10.2.3 Update is here

[David Mathis]

[Steve Connor] “[Herb Sevush] “OK, so show me the error of my ways. From within FCPX can you select a section of your timeline and send those clips to Motion, with their in and outpoints preserved, for further compositing? that is a requirement for a bi-directional work flow, something that has been available in many NLE’s for over 15 years.
”

Of course you can’t Herb and many of us would rather you could, there is some excellent integration in other ways but sadly it lacks this very basic ability which is odd as the other integration seems to be much more complex”

I remember taking some opinion survey a couple of years ago and I told them they need to bring back “Send To Motion”, looks like they did not get the memo. Adobe does have Dynamic Link, so why can’t Apple have something similar? Bangs head against wall in disbelief and despair. Ouch!

\”I love rusty spoons.\” — Salad Fingers

[Herb Sevush]

[Robin S. Kurz] “Simply ignoring what I previously wrote would already be a brilliant start…”

Truer words were never posted.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf

[Steve Connor]

[Herb Sevush] “[Robin S. Kurz] “Simply ignoring what I previously wrote would already be a brilliant start…”

Truer words were never posted.”

There’s a button for that now

[Walter Soyka]

[Robin S. Kurz] “Aside from maybe not being able to send a clip directly from the FCP timeline, the integration is seamless. In very many ways even FAR better than what PPro and AE have (cue the subject of speed, not to mention editability), let alone what was possible in 7. But yeah… YMMV, as they say.”

Surely you would acknowledge that your “aside” means that there is no compositing-oriented workflow between FCPX and Motion?

The FCPX/Motion workflow is awesome for titling, transitions, and parameter-driven effects. There’s no way to seamlessly bring the entire toolset of Motion to bear from an FCPX project, though. You’re limited to what you can publish to FCPX. That makes compositing and non-parametric effects work hard.

Contrasting that with the Adobe workflow, or the Media Composer/Fusion workflow, or the Autodesk workflow, which are all very nearly the opposite, the idea that one approach is “FAR better” overall is nonsensical. Which one is better for your workflow is highly dependent on what kind of work you’re doing. YMMV, indeed.

(By the way, the Pr/Ae live text template system is inelegant compared with the FCPX/Motion publishing and rigging system, but there’s more there than meets the eye [link].)

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[Tony West]

[Herb Sevush] “OK, so show me the error of my ways. From within FCPX can you select a section of your timeline and send those clips to Motion, with their in and outpoints preserved,”

He will correct me if I’m wrong Herb, but an example of what Robin is saying would be……..

You have an interview in your timeline. You use a motion template lower third. That lower third needs to be changed in someway (say making it longer). You can open that lower third template in motion from X and change it in Motion and now you have the effect ready for you in X

You wouldn’t “need” to send the whole interview over to Motion. You are sending the template over there.

I like that it can do that and I have used it that way many times.

I don’t “want” to have to send the whole section over to Motion while ding this. I want to send the template over there. It’s “faster”

[Mark Suszko]

I still want a better, faster, simpler way to do broadcast-legal closed captioning and subtitling for air as well as for DVD output. One that doesn’t cost more than the entire hardware and software suite to employ.
Perhaps treating the caption track like part of a multicam edit? I’d imagine it as two plug-ins: one for the audio to text file transcription, and one for text placement, synchronization, and generating/embedding/reading the CEA-708-legal captions themselves.

[Steve Connor]

[Tony West] “I don’t “want” to have to send the whole section over to Motion while ding this. I want to send the template over there. It’s “faster””

Yep, Motion is now a great titling tool within FCPX and perhaps for many that’s all the interaction it needs

[Charlie Austin]

[Steve Connor] “[Tony West] “I don’t “want” to have to send the whole section over to Motion while ding this. I want to send the template over there. It’s “faster””

Yep, Motion is now a great titling tool within FCPX and perhaps for many that’s all the interaction it needs”

Actually… and this really is an honest question as I never used Motion in FCP Old… why would you want to send something to Motion? Like, what things would you (meaning anybody here) be wanting to do?

————————————————————-

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~”It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools.”~
~”The function you just attempted is not yet implemented”~

[Herb Sevush]

[Tony West] “He will correct me if I’m wrong Herb, but an example of what Robin is saying would be……..”

I know that Motion rigging works very well in that one direction, but what if you had a shot of a WS of a guy under an umbrella and you wanted to create artificial rain and that on a cut to a CU turns to snow. Motion has particle effects that can handle this very nicely, but you need the exact shots in place, cut points and all, to tweak the effect. How would you do that in X?

In FCP7, I would simply cut the shots, select them, hit “send to motion”, create the effect, then return to FCP7 and “walla” it would be there. Then when I got notes back I could simply click that motion clip and the effect would open up in Motion for me to tweak to my hearts content. Return to FCP7 and the changes are in place. I do that now with Ppro and AE, 15 years ago I used to do that with edit* and Combustion.

That is a “bi-directional” relationship, or “round tripping” in the vernacular. Without it, how would you handle any compositing situation that was more complex than pre-defined CG templates?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Charlie Austin] “Actually… and this really is an honest question as I never used Motion in FCP Old… why would you want to send something to Motion? Like, what things would you (meaning anybody here) be wanting to do?
“

I tee up a lot of sequences for compositing in editing. This can include green screen, or motion graphics, or paint/cleanup/rig removal. It is so much easier to get all the right timing and placing in the NLE, and then send that entire sequence over to something like Motion (I current use Ae because it’s easier to get in to Ae than it is Motion from FCPX).

The compositing stages are much easier to do in an application that is built for it.

Since I like to stack the available media in the timeline, it’s nice to be able to send an XML with everything timed out, rather than send a bunch of media to compositing with no timings in place.