-
Adobe updates
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “Huh? Then I guess I have no clue what you even mean by “multiclip Motion composition”, “
Place several clips in an FCPX sequence (project). Mix of primary and connected. No audio needed. Send that to Motion as one project file without using third party plug-ins. Open in Motion and do effects and composites. Roundtrip that back as a live composition (a Motion project) – not a flat, rendered file – back into the FCPX project. Just like you used to be able to do with FCP7/Motion and can do with Premiere/AE now.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Place several clips in an FCPX sequence (project). Mix of primary and connected.”
???? … love how you already gave yourself the answer twice, only to (of course) exclude them as solutions from the get go. Just a tad disingenuous, no? Because you obviously know there are many ways to do this. Is it as convenient and simple as the ol’ “Send to“? No. But that may well return soon, too, along with the other options!
So yeah, if I actually need that exact functionality, and I’m fairly sure the vast majority of X users don’t btw, then I’ll work with ⌘⇧R, drop zones, templates OR, if I need it to a more frequent extent, I’ll just give Wes a couple of bucks. And no, I won’t remind anyone what that extra cost amounts to in CC dollars… Doh! Dammit. Did it again. ????
So, again, Motion’s integration is deeper and more powerful on so many levels, especially text, yes. Great for Adobe that they’re getting there! Enjoy it for what it is! Both have their weaknesses. Just pointing out a rather ill-prepared comparison.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Morten Ranmar] ”
– A completely rewritten text tool that lets you edit directly on the canvas like in Photoshop.”
The old titling tool worked great and had a lot of cool options. I am not saying this new method is no good. I am saying the old titling tool already worked great.
-
The old title tool had a lot of mischiefs:
1) If you did not place the cursor in the right position, you would have to quit and fix
2) Tools did not scale correct on highres screens, and were difficult to use
3) It would clutter up the project folder with a new asset for every title you made
4) Titles needed to be real duplicated, in order to not overwrite the original title (no copy paste)
5) It was slow
– No Parking Production –
Adobe CC2014, 3 x MacPro, 3 x MbP, Ethernet File Server w. Areca ThunderRaid 8
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “Motion’s integration is deeper and more powerful on so many levels, especially text”
I love the Motion/FCPX integration. It is deep and powerful on many levels, but the design’s strength — wrapping up Motion functionality to deploy in FCPX — is also its weakness. You don’t get to use all of Motion’s power in FCPX; you only get to use what you can and do expose.
Oliver describes a workflow that starts in an editorial context, moves to a full compositing/VFX context, and returns to editorial while maintaining some linkage between the two. Robin, are you actually making the argument that there is no real need for this approach in post-production?
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “You don’t get to use all of Motion’s power in FCPX; you only get to use what you can and do expose.”
Sorry, but I can only see that as a strength. Disabling features and functionality that some Joe Shmo editor doesn’t understand and will only use to mess everything up is a good thing in my book and is in fact the whole point. Everyone else can pop over to Motion with one click and do whatever else they need.
[Walter Soyka] “moves to a full compositing/VFX context”
FCPX is neither geared nor aimed for that. Clearly one of the reasons why e.g. Fincher chose to go with PPro. That also being a single digit percentage of the editing crowd (at best) to begin with. Win some, lose some. That’s why there are choices. No shame in that.
[Walter Soyka] “are you actually making the argument that there is no real need for this approach in post-production?”
Er, no. I’m saying that it is more than possible to do what was described, even if it does require a few more clicks or even a cheap additional plugin or app. I never claimed feature parity or the likes. Of course there are differences, strengths and weaknesses. But then this started in the context of the new TEXT functionality in comparison, not “full compositing/VFX” (that being your and, indirectly, Oliver’s point), so let’s not shift the goal-post as needed. ????
Or are you arguing that “Just like Motion templates, but with even more control” isn’t hyperbole and factually wrong?
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
I’m not shifting goalposts. I was trying to understand your point. It seemed like you were asserting there was little value to be gained from being able to move from NLE to compositor. But now you’ve clarified:
[Robin S. Kurz] “I never claimed feature parity or the likes. Of course there are differences, strengths and weaknesses.”
Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive | RenderBreak [blog] | Profile [LinkedIn] -
[Walter Soyka] “I’m not shifting goalposts.”
Okay. Then I just don’t know what “full compositing/VFX” have to do with my initial assertion.
[Walter Soyka] “It seemed like you were asserting there was little value to be gained from being able to move from NLE to compositor. But now you’ve clarified:”
Exactly. I clarified that it is in fact possible with both (if you insist on calling Motion “a compositor”, which I don’t), merely the procedures, results and general use cases differ. But again, first and foremost dissenting the notion the text integration and features were somehow comparable past a (very low) point.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
A new title tool. Finally.
Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter -
“As in, you cannot directly import a multiclip Motion composition into FCPX. You can rig a complex template and bring that into X, but that’s hardly the same thing.”
Didn’t Apple just hire Wes Plate? Hmmmm…
Scott Witthaus
Owner, 1708 Inc./Editorial
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up