom transitions.

My understanding is that forum members (apart from Mods) can now only edit a post for up to 30 minutes after the post. If it's vital that a post needs amending possibly a mod could do it for you?