-
Adobe updates
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “[andy patterson] “I have yet to see anyone create a metal object (hexagon) with FCPX’s titling tool and have a glass title pass in front of it.”
Did this very quick only using FCPX, but is this what you are talking about?”
Wow, the glass is even textured. Does it do caustics?
Shawn
-
[Shawn Miller] “Wow, the glass is even textured. Does it do caustics?”
Not that are in motion, at least, I can’t see how to do it.
All the materials/textures seem to be static.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] ”
[Shawn Miller] “Wow, the glass is even textured. Does it do caustics?”
Not that are in motion, at least, I can’t see how to do it.
All the materials/textures seem to be static.”
I see, still cool though. I imagine you can do a lot with the addition of some simple glow and reflection effects.
Shawn
-
[Tony West] “[andy patterson] ” FCPX’s titling tool sucks ass. ”
How did THIS comment not get flagged by Tim.
I’ve seen a lot less not get through.”
Why would honest criticism get flagged? Having said that I have seen many people rant time and time again about Premiere Pro. Things like Premiere’s GUI is cringe worthy or Adobe has old outdated code from the 1980s. This is the first time I ever said anything negative about FCPX. Overall I think FCPX is a good NLE.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “id this very quick only using FCPX, but is this what you are talking about?
11292_thisisglass.mp4.zip”
Thanks for posting. I should have stated a 3-D Hexagon like a polyhedron. My bad. I also don’t want a grey background or the metal polyhedron reflecting anything other than the glass text. Your Hexagon looks like it is reflecting skys and trees. Make the text blue glass and make the polyhedron spin as the glass slides in front of if. I think you now I want to see the ray-tracing ability of FCPX. Your Hexagon is reflecting trees and sky but your glass text is not.
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “Yeah, BOY does FCP’s 3D text suck big time in comparison!! I’m SO jealous.”
I didn’t say FCPX’s 3D text sucked although unless things have changed the 3-D texts are lame. I don’t even use 3-D text myself and have 3-D animation software. Having said that I want to see how well FCPX’x titling system can be used to make track mattes and animated lower thirds. 3-D text can look horrible. You do realize Apple got rid of the cringe worthy 3-D dock don’t you? 3-D texts suck but 3-D objects can be cool for logo design. I can honestly say I have not asked for 3-D text like FCPX has to be implemented into Premiere Pro. If they want to give Premiere 3-D modeling capabilities and true ray-tracing that would be cool but otherwise don’t waste the time. We CC users have AE for true 3-D capabilities.
-
[Robin S. Kurz] “[Scott Witthaus] “In my opinion only, of course.”
Not only yours, believe me.
Yeah, FCP’s “titling tool” (which is in fact Motion, but never mind ????) needs more work… ???? Hilarious.”
Create a cool track matte using only FCPX titling system. Create some lower thirds and animate them using only FCPX. If you include Motion with FCPX than I can include AE with Premiere Pro.
-
[Steve Connor] “Not having drawing tools doesn’t mean it “sucks ass””
It is all a matter of opinion. I think when the 3-D text tool in FCPX is used more often than not it looks more hideous than the OS X 3-D dock. Remember the 3-D dock? I am not a fan of rotating text on it Z axis or rotating a picture in picture on it’s Z axis. I like to create track mattes so the PIP can look a little different than a generic 16 : 9 PIP. I can create track mattes super fast using Premiere’s titling tool. I like to use track mattes not 3-D text. You can do some really cool things using beveled edges as well as inner and outer strokes of Premiere Pro’s titling system. You can create the look of 3-D text in Premiere Pro’s titling tool real easy but you would not be able to make use of the Z axis. Everything that was shown with the new titling tool could be done with the old titling tool other other than some of the integration with AE. It is easy to create lower thirds and animate them even with PP CS 4.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “is this what you are talking about?”
Why waste your time? You and I know what’s possible, because we actually use FCP and know what we’re talking about. The only reason for the question is to point to the fact that there are no refractions, caustics etc. yadda yadda, since FCP of course does not have them because it obviously does not use a raytracer (duh). (Not that that is the only way to get them) As if anyone using an NLE for that kind of work could or would even ever miss that or think they could expect it along with that level of speed and quality. And if so, they’re simply looking in the wrong place. So what? If that’s so essential, I’m guessing you’re smart enough to use an actual, dedicated 3D app and an NLE.
But that’s apparently being very presumptuous in certain cases. ????
– RK
-
[andy patterson] “Thanks for posting. I should have stated a 3-D Hexagon like a polyhedron. “
I’d encourage you to try it out for yourself. FCPX ≠ C4D nor is it trying to be.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_fGujzulsas
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up