-
10.2.3 Update is here
-
Actually I changed it to condescension, which is the correct description of a lot of your posts.
-
Thanks for making my point.
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “Thanks for making my point.”
No problem, glad to help
-
Erm… simply delete the ones you don’t want? They’re just regular, everyday image layers.
“OK, I think I still may prefer adjusting it in the inspector in X first,
But I’m glad to know there is another option.
-
[Tony West] “I think I still may prefer adjusting it in the inspector in X first,”
That won’t actually change anything in terms of what you’ll need to modify in Motion once you open it. Those settings are irrelevant to it’s initial state in Motion.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Tim Wilson] “In any case, nobody has presented the advantage that Apple has introduced by REDUCING the degree of integration between its products in its new vision for how things are supposed to work in the best possible world, ie, Apple’s.”
I think they feel the “advantage” is saving time. I think they think it takes more time to leave one program to go to another. I think they want you to do almost everything inside X
They want you to grade in there, instead of going to another program. Correct your audio in there. After rigging go to Motion a little less because of all the templates you built are waiting for you in X.
I think that’s why they have been slow to add “send to Motion” because that kind of goes against the theme.
It’s just a theory.
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “[Tony West] “I think I still may prefer adjusting it in the inspector in X first,”
That won’t actually change anything in terms of what you’ll need to modify in Motion once you open it. Those settings are irrelevant to it’s initial state in Motion.”
I know, I just mean in terms of quickly creating and adjusting these backgrounds. I won’t be modifying the background in Motion once I do that in X. I will just be building on top of that with other stuff.
-
[Bill Davis] “Herb, this is 5 years in and you still seem to be working SO hard to poke holes in a system you’ll never adopt. Why?”
I’m not working hard at all. If you re-read my basic thoughts about the whole Motion thing it was a piece about assessing the balance between the idea of the “all-in-one” NLE vs the “studio of connected aps” approach.
https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/335/86944
At the end I simply stated that if I am going to use an extended ap I want the transfer to be as powerful and easy as possible.
Currently X is a step behind in that aspect. That is not an original though, almost every X editor here is willing to say that a “send to Motion” feature would be welcomed. Is it a “deal breaker” — obviously not.
I don’t see why the admission that X is missing a nice little feature is so upsetting. Ppro doesn’t have the lovely color coded time code sync indicators that FCP7 has. I’ve asked for them many times, I complain that it doesn’t have it. Why would this bother anybody – it’s a missing feature, hardly the only one, and I’m happy to both acknowledge it and still work with Ppro. I’ve never worked with a perfect NLE, I’ve complained and “poked holes” in ever NLE I’ve worked with and many that I have not. I want them all to be better and I don’t believe unconditional love is good for anything but sentient beings.
[Bill Davis] “Tony and Robin and me and quite a few others who have earned deep knowledge in X all used to enjoy “send to motion” in its traditional form – but notice how few of us who are actually fully X literate – find what I think Tim referred to as this particular “feature downgrade” to be more critical to our editing happiness than others outside the X system seem to feel it should be.”
Never once did I say or imply that this one feature is more important than the overall experience of working in X, that is purely your defensiveness. Quite a few of the X editors here list “send to motion” on their requested list, right next to color coded roles and a role based mixer. Obviously the lack of these features prevents no one from doing good work with X, however their addition might make your life even better.
As the saying goes, if you don’t ask, you won’t get.
[Bill Davis] “Happy Valentine’s Day.”
Horrible day, good wishes to you though.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
[Robin S. Kurz] “Whereby my actual use keeps me from trying to sell anyone on the notion that “two-way” as a whole somehow hinges exclusively on the existence of a “Send to” command as opposed to being one of many possibilities for exchange.”
There are many other possibilities then “Send to”, all of them work well, none of them work as well for as many different types of applications. Rigging is much better than send for some things, useless for others. I’m not suggesting that you give up the unique features that X has created, merely that you add back a feature that was left behind.
Which is probably why you have stated, in this thread, that you would welcome the addition of a send feature.
[Robin S. Kurz] “I wasn’t offering up any appeasement alternatives to “Send to”, but rather pointing to why its absence isn’t even close to as dramatic as you would seemingly love to make it out to be.”
The “drama” is purely of your own making.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
[Tim Wilson] “… by REDUCING the degree of integration”
Which, again, they in fact haven’t. They’ve taken out one command and added exponentially more functionality and tighter integration overall. To deduct that just because they removed a single command, that somehow the entire integration is sub-par, I’m guessing can only be attributed to lack of practical experience. Re-introducing the send would merely make it that much more superior, not equal to what legacy FCP had in comparison.
– RK
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up